Saturday, June 4, 2022

‘China free to set Asia policy’

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, US President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi attend the summit of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) in Tokyo, Japan, on May 24, 2022. [Photo/Xinhua]

China free to set Asia policy despite US

China: Rise of an Asian giant Insight

China has come a long way since the establishment of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. From a poor agrarian society, it has now emerged as an industrial powerhouse, contributing nearly 30 percent of the world's economic growth. It has even overtaken Japan as the world’s second largest economy and lifted 800 million people out of poverty within just a single generation.

But 70 years on, the Communist Party of China under the leadership of its strongman President Xi Jinping is facing the greatest test of its leadership. The continuing social unrest in Hong Kong, a slowing economy and the escalating trade war with the United States are threatening its undermine his China dream. Can the tremendous progress that China has achieved so far simply falter from now on? Or will China continue to prevail as a force to be reckoned with in spite of all these challenges 70 years after its birth?

With 'its own destiny', Beijing's positive agenda can resist meddling, expert says

China should follow its own path and positive agenda for the Asia-Pacific region despite recent steps by the United States to enlist others to encircle it, according to a China expert.

“China is one of those few countries in the international system which is in control of its own destiny,” Sourabh Gupta, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for China-America Studies, said. “If it can attain the potential it has inside, it doesn’t have to depend on or wait for any country, including the US.”

Over the past month, the US has conducted a series of moves relating to the region around China, including hosting the US-Asean Special Summit, announcing the so-called Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, or IPEF, and leading the Quad summit and issuing a joint statement with its partners.

The IPEF launch and the Quad summit were cast as highlights of Joe Biden’s first visit to Asia as the US president in late May. The Quad brings together the US, Australia, India and Japan in a security arrangement viewed by many as an effort to contain China.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken last week gave a comprehensive speech on China policy in which he defined the main theme of US-China relations as competition. He noted that the US would “shape the strategic environment around Beijing” and “win the competition for the future”.

However, Gupta characteristics the US’ recent initiatives as a “China-minus strategy”.

“At the end of the day, a ‘China-minus’ strategy amounts to a China-encirclement strategy,” he said.

“At this time, Washington knows that most countries in Asia are not ready to commit to such an encirclement strategy. As such, it has framed its strategy and policies...from the Quad to the IPEF... on the basis of a ‘China-minus’ formula.”

And he expects that formula “will fail too because China sits at the heart of most of the region’s economic, technology and developmental networks, and other countries do not have the depth of commitment or the deep pockets to challenge Beijing”.

“Biden’s expectation is that the relevant Asian nations will, at his prompting, strive to build further complementarity between their policies and the US’ policies in these selective areas of decoupling,” Gupta said.

China was not mentioned much at the US-Asean summit in Washington, during Biden’s visit to Japan and South Korea, or at the Quad summit in Tokyo and in the joint statement that followed it.

But Gupta said China was the subtext in many important discussions and in the joint statement. —

"The goal here is to give the impression that the Quad is not an anti-China encirclement body but one that has a positive agenda of practical cooperation to furnish public goods in the Indo-Pacific region," he said.

"I think aside from the four countries, nobody else is fooled in this regard. Everyone understands that the Quad is directed against China. And frankly, even within the four countries, there are very few takers of their foreign office-policy line that the Quad is not China-obsessed."

Before Biden's trip, China's top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, warned US national security adviser Jake Sullivan on May 18 that the US was "on the wrong path" regarding Taiwan, and that its moves could lead to "dangerous situations".

Wedge issue

Gupta said: "The Biden administration has not followed through in its deeds in terms of what the president himself promised in words to President Xi Jinping.

"As such, there is understandable apprehension in Beijing that Washington is attempting to use the Taiwan issue as a wedge issue and deepen divisions between China and other East Asian countries too."

When asked, Biden said the US would defend Taiwan militarily, but afterward, the White House, the State Department and Blinken, in his speech, said that recognition of the one-China policy would not change.

Gupta said it seemed like "a two-step play".

"This happened last October, and I fully expect it to happen again in the future," he said. "I don't think this has to do with lack of policy management. The president seems determined to politically show strength, not weakness, on Taiwan policy, and leave it to his White House team thereafter to restore the equilibrium on the finer details of the policy."

