Foreign news

Landslide Support For HK Law At UNHRC

Published

6 years ago

July 3, 2020

John Okeke

A total of 53 countries supported China’s national security law for Hong Kong at the 44th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva on Tuesday, triumphing over 27 members that attacked and called for harsh measures against China over issues involving Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet.

The landslide victory was seen by experts as showing that China’s achievements in human rights have won more supporters and become known by wider audiences. The double standards of some Western countries that tried to politicize the UNHRC and to use human rights-related issues as weapons to attack China, brought themselves more criticism within the international community.

On behalf of 53 countries, Cuba made a joint statement in Geneva on Tuesday, expressing support for China’s passing the national security law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The representative from Cuba said that not interfering with a sovereign state’s internal affairs is the basic principle of the UN Charter and the international order. The National Security Law for Hong Kong is China’s legitimate power. This is not a question about human rights and it should not be discussed at the human rights council, the Cuban representative said.

The Cuban representative stressed that every country has the right to safeguard its national security via legislative means, and enact measures based on such a purpose. Cuba welcomes the passing of the national security law for Hong Kong, stressing it sticks to the “one country, two systems” principle.

The person said the move is beneficial for Hong Kong’s long-term prosperity, and it guarantees that Hong Kong residents can better exercise their legal rights and freedoms in a safe environment.

Cuba said that Hong Kong is an inseparable part of China, and Hong Kong’s affairs are China’s internal affairs, and this should allow no interference from the outside. It also urged relevant parties to stop using Hong Kong to meddle in China’s internal affairs.

Meanwhile, UK’s Ambassador to the WTO and UN in Geneva Julian Braithwaite delivered a cross-regional joint statement on behalf of 27 countries at the session.

Braithwaite urged the Chinese governments to “reconsider the imposition of this legislation and to engage Hong Kong’s people, institutions and judiciary to prevent further erosion of the rights and freedoms that the people of Hong Kong have enjoyed for many years.”

Western countries now see the UNHRC as a platform to serve their own political purposes, and although the US has withdrawn from the council, it still has strong influence over many members in the organization, thus its allies are trying to speak for the US on the UNHRC, Zhu Ying, a professor of international law at Southwest University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times.

China’s Permanent Mission to the UN on Tuesday rejected a statement by Kelly Craft, US permanent representative to the UN, on what she claimed were China’s human rights “abuses.”

“On June 30, the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations issued a seriously biased statement, making baseless comments on China’s human rights situation and interfering in China’s internal affairs. China expresses strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition,” said a statement by a spokesperson of the Chinese mission.

Many human rights problems have surfaced in the Western world in recent years, the most recent being the death of George Floyd, which has sparked worldwide mass protests over racial problems, experts said. Tragedies like those have convinced people worldwide of how flawed Western human rights are.

However, such a human rights disaster has not led to wide criticism from so-called human rights fighters, such as Human Rights Watch, that were most vocal about China’s human rights problems, said Zhang Yonghe, professor and executive dean of the Human Rights Institution of Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing Municipality.

Zhang said it is their indulgence and double standards toward Western countries, especially the US, that have blinded the world about its negligence toward its own human rights problems.

“Now, China needs to tear off the cover and show the world how US-style human rights are,” Zhang said.

Zhu said that as China’s influence projected worldwide has grown stronger, more countries are recognizing China’s system of human rights, believing it provides an alternative model of how to improve people’s lives and secure sovereignty.

The UNHRC has become more polarized as countries vie to voice support for either Chinese style human rights or the Western type, said Zhu.

Countries should choose whatever type suits their own development, rather than subject the choice to selfish political purposes or use human rights issue as tool to attack other countries.

Share on Facebook

Foreign news

Court of Arbitration Declares Indus Waters Treaty Fully Operational Rejects India’s ‘Abeyance’

Published

1 month ago

August 31, 2026

The Gleamer

Cyril Ogar

The Court of Arbitration has unanimously reaffirmed that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains fully in force, ruling that India cannot unilaterally place the 1960 agreement in “abeyance” or suspend its obligations under the treaty.

The decision represents a significant legal development in the longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan over the management and use of the Indus river system.

The Court’s finding addresses a fundamental issue at the heart of the dispute: whether either party can unilaterally suspend the treaty outside the legal framework agreed by both countries.

In its unanimous determination, the Court made clear that the IWT continues to bind both India and Pakistan and that its obligations cannot be set aside through a unilateral political declaration.

The ruling means India remains subject to the treaty provisions governing the use of the Western Rivers, including requirements relating to the design and operation of hydroelectric projects, as well as the dispute-resolution mechanisms established under the agreement.

The Court has also ordered interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant, restricting specified construction activities while the broader dispute remains under consideration.

The measures are aimed at preserving the effectiveness of the arbitration process and preventing developments that could prejudice the outcome of the proceedings.

For Pakistan, the decision represents significant legal validation of its longstanding position that the IWT is a binding international agreement and contains no provision allowing either party to unilaterally place it in abeyance.

Pakistan has consistently maintained that disagreements over the treaty should be addressed through the institutional mechanisms established by the agreement, rather than through unilateral action.

The IWT provides a structured framework for resolving disputes through mechanisms including the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration processes.

The latest ruling therefore reinforces the principle that treaty obligations cannot simply be disregarded because of deteriorating political relations between signatories.

The significance of the decision extends beyond the India-Pakistan dispute. It underscores the broader international-law principle that agreements governing shared rivers and other transboundary resources must be respected and disputes resolved through established legal and institutional channels.

The Indus river system supports agriculture, livelihoods, food security and communities across the region, making the stability of the treaty particularly important.

The ruling also highlights the distinction between seeking to amend an international agreement through mutually agreed procedures and attempting to alter its obligations unilaterally.

The IWT has endured wars, prolonged diplomatic tensions and periods of limited bilateral engagement. Its continued operation demonstrates the importance of rules-based mechanisms in managing shared resources when relations between neighbouring states become strained.

For Pakistan, the outcome provides an opportunity to frame the decision not merely as a bilateral legal victory, but as an affirmation of international law, treaty compliance and peaceful dispute resolution.

The central message from the ruling is clear: the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force, its obligations continue to bind both parties, and disputes concerning shared waters must be addressed through the legal mechanisms agreed by India and Pakistan.

Share on Facebook