China criticizes US for its human rights record

[James48]

Source: Stars and Stripes/ Associated Press

BEIJING — China slammed the human rights record of the United States in response to Washington's report on rights around the world, saying that U.S. military operations have infringed on rights abroad and that political donations at home have thwarted the country's democracy.

The report released Sunday in China — which defines human rights primarily in terms of improving living conditions for its 1.3 billion people— also cited gun violence in the U.S. among its examples of human rights violations, saying it was a serious threat to the lives and safety of America's citizens.

The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2012 said the U.S. government continues to strengthen the monitoring of its people and that political donations to election campaigns have undue influence on U.S. policy.

"American citizens do not enjoy a genuinely equal right to vote," the report said, citing a decreased turnout in the 2012 presidential election and a voting rate of 57.5 percent.

Read more: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/china-criticizes-us-for-its-human-rights-record-1.217503

---

China hit's the nail on the head- we are losing democracy here to the money holders.

[leftyohiolib]

1. china? really? dont they live in a glass house regarding human rights issues?

[L0oniX]

2. Well then I guess we have that in common with them.

[Berlum]

3. Yup. That's why they feel it's fair to hold up a mirror to America

Ugly all around.

[pampango]

6. Certainly, but it is better for China to point out our flaws and for us to point out theirs rather

than for both of us to respect the 'sovereignty' of the other and go by the principle of "I won't make it a big fuss out of your flaws if you stay quiet about mine." Better that the flaws of both see the light of day. Doesn't mean the flaws of either will necessarily get fixed but the more they are hidden the less likely anything is to get done about them.

[Uncle Joe]

20. I agree, pampango.

[Sunlei]

4. China has some good points, can they get out of & FREE TIBET to show us how 'human rights' work?

[harmonicon]

11. Should the US also FREE TEXAS or FREE THE DAKOTAS?

Give me a break.

[geek tragedy]

19. Did you seriously compare the status of Tibet to the status of Texas and the Dakotas?

Or was the over-the-top stupidity of that comparison an attempt at snark?

[harmonicon]

21. Well, the Dakotas have a better claim to sovereignty than Tibet.

The fact is, both places are now permanent parts of other countries and any dissolution of those ties is not going to happen in any future world that remotely resembles our own.

Most places in the world are under control of one government or another, and were under another before that, and another before that. In almost all of these cases, the people living in these places have had no say in who claims where they live for their own.

[geek tragedy]

22. Except for the part wher the Dakotas applied for statehood status whereas

Tibet is under military occupation after foreign invasion and is experiencing cultural genocide.

But, other than that, completely intelligent comparison.

[harmonicon]

23. I think you better brush up on your US history, especially in terms of Native American history.

The Dakotas are no less under military occupation than is Tibet... and cultural genocide?! My God!! Who has ever done a better job of that than the US government, in written history?

[geek tragedy]

24. I grew up in North Dakota, and anyone who suggests the Dakotas are under military occupation

moreso than Tibet is talking out of their ass. Zero exceptions.

There is no "Dakota independence" movement. There is no effort to eradicate and forbid North Dakotans from having their own identity, of stamping out culture and language.

No one who knows what they're talking about would make that claim. No one. To make that claim is per se proof of ignorance.

You are spouting apologist nonsense. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[harmonicon]

25. I'm not the one giving a free pass to genocide.

You can say there's no independence movement for the Dakotas, but you can also say you shit roses. It doesn't make it so. What did they teach you in history class in North Dakota? That it was the home of savages who greeted their glorious liberators with songs and flowers? That they willingly gave up their sovereignty to the Great and Mighty US Government? That they wanted to be slaughtered by the military, have their language and culture forbidden, their children kidnapped? Inquiring minds want to know.

[geek tragedy]

26. There is no independence movement in North Dakota. It does not exist. It has not existed

over the past century.

There is no language of North Dakota (or South Dakota) distinguishable from the rest of the United States.

The vast majority of people living in North Dakota are white. That has been the case for quite some time.

I am discussing events as they currently exist. You apparently are confused as to which century it is.

[harmonicon]

27. Wow... and you say you don't see the parallels between the Dakotas and Tibet.

You basically just spelled out how they're almost exactly the same.

[geek tragedy]

30. It is untrue that they ARE the same.

It may be that the Dakotas of 200 years ago resemble modern day Tibet.

But, the situation of modern day North and South Dakota bear no resmblance--NONE--to Tibet.

[harmonicon]

28. Here's some light reading to go with your dish of crow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_language

In the future, please don't just make up "facts" and assume they're true when you can't be bothered to look up the actual truth. Take, for example, the first four sentences of this post I'm replying to. Every single one of them is wrong. I would say that you were lying, but I honestly think you just didn't know.

[geek tragedy]

29. I know of the history of Native Americans in North Dakota.

But, I live in what is colloquially known as "the 21st Century."

Independence hasn't been an issue in that part of the country since what is colloquially known as "the 19th Century."

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with tenses in the English language.

When I say "there IS no independence movement in North Dakota" I am using what is known as the "present" tense.

It is not factually accurate to cite events from 150 years ago as proof that a statement describing current conditions is untrue.

To put a finer point on it--that there was resistance to the US government on the part of Native Americans in the 1800's is completely irrelevant to the question of whether there is a meaningful independence movement amongst the people living in the Dakotas now.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of time.