The US and Taiwan launched trade talks on Wednesday, a move that was strongly condemned by Beijing.

-- China Daily/ANN

Source link

Shenzhou-14 mission to head for China Space Station on Sunday, to complete ...

Shenzhou-14 mission to head for China Space Station on Sunday, to complete ...

The Shenzhou-14 manned mission is slated to be launched at 10:44 on Sunday morning from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center ...

Related posts:

Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) may just be an empty shell as US can offer nothing concrete

llustration: Chen Xia/Global Times What is U.S. President Joe Biden's Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) all ab...

World needs more than ‘beautiful words’ from the US: Global Times editorial

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Photo: VCG US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Photo: VCG US Secretary of State Antony Bli...

By trying to pressure Bachelet, the US and West are unable to create an ‘iron curtain’ of human rights: Global Times editorial

Michelle Bachelet Photo: Courtesy of Embassy of Chile in Beijing Western human rights groups are trying to make UN Human Rights Of...

US cannot stop China’s hi-tech rise

Is it arrogance or inferiority to engage in ‘critical dialogue’ with China?: Global Times editorial

China US Illustration: Liu Rui/GT The Chinese-language website of Deutsche Welle on Tuesday published a commentary entitled "Maintain...

Is it arrogance or inferiority to engage in ‘critical dialogue’ with China?: Global Times editorial

China US Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

The Chinese-language website of Deutsche Welle on Tuesday published a commentary entitled "Maintaining critical dialogue with China is more important than ever." The article is filled with clichés about so-called "human rights issues in Xinjiang," which are not worth reading. But the phrase "critical dialogue" in the headline is intriguing. It is in fact the main attitude of the US and other Western countries in communicating with non-Western nations in recent years.

This is, in most cases, an unconscious revelation of American and Western elites' inner feeling of superiority. But now they put it forward consciously and promote it as an "effective way" to deal with China. This cannot be explained simply by "pride and prejudice." They did not articulate it in the past, but Western countries have been practicing and enhancing the so-called critical dialogue with China. It has become an approach or even a weapon in the West's strategic game with China. In other words, they are trying to "lecture" China under the cover of "dialogue."

In global interactions, disagreements are common. It is also normal to express different views or even criticize without mincing words. However, equal dialogue cannot be based on the premise that some values are superior to others. It also cannot be only one party lecturing or accusing the other. The US and the West's "critical dialogue" is condescending, and the implied logic is that only they have the ability, qualification and power to determine right and wrong. This means that one party already claimed the moral high ground before the "dialogue" even begins, which dwarfs the development level and moral image of other countries.

Colonialism has long been discarded as something despicable, but Western-centric power structures and mentality have not disappeared completely. Colonialism has been subtly transplanted into various aspects, lurking in Western political language and communication methods. Some elites in the US and the West, with a strong sense of superiority on civilization, regard non-Western countries as candidates waiting for their "approval." With ideological pointers in their hands, they took to the podium to oversee exams, judge papers, and then grade them based on the "performance" of these countries to determine whether they passed the exam. As for the standard of scoring, it is drawn by the US and the West according to their own historical and social formations, and "Western-centrism" is the only correct answer in all the exams.

In their eyes, only the West is right, civilized and advanced, while those who differ from them are branded as "evil," barbaric and backward. They forcibly create a dichotomy between "civilization" and "barbarism." On this fictional premise, they attach moral labels on different practices of other countries, trying to dwarf them in image so that they can "attack others from a high position" as they wish. It is for this reason they recklessly fabricate the lie of "genocide" in Xinjiang, audaciously call for "punishing China" by various means, and frantically threaten to bomb China "back into the Stone Age."

Sometimes, arrogance is a kind of overbearingness; sometimes, it is also a kind of deep inferiority. In the face of the rise of emerging market countries, including China, and their own troubles, the US and other Western countries are becoming increasingly overwhelmed. Faced with the narrowing gap between them and emerging market countries, they have to rely on slogans of "human rights" and "democracy" to maintain their "absolute advantage." The reason why they are so sensitive to their position in the dialogue is that they are aware of the disappearance of the absolute advantage they used to have. As a result, they have to deliberately highlight their discourse power to maintain the obsolete power structure behind it, which has become a subconscious reaction.

