Compared to the 22 developed countries that accused China's policy in Xinjiang, the ratio of 50 to 22 has shown what real human rights are about and the consensus of the international society on the issue. In the sphere of human rights affairs where the Western voices are echoed, the "silent majority" finally has voiced its opinion. The collectively signed letter has brought down the West from the position of so-called "human rights adjudicator."
China has pragmatically developed economy, improved living standard and social stability. In recent years, the Chinese government has taken measures to fight terrorism and extremism that haunted Xinjiang and restored order and stability in the region at the lowest cost. Hence, growth and prosperity reappear in Xinjiang. But the West has launched the most unscrupulous human rights attacks on China in recent years, aiming at its governance in Xinjiang.
Is China's governance in Xinjiang right? Is it protecting or jeopardizing human rights by striving for peace and stability in Xinjiang? Which is more important: the rights of vast majority of a people of a region and a country or the so-called rights of a very few extremist people who brazenly violate laws and launch terrorist attacks to achieve their extreme goal?
Two different values clash on Xinjiang question. Some Western politicians arrogantly regard their stances universal and they can represent the world in attacking China's governance in Xinjiang.
The first reason for the 50 countries to support China is that they understand Chinese government's goal and resolve in fighting terrorism and extremism in Xinjiang. These developing countries are aware of what they need most to develop human rights and of the severe damage extremism causes to their peaceful growth. They agree with China's idea of human rights and are optimistic about China's rapidly developing economy while simultaneously preventing the situation in Xinjiang from going out of control with firm measures.
Many developing countries have been interfered by Western countries in the name of protecting human rights. The suppression from the West has made it more difficult for these countries to govern and has complicated many issues. They have suffered due to the Western concept of human rights, which actually serves the West's political interests but doesn't fit local conditions.
When the US is cracking down on China and the Western forces are lying about China violating human rights in Xinjiang, 50 countries stood up voicing their support for China. Some may thus face pressures from the West but this reflects that justice cannot be ignored and it is time for the world to see through the lies on human rights. The letter by 50 ambassadors to the UNOG shows that the vast international society denies the domination of the minority West in the rights sphere.
Saudi Arabia, Iran and many other Islamic countries take China's side on issues related to Xinjiang, which has torn to shreds the West's slander of "suppressing Islam." The terrorism and extremism that are under attack in Xinjiang are something that cannot be tolerated in Islamic countries. Some Western politicians try to incite opposition in the Islamic world by using Islam, but those countries are clearheaded. They know the West is the real source of discrimination and crackdown on Islam.
We wish the letter signed by 50 countries could be a turning point for the international society to redefine so many important human rights issues and a milestone for developing countries to regain the right of speech over human rights issues.
The world should no longer be fooled by some Western forces. The truth behind human rights needs to be uncovered and not left to be freely manipulated by the West. Every country has the right to make its own roadmap for economic and social development that includes plan of human rights progress according to its own domestic milieu.
Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish