
US' annual China human rights review shorter, remains sharply critical
'Genocide and crimes against humanity occurred during the year in China against predominantly Muslim Uygurs and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang,' the report said in its executive summary.
The China assessment, an extensive catalogue of Beijing's alleged violations in the previous calendar year, is part of a package of department reports reviewing some 200 countries and territories based on standards enshrined in international human rights agreements.
Its release comes after a months-long delay amid controversy that the reports would substantially scale back long-standing critiques of certain forms of abuses or display bias against perceived US foes.
In recent years, the reports have been released in the spring, accompanied by a launch event led by the Secretary of State. This year – the first release under the second Donald Trump administration – no such event was held.
Intended to inform congressional decisions on foreign aid allocations and security assistance, the reports include some of the most comprehensive human rights reviews compiled by any single body in the world.
They are also widely used in both US and international courts, particularly during asylum hearings.
This year, the individual country reports removed sections on disabilities, gender and political participation, among others. At 42 pages, the China report was in line with the leaner format applied to other countries – down from 91 pages last year and 87 pages in 2023.
Still, as in previous years, the report catalogued Beijing's conduct regarding arbitrary or unlawful killings; disappearances; transnational repression against individuals outside China; and restrictions on freedom of expression.
As with last year, the report highlighted what it called genocide and crimes against humanity in China's Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, reflecting a 2021 State Department determination that Beijing's treatment of Uygurs and other Muslim minorities met the legal definitions of those crimes.
In its 22-page addendum on Hong Kong, the report said that the human rights situation there had deteriorated in the previous calendar year as regional and central governments 'further dismantled Hong Kong's political freedoms and autonomy'.
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said on Tuesday that the reports had been adjusted to make them more 'readable' and 'objective', insisting that the adjustment 'doesn't reflect a change of any US policy when it comes to human rights'.
'Sometimes less is more,' Bruce continued, comparing the shorter reports to the Trump administration's restructuring of foreign aid, adding that its human rights priorities would become clearer with next year's report.
Still, some US Democratic lawmakers objected to the shortened reports.
'By deliberately watering down or cutting factual reporting on global human rights violations ... the State Department under Secretary [Marco] Rubio has shamelessly turned a once-credible tool of US foreign policy mandated by Congress into yet another instrument to advance [Make America Great Again] political grievances and culture war obsessions,' said Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The previous Joe Biden administration had made advancing democracy a key theme, hosting an annual 'summit for democracy' to gather government, business and civil society to 'advance democracy, fight corruption and counter authoritarianism'.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has slashed its human rights and humanitarian programming, a move that some have criticised as playing into the hands of the Chinese government.
In recent years, Beijing has issued its own report on US human rights violations, citing American racial discrimination, wealth polarisation and gun and police violence, among other issues.
'While a ruling minority holds political, economic, and social dominance, the majority of ordinary people are increasingly marginalised, with their basic rights and freedoms being disregarded,' China's State Council Information Office wrote in May 2024.
The report's Tuesday release comes a day after the US and China jointly announced that they would extend a tariff truce until November. - SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Straits Times
37 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Former CIA director Burns calls Trump firings of US workers "a war on...expertise"
WASHINGTON: William Burns, former CIA director and veteran US diplomat, on Wednesday issued a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration's mass firings of federal workers, saying they are aimed at stifling dissenting views and will harm US security. "Under the guise of reform, you all got caught in the crossfire of a retribution campaign - of a war on public service and expertise," Burns wrote in a "Letter to America's Discarded Public Servants" published in The Atlantic magazine. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Burns was CIA director under Democratic former President Joe Biden, and a foreign service officer. He served three Democratic and three Republican presidents. His career included stints as US ambassador to Russia and deputy secretary of State. Taking aim at US President Donald Trump's sweeping purge of federal workers, including State Department staff and US intelligence officers, Burns said that civil servants recognize the need for serious government reforms. "But there is a smart way and a dumb way to tackle reform, a humane way and an intentionally traumatizing way," he said. "This is not about reform. It's about retribution. It's about breaking people and breaking institutions by sowing fear and mistrust throughout our government." "That's what autocrats do," Burns said. "They cow public servants into submission, and in doing so, they create a closed system that is free of opposing views and inconvenient concerns." Burns cited Russian President Vladimir Putin's "foolish decision" to launch his February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine as an example of how an absence of dissenting policy views led to "catastrophic" results for the Kremlin. The threat to the US "is not from an imaginary 'deep state' bent on" undermining Trump, he wrote, but "a weak longer able to uphold the guardrails of our democracy or help the United States compete in an unforgiving world."— REUTERS


