News
join-lemmy.org
  • Merlu@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year ago

    It’s more nuanced than that.

    1. The first head of state to use the term genocide to describe the Uyghur as genocide is the Trump administration, that is to say, a regular in fake news who disregards human rights, which casts serious doubt on his humanitarian motivations.
    2. To be called genocide, an oppression must comply with specific criteria such as a desire to eradicate a people, the current situation is more a disproportionate repression under the pretext of struggle against terrorism than a desire of eradication.
    3. Inappropriate use of the term genocide can be harmful, fuel international tensions that could lead us to a new cold war and complicate struggles against real genocides.
    4. As said in the point 1., the states who accuse China of genocide aren’t really care about human rights, and had no problems with exactions from China when they were commercial partners. Stating that China is doing a genocide is only a way to weakens the said state as it become recently our commercial rival. Other exactions and genocides are happening in many places in the world in full indifference from the very people who pretend to care about the Uyghur’s fate, Uyghur whom they had not been shy to qualify as terrorists in the past.
    5. Deny the Uyghur doesn’t mean a unconditional defence of China.

    More details in an article written by Jeffrey Sachs, Special Consultant to the Secretary General of the United Nations, who cannot in good faith be qualified as chinese communist party sympatizant.

    • Nadya@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      A year and change after that article the OHCHR finally published an assessment.

      The report remains largely inconclusive of the issues of Uyghur women through involuntary procedures(d), targeted mistreatment and torture of the Uyghur people (b), and working to abolish both their language and religion which together would help constitute the argument that a genocide is taking place. However it did seem to draw conclusive evidence that mass violations of human rights were taking place.

      • (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
      • © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
      • (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

      I’d be more apologetic to this argument of “It isn’t genocide - but only mass violations of human rights targeted at the Uyghur people!” if that was actually the defense being used by Tankies. But this isn’t the defense Tankies use. They claim nothing bad is happening at all in the VETCs and that it is entirely Western propaganda and that no systemic violation of human rights is happening as a result of the State’s policies. Which is in contradiction with the UN report in § VIII. Overall assessment and recommendations.

      The nature of the violations certainly can follow under “pattern of conduct” and, as mentioned in the article, proving anything in court can be incredibly difficult. Especially when the actual laws and statements put out by The State are intentionally vague and open to interpretation (as the OHCHR report makes mention of). This means The State can openly deny that the policy was intended to be genocide while being complicit in it by turning a blind eye in how officials have implemented the policy.

      And again - China would not even be the first country to utilize such a political strategy. Where a policy is ostensibly meant for one purpose but is predominately used for an entirely different purpose that The State is complicit in because the “other purpose” was always the intended purpose. See also: The US Patriot Act.