4 ms·

>Basically everyone Plurality of countries, including majority Islamic countries, have stated positions that still support Chinese actions in XJ as counter ins

>Basically everyone Plurality of countries, including majority Islamic countries, have stated positions that still support Chinese actions in XJ as counter insurgency. CCP has and maintained the dominant narrative. >semantic point Semantics is the only context that matters if the goal is to trigger legal consequences. Cultural genocide doesn't legally exist, it's a more apt label but one that does not have any diplomatic consequences. Hence effort to over-exaggerate, which has and will fail for the simple reasons that 1) it's not correct 2) China has more support. >being too aggressive Outside of possibly a few FVEY countries making effort to coordinate their own deliberations, the majority of the world will not adopt genocide label because they understand the US led initiative is bullshit and self-serving. There's a reason Pompeo tried to bypass straight into genocide despite crimes against humanity being a more appropriate label as determined by the review findings of his own state department. Crimes against humanity, while more formalized than cultural genocide, still does not have comprehensive convention or consequences. No one is obligated to sanction or punish crimes against humanity. And if it ever did, it would open up US actions to similar scrutiny. It's why the Hague Invasion Act exists.

danShumway 6y ago
> including majority Islamic countries Other people have brought this up in other parts of the comment section, but this is the "I have a Black friend" argument against recognizing cultural genocide. My point was that there is not a legitimate debate happening here over the severity of what China is doing, just a semantic debate over what word to use to describe the problem. Unless you're seriously arguing that we should be debating whether or not Uighurs are a "counter insurgency?" But OK, fine, I'll concede that not literally everyone agrees that what China is doing is a human rights violation. Just everyone who's arguing in good faith and paying any attention to the overwhelming evidence of what's happening. > Semantics is the only context that matters if the goal is to trigger legal consequences. You're concerned that the genocide definition won't work in court, and your suggestion is to instead use a term that explicitly does not have legal consequences? You immediately go on to say: > Crimes against humanity, while more formalized than cultural genocide, still does not have comprehensive convention or consequences. This is exactly why the semantic word games people are playing to artificially narrow the definition of genocide have nothing to do with being "precise" and everything to do with removing our responsibility to address the problem. You are yourself claiming that no one is obligated to sanction or hold China accountable under the terminology you want to apply. It's silly and harmful to try and solve the problem of this potentially not holding up in court by making sure that there is no court in the first place and by making sure that no country has any obligation to do anything. > because they understand the US led initiative is bullshit and self-serving China is engaging in the organized torture and elimination of an ethnic group, including systematic rape, reeducation camps, and forced abortions. Get out of here with this "it's just theater" crap, human rights violations at this scale are worth caring about on the international stage. This doesn't need to be a US led initiative, but somebody has to lead it. I am very unsympathetic to claims that I should be more concerned about the US's political goals and posturing than I should be about ethnic cleansing. > it would open up US actions to similar scrutiny This is a false equivalency, the US is not engaged in cultural genocide. But regardless, who cares if it would open the US up to scrutiny? Countries should be sanctioning the United States when it commits crimes against humanity. Please do. This is "both-sides" nonsense. It's saying that because every country has sins that therefore no one ought to address a country that is systematically eliminating an entire culture. It is not a problem if more countries sanction each other over atrocities on this scale. It would be unambiguously good if the international community (including the US) held itself to a higher standard on human rights.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  > It would be unambiguously good if the international community (including the US) held itself to a higher standard on human rights. Sure, then prosecute XJ for what it is, not what it's not. Use XJ as opportunity to formalize conventions and punishments for crimes against humanity and cultural genocide. The genocide strategy is not designed to do that, it's a reach designed to undermine China while explicitly not setting the standards higher for everyone else. More cynically, it's partisan domestic politics (from several countries) because curtailing is not realistic. It's feasible to pursue a credible human rights strategy, but this isn't it. It's exaggerations and propaganda for theatre. If international community wanted accountability they'd start sanctioning Canada for self professed cultural genocide. They can do that right now. Then move to XJ, a system smaller on relative terms, on absolute terms smaller than US prison complex. It affects less than 0.5% of Chinese population. It's not a small issue, but also not a huge one. > I have a black friend This is not token "I have a black friend" say so but lopsided "almost everyone in the black community" say so. XJ is counter-insurgency the same way US overreaction to 911 was in the middle east. Except ME countries identify with terrorism from religious extremism, hence their endorsement of Chinese narrative _and_ observes China's effort at systematic solution. That can't be handwaved away into China is genociding for lulz, nor dismissing the plurality opinion as not in good faith. Domestic security trumps human rights, always. Pompeo calling XJ genocide while removing ETIM from terror watch lists at the same time pretty much says it all. There's no credibility to human right lectures from wealthy, safe countries that atrocitied their way to wealth and secure borders. The reason why current human rights frameworks are DOA is because they can't reconcile between sins and security.