Description
While since the 1970s, the US portrays herself as a global champion of human rights, even within the US politics there have been fierce criticisms on the value of a human rights agenda and the role of the US annual human rights country reports. The importance of the ACRs is twofold. On the one hand ACRs are tied to USAID yet on the other hand they are also used by various think tanks and projects in producing quantifiable data and global rankings with global indicators of human rights sourcing these reports. In a sense, US diplomats become producers of knowledge for global human rights standards through the ACRs and play an important role in furthering the US human rights agenda and the distribution of USAID funding. The controversial Project 2025 included a chapter 6 on the Department of State prepared by Kiron K. Skinner. The actual and authentic human rights are Sovereignty. Human Rights documents should not be approached as a “living instrument”. It is clear that Trump like he did in his first term would be keen to use it against China. (Project 2025 p.800 and 810). The Trump administration recently scaled back the 2024 ACRs reports along the lines of the Project 2025 scepticism on the human rights priorities in the US foreign policy agenda. Since the 1980s, China’s ACRs has always been one of the most vetted and politicised report. A prevalent theme in the ACRs for China that anything that could have a detrimental impact on any kind of US foreign policy has been off the table. This paper explores continuity and changes in the Human Rights agenda US Foreign policy towards China through a discourse analysis of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: China.
