Why Europe should stop lecturing China on human rights

Europe's Contradictory Stance on China

The European Union has recently escalated its criticism of China, particularly concerning Beijing's new Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress. This legislation, which encourages a common national identity among China's 56 ethnic groups while prohibiting discrimination, has been met with a resolution from the European Parliament condemning it as a move towards forced assimilation. The EU's stance also extends to addressing global macroeconomic imbalances and curbing China's role in the tech sector, signaling a broader confrontational approach.

However, the article posits that Europe's objections are fraught with hypocrisy. It points out that the Chinese law explicitly guarantees the learning and use of minority languages, a dual commitment mirrored by nations like France, which enshrines French as its official language while refusing to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Similarly, the US, a close EU ally, declared English its sole official language without European condemnation. This selective outrage, the author argues, undermines the credibility of the EU's human rights critique.

China's Defense and Counter-Accusations

From Beijing's perspective, the European Parliament's resolution constitutes gross interference in its internal affairs and exemplifies Western double standards. China asserts that its ethnic unity law is designed to codify successes in countering separatism, terrorism, and radicalization, while fostering shared progress. The article highlights the significant economic and social development in China's ethnic minority regions, where GDP growth has reportedly kept pace with the national average, as evidence of the effectiveness of China's approach.

A particularly glaring example of alleged hypocrisy concerns the law's extraterritorial reach, which allows for legal accountability of individuals and groups outside China for undermining ethnic unity or inciting separatism. The EU expressed concern over this, yet the author notes that the US routinely employs laws like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act to assert jurisdiction far beyond its borders. The EU itself maintains a blocking statute to counteract third-country legislation with extraterritorial effect. These instruments are celebrated by the West as legitimate tools of sovereignty, revealing a clear double standard when China asserts a similar right to defend its national integrity against violent terrorism, ethnic separatism, and religious extremism.

Geopolitical Undercurrents and Future Relations

The article suggests that the European Parliament's human rights critique is less about genuine concern and more about geopolitical maneuvering. The timing of the resolution, passed months before the law even took effect, implies a preemptive attempt to delegitimize the legislation without thorough study. This approach risks further exacerbating tensions between Europe and China, potentially mirroring the 'disastrous results' of the US policy of engaging Iran, Russia, and China simultaneously, as referenced in a previous Middle East Eye column.

Furthermore, the author delivers a damning indictment of Europe's own record on minority rights, noting the growing problems of racism, xenophobia, and hatred towards minority groups, including Chinese communities, across the continent. This internal struggle, while Europe lectures Beijing on ethnic unity, underscores the perceived hypocrisy. The future of healthy international relations, the article concludes, depends not on such 'lectures by the usual suspects,' but on genuine dialogue among equals, implying that the current European approach is counterproductive to fostering stable and cooperative global partnerships.