When commenting on her decision to not seek a second term as UN high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet said it was unrelated to criticism she faced over her visit to China’s Xinjiang region.
“Having been president [of Chile] twice, I have received a lot of criticism in my life,” she said. “That’s not what makes me [come to] certain decisions.”
The comments clearly expose who Bachelet is.
She apparently failed to recognize the nature and weight of the mistake she made during her visit to China. Realistically, there are fundamental differences between critics in Chile and those commenting on the “Xinjiang issue.”
In Chile, people have the right to speak and assemble, while in Xinjiang, people have no rights and are facing elimination.
Uighur advocates and victims said that Bachelet should have acknowledged that a statement Chinese media quoted her as saying — “I admire China’s efforts and achievements in eradicating poverty, protecting human rights, and realizing economic and social development” — was incorrect after the publication of the “Xinjiang police files,” and after UN media and communications officer Elizabeth Throssell said it was not an accurate quote.
Bachelet should not have been so proud of her mistakes, but her later statement about critics implies the ideological roots of her mistake on the China visit.
Mary Anastasia O’Grady in a recent Wall Street Journal article wrote accurately on Bachelet.
“For those who fight for liberty in Cuba, the high commissioner’s performance was no surprise. During the Cold War, she was on the side of the Soviets, and she’s a lifelong admirer of the Cuban revolution. Let’s face it: human rights are not her thing,” O’Grady wrote.
All the ideologies in the world have emerged as a means of happiness — a road map to peace. It is normal for a person to follow an ideology that seems advantageous and to relinquish it when witnessing its disasters.
Such people could be called “believers,” but if a person continues down that road despite a dogma’s disastrous failings, it could be said that they are slaves to the ideology.
Such enslavement deprives followers of independent thinking. Of this, there are many examples to be seen from Bachelet.
In an official statement after her visit to China, Bachelet said: “I was able to interact with civil society organizations, academics, community and religious leaders, and others inside and outside the country.”
How can we imagine the existence of a civil society and trustworthy academics without the existence of assembly rights or media freedoms?
“Considering China’s significant role in multilateralism, the visit was an opportunity for me to also discuss several other regional and global issues, where China can use its leverage to bring political solutions,” she said in the statement.
How does Bachelet expect a political solution from a power that commits genocide, even if it is only an allegation?
The UN has issued a statement about China’s misquoting of Bachelet, yet she still believes in China’s sincerity.
“During my visit, the government assured me that the [Xinjiang] Vocational Education and Training Center system has been dismantled,” she said.
How can she be so sure that China is being truthful? How could all of this happen during one visit?
Such thinking happens when a person is in love with or enslaved by an ideology.
The core of Bachelet’s mistake is that she is not able to think independently due to her enslavement to communist ideology and unconditional affinity for its leaders.
Bachelet went to China with a heart that had once led her to live in East Germany from 1975 to 1979, which she described as a “beautiful experience.”
The situation in Xinjiang therefore appeared to her as normal, and she felt no need to criticize China. She met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) with the same mindset in which she commemorated former Cuban president Fidel Castro, whom she called “a leader for dignity and social justice in Cuba and Latin America.”
Regarding Xi, Bachelet in her statement indeed seemed to admire his efforts toward “poverty alleviation and eradication of extreme poverty.”
Bachelet’s joyful laugh as she met with Xi and her proud body language during her meeting with Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) showed that her lifelong dream of meeting with leaders in the strongest communist country in the world was realized. The China visit was the last pilgrimage of an old devotee of communism.
Ironically, Chinese leaders, including Xi, do not believe in communism in the same way that Bachelet once did. They believe in the power of money and ammunition. This is the root of Xi’s genocidal mindset.
Thus the lesson to be learned from Bachelet’s visit to China, especially from the statements about the Uighurs, is that slaves of ideology cannot represent freedom and can in no way protect the freedom of others.
Slaves to ideology, right or left, religious or atheist, should not be allowed to be UN high commissioner for human rights.
Kok Bayraq is a Uighur American.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS