The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified Apr 20, 2021 Jeffrey D. Sachs , William Schabas
US President Joe Biden's administration has doubled down on the claim that China is mounting a genocide against the Uighur people in the Xinjiang region. But it has offered no proof, and unless it can, the State Department should withdraw the charge and support a UN-based investigation of the situation in Xinjiang.
NEW YORK/LONDON – The US government needlessly escalated its rhetoric against China by claiming that a genocide is being mounted against the Uighur people in the Xinjiang region. Such a grave charge matters, as genocide is rightly considered “the crime of crimes.” Many pundits are now calling for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, dubbing them the “Genocide Olympics.”
The genocide charge was made on the final day of Donald Trump’s administration by then-Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who made no secret of his belief in lying as a tool of US foreign policy. Now President Joe Biden’s administration has doubled down on Pompeo’s flimsy claim, even though the State Department’s own top lawyers reportedly share our skepticism regarding the charge.This year’s State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (HRP) follows Pompeo in accusing China of genocide in Xinjiang. Because the HRP never uses the term other than once in the report’s preface and again in the executive summary of the China chapter, readers are left to guess about the evidence. Much of the report deals with issues like freedom of expression, refugee protection, and free elections, which have scant bearing on the genocide charge.There are credible charges of human rights abuses against Uighurs, but those do not per se constitute genocide. And we must understand the context of the Chinese crackdown in Xinjiang, which had essentially the same motivation as America’s foray into the Middle East and Central Asia after the September 2001 attacks: to stop the terrorism of militant Islamic groups.As the Hong Kong-based businessman and writer Weijian Shan has recounted, China experienced repeated terrorist attacks in Xinjiang during the same years that America’s flawed response to 9/11 led to repeated US violations of international law and massive bloodshed. Indeed, until late 2020, the US classified the Uighur East Turkestan Islamic Movement as a terrorist group, battled Uighur fighters in Afghanistan, and held many as prisoners. In July 2020, the United Nations noted the presence of thousands of Uighur fighters in Afghanistan and Syria. The charge of genocide should never be made lightly. Inappropriate use of the term may escalate geopolitical and military tensions and devalue the historical memory of genocides such as the Holocaust, thereby hindering the ability to prevent future genocides. It behooves the US government to make any charge of genocide responsibly, which it has failed to do here.
Genocide is defined under international law by the UN Genocide Convention ( 1948). Subsequent judicial decisions have clarified its meaning. Most countries, including the United States, have incorporated the Convention’s definition into their domestic legislation without any significant alteration. In the past few decades, the leading UN courts have confirmed that the definition requires proof to a very high standard of the intentional physical destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
The definition specifies that one of five acts must be perpetrated. Obviously, killing tops the list. The State Department’s report on China says there were “numerous reports” of killings, but that “few or no details were available,” and cites only one case – that of a Uighur man detained since 2017 who died of natural causes, according to the authorities. The report doesn’t even explain why the official explanation should be questioned.Technically, genocide can be proven even without evidence that people were killed. But because courts require proof of intent to destroy the group physically, it is hard to make the case in the absence of proof of large-scale killings. This is especially true when there is no direct evidence of genocidal intent, for example in the form of policy statements, but merely circumstantial evidence, what international courts refer to as a “pattern of conduct.”International courts have repeatedly said that where genocide charges are based only upon inferences drawn from a pattern of conduct, alternative explanations must be ruled out definitively. That’s why the International Court of Justice rejected in 2015 the genocide charge against Serbia and the counter-charge against Croatia, despite evidence of brutal ethnic cleansing in Croatia.So, what else might constitute evidence of genocide in China? The State Department report refers to mass internment of perhaps one million Uighurs. If proven, that would constitute a gross violation of human rights; but, again, it is not evidence, per se, of intent to exterminate. Another of the five recognized acts of genocide is “ imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.” The State Department report refers to China’s notoriously aggressive birth-control policies. Until recently, China strictly enforced its one-child policy on the majority of its population but was more liberal toward ethnic minorities, including the Uighur.Today, the one-child policy is no longer applied to the majority Han Chinese, but stricter measures have been imposed on Xinjiang’s Muslim minority, whose families are traditionally larger than China’s average. Still, Xinjiang records a positive overall population growth rate, with the Uighur population growing faster than the non-Uighur population in Xinjiang during 2010-18.