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    > It's exaggerations and propaganda for theatre. What do you believe is being exaggerated? Do you think the 1st-hand accounts we have are lies? There's a difference between a semantic argument that says "we agree on everything except the word for this" (ie, the State department's disagreement that sparked this thread in the first place) and an argument that says "China isn't doing the things you say it is." Which argument are you making? > That can't be handwaved away into China is genociding for lulz, nor dismissing the plurality opinion as not in good faith. But it's not in good faith. Unless you want to seriously argue right now that the accounts we have of official-condoned systematic rape and abortion are lies, then an endorsement of this system or an attempt to say that it's not a serious human rights violation is in bad faith. You can't have your cake and eat it, you can't say that there's a good faith argument that China is just responding to an insurgency threat unless you're also willing to dig in and actually say what that argument is. Do you agree that systematic torture, forced abortions, forced labor of ethnic minorities, reeducation camps for those minorities, and a coordinated effort to eliminate their culture are a crime against humanity? And on the note of 9/11, what is the good faith argument that the response so far (nothing) is comparable to forcibly changing a regime based on fake information? We're not talking about forcibly changing China's government. I do not care whether or not China is a Communist country, I don't care if it becomes a global leader in manufacturing. Good for it if it does. But it can't do it with forced labor from an ethnic minority. We have had zero real response to China committing cultural genocide, and people are arguing that's too much response? That's not a good faith argument, I'm not going to pretend it is. ---- > There's no credibility to human right lectures from wealthy, safe countries that atrocitied their way to wealth and secure borders. What you're arguing here is effectively that no one is ever allowed to call out any other country on human rights issues because we all have sins. And on one level you're right -- the US is a country built on atrocities, and the US is currently engaged in human rights abuses within its own country. The US has sins. But the answer to that can not be nihilism. I have no sympathy for this argument, go tell an Uighur that they don't get help because we want to grapple with our white guilt first. People who are being oppressed do not care about the logistics or appearance of how they're helped, they want allies. The Uighur population does not exist to be an object lesson to the West, and the solution to noticing hypocrisy is to improve conditions across the board, not to nihilistically throw up our hands and decide to do nothing. The US should sanction China and the US should address its own history and ongoing failures with racism, colonialism, and oppression. Feeling bad about US history is not an excuse to stick our heads in the sand. There's a difference between recognizing hypocrisy and trying to correct it, and using hypocrisy as an excuse to lower standards for everyone even further. ---- You argue that if advocates for Uighur rights were honest, they'd be trying to: > Use XJ as opportunity to formalize conventions and punishments for crimes against humanity and cultural genocide. > start sanctioning Canada for self professed cultural genocide. But this is literally what advocates are trying to do right now when they argue that the current legal definition of genocide is interpreted too narrowly. What you're arguing advocates should do is what they are currently doing -- campaigning for the recognition of cultural genocide as a human rights violation with concrete consequences. If you want the US/Canada held to more account, and if you genuinely believe that these nations are engaged in cultural genocide, then you should be on board with this campaign -- a formal definition of cultural genocide can be used across the board to try and address some of the hypocrisy that you're very sincerely worried about. If you genuinely believe that the US prison system is a bigger issue, then why aren't you trying to expand the definitions so that the US prison system can be addressed? The EU is already leaning towards an interpretation of US imprisonment as cruel and unusual punishment in certain situations. Increased scrutiny in that area would only be helpful. This is not the slam-dunk argument you think it is; I would love to get rid of forced labor in US prisons, and I (and other activists on the ground campaigning for prisoner rights) would all love to see more international pressure in that direction. It would be appreciated, please get on it. But most of the international criticism about the term "cultural genocide" is not really coming from a position of wanting to raise standards across the board, it's coming from a position that argues that any attempt to raise standards at all is illegitimate and unfair. If there actually was a coordinated effort by any of these critics to formalize and broaden consequences for more general human rights violations, I would be on board with it. But there's not, which does leave me questioning what their goals actually are.

