Lau Nai-keung ('An outrageous breach of loyalty', March 9) makes some interesting points in his comments on the debate over Martin Lee Chu-ming's appearance before a US congressional committee.
However, his logic is flawed when he compares this to a Chinese reaction to human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.
Not only is it perfectly legitimate for one country to examine human rights violations by another, but it is in fact mandated under international law.
Not only are countries encouraged to be frank about their human rights shortcomings, but they are committed to doing so through their international citizenship as members of the United Nations and under the treaties they ratify.
Thus China, as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, has committed to provide regular, comprehensive and frank reports to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in an open forum. This allows for international scrutiny and the opportunity for constructive suggestions for improvement of the human rights situation.
Similarly, the US, as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is accountable to the international community for protecting those under its jurisdiction from human rights abuses.