The genocide charge is being fueled by “studies” like the Newlines Institute report that recently made global headlines. Newlines is described as a “non-partisan” Washington, DC-based think tank. On closer inspection, it appears to be a project of a tiny Virginia-based university with 153 students, eight full-time faculty, and an apparently conservative policy agenda. Other leading human rights organizations have refrained from using the term.
UN experts are rightly calling for the UN to investigate the situation in Xinjiang. China’s government, for its part, has recently stated that it would welcome a UN mission to Xinjiang based on “exchanges and cooperation,” not on “guilty before proven.” Unless the State Department can substantiate the genocide accusation, it should withdraw the charge. It should also support a UN-led investigation of the situation in Xinjiang. The work of the UN, and notably of UN Human Rights Special Rapporteurs, is essential to promote the letter and spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
外交部发言人赵立坚。薛伟 摄
中新网北京4月23日电 (记者 张素)美国媒体近日批评美国在毫无证据情况下污蔑中国
在新疆实行“种族灭绝”，中国外交部发言人赵立坚23日在例行记者会上对此作出积极回应。
20日，美国知名评论专栏“世界报业辛迪加”网站发表题为《对新疆种族灭绝的指控毫无根据》的文章称，美国在毫无证据情况下污蔑中国在新疆实行“种族灭绝”，呼吁美政府改弦更张，放弃这一严重不实指控。有记者问中方对此有何评论。
赵立坚首先为美媒此举点赞。他说，美国“世界报业辛迪加”发表的有关文章立场客观、内容翔实，“我们要为有关媒体和作者就涉疆问题发出的正义之声叫好点赞”。
他随后表示，正如文章指出的，对中国在新疆实行“种族灭绝”的指控几乎没有证据，多数来源于虚假报告。事实上，中方已反复详细介绍新疆的真实情况。所谓新疆“种族灭绝”，完全是极端反华势力蓄意炮制的世纪谎言，是污蔑抹黑中国的荒唐闹剧，真正目的是打着人权旗号破坏新疆稳定，遏制中国发展，他们的图谋不会得逞。
赵立坚还注意到，文章并指出，中国涉疆政策的背景是反对恐怖主义。他说，中方已多次就涉疆问题阐明立场。涉疆问题的本质是反暴恐、去极端化和反分裂问题。新疆曾深受恐怖主义、宗教极端主义之害，人民生命安全受到严重威胁。面对这样的形势，中国政府坚决依法打击一切形式的恐怖主义，付出了巨大的努力和牺牲。有关举措取得积极成效，新疆连续4年多未发生暴力恐怖案件，各族人民都十分珍惜这来之不易的安定生
活。
近来，国际上越来越多人士就涉疆问题发出客观公正声音。”赵立坚举例说，包括美国独立新闻网站“灰色地带”刊文揭露涉疆“种族灭绝”世纪谎言、香港《南华早报》刊文讲述中国反恐努力并揭露西方在反恐问题上的双重标准，以及法国作家维瓦斯所著的《维吾尔族假新闻的终结》一书，这充分说明公道自在人心，谎言无法掩盖真相。
“我们相信国际上会有越来越多秉持客观公正立场的人士仗义执言，讲述新疆的事实真相，发出正义之声。”他说。(完)
The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified
Apr 20, 2021
Jeffrey D. Sachs , William Schabas
US President Joe Biden's administration has doubled down on the claim that
China is mounting a genocide against the Uighur people in the Xinjiang
region. But it has offered no proof, and unless it can, the State Department should withdraw the charge and support a UN-based investigation of the
situation in Xinjiang.
NEW YORK/LONDON – The US government needlessly escalated its rhetoric
against China by claiming that a genocide is being mounted against the
Uighur people in the Xinjiang region. Such a grave charge matters, as
genocide is rightly considered “the crime of crimes.” Many pundits are now calling for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, dubbing them the “Genocide Olympics.”