danShumway 6y ago

> including majority Islamic countries Other people have brought this up in other parts of the comment section, but this is the "I have a Black friend" argument against recognizing cultural genocide. My point was that there is not a legitimate debate happening here over the severity of what China is doing, just a semantic debate over what word to use to describe the problem. Unless you're seriously arguing that we should be debating whether or not Uighurs are a "counter insurgency?" But OK, fine, I'll concede that not literally everyone agrees that what China is doing is a human rights violation. Just everyone who's arguing in good faith and paying any attention to the overwhelming evidence of what's happening. > Semantics is the only context that matters if the goal is to trigger legal consequences. You're concerned that the genocide definition won't work in court, and your suggestion is to instead use a term that explicitly does not have legal consequences? You immediately go on to say: > Crimes against humanity, while more formalized than cultural genocide, still does not have comprehensive convention or consequences. This is exactly why the semantic word games people are playing to artificially narrow the definition of genocide have nothing to do with being "precise" and everything to do with removing our responsibility to address the problem. You are yourself claiming that no one is obligated to sanction or hold China accountable under the terminology you want to apply. It's silly and harmful to try and solve the problem of this potentially not holding up in court by making sure that there is no court in the first place and by making sure that no country has any obligation to do anything. > because they understand the US led initiative is bullshit and self-serving China is engaging in the organized torture and elimination of an ethnic group, including systematic rape, reeducation camps, and forced abortions. Get out of here with this "it's just theater" crap, human rights violations at this scale are worth caring about on the international stage. This doesn't need to be a US led initiative, but somebody has to lead it. I am very unsympathetic to claims that I should be more concerned about the US's political goals and posturing than I should be about ethnic cleansing. > it would open up US actions to similar scrutiny This is a false equivalency, the US is not engaged in cultural genocide. But regardless, who cares if it would open the US up to scrutiny? Countries should be sanctioning the United States when it commits crimes against humanity. Please do. This is "both-sides" nonsense. It's saying that because every country has sins that therefore no one ought to address a country that is systematically eliminating an entire culture. It is not a problem if more countries sanction each other over atrocities on this scale. It would be unambiguously good if the international community (including the US) held itself to a higher standard on human rights.

dirtyid 6y ago
> It would be unambiguously good if the international community (including the US) held itself to a higher standard on human rights. Sure, then prosecute XJ for what it is, not what it's not. Use XJ as opportunity to formalize conventions and punishments for crimes against humanity and cultural genocide. The genocide strategy is not designed to do that, it's a reach designed to undermine China while explicitly not setting the standards higher for everyone else. More cynically, it's partisan domestic politics (from several countries) because curtailing is not realistic. It's feasible to pursue a credible human rights strategy, but this isn't it. It's exaggerations and propaganda for theatre. If international community wanted accountability they'd start sanctioning Canada for self professed cultural genocide. They can do that right now. Then move to XJ, a system smaller on relative terms, on absolute terms smaller than US prison complex. It affects less than 0.5% of Chinese population. It's not a small issue, but also not a huge one. > I have a black friend This is not token "I have a black friend" say so but lopsided "almost everyone in the black community" say so. XJ is counter-insurgency the same way US overreaction to 911 was in the middle east. Except ME countries identify with terrorism from religious extremism, hence their endorsement of Chinese narrative _and_ observes China's effort at systematic solution. That can't be handwaved away into China is genociding for lulz, nor dismissing the plurality opinion as not in good faith. Domestic security trumps human rights, always. Pompeo calling XJ genocide while removing ETIM from terror watch lists at the same time pretty much says it all. There's no credibility to human right lectures from wealthy, safe countries that atrocitied their way to wealth and secure borders. The reason why current human rights frameworks are DOA is because they can't reconcile between sins and security.