[harmonicon]

32. Are you somehow incapable of learning? You can't click on a link and read the (brief) contents? nt.

[geek tragedy]

33. A fringe racial separatist group is not an independence movement

for the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, etc.

Any group of guys can sit together and assert their sovereignty over half the United States.

But, they don't represent anyone. They ran for tribal elections and lost.

[harmonicon]

35. Spoken like a loyal Han Chinese frontiersman. (nt)

[geek tragedy]

36. Just to put a fine point on the gross ignorance and/or willful dishonesty

you're displaying here:

This "Lakotah Nation" club of guys is free to agitate, advocate, petition, and even run for tribal elections in the United States. Without threat of going to prison, fines, etc.

So, when does the Dalai Lama get to go back to Tibet to engage in similar efforts?

[harmonicon]

37. I'll consider having a discussion with you after you've done your homework.

If you'll remember back in the thread, I'm not advocating for either of these independence movements. I was pointing out that they're both immaterial to present relations between the current governments that control these territories.

[geek tragedy]

38. There's only one location where there's a bona fide independence movement

that represents a substantial share of the population.

It happens to be the same place where advocating for independence is a thought crime.

If people can't see that, then they have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

Last word is yours.

[Amonester]

5. Wow. Nice to see the two most powerful economic powers throw mud at each other...

and for the rest of the world to know none of those two has any intention of doing anything about it is...

pathetic

[sakabatou]

7. Pot calling the kettle black

But they do have a point: we need better human rights.

[John2]

8. I think the people

of America has more freedom than China, but the problem with America are the people. We have some people don't mind discriminating against other Americans. Some of us just think they are better and should have more privileges. The Chinese are controlled by one party. They don't have that many political choices. Once some Americans figure out they aren't better than any other American, then they can control their own Government. You will see less politicians using you.

[JDPriestly]

9. First time ever: I agree with China on something.

Well maybe I am exaggerating a bit, but not much. It's certainly a rare event if not the first time.

[daleo]

10. China is a sham communism, actually run by billionaire plutocrats

The U.S. is a sham democracy, actually run by billioinaire plutocrats.

How's that?

[valerief]

14. Sounds right to me. nt

[kelliekat44]

12. Did they also mention the 2.7 millioin people in jail 60% of which are black or brown? nt

[valerief]

13. Boom! Pot, meet kettle. nt

[smirkymonkey]

15. China? Really?

However, I have to admit they do have a point.

[treestar]

16. Like China has credibility

on that score!

We are a paragon of human rights compared to them!

[Arkana]

18. They're not wrong, but boy howdy--talk about glass houses.

[4Q2u2]

31. Man Bites Dog

Happens everyday. We have been accused by the best or most notorious Gov't in this aspect for a long time.

[DreamGypsy]

34. The report have been issued every year for 15 years.

From Wikipedia, Human Rights Record of the United States:

The Human Rights Record of the United States (informally referred to as the "China Human Rights Report&quot is a publication on the annual human rights record in the United States of America, published by the Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. The report was first issued in 1998 as a response to the United States' practice of criticizing China in its own annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which each of the Chinese reports cites in the first paragraph.

The Human Rights Record of the United States is published as a retort to U.S. criticism of China's human rights policies in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, published by the State Department of the United States. The Chinese report states that the State Department reports are "full of distortions and accusations of the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China. However, the United States turned a blind eye to its own terrible human rights situation and seldom mentioned it." It says that the United States uses the human rights issues as "a political instrument to defame other nations' image and seek its own strategic interests." The report asserts ""[The U.S. State department] released the 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices' year after year to accuse and blame other countries for their human rights practices. These moves fully expose the United States' hypocrisy by exercising double standards on human rights and its malicious design to pursue hegemony under the pretext of human rights."

The Report criticizes U.S. domestic social and economic issues, such as poverty, crime and racism. Some of the data cited in the report is derived from official or authoritative sources; other sections are composed from a variety of material found online, some of which may be anecdotal.

Again, from Wikipedia, here is how the State Department responds:

In response, the official position of the United States Government and the United States Department of State is that it does not report on human rights within the United States due to the possibility that any such reporting might be viewed as governmental propaganda, and would lack credibility. The State Department says that it does not mean to imply that the US has no human rights issues.

The government and the State Department take no position on the Chinese report, other than to note that it is fully proper and consistent with the principles of reciprocity that govern diplomatic relations between sovereign states. It may note problems which the US needs to work on, as do the reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and numerous other international and United States NGOs.

Two bullies shoving each other on the playground.

In comparing the human rights positions of China and the United States one cannot forget the histories and the broad differences in the histories of the two countries. China has about 3600 years of history that influences its culture and government. Forgetting about the First Nation influences on U.S. government (which we sadly do), the United States has 500 years of history - Ponce de Leon "discovered" Florida on April 13, 1513 (although there were probably earlier landings by slavers that were not recorded) - and whatever pieces of immigrant culture got mixed into the pot.

The U.S. formed the basis of the current governmental system 226 years ago with the signing of the Constitution; China formed its current government in October 1949, 63 years ago, when Mao stood on the terrace in front of the Forbidden City in Beijing and declared the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

The U.S. immigrants slaughtered, enslaved, brutalized, and marginalized the Native American peoples long ago and took their land, not just in North Dakota, but in California and all the other states. In 2000, the Bureau of Indian Affairs apologized for the acts, but the human rights legacy for Native Americans is still deplorable.

Perhaps in a hundred years the Chinese Bureau of Tibetan Affairs will offer a similar apology.