At the beginning of October, a debate in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, which should have been step by step, suddenly turned into a diplomatic "tough battle". It is no exaggeration to say that the atmosphere at the venue that day was like an "international confrontation show".
Sun Li, the representative of China, is sitting on the table, opposite the representatives of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU countries, with a total of 32 countries in turn, with many accusations and questions in the speech, and pointing directly to our country's human rights issues.
To put it bluntly, they are accusing nothing else but the same things: Xinjiang, Xizang, Hong Kong, and even Taiwan Island. They hold the flag of "human rights" and try to push our country into a "trial" position. But it's not the first time we've encountered such a scene. When Ambassador Sun Lei stood up to respond, he did not have any emotional ups and downs. His tone was calm and logical, but his words were not soft at all.
Some say he is "with one enemy thirty", in fact, not only a quantitative "fight", but also a conceptual face-to-face strike. When Western nations try to impose so-called “universal values” on other nations, Sun Li represents a position of a nation that is not willing to be defined or accepted.
How did this fight happen?
A few days ago, the Third Committee of the United Nations, a committee dedicated to human rights, social affairs, and humanitarian issues, was meeting.In accordance with the practice of previous years, the congresses expressed their views on the development of human rights, and occasionally there were some “toughened-toughened” situations. The Western countries in advance "sold out" and 32 countries jointly spoke, directly referring to our country.
To be honest, there is nothing new about what they said: "There are human rights violations in Xinjiang,""Religious freedom in Xizang is restricted," and "Hong Kong's freedom is suppressed." These words will be known to people familiar with my country's diplomacy at once. This is not a human rights issue, this is naked political manipulation.
They did not even intend to listen to how our country explained it, as if it had been “condemned” once it came up. But our delegation was not accustomed to them. Ambassador Sun Li stood up directly and opened his mouth to dry goods. He was not emotionally excited, but he used the most direct way to put the issue on the table to explain.
He said that the real situation in Xinjiang is that terrorism was once rampant and people lived in fear. In order to allow people to live in peace of mind, local governments have carried out anti-terrorism and de-radicalization work. Now society is stable, the economy is developing, children can go to school, and people can make money. "You say this is a violation of human rights? Do we have to wait for terrorists to take to the streets to respect human rights?"
Sun Li issued an official data: Over the past decade, GDP growth in Tibet has doubled, education popularity has increased, and the coverage of medical resources is close to the national average. "You say we don't respect religious freedom? Do you know that there are more than 1,700 temples in Tibet, and the normal religious activities of monks have never been interrupted?"
When it comes to Hong Kong, he didn't shy away: "You say that Hong Kong has less freedom, but have you seen what it looked like before the implementation of Hong Kong's national security law? Violent *, arson and attack on police officers, which one is not a threat to the lives and property of ordinary citizens? We introduced laws to restore normal order in Hong Kong. This is responsible governance, not suppression."
As for the Taiwan Island issue, he didn't say much, only briefly emphasized: Taiwan is an inalienable part of our country. Any interference by external forces is a provocation to our country's sovereignty.
In this regard, Sun Liang spoke at once and directed the camera to the questioner.He did not speak out, but directly reversed a "old book": "You say we have human rights problems, but what about yourselves?"
He pointed to the British representative: “Hate crimes in your country are rising year by year, the issue of racial discrimination is difficult to recover.”To the Australian representative, he pointed out: “Your indigenous average life expectancy is 8.2 years lower than the country’s, and the educational resources are severely unequal.”
Sun Lei said in one sentence that the venue was very quiet: "If you really care about human rights, you should first do what is at your doorstep." This is not a reply, it is a reminder: double standards are the most unconvincing "right to speak".
From passive response to active suggestion: China's international role is changing
After the outcry, many media outlets were discussing: “China has torn off the ‘accused’ label and begun to talk about its own human rights logic.” In the past, we were more in a passive response, and now we are actively speaking out, outlining facts, outlining data, outlining logic, and even proposing new rules.
At the meeting of the Sixth Committee of the United Nations, another representative of our country, Geng Shuang, also made a speech. Instead of simply saying "we oppose some countries", he systematically talked about how we view the international rule of law and global governance.
He said it directly: the current international order was established after World War II, but it has changed. Some countries have turned “rules” into “tools”, only demanding from others, not constraining themselves, today withdrawing from the group, tomorrow breaking the covenant, whoever they want to beat whoever they are.
He put forward twelve “oppositions,” such as against unilateral sanctions, against the abuse of force, against small-circle politics. It sounds like a slogan, but in fact there are real cases behind each of them. For example, U.S. sanctions on Iran, such as NATO’s bombing of the Southern Union, such as withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which is not the problem of the international community?
And we are not saying "no", but also give "how to do" suggestions.Geng Xiaoping referred to the "Global AI Governance Initiative" proposed by our country, advocating cooperation and sharing; and the "Belt and Road" initiative, emphasizing mutual benefit and win-win.
These are concrete manifestations of my country's "setting up a stage and singing a drama" in global governance, not just talk on paper. This shows one problem: my country is no longer just a "recipient of rules", but a "builder of rules."
Why are we more and more daring to "bar"?
Many people may ask: before we spoke little in international occasions, why now suddenly so "hard"?
In the past, we were worried about being misunderstood and besieged if we talked too much. Now we have confidence, strength and the right to speak. We are not afraid to argue, but we are more reasonable. We don't like confrontation, but we don't hide from problems.
This 32-country “embuscade” we did not avoid, nor compromise.We did not confound with empty words, but brought out facts to persuade. This is not to "win a debate", but to tell the world: the real human rights, not the proverb of dress-up, but the people live well, live safely, whether there is dignity.
Of course, the international community will not change its view just because you have reason once. But we must persist in speaking and doing. Over time, everyone will discover that there is not only one voice or one standard in the world.
Uncompromising is because we have something more worth adhering to
This "heated debate scene" of the United Nations seems to be a diplomatic war of words, but it is actually a concentrated expression of the national position. We didn't shout slogans loudly, but we made our own logic clear, pointed out the shortcomings of others, and pointed out the future of global governance.
We don’t pursue “winning applause,” but we want to keep the bottom line. Our bottom line is national sovereignty, the right to choose the path of development, and the right to make 1.4 billion people live a better life.
This time, we stood firm. Next time, we will continue to stand at that table and tell our stories in our own words.
We are not afraid of arguing, but that no one will understand the truth. We are not afraid of confrontation. What we are afraid is that no one will be reasonable. As long as there is room for reasoning, we will not retreat, and there is no need to retreat. This is what China looks like today on the international stage.
reference
Chinese side of the United Nations named the disadvantages of countries such as Britain and Japan.