New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Markets, Trump in delicate policy dance
UNITED States President Donald Trump has faced little opposition in his drive to rip up the global economic rule book, whether from his fellow Republicans, political opponents or institutional guard rails. The only exception has been "the market". But now even investors are holding their fire, enabling more risk to build up in the financial system. Wall Street's reaction to Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs on April 2 was so ferocious that the president did something he had rarely done: he backed down. Trillions of dollars were wiped off the value of US stocks amid a 10 per cent nosedive from April 3-4. The only two-day selloffs since the 1930s that were bigger occurred during World War 2, "Black Monday" in 1987, the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. The stock market bottomed out on April 7 after Trump paused most of his country-specific tariffs. Wall Street has not looked back since, with the S&P 500 rebounding 35 per cent to a new all-time high. This episode suggests that "the market" is one of the few true checks on Trump's apparent pursuit to re-shape the US — and indeed the world — economy. The only problem is that the president has continued to pursue unorthodox policies in recent months — including challenging the independence of the Federal Reserve (Fed), firing statisticians and slapping tariffs on countries for non-economic reasons — and investors have failed to tap the brakes. The so-called "Trump put" — the idea that the president won't let the markets fall too far — is essentially a funhouse mirror version of the famous "Fed put", the long-held belief that, in the event of a crisis, the central bank will step in to restore stability. Trump seemingly did just that in April, but it was to clean up a mess of his own making. And one could argue that it was actually investors who came to the economy's rescue by putting pressure on the president to reconsider policies considered ill-advised by most economists. Trump and markets are, therefore, now in a curious dance. Investors appear to believe that markets can ultimately stop Trump from pushing the envelope too far on tariffs or other policies. But as a result, investors are not over-reacting — or reacting at all — to the latest controversies around the Bureau of Labour Statistics firing, his attacks on Fed chair Jerome Powell, his pressure on Intel's chief executive officer to resign, or the outsized tariffs slapped on Brazil and India. This, in turn, has powered the markets to new record highs, emboldening Trump to push the envelope even further. So even though the market has the power to rein in the president's economic policy excesses, it's not using it. Why hasn't the market pushed back? As the cliche goes, equity investors are paid to be optimistic. It's in their interest to keep the train hurtling along provided there aren't any immediate obstacles to derail it. There are, of course, a few pretty large hurdles on the horizon for the US economy, including the highest tariffs since the 1930s and some of the biggest budget deficits since World War 2 outside of crisis periods. But until these or other issues present an immediate economic threat, markets can choose to ignore them. By under-reacting to Trump's unorthodox policies, markets may be not only delaying the day of reckoning but amplifying the potential impact. Why? Genuine economic and geopolitical paradigm shifts are underway, and investors are not pricing in the attendant risk. Nobody knows what the ultimate impact of these shifts will be, but we do know that with greater uncertainty comes greater downside risk. Yet equity volatility is currently the lowest it has been this year, and even in the bond market — not known for its optimism — volatility is the lowest in 3½ years, while US corporate bond spreads are the tightest since 1998. Ultimately, the market is unlikely to call Trump's bluff until something truly unexpected or extreme hits. In the meantime, investors can justify this nonchalance by saying that corporate earnings growth is solid, artificial intelligence enthusiasm is high, economic growth remains decent, unemployment is low and consumers are still spending.


The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
U.S. Senator Sanders favors Trump plan to take stake in Intel, others
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) listens as U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer testifies before a Senate Finance Committee hearing on U.S. President Donald Trump's trade policy, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 8, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt/File Photo WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Liberal U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Wednesday threw his support behind President Donald Trump's plan to convert U.S. grants to chipmakers, including $10.9 billion for Intel, into government stakes in the companies. "If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment," Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, said in a statement to Reuters. The awards were part of the 2022 Chips and Science Act, which sought to lure chip production away from Asia and boost American domestic semiconductor output with $39 billion in subsidies. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is looking into the government taking equity stakes in Intel and other chipmakers in exchange for the grants, sources told Reuters on Tuesday. Much of the funding for companies such as Micron , Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co and Samsung has not been dispersed. (Reporting by Alexandra Alper)