5 ms·

Every time I read about what China is doing to Uighurs, my heart sinks. Putting people in camps, monitoring their every move, coating it all with bureaucracy an

Every time I read about what China is doing to Uighurs, my heart sinks. Putting people in camps, monitoring their every move, coating it all with bureaucracy and lies. This is what genocide looks like. And nobody has the courage to stand up to China. Not even to publicly denounce them. Isn't this what the UN is for? To impose economic sanctions on flagrant human rights abusers? (Please, no whataboutism replies, what any other country is doing does not justify what China is doing.)

godelmachine 7y ago
The US is actually trying to raise some noise about this, but few are willing to join the fray. But for now, forget UN and forget the West. Even the Islamic World and it's biggest representative, the OIC, is reluctant to even make a comment about it! Totally appalling!
- deogeo 7y ago
  > The US is actually trying to raise some noise about this, but few are willing to join the fray. 'Soft power' such as https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equit... might help explain US/global unwillingness to be too noisy. tldr: "In short, the Chinese government was literally funding a business that it co-owned along with the sons of two of America’s most powerful decision makers."
bmmayer1 7y ago
Don't know why this is getting downvotes. Unfortunately, international norms or UN sanctions don't have any teeth against world powers. It's just the unfortunate aspect of realpolitik that we all have to deal with.
Daikoba 7y ago
Why should someone stood up to China in the first place ? The UN is not a world government nor a international court, and Human Rights are a series of agreements between states. China is not compelled to agree to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- mattnewport 7y ago
  Indeed, China was not compelled to agree to the Declaration of Human Rights, they signed on to it voluntarily.
  - Leary 7y ago
    It was the Republic of China that signed on to it.
    - mattnewport 7y ago
      Are you suggesting China's official position today is that it is no longer bound by its previous agreement? They could officially withdraw if that were the case. Articles like this from 2008 don't give any indication that they feel that way: https://web.archive.org/web/20160729200250/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/09/content_10477130.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20160729200250/http://news.xinhu...
marcosdumay 7y ago
The UN is for avoiding wars. It has a secondary objective of providing mutual economical gains. It has a much less preponderant mission of incentivizing the adoption of human rights and democracy, but none of the tools for that. Any effective structure with this goal would be opposed by most of its members (or maybe even nearly all). Strong countries can impose some human rights on weaker ones, and they do use the UN as a forum for that, but China is strong enough for nobody to mess with them.
coryrc 7y ago
The UN has done nothing about atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and North Korea, among so many more, so don't expect any change here.
- jordigh 7y ago
  I specifically said, no whataboutism please.
  - ves 7y ago
    That’s not the sort of whataboutism you called out in your comment, because the parent isn’t justifying Chinese actions, but pointing out that the U.N. hasn’t acted in similar cases and so it’s not unreasonable to think that they wouldn’t act here.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please keep the tired trope of "whataboutism" off HN. It has become a cliché, used to cordon off discussion to what the original speaker wants to talk about—as if speaking first conferred some right to decide what is admissible. That's not how conversation works. Comparables are often relevant, and looking for contradictions in what people argue or believe is a tool for shedding light on a situation. Somehow the word "whataboutism" became catchy enough that people started to believe in the right to exclude unwanted examples this way, but that's clearly a fallacy. If you can show how I'm applying a principle selectively in different cases, you've taught me something valuable. We need to stay open to that. There's a subtler fallacy worth pointing out too: it doesn't follow that you're justifying the thing I'm against. That is, if you point out an inconsistency or some comparable example on my side of the argument, it doesn't follow that you're a communist or whatnot. Maybe you are, maybe not. Maybe we actually agree. All that follows is that you've found an inconsistency in me, and that's information I need. When someone brings up an example that they think is relevant and you don't, the way to refute that is not with a garlic word, but to explain what the significant difference is. If there isn't a significant difference, maybe it's not irrelevant. People do bring up irrelevancies, but that's rarer than it seems. More likely it's that they have a different perspective on what's relevant, as part of the original disagreement that needs hashing out in the first place. Cordoning off discussion doesn't help with that, and no party to a dispute gets the power to draw the lines of what's in and out for everybody. Indeed, that would amount to the power to impose one's view on the entire dispute. And I wonder: if we could agree on what's relevant, perhaps by including everything we both really care about, how close that might get us to resolving our conflict itself.
voldacar 7y ago
It's telling that you're getting downvoted for posting literal facts to HN
- dang 7y ago
  That is far from an accurate description of the comment, irrespective of one's view on the topic. Your post here breaks the site guidelines. Would you please read them, and follow them when commenting here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
mfatica 7y ago
The current US president has been fairly tough on china - through vocal statements as well as tariffs and other actions.
keanzu 7y ago
The permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) can veto any "substantive" resolution.

