China's accuses UN rights chief of 'inappropriate' interference

After Bachelet called for investigations into alleged excessive use of force by police in Hong Kong


Afp December 01, 2019
China's mission to the UN in Geneva said an op-ed written by United Nations human rights chief Michelle Bachelet in the South China Morning Post was erroneous. PHOTO: AFP

GENEVA: China on Saturday accused UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet of "inappropriate" interference in the country's affairs after she called for investigations into alleged excessive use of force by police in Hong Kong.

China's mission to the UN in Geneva said an op-ed written by Bachelet in the South China Morning Post was "erroneous" and "violates the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

The article contains "inappropriate comments on the situation of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ... (and) interferes in China's internal affairs," said the Chinese mission's statement.

It added that China had "lodged strong representations" with the UN rights office in Geneva.

China summons US envoy, urges US to refrain from applying Hong Kong bill

In the article published earlier on Saturday, Bachelet urged authorities in Hong Kong to conduct "a proper independent and impartial judge-led investigation into reports of excessive use of force by the police."

Hong Kong's protests are fuelled by years of seething anger over China's perceived erosion of liberties in the semi-autonomous city.

There have been repeated violent clashes between police and protesters, who have called for police accountability and fully free elections.

Beijing denies stamping out Hong Kong's liberties and has portrayed the protests as a foreign-backed "colour revolution" aimed at destabilising mainland China.

China's mission to the UN said Bachelet's article "will only embolden the rioters to conduct more severe radical violence."

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