Even in the fields of human rights and democracy, the US and the West are increasingly lagging behind, relying only on slogans, posturing and fist-pumping to show their "self-esteem," which is actually laughable to the rest of the world. The West's self-confidence is collapsing, as the democratization of international relations is increasingly popular and as developing countries' awareness of their rights is strengthening. Today, if someone still wants to engage in colonialism and ideological hegemony, or even imagines leading other countries by the nose like livestock, no country with national pride and a sense of independence will obey.

Returning to the "critical dialogue," China has never been afraid of criticism, but firmly opposes hegemony. Times have changed, and US and Western elites should learn to be equal and respectful. Dialogue is necessary, and we welcome "constructive dialogue," but we reject "critical dialogue." We would also like to remind that a condescending posture is dangerous, because the farther you are from the ground, the harder you may fall.

Source link

Related articles:

After Bachelet's Xinjiang visit fails to support 'genocide' allegations, US and UK plot another 'investigation' trip

Chinese envoy to the United Nations on Thursday sternly refuted the allegations of “genocide” made by the US and the UK over human rights situation in China's Xinjiang region, after the two countries took a Security Council meeting on international law and maintaining peace and security as a chance to attack China on Xinjiang-related issues. They have also called on another “investigative” trip to Xinjiang on Thursday after they found that the UN human rights chief's recent visit to Xinjiang had failed to support their “genocide” fallacies about the region.

US govt 'biggest producer of terrorism within or outside America,' victims around the world should sue: experts

After frequent gun shooting cases nationwide in the US that caused heavy casualties, including children, the White House and Capitol Hill are trying to show that they are trying to find a solution under pressure from society, as US President Joe Biden said Congress "must act to pass gun control legislation."

How blatant that US with worldwide military bases feels 'concerns' about other's Pacific presence

The US, whose flag flies over 750 military bases in more than 80 countries and regions, seems to be sitting on pins and needles after witnessing China sign ONE security cooperation framework agreement with the Solomon Islands. On Tuesday local time, US President Joe Biden met with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in the White House. Their “shared concern” about China's security agreement and “China's Pacific ambitions” were soon placed under the spotlight of Western media outlets.

Related posts:

By trying to pressure Bachelet, the US and West are unable to create an ‘iron curtain’ of human rights: Global Times editorial

Michelle Bachelet Photo: Courtesy of Embassy of Chile in Beijing Western human rights groups are trying to make UN Human Rights Of...

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should investigate US shootings

America's lucrative gun business Cartoon: Carlos Latuff US President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden visited the Texan town of ...

World needs more than ‘beautiful words’ from the US: Global Times editorial

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Photo: VCG US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Photo: VCG US Secretary of State Antony Bli...

Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!

` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ...

Thursday, June 2, 2022

UK audit shake-up after spate of corporate failures; The two sides of the EY break-up

UK audit shake-up targets big firms after spate of corporate ...

The Big Four

Britain to shake up audit market after Carillion crash

Britain to shake up audit market after Carillion crash - Reuters

FILE PHOTO: A view of the London skyline shows the City of London financial district, seen from St Paul's Cathedral in London, Britain February 25, 2017. REUTERS/Neil Hall/File Photo/File PhotoReuters

UK Audit Shake-Up Targets Big Firms After Spate of Corporate Failures

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain set out sweeping reforms of big company audits on Tuesday after high-profile collapses at builder Carillion and retailer BHS in recent years hit thousands of jobs and raised questions about accounting quality.

The business ministry detailed changes to auditing and corporate governance that will be put into law, though the measures are unlikely to come into force until 2024 or later and smaller firms will be shielded from the new rules.

The reforms are in response to 150 recommendations from three government-sponsored reviews on improving auditing in a market dominated by KPMG, EY, PwC and Deloitte, known as the Big Four.

The new law would create a more powerful regulator, the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA), to push through changes set out by government.

In the meantime, the current watchdog, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), will have powers to vet audit companies and ban failing auditors, the ministry said.

Britain will also review a European Union definition of "micro entities", which benefit from simplified accounts. They typically have a balance sheet of no more than 350,000 euros ($377,230) and employ no more than 10 people.

