The United States, in its latest attempt to position itself as the global authority on human rights, has issued a report that claims to assess other nations and regions against its standards. This stance, however, is not only unsustainable but also deeply hypocritical. The country making these proclamations is itself entangled in a history of systemic and ongoing human rights abuses that would disqualify it from any moral leadership role. The stark realities of entrenched racial discrimination, the militarization of its police forces, the highest incarceration rate globally, the routine use of excessive force, the persistent issue of gun violence, and the inhumane treatment of migrants and refugees are not up for debate. They are well-documented facts. The US has been involved in military interventions and covert operations abroad that have led to significant civilian suffering, and it continues to operate detention facilities where individuals have been held for years or even decades without trial. For such a nation to assume the role of a moral compass while evading any rigorous self-assessment is a display of arrogance that undermines the very principles it claims to champion.
Against this backdrop, the US Department of State’s so-called 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices is neither an impartial analysis nor a balanced account of facts. It is a politically charged narrative designed to erode confidence in the governance of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and discredit China to serve Washington’s geopolitical strategy against Beijing. The document levels a series of accusations that, when stripped of rhetorical flourish, are completely unfounded and based on absurd lies that the author(s) should be ashamed of.
It is a product of ideological bias and geopolitical maneuvering. The assertion that political freedoms in Hong Kong have been dismantled ignores the reality that the rights guaranteed under the Basic Law remain firmly in place, subject to the same principle recognized in all jurisdictions that rights must be exercised within the bounds of law. The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, the bete noire of Washington ever since their promulgation, were enacted through lawful processes to address genuine threats to public order, social stability and national sovereignty. These threats were made manifest in the violent unrest, or “black-clad riots” of 2019-20. Far from being “arbitrary”, as was an accusation in the US document, arrests under these laws are subject to judicial oversight, with defendants afforded the right to counsel, open and fair trials, and avenues of appeal. The refusal of bail in cases involving serious national security risks is a practice entirely consistent with comparable legal systems, including that of the US, which applies similar standards in cases it deems to involve terrorism or espionage.
The document’s treatment of Hong Kong’s engagement with fugitives overseas reveals a double standard of remarkable scale. The US routinely seeks the extradition of individuals it accuses of lawbreaking (Edward Snowden and Julian Assange — two obvious examples), cancels passports, and prosecutes those who assist them. Yet when Hong Kong applies the same measures to individuals accused of violent crimes or acts endangering national security, it is charged with “transnational repression”. The criticism of “restrictions” on expression and the press misrepresents the nature of the laws in question. Freedom of speech in Hong Kong remains robust, but incitement to violence, promotion of separatism, and collusion with foreign forces are offenses in every responsible jurisdiction. The “Liberate Hong Kong” slogan was not mere political commentary but a rallying cry used in conjunction with violent acts aimed at splitting the country by breaking the special administrative region away from the nation. Prosecutions for such conduct are consistent with the legitimate defense of national sovereignty.
The portrayal of Hong Kong’s media environment as one of pervasive fear is contradicted by the daily reality of diverse publications, including Western media outlets that remain sharply critical of the SAR government. The closure of certain outlets was not the result of their editorial stance but of credible evidence of their active participation in campaigns to destabilize the city or their breach of other applicable laws. The claim that visa delays or changes to access rules for some public records amount to “oppression” disregards the legitimate security and privacy concerns that underpin such measures, which are commonly practiced in Western countries including the US.
The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, the bete noire of Washington ever since their promulgation, were enacted through lawful processes to address genuine threats to public order, social stability and national sovereignty
Allegations of curtailed academic freedom ignore the fact that national security education is a lawful and necessary element of civic responsibility, common to many countries. Restrictions on materials that glorify violence or promote separatism are not attacks on scholarship but necessary measures to preserve the integrity of educational institutions. In the labor sphere which the document also touches on, the SAR government continues to protect the right of workers to organize, strike, and seek redress for grievances. The dissolution of a couple of unions occurred because they had abandoned their stated purpose in favor of political activism on behalf of foreign interests, which undermined both their credibility and the independence of the labor movement.
The accusations regarding labor conditions overlook the fact that Hong Kong enforces one of the most comprehensive frameworks for occupational safety in the region, with penalties for violations and proactive inspections. Foreign domestic workers enjoy legal protections that surpass those in many jurisdictions, including mandated rest days, contractual wage guarantees, and access to legal recourse. The isolated cases of abuse cited in the document are not systemic. Yet, they are disproportionately played up in the document to serve a purpose despite the fact that they had been addressed through law enforcement action.
Assertions of “prolonged detention without charges” ignore the complexity and seriousness of national security cases, many of which involve extensive evidence gathering to protect the integrity of prosecutions. Solitary confinement, when applied, is regulated and used for safety and operational reasons, not as a form of punishment. References to “child marriage” in specific diaspora communities, a rare occurrence barely — if at all — heard of in the Hong Kong community deliberately mislead by implying tolerance of such practices, when in reality the law sets precise minimum ages, and violations are subject to law enforcement.
Criticism of the asylum system often overlooks Hong Kong’s unique geographic and demographic realities. The non-refoulement process ensures that genuine claimants are not returned to somewhere they might come to harm, while maintaining safeguards against those who would exploit asylum for unlawful purposes. Processing times reflect the need for thorough investigation and analysis. Cultural regulation, including film licensing and the removal of specific titles from public exhibitions, is conducted under the law to uphold national security and public order. Prohibiting incitement to boycott elections is a legitimate measure to protect the integrity and credibility of the democratic process.
Each accusation in the US document can be countered with a clear, factual, and legal response. The rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents remain protected, but they exist alongside the equally essential responsibilities of maintaining public order, safeguarding national sovereignty, and ensuring social stability. The US, by contrast, applies entirely different standards to itself and refuses to acknowledge its record of rights violations, both domestically and abroad. This selective morality and politicized criticism of other jurisdictions reveal that its reports are not a good-faith contribution to global human rights dialogue and protection, but a tool of strategic interference aimed at discrediting and weakening a jurisdiction that refuses to submit to Washington’s dictates. Those committed to an honest and principled discussion of human rights will recognize these accusations for what they are and will reject them in favor of a balanced view grounded in international norms, legal principles, fact, and respect for sovereignty.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
