I can’t find a reputable international human rights organization that calls it a genocide. Human Rights violations, sure. Crimes against humanity, maybe, but not genocide.
The U.N. rights council on Thursday voted down a Western-led motion to hold a debate about alleged human rights abuses by China against Uyghurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang in a victory for Beijing as it seeks to avoid further scrutiny.
The defeat - 19 against, 17 for, 11 abstentions - is only the second time in the council’s 16-year history that a motion has been rejected and is seen by observers as a setback to both accountability efforts, the West’s moral authority on human rights and the credibility of the United Nations itself. Source
If it’s a genocide, why hasn’t it been taken to the International Court of Justice?
An alternative route is provided by the International Court of Justice, as highlightedby the Uyghur Tribunal, which stated: “It is unfortunate that no efforts have been made by those [countries who declared China to be perpetrating genocide in Xinjiang] or other countries to have the issue dealt with at the ICJ, as might happen if a country had the courage to take the matter there.” Source
A majority of the countries that voted with China on that attempt were/are extremely tied to China and heavily economically reliant on China, and upsetting China enough means a potential economic crisis.
(UNCTAD & World Bank)
(note that Venezuela actually imported more from China than the US in 2020 according to some sources)
It only makes sense for them to not vote against China, no matter their actual crimes, it would be biting the hand that feeds them. It’s a similar reason as to why almost no country officially recognizes Taiwan as its own country separate from PRC, despite continuing relations with Taiwan and even importing a lot from them.
Of course, EU/NATO/NATO-ish countries don’t exactly care as much because their thoughts on China have long been established, China economically relies on them to a large extent, and they don’t have as much to lose if China hypothetically did get a bit angry at them. The richer ones also have very low risk of actual “consequences” when criticizing the US so they tend to do it quite a lot, but here they seem to be in agreement.
Exactly. When the accused has paid off half the jury, you shouldn’t put much stock in the verdict.
The only thing I care about when determining whether something is a genocide is the facts of the case (which are overwhelmingly in favor of describing the Uyghur genocide as a genocide), not the outcome of a highly political vote by countries all with their own motives and interests.
It’s almost like it would be geopolitically in America and Europe’s interest to over exaggerate a humanitarian crisis in China. And for China to minimize the cultural impact it’s policies have on the Uyghurs.
I can’t find a reputable international human rights organization that calls it a genocide. Human Rights violations, sure. Crimes against humanity, maybe, but not genocide.
If it’s a genocide, why hasn’t it been taken to the International Court of Justice?
A majority of the countries that voted with China on that attempt were/are extremely tied to China and heavily economically reliant on China, and upsetting China enough means a potential economic crisis.
(UNCTAD & World Bank)
(note that Venezuela actually imported more from China than the US in 2020 according to some sources)
It only makes sense for them to not vote against China, no matter their actual crimes, it would be biting the hand that feeds them. It’s a similar reason as to why almost no country officially recognizes Taiwan as its own country separate from PRC, despite continuing relations with Taiwan and even importing a lot from them.
Of course, EU/NATO/NATO-ish countries don’t exactly care as much because their thoughts on China have long been established, China economically relies on them to a large extent, and they don’t have as much to lose if China hypothetically did get a bit angry at them. The richer ones also have very low risk of actual “consequences” when criticizing the US so they tend to do it quite a lot, but here they seem to be in agreement.
Exactly. When the accused has paid off half the jury, you shouldn’t put much stock in the verdict.
The only thing I care about when determining whether something is a genocide is the facts of the case (which are overwhelmingly in favor of describing the Uyghur genocide as a genocide), not the outcome of a highly political vote by countries all with their own motives and interests.
It’s almost like it would be geopolitically in America and Europe’s interest to over exaggerate a humanitarian crisis in China. And for China to minimize the cultural impact it’s policies have on the Uyghurs.