Loosening the definition would mean more firms saving money by filing simplified accounts, though it could raise investor protection concerns. Other reporting requirements will also be reviewed to help attract growth companies to Britain.

The FRC currently focuses on big listed companies, but ARGA's remit would expand to include about 600 private firms with more than 750 staff and an annual turnover of over 750 million pounds ($949 million), a higher threshold than initially flagged. BHS was unlisted.

NO UK SARBANES-OXLEY

To curtail the dominance of the Big Four, the top 350 listed companies would have to appoint a non-Big Four accountant, or allocate a certain portion of their audit to a smaller accountant such as Mazars, BDO or Grant Thornton.

The business ministry could introduce market share caps on the Big Four if there is no improvement in competition.

Directors of premium listed companies would also have to state why they think their internal controls are effective.

This would be done under Britain's "comply or explain" corporate governance code, which the FRC can change without legislation.

UK companies pushed back against enshrining in law a version of mandatory U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley rules, which force U.S. directors to personally attest to the adequacy of internal controls, and face prison for breaches.

"Lessons from Carillion and other recent company failures have been ignored, with little emphasis now on tightening internal controls and modernising corporate governance," said Michael Izza, chief executive of ICAEW, a professional accounting body.

FRC chief Jon Thompson said: "The Government’s decision not to pursue the introduction of a version of the Sarbanes-Oxley reporting regime is, the FRC believes, a missed opportunity to improve internal controls in a proportionate, UK-specific manner."

Big firms would also have to state what external checks, if any, were made on the reliability of their non-financial information in annual reports, such as risks from climate change.

Larger companies would have to confirm the legality of their dividends, a lesson from Carillion.

Source link

Insight - The two sides of the EY break-up

For its part, EY is under particular pressure due to its auditing of collapsed German payments firm Wirecard AG – although it’s not clear that a break-up would rid it of any liabilities arising from that failure. Perhaps EY is preempting tougher regulation.Or perhaps it just sees an opportunity to monetise some of it assets.

A possible split of EY into separate audit and consulting firms must confront the problem faced by all break-ups: How do you create attractive businesses out of both when one is likely to be seen as inferior?

Here, that would be the newly established standalone auditor. EY – or any Big Four accounting firm that attempts such a separation – has its work cut out to make pure-play audit a success.

The revelation by Michael West Media that EY is considering the move heralds a potentially seismic shift for the industry.

A succession of accounting scandals has long prompted attacks on the Big Four for earning fees from audit clients by selling consulting services such as strategy or restructuring advice.

There’s an inherent conflict of interest in offering these to the same executives whose homework you’re meant to be marking.

While regulatory scrutiny is forcing firms to tread carefully, creating distinct companies is the most reliable remedy.

The United Kingdom’s competition watchdog called for an “operational separation” of audit and consulting within the existing firms in 2019, stopping short of demanding full break-ups because of cost and complexity.

Perhaps EY is preempting tougher regulation.

Or perhaps it just sees an opportunity to monetise some of it assets.

One option under consideration is the sale of a stake in the consulting business to a private buyer or to the stock market, creating a windfall for EY’s current partners, according to the Financial Times. Demand would likely be strong.

Just look at the private-equity money piling in lately. PwC sold a tax advisory practice to Clayton, Dubilier & Rice for a reported US$2.2bil (RM9.6bil) last year, while KPMG offloaded its UK restructuring arm to HIG Capital LLC.

But what about the rump that remains?

While the underlying economics of the Big Four are opaque, there’s a widespread suspicion that consulting subsidises audit.

At the very least, the ability to share costs means audit fees are lower than they would be for a distinct firm, regulators have found.

Retaining talent

The biggest challenge is how a standalone auditor would attract and retain talent without offering an in-house career in consulting as an option.

Short-sellers and forensic investigators aside, checking company accounts is for many a laborious gateway to other roles.

Audit partners accused of getting it wrong have regulatory probes hanging over them for years (an investigation into Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc’s 2010 accounts only just closed).

No wonder juniors tend to jump ship to better paid and less risky careers in consulting or investment banking not long after they’re qualified.

