UN Report on China's Human Rights Abuses in Xinjiang Province Finally Released

[Frodo]

Finally the United Nations acknowledges the obvious:

https://twitter.com/PhelimKine/status/1565116203680649216

The report calls for an urgent international response over allegations of torture and other rights violations in Beijing's campaign to root out terrorism.

U.N. human rights chief Michelle Bachelet brushed aside Chinese calls for her office to withhold the report, which follows her own trip to Xinjiang in May and which Beijing's contends is part of a Western campaign to smear China's reputation.

The report has fanned a tug-of-war for diplomatic influence with the West over the rights of the region’s native Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic groups.

The report, which Western diplomats and U.N. officials said had been all but ready for months, was published with just minutes to go in Bachelet's four-year term. It was unexpected to break significant new ground beyond sweeping findings from independent advocacy groups and journalists who have documented concerns about human rights in Xinjiang for years.

But Bachelet’s report comes with the imprimatur of the United Nations, and the member states that make it up. The run-up to its release fueled a debate over China’s influence at the world body and epitomized the on-and-off diplomatic chill between Beijing and the West over human rights, among other sore spots.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I appreciate that they did not use the utterly over-used term "genocide" and instead went for something more measured while still acknowledging that something horrid is happening in that part of the world, and rigorously investigating.
They did their jobs well.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yeah, considering the UN's usual "diplomatic" standards this is a pretty decent report.

[Sol]

I appreciate that they did not use the utterly over-used term "genocide" and instead went for something more measured while still acknowledging that something horrid is happening in that part of the world, and rigorously investigating.
They did their jobs well.

Why not use genocide, if that's happening?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I appreciate that they did not use the utterly over-used term "genocide" and instead went for something more measured while still acknowledging that something horrid is happening in that part of the world, and rigorously investigating.
They did their jobs well.

Why not use genocide, if that's happening?

The word genocide is (increasingly?) watered down in the popular lexicon and I'm glad they opted for "crime against humanity". I've long been rather critical of the tendency for laymen to just use it (it here meaning the word "genocide") as some umbrella term for this massive variety of atrocities and I was never comfortable with the term's usage in the context of Xinjiang (where it was always extremely presumptive about a rather opaque situation).
In any case, good for the UN for giving us a gold-standard report as to what actually is going on there. They'd have the most incentive to put out the complete truth, than any other group that has weighed in so far.

[super6646]

I appreciate that they did not use the utterly over-used term "genocide" and instead went for something more measured while still acknowledging that something horrid is happening in that part of the world, and rigorously investigating.
They did their jobs well.

Why not use genocide, if that's happening?

The word genocide is (increasingly?) watered down in the popular lexicon and I'm glad they opted for "crime against humanity". I've long been rather critical of the tendency for laymen to just use it (it here meaning the word "genocide") as some umbrella term for this massive variety of atrocities and I was never comfortable with the term's usage in the context of Xinjiang (where it was always extremely presumptive about a rather opaque situation).
In any case, good for the UN for giving us a gold-standard report as to what actually is going on there. They'd have the most incentive to put out the complete truth, than any other group that has weighed in so far.

It can be a very controversial word, especially given that proving intent is almost impossible in these circumstances. Is the intent of the Chinese government to eradicate, in part or in full, the ueygers? Idk, the Chinese could say their intent is to deal with a security threat in xinjiang, but what China is doing is disgusting regardless of how you want to frame it.

As far as I’m aware, the only two genocides that don’t have any controversy attached to them is Rwanda and the Holocaust.

[CumbrianLefty]

As far as I’m aware, the only two genocides that don’t have any controversy attached to them is Rwanda and the Holocaust.

Even the latter has disputes over its actual definition.

I think that Cambodia in 1975-79 is also pretty widely accepted.

[super6646]

As far as I’m aware, the only two genocides that don’t have any controversy attached to them is Rwanda and the Holocaust.

Even the latter has disputes over its actual definition.

I think that Cambodia in 1975-79 is also pretty widely accepted.

Sorry, but I think the holocaust is an irrefutable genocide. The term genocide was coined BECAUSE of the Holocaust.

Forgot about Cambodia, but that one is pretty clear too.

[TheReckoning]

As far as I’m aware, the only two genocides that don’t have any controversy attached to them is Rwanda and the Holocaust.

Even the latter has disputes over its actual definition.

I think that Cambodia in 1975-79 is also pretty widely accepted.

Sorry, but I think the holocaust is an irrefutable genocide. The term genocide was coined BECAUSE of the Holocaust.

Forgot about Cambodia, but that one is pretty clear too.

OP was referring to the question of whether or not non-Jewish victims of the Nazi extermination campaigns (mostly Roma, but others as well) are a part of the “Holocaust” genocide, or separate genocides in their own right.

[Santander]

I appreciate that they did not use the utterly over-used term "genocide" and instead went for something more measured while still acknowledging that something horrid is happening in that part of the world, and rigorously investigating.
They did their jobs well.

Why not use genocide, if that's happening?

It's called assimilation.

[super6646]

As far as I’m aware, the only two genocides that don’t have any controversy attached to them is Rwanda and the Holocaust.

Even the latter has disputes over its actual definition.

I think that Cambodia in 1975-79 is also pretty widely accepted.

Sorry, but I think the holocaust is an irrefutable genocide. The term genocide was coined BECAUSE of the Holocaust.

Forgot about Cambodia, but that one is pretty clear too.

OP was referring to the question of whether or not non-Jewish victims of the Nazi extermination campaigns (mostly Roma, but others as well) are a part of the “Holocaust” genocide, or separate genocides in their own right.

Ah okay. That makes a lot more sense. Apologies for insinuating otherwise.

[super6646]

As far as I’m aware, the only two genocides that don’t have any controversy attached to them is Rwanda and the Holocaust.

Even the latter has disputes over its actual definition.

I think that Cambodia in 1975-79 is also pretty widely accepted.

Sorry, but I think the holocaust is an irrefutable genocide. The term genocide was coined BECAUSE of the Holocaust.

Forgot about Cambodia, but that one is pretty clear too.

OP was referring to the question of whether or not non-Jewish victims of the Nazi extermination campaigns (mostly Roma, but others as well) are a part of the “Holocaust” genocide, or separate genocides in their own right.

Ah okay. That makes a lot more sense. Apologies for insinuating otherwise Cumbrian.

[CumbrianLefty]

As far as I’m aware, the only two genocides that don’t have any controversy attached to them is Rwanda and the Holocaust.

Even the latter has disputes over its actual definition.

I think that Cambodia in 1975-79 is also pretty widely accepted.

Sorry, but I think the holocaust is an irrefutable genocide. The term genocide was coined BECAUSE of the Holocaust.

Forgot about Cambodia, but that one is pretty clear too.

OP was referring to the question of whether or not non-Jewish victims of the Nazi extermination campaigns (mostly Roma, but others as well) are a part of the “Holocaust” genocide, or separate genocides in their own right.

Ah okay. That makes a lot more sense. Apologies for insinuating otherwise.

No problem