The genocide charge was made on the final day of Donald Trump’s
administration by then-Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who made no secret of his belief in lying as a tool of US foreign policy. Now President Joe
Biden’s administration has doubled down on Pompeo’s flimsy claim, even
though the State Department’s own top lawyers reportedly share our
skepticism regarding the charge.This year’s State Department Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices (HRP) follows Pompeo in accusing China of genocide in Xinjiang. Because the HRP never uses the term other than once in the report’s preface and again in the executive summary of the China
chapter, readers are left to guess about the evidence. Much of the report
deals with issues like freedom of expression, refugee protection, and free
elections, which have scant bearing on the genocide charge.There are
credible charges of human rights abuses against Uighurs, but those do not
per se constitute genocide. And we must understand the context of the
Chinese crackdown in Xinjiang, which had essentially the same motivation as America’s foray into the Middle East and Central Asia after the September
2001 attacks: to stop the terrorism of militant Islamic groups.As the Hong
Kong-based businessman and writer Weijian Shan has recounted, China
experienced repeated terrorist attacks in Xinjiang during the same years
that America’s flawed response to 9/11 led to repeated US violations of
international law and massive bloodshed. Indeed, until late 2020, the US
classified the Uighur East Turkestan Islamic Movement as a terrorist group, battled Uighur fighters in Afghanistan, and held many as prisoners. In July 2020, the United Nations noted the presence of thousands of Uighur fighters in Afghanistan and Syria. The charge of genocide should never be made
lightly. Inappropriate use of the term may escalate geopolitical and
military tensions and devalue the historical memory of genocides such as the Holocaust, thereby hindering the ability to prevent future genocides. It
behooves the US government to make any charge of genocide responsibly, which it has failed to do here.
Genocide is defined under international law by the UN Genocide Convention (
1948). Subsequent judicial decisions have clarified its meaning. Most
countries, including the United States, have incorporated the Convention’s definition into their domestic legislation without any significant
alteration. In the past few decades, the leading UN courts have confirmed
that the definition requires proof to a very high standard of the
intentional physical destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
The definition specifies that one of five acts must be perpetrated.
Obviously, killing tops the list. The State Department’s report on China
says there were “numerous reports” of killings, but that “few or no
details were available,” and cites only one case – that of a Uighur man
detained since 2017 who died of natural causes, according to the authorities. The report doesn’t even explain why the official explanation should be
questioned.Technically, genocide can be proven even without evidence that
people were killed. But because courts require proof of intent to destroy
the group physically, it is hard to make the case in the absence of proof of large-scale killings. This is especially true when there is no direct
evidence of genocidal intent, for example in the form of policy statements, but merely circumstantial evidence, what international courts refer to as a “pattern of conduct.”International courts have repeatedly said that where genocide charges are based only upon inferences drawn from a pattern of
conduct, alternative explanations must be ruled out definitively. That’s
why the International Court of Justice rejected in 2015 the genocide charge against Serbia and the counter-charge against Croatia, despite evidence of
brutal ethnic cleansing in Croatia.So, what else might constitute evidence
of genocide in China? The State Department report refers to mass internment of perhaps one million Uighurs. If proven, that would constitute a gross
violation of human rights; but, again, it is not evidence, per se, of intent to exterminate. Another of the five recognized acts of genocide is “
imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.” The State
Department report refers to China’s notoriously aggressive birth-control
policies. Until recently, China strictly enforced its one-child policy on
the majority of its population but was more liberal toward ethnic minorities, including the Uighur.Today, the one-child policy is no longer applied to
the majority Han Chinese, but stricter measures have been imposed on
Xinjiang’s Muslim minority, whose families are traditionally larger than
China’s average. Still, Xinjiang records a positive overall population
growth rate, with the Uighur population growing faster than the non-Uighur
population in Xinjiang during 2010-18.
The genocide charge is being fueled by “studies” like the Newlines
Institute report that recently made global headlines. Newlines is described as a “non-partisan” Washington, DC-based think tank. On closer inspection, it appears to be a project of a tiny Virginia-based university with 153
students, eight full-time faculty, and an apparently conservative policy
agenda. Other leading human rights organizations have refrained from using
the term.
UN experts are rightly calling for the UN to investigate the situation in
Xinjiang. China’s government, for its part, has recently stated that it
would welcome a UN mission to Xinjiang based on “exchanges and cooperation,” not on “guilty before proven.” Unless the State Department can
substantiate the genocide accusation, it should withdraw the charge. It
should also support a UN-led investigation of the situation in Xinjiang. The work of the UN, and notably of UN Human Rights Special Rapporteurs, is
essential to promote the letter and spirit of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.