So auditing will have to be made more attractive, both financially and culturally.

One place to start is expanding the function beyond checking financial statements to offering sophisticated checks on companies’ claims on non-financial performance such as climate and social impact.

When the United States Securities and Exchange Commission is clamping down on greenwashing by investment funds, it’s clear the future of environmental, social and governance investing rests on companies proving they’re not cooking the books on these issues too.

These public-interest assessments are going to be increasingly scrutinised by investors in future.

They are already offered under the umbrella of so-called assurance services, but ought to become a more developed part of corporate reporting.

That would involve transferring some skills over from the consultancy side. The trick will be to add in parts of the current consulting business that are relevant to a more modern vision of audit, without just recreating a new auditor-cum-consultancy.

Of course, separation won’t eliminate all the conflicts in audit.

The chief culprit is the way managers often effectively appoint the audit partners who are meant to be their policemen.

But the prize for stock-market investors is improved audit quality, and a break-up could support that.

The goal should be to create a virtuous circle.

Make audit more enticing as a long-term career, attract people who do the work better – and hopefully cut the number of blow-ups. — Bloomberg

Chris Hughes is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.

Source link

Inside EY's break-up plan: why it could radically reshape the ...

EY plans to spin off audit business in shake-up for industry

Revolutionising accounting for a new era

School grades don't matter much?

Accounting firms PwC and EY start a trend in recruitment to help business and society

Big Four

Probe on ‘Big 2’ accouting firms: KPMG and Deloitte still on over 1MDB accounts

Financial scandals are pandemic too

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Ex-property agent in S’pore fined record S$1.16mil for illegally subletting private homes on Airbnb, HomeAway

Simon Chan Chai Wan paid his accomplice Zhao Jing a monthly salary of $4,000 for helping him. PHOTOS: SGP BUSINESS

Chan had illegally rented residential properties such as Caribbean at Keppel Bay (pictured). — The Straits Times/ANN

A 57-YEAR-OLD man was fined a record S$1,158,000 (RM3.7mil) for offences related to unauthorised short-term accommodation.

Simon Chan Chai Wan had illegally provided short-term rents in 14 private residential properties to local and foreign guests through platforms such as Airbnb and HomeAway.

His accomplice Zhao Jing, 43, was fined S$84,000 (RM268,000) for aiding him in carrying out the offences.

The properties included units in International Plaza, Robinson Suites, Claremont, Centrepoint Apartments, The Abode at Devonshire and Caribbean at Keppel Bay.

Zhao and Chan, who are a couple, were licensed real estate agents at the time of the offences, court documents said.

They were the directors of two companies, HTM Solutions and HTM Management, and Chan is the former director of SNS Infotech Global.

Chan would enter into tenancy agreements with the units’ owners using the three companies as corporate vehicles, and sublet the units for short-term accommodations on the platforms.

Chan had also persuaded Zhao to be the sole tenant for four of the units.

From June 30, 2017, to July 2018, Chan’s total revenue was S$1,254,907.78 (RM4mil).

He paid Zhao a monthly salary of S$4,000 (RM12,000) for helping him. Zhao would have received S$52,000 (RM166,000) for the period of the offences.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority said in a statement that all private residential properties rented out for accommodation are subject to a minimum stay of three consecutive months.

"Property owners should also exercise due diligence to ensure that their properties are not used by their tenants for unauthorised purposes," it said.

“Unauthorised short-term accommodation not only changes the residential character of a property, but also causes disamenities to neighbouring residents.” — The Straits Times/ANN

Source link

Ex-agent gets record fine for illegally subletting private homes

Singapore Airbnb host hit with $845k fine - New Straits Times

Singapore Airbnb host hit with US$845,000 fine

57YO Man Fined a Record $1.16 Million for Renting Out Units ...

Man fined S$1.16 million for subletting properties on Airbnb ...

Jin satki. Just for renting out to Airbnb, property agent earn ...

Ex-property agent fined record S$88000 for offering 6 Geylang ...

Ex-real estate agent in S'pore fined record S$1.16m for illegal ...

Former S'pore real estate agent fined a record S $ 1.16mil for .