godelmachine 7y ago

The US is actually trying to raise some noise about this, but few are willing to join the fray. But for now, forget UN and forget the West. Even the Islamic World and it's biggest representative, the OIC, is reluctant to even make a comment about it! Totally appalling!

deogeo 7y ago
> The US is actually trying to raise some noise about this, but few are willing to join the fray. 'Soft power' such as https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equit... might help explain US/global unwillingness to be too noisy. tldr: "In short, the Chinese government was literally funding a business that it co-owned along with the sons of two of America’s most powerful decision makers."

bmmayer1 7y ago

Don't know why this is getting downvotes. Unfortunately, international norms or UN sanctions don't have any teeth against world powers. It's just the unfortunate aspect of realpolitik that we all have to deal with.

Daikoba 7y ago

Why should someone stood up to China in the first place ? The UN is not a world government nor a international court, and Human Rights are a series of agreements between states. China is not compelled to agree to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

mattnewport 7y ago
Indeed, China was not compelled to agree to the Declaration of Human Rights, they signed on to it voluntarily.
- Leary 7y ago
  It was the Republic of China that signed on to it.
  - mattnewport 7y ago
    Are you suggesting China's official position today is that it is no longer bound by its previous agreement? They could officially withdraw if that were the case. Articles like this from 2008 don't give any indication that they feel that way: https://web.archive.org/web/20160729200250/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/09/content_10477130.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20160729200250/http://news.xinhu...

marcosdumay 7y ago

The UN is for avoiding wars. It has a secondary objective of providing mutual economical gains. It has a much less preponderant mission of incentivizing the adoption of human rights and democracy, but none of the tools for that. Any effective structure with this goal would be opposed by most of its members (or maybe even nearly all). Strong countries can impose some human rights on weaker ones, and they do use the UN as a forum for that, but China is strong enough for nobody to mess with them.

coryrc 7y ago

The UN has done nothing about atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and North Korea, among so many more, so don't expect any change here.

jordigh 7y ago
I specifically said, no whataboutism please.
- ves 7y ago
  That’s not the sort of whataboutism you called out in your comment, because the parent isn’t justifying Chinese actions, but pointing out that the U.N. hasn’t acted in similar cases and so it’s not unreasonable to think that they wouldn’t act here.
- dang 7y ago
  Please keep the tired trope of "whataboutism" off HN. It has become a cliché, used to cordon off discussion to what the original speaker wants to talk about—as if speaking first conferred some right to decide what is admissible. That's not how conversation works. Comparables are often relevant, and looking for contradictions in what people argue or believe is a tool for shedding light on a situation. Somehow the word "whataboutism" became catchy enough that people started to believe in the right to exclude unwanted examples this way, but that's clearly a fallacy. If you can show how I'm applying a principle selectively in different cases, you've taught me something valuable. We need to stay open to that. There's a subtler fallacy worth pointing out too: it doesn't follow that you're justifying the thing I'm against. That is, if you point out an inconsistency or some comparable example on my side of the argument, it doesn't follow that you're a communist or whatnot. Maybe you are, maybe not. Maybe we actually agree. All that follows is that you've found an inconsistency in me, and that's information I need. When someone brings up an example that they think is relevant and you don't, the way to refute that is not with a garlic word, but to explain what the significant difference is. If there isn't a significant difference, maybe it's not irrelevant. People do bring up irrelevancies, but that's rarer than it seems. More likely it's that they have a different perspective on what's relevant, as part of the original disagreement that needs hashing out in the first place. Cordoning off discussion doesn't help with that, and no party to a dispute gets the power to draw the lines of what's in and out for everybody. Indeed, that would amount to the power to impose one's view on the entire dispute. And I wonder: if we could agree on what's relevant, perhaps by including everything we both really care about, how close that might get us to resolving our conflict itself.

voldacar 7y ago

It's telling that you're getting downvoted for posting literal facts to HN

dang 7y ago
That is far from an accurate description of the comment, irrespective of one's view on the topic. Your post here breaks the site guidelines. Would you please read them, and follow them when commenting here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mfatica 7y ago

The current US president has been fairly tough on china - through vocal statements as well as tariffs and other actions.

keanzu 7y ago

The permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) can veto any "substantive" resolution.