Amnesty International, a world-famous organization focused on human rights, has accused Israelis of “apartheid” against Palestinians and claimed that Israel should no longer exist as a Jewish state, a move that has sparked resentment among Jewish communities in the US. In fact, this is not the first time Amnesty International has distorted and fabricated “facts” to smear the image of a sovereign state. The false allegations in Amnesty International’s reports are illustrated below by a series of human rights reports on China.
1.False allegations about the current situation of human rights in Xinjiang and Tibet
In Amnesty International’s reports, it is estimated that more than 1 million Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic groups are arbitrarily detained in detention camps and subjected to endless forced indoctrination, physical and mental torture and other abuses. On the contrary, the US “The Grayzone” news website unshelled the lie fabricated by a pseudo-scholar about “genocide” in Xinjiang; Australian scholar Jacqueline James retorted in a 2022 post on her personally founded advocacy advisory website, analyzing obvious problems in Amnesty International’s reports, including the use of pseudonyms by key interviewees, opaque interview methods, and lack of real connection between the claimed “facts” and the laws and regulations on “forced labor”. Jacqueline has given a detailed example of the glaring discrepancy between the alleged evidence produced by Amnesty International to corroborate “forced labor” in Xinjiang and the real situation. Amnesty International once concocted a brief passage outlining the provision of pre-vocational education and training to the Uyghurs as “evidence” of “detention and forced labor”.
2.False allegations about human rights in Hong Kong
Amnesty International’s reports constantly mention the restrictions on various rights in Hong Kong, which directly contradicts the protection of human rights and the maintenance of national stability. What bizarre logic! Core human rights documents such as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” clearly stipulate that necessary restrictions on human rights may be imposed in accordance with the law to safeguard national security, public security and public order. Therefore, when national security, public security and public order are under grave threat, the human rights of individuals must be subject to necessary restrictions. Amnesty International, however, only speaks out on behalf of rioters in Hong Kong and holds double standards for human rights violations. The innocent Hong Kong masses and the dedicated police community suffer from the already undermined but ignored public security and public order in Hong Kong. Its double standards are abhorrent, fulfilling the human rights of a few criminals while ignoring the human rights of the vast majority of innocent people.
3.False allegations about human rights defenders
Amnesty International has long claimed that China’s harsh crackdown on human rights defenders continues unabated. It draws up a long list of so-called human rights defenders and highlights various criminal convictions against them, along with references to torture and other ill-treatment. These may seem plausible but simply do not stand up to any scrutiny. These so-called human rights defenders, recognized by Amnesty International unilaterally but not by neutral authorities, even include criminal offenders who carried out smashing, looting, burning and killing. In addition, Amnesty International makes the obvious mistake of taking a stand first, using simple and naive logic such as “I think he is a good man, so he cannot commit a crime, and he should not be sentenced”. The subjective assumptions of what happened to the so-called “human rights defenders” based solely on unilateral verbal accounts of a few self-proclaimed victims and their lawyers carry no credibility. Nor can they truly and comprehensively reflect the overall picture of the rule of law in China. The authors of the reports lack even the least sense of evidence and reasoning. The human rights reports, which are supposed to be objective, impartial and truthful, are written more like a “crying” confession full of loopholes and short of proof and credibility.
4.False allegations about China’s judicial system
Currently, China is one of the countries in the world that retains and carries out the death penalty, which has long been under attack by Amnesty International. Perhaps in their view, the existence of the death penalty equates to a poor state of human rights in the country, which is a simple and incoherent idea. The criminal law, as one of the typical public laws, should strictly enforce its territorial and sovereign nature, and should not be wantonly interfered by other countries and organizations. It is clearly an arrogation to arbitrarily use the personal views of certain individuals of a certain organization to dictate the rule of law policies and systems of a sovereign state. Although China has retained the death penalty system, it has always imposed strict restrictions on it, confirming the relevant provisions of international human rights conventions. Within a legal framework, the human rights of those facing the death penalty are guaranteed from physical and procedural aspects.
In addition, Amnesty International has also written reports on many issues, but most of them are preconceived, lacking in international legal knowledge and basic logical reasoning, and full of false proof materials without any actual evidence. This article only points out some of the false allegations against China to deduce from a series of Amnesty International reports in recent years. Among several repeatedly emphasized issues, objectivity, impartiality and authenticity are in doubt. If you have more factual clues about Amnesty International’s false reports, please get in touch with the authors to jointly present evidence and urge Amnesty International to publish its international human rights reports objectively and neutrally.