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > It's exaggerations and propaganda for theatre. What do you believe is being exaggerated? Do you think the 1st-hand accounts we have are lies? There's a difference between a semantic argument that says "we agree on everything except the word for this" (ie, the State department's disagreement that sparked this thread in the first place) and an argument that says "China isn't doing the things you say it is." Which argument are you making? > That can't be handwaved away into China is genociding for lulz, nor dismissing the plurality opinion as not in good faith. But it's not in good faith. Unless you want to seriously argue right now that the accounts we have of official-condoned systematic rape and abortion are lies, then an endorsement of this system or an attempt to say that it's not a serious human rights violation is in bad faith. You can't have your cake and eat it, you can't say that there's a good faith argument that China is just responding to an insurgency threat unless you're also willing to dig in and actually say what that argument is. Do you agree that systematic torture, forced abortions, forced labor of ethnic minorities, reeducation camps for those minorities, and a coordinated effort to eliminate their culture are a crime against humanity? And on the note of 9/11, what is the good faith argument that the response so far (nothing) is comparable to forcibly changing a regime based on fake information? We're not talking about forcibly changing China's government. I do not care whether or not China is a Communist country, I don't care if it becomes a global leader in manufacturing. Good for it if it does. But it can't do it with forced labor from an ethnic minority. We have had zero real response to China committing cultural genocide, and people are arguing that's too much response? That's not a good faith argument, I'm not going to pretend it is. ---- > There's no credibility to human right lectures from wealthy, safe countries that atrocitied their way to wealth and secure borders. What you're arguing here is effectively that no one is ever allowed to call out any other country on human rights issues because we all have sins. And on one level you're right -- the US is a country built on atrocities, and the US is currently engaged in human rights abuses within its own country. The US has sins. But the answer to that can not be nihilism. I have no sympathy for this argument, go tell an Uighur that they don't get help because we want to grapple with our white guilt first. People who are being oppressed do not care about the logistics or appearance of how they're helped, they want allies. The Uighur population does not exist to be an object lesson to the West, and the solution to noticing hypocrisy is to improve conditions across the board, not to nihilistically throw up our hands and decide to do nothing. The US should sanction China and the US should address its own history and ongoing failures with racism, colonialism, and oppression. Feeling bad about US history is not an excuse to stick our heads in the sand. There's a difference between recognizing hypocrisy and trying to correct it, and using hypocrisy as an excuse to lower standards for everyone even further. ---- You argue that if advocates for Uighur rights were honest, they'd be trying to: > Use XJ as opportunity to formalize conventions and punishments for crimes against humanity and cultural genocide. > start sanctioning Canada for self professed cultural genocide. But this is literally what advocates are trying to do right now when they argue that the current legal definition of genocide is interpreted too narrowly. What you're arguing advocates should do is what they are currently doing -- campaigning for the recognition of cultural genocide as a human rights violation with concrete consequences. If you want the US/Canada held to more account, and if you genuinely believe that these nations are engaged in cultural genocide, then you should be on board with this campaign -- a formal definition of cultural genocide can be used across the board to try and address some of the hypocrisy that you're very sincerely worried about. If you genuinely believe that the US prison system is a bigger issue, then why aren't you trying to expand the definitions so that the US prison system can be addressed? The EU is already leaning towards an interpretation of US imprisonment as cruel and unusual punishment in certain situations. Increased scrutiny in that area would only be helpful. This is not the slam-dunk argument you think it is; I would love to get rid of forced labor in US prisons, and I (and other activists on the ground campaigning for prisoner rights) would all love to see more international pressure in that direction. It would be appreciated, please get on it. But most of the international criticism about the term "cultural genocide" is not really coming from a position of wanting to raise standards across the board, it's coming from a position that argues that any attempt to raise standards at all is illegitimate and unfair. If there actually was a coordinated effort by any of these critics to formalize and broaden consequences for more general human rights violations, I would be on board with it. But there's not, which does leave me questioning what their goals actually are.