The reason "physical" is used as a qualifier in II(c) is exactly because otherwise that element would then become the most ambiguous on the question of whether

The reason "physical" is used as a qualifier in II(c) is exactly because otherwise that element would then become the most ambiguous on the question of whether cultural genocide was included in the definition. (c) was intended to capture concentration camps designed for "slow death"--i.e. physical destruction--that otherwise wouldn't be captured by the other elements in light of the background presumption that the convention was not inclusive of cultural genocide. Here's a better exposition from the Carnegie Foundation: > The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide prohibits physical and biological genocide but makes no mention of cultural genocide. This omission was deliberate. Early drafts of the Genocide Convention directly prohibited cultural genocide. As the treaty was finalized, however, a debate emerged over its proper scope. Many state representatives drafting the treaty understood cultural genocide to be analytically distinct, with one arguing forcefully that it defied both logic and proportion “to include in the same convention both mass murders in gas chambers and the closing of libraries.” Others agreed with Lemkin’s broader initial conception that a group could be effectively destroyed by an attack on its cultural institutions, even without the physical/biological obliteration of its members. > Cultural genocide ultimately was excluded from the final Convention, except for a limited prohibition on the forcible transfer of a group’s children. The drafters acknowledged that the removal of children was physically and biologically destructive but further recognized that indoctrinating children into the customs, language, and values of a foreign group was “tantamount to the destruction of the [child’s] group, whose future depended on that next generation.” https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/dialogue/2_12/section_1/5139 https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/dialogu... And from a contemporaneous U.S. State Department report of the convention: > The provision in the Ad Hoc text relating to so-called cultural genocide was deleted by a vote of twenty-five to sixteen (Slav States, China, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria) with four abstentions (Afghanistan, Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v01p1/d186 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v01p1/... The fact that people believe that the convention included cultural genocide is literally historical revision right before our eyes. Maybe it's for the better. I don't know. But the history is indisputable and transparent with even cursory investigation. And this revision of history at the convenience of dominant powers, even when it's for the greater good, was and is still argued to be a centerpiece of cultural destruction in leftist rhetoric. Which, