4 ms·

The labeling is not arbitrary but based in the UN definition: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to dest

by lixtra 6y ago

The labeling is not arbitrary but based in the UN definition: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; ... -Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; ... https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

thesimon 6y ago
For which the Economist argues > But if conventions are worded with unusual broadness, they must also be used with special care. Until now, America’s State Department had applied the “genocide” label only to mass slaughter, and even then it often hesitated, for fear that uttering the term would create an expectation that it would intervene. It did not call Rwanda’s genocide a genocide until it was practically over.
yorwba 6y ago
All three definitely apply to Han Chinese: - The number of executions is treated as a state secret, but most likely a lot of people are killed every year, including for political "crimes". - Chinese prisons used to be labor camps by default and many continue to operate as such, including torture and rape by prison guards. - The one-child policy was all about preventing births and involved sterilizing more than half of all women. Which makes me wonder why the Canadian declaration is limited to Uighurs instead of also applying to persecuted Han Chinese or members of the fifty-odd other recognized ethnic groups in China. Is it just because Uighurs have gotten comparatively more attention recently?
- justicezyx 6y ago
  The overlooking of certain behavior never was justification of the the same behavior on other occasions. The dilemma faced by China and the West, regarding their ways of life, is that they are operating on 2 systems that are different down to a very fundamental level. In short, China and the West have different values. The sad thing is that outside of China and the West, there are actually more people being entirely left out of the discussion. And neither have the universal systems and resources to bring these people out of their suffering. Til this day, China's treatment on Uighurs are still highly secretive. That leads to the claim of internment of 1 million Uighurs become a superficial paly thing by both sides: * China certainly are very content that no domestic instability because that 1 million figure is obviously not trustworthy to Chinese people. (Note that there is no way to verify the truth, as that's CCP's tactic all along; there is always the national security card prevent any forceful international investigation). * The West are also very comfortable because they can outrageously condemn CCP for various political objectives. Do they really care about the 1 Million Uighurs? Obviously yes, but probably is behind a long list other concerns. This dilemma (or pleasant situation if we think about it as a whole) is a reflection of the incompatibility of 2 systems. It is a clash of civilizations. And that clash is not movable by the seemingly good will of the people: if you ask the people in China and the West they would universally say that they like the people from the other side, and they just dont like their government. But they are merely unconscious of the fact that the clash is happening not because of the government, but really was by the people's will, through the thousands of channels of influences that the puny Human brain will never fully grasp.
  - alisonatwork 6y ago
    I am not so convinced by this "clash of civilizations" or "different values" rhetoric. I know this is the standard party response to many foreign criticisms of Chinese politics, but to me it comes across as a bit like the Chinese version of American exceptionalism. The recent effort to push a Chinese view of human rights[0][1] into the UN, I find to be cynical and politically motivated. The idea that Chinese people and "Western" people are fundamentally different seems to deny the fact that humans as whole share common needs and common motivations. If China and the West have incompatible values, where does that leave other countries of the East? Does India count as the West? What about Japan or South Korea or Taiwan? What about countries in the Global South, are their values incompatible with both the West and China? Plenty of those countries have ratified ICCPR[2]. [0] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-02/22/c_139758736.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-02/22/c_139758736.htm [1] https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/can-china-change-the-definition-of-human-rights/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/can-china-change-the-definit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...
    - justicezyx 6y ago
      > I know this is the standard party response to many foreign criticisms of Chinese politics This is not true. This was even rejected by Mr. Xi himself, quote [1]: """ The world must "oppose politicization and stigmatization" over Covid-19, Xi said in the pre-recorded address, urging world leaders to embrace the "concept of a big family... and avoid falling into the trap of a clash of civilizations." """ One could interpret this as Xi actually agree with this view point, and simply try to avoid fall into the trap. Then we can reasonably conclude that Xi and CCP do not want to follow this line of thinking. Here I am assuming Xi is so powerful that he can largely shape CCP thought, which was widely agreed upon as a truthful statement. > deny the fact that humans as whole share common needs and common motivations This is quite a bland statement. And itself bears little factual support. Political values, as we are here discussing, seldom agree. CCP in its face adopts socialism and intends to move towards communism. That's 180 degree opposite of US domestic political theoretic. The so-called common value is quickly turning into a lie when it goes beyond typical bodily needs. Even that is a problem, like many Western media would state Chinese need to consume less pork, because of the climate change concerns. Since when the West believe one should be subject to the whole's needs? [1] https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/09/23/20/xi-defends-chinas-ambitions-warns-of-clash-of-civilizations https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/09/23/20/xi-defends-chinas...

by lixtra 6y ago

thesimon 6y ago

For which the Economist argues > But if conventions are worded with unusual broadness, they must also be used with special care. Until now, America’s State Department had applied the “genocide” label only to mass slaughter, and even then it often hesitated, for fear that uttering the term would create an expectation that it would intervene. It did not call Rwanda’s genocide a genocide until it was practically over.

yorwba 6y ago

All three definitely apply to Han Chinese: - The number of executions is treated as a state secret, but most likely a lot of people are killed every year, including for political "crimes". - Chinese prisons used to be labor camps by default and many continue to operate as such, including torture and rape by prison guards. - The one-child policy was all about preventing births and involved sterilizing more than half of all women. Which makes me wonder why the Canadian declaration is limited to Uighurs instead of also applying to persecuted Han Chinese or members of the fifty-odd other recognized ethnic groups in China. Is it just because Uighurs have gotten comparatively more attention recently?

justicezyx 6y ago
The overlooking of certain behavior never was justification of the the same behavior on other occasions. The dilemma faced by China and the West, regarding their ways of life, is that they are operating on 2 systems that are different down to a very fundamental level. In short, China and the West have different values. The sad thing is that outside of China and the West, there are actually more people being entirely left out of the discussion. And neither have the universal systems and resources to bring these people out of their suffering. Til this day, China's treatment on Uighurs are still highly secretive. That leads to the claim of internment of 1 million Uighurs become a superficial paly thing by both sides: * China certainly are very content that no domestic instability because that 1 million figure is obviously not trustworthy to Chinese people. (Note that there is no way to verify the truth, as that's CCP's tactic all along; there is always the national security card prevent any forceful international investigation). * The West are also very comfortable because they can outrageously condemn CCP for various political objectives. Do they really care about the 1 Million Uighurs? Obviously yes, but probably is behind a long list other concerns. This dilemma (or pleasant situation if we think about it as a whole) is a reflection of the incompatibility of 2 systems. It is a clash of civilizations. And that clash is not movable by the seemingly good will of the people: if you ask the people in China and the West they would universally say that they like the people from the other side, and they just dont like their government. But they are merely unconscious of the fact that the clash is happening not because of the government, but really was by the people's will, through the thousands of channels of influences that the puny Human brain will never fully grasp.
- alisonatwork 6y ago
  I am not so convinced by this "clash of civilizations" or "different values" rhetoric. I know this is the standard party response to many foreign criticisms of Chinese politics, but to me it comes across as a bit like the Chinese version of American exceptionalism. The recent effort to push a Chinese view of human rights[0][1] into the UN, I find to be cynical and politically motivated. The idea that Chinese people and "Western" people are fundamentally different seems to deny the fact that humans as whole share common needs and common motivations. If China and the West have incompatible values, where does that leave other countries of the East? Does India count as the West? What about Japan or South Korea or Taiwan? What about countries in the Global South, are their values incompatible with both the West and China? Plenty of those countries have ratified ICCPR[2]. [0] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-02/22/c_139758736.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-02/22/c_139758736.htm [1] https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/can-china-change-the-definition-of-human-rights/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/can-china-change-the-definit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    > I know this is the standard party response to many foreign criticisms of Chinese politics This is not true. This was even rejected by Mr. Xi himself, quote [1]: """ The world must "oppose politicization and stigmatization" over Covid-19, Xi said in the pre-recorded address, urging world leaders to embrace the "concept of a big family... and avoid falling into the trap of a clash of civilizations." """ One could interpret this as Xi actually agree with this view point, and simply try to avoid fall into the trap. Then we can reasonably conclude that Xi and CCP do not want to follow this line of thinking. Here I am assuming Xi is so powerful that he can largely shape CCP thought, which was widely agreed upon as a truthful statement. > deny the fact that humans as whole share common needs and common motivations This is quite a bland statement. And itself bears little factual support. Political values, as we are here discussing, seldom agree. CCP in its face adopts socialism and intends to move towards communism. That's 180 degree opposite of US domestic political theoretic. The so-called common value is quickly turning into a lie when it goes beyond typical bodily needs. Even that is a problem, like many Western media would state Chinese need to consume less pork, because of the climate change concerns. Since when the West believe one should be subject to the whole's needs? [1] https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/09/23/20/xi-defends-chinas-ambitions-warns-of-clash-of-civilizations https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/09/23/20/xi-defends-chinas...