Property agent suspended, fined for altering documents to earn extra commissions

Penang State to study Airbnb woes before legalising operations; More Malaysians are using Airbnb to settle mortgages

Airbnb and other Home-sharing businesses have Hotels worried in US

Homestays, a booming business: Homes vs hotels, a study of the industry

Tuesday, May 31, 2022

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should investigate US shootings

America's lucrative gun business Cartoon: Carlos Latuff

US President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden visited the Texan town of Uvalde on Sunday, laying a bouquet for the 21 victims, including 19 children, in the latest mass shooting. The grief that this school tragedy brought to American society is far from dissipating. Only 12 days ago, the Bidens were at the site of another mass shooting - a supermarket in Buffalo, New York - to mourn the 10 victims. Just in the past weekend, there were multiple shootings across the US, killing at least six people and injuring more than 30 others.

Public anger is growing as more details of the Robb Elementary School shooting are revealed. According to reports, as many as 19 police officers stood in a hallway outside the classroom where the gunman was hiding for nearly an hour before they opened the door. One of the young victims bled to death while waiting for police to come, media reported. The New York Times released an opinion piece titled "Don't Talk to Me About 'Civility.' On Tuesday Morning Those Children Were Alive," denouncing the hypocrisy of the so-called "civility" hyped by the American elites. Biden also asked: "These kinds of mass shootings rarely happen anywhere else in the world. Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen?"

But in a country that prides itself on being a "beacon of light," the clamor of public opinion as well as the condemnation from celebrities and politicians are not enough for the US system to reform its gun laws. The number of shootings in the US is increasing, like black ants gathering around rotting flesh. 2022 is not even halfway over, and more than 17,000 Americans, including 650 children, have already died from gun violence. Some Western media believe that US society has become "numb" in one shooting incident after another. Living a normal life after the gunfire should be called "American characteristics." And the American people can only dodge the bullets that come at any time by luck.

Such tragedies are exacerbated by the division of American politics. One can see that "rituals" are replacing real reflection as the standard procedure for each tragic incident. Flags were lowered at half-mast when a million Americans died due to epidemic control failure. The flags were lowered for the slow search and rescue of people trapped in collapsed houses, and for the mass casualties by shootings.

After the president and politicians made mournful rhetoric, saying "enough" and calling for "change," and gun ownership showed "a glimpse of regret" at charity dinners, the country can move on. Then the two parties will put their own spin on it. These tragedies have turned into weapons against opponents in a partisan struggle. When it comes to the problem itself, it has become a ball to be kicked around.

In addition to the weak gun control, the shootings also reflect the intensification of various social contradictions in the US, such as the wealth gap, racial discrimination, drug abuse, and public security. The US system is equally incapable, or lacks interest, motivation, and courage, to address these problems thoroughly. Behind the opposition to gun control are powerful interest groups and the inertia of the traditional understanding of guns in US society. The huge influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in American politics daunts every politician. People's rights are always giving way to political interests or "political correctness." This is the inherent logic of the US system.

It is worth noting that when the US' internal problems have become increasingly prominent, it has intensified its external aggression, which is a vicious circle at another level. US Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday spoke at a memorial service for Ruth Whitfield, a victim of the Buffalo supermarket shooting, that the US "is experiencing an epidemic of hate." Another fact that she was reluctant and inconvenient to say is that the US is undergoing "an epidemic of hostility" externally. In recent days, Washington was still obsessed with fabricating a lie of the century over "the human rights in Xinjiang" and has been recklessly attacking and smearing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet's visit to China. They probably did not expect Bachelet to reserve her longest answer for the US shootings and the racism at the press conference at the end of her visit. She said that "people believe that they are superior to others and feel they have the right to kill other people, but they are not."

Facts have proven once again that the "darkness under the lights," including the shooting cases, is a chronic human rights disease that the US, the so-called "beacon of light," neither dares nor is willing to illuminate. To solve this problem, one cannot rely on self-touching "ceremonies," or use "human rights" as a weapon to attack other countries. We urge the US government to take concrete actions to solve its own severe human rights problems, and stop being a negative example of double standards in terms of human rights. We call on the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to launch an investigation into human rights problems in the US as soon as possible, so that the US-style hegemony cannot cover up its bad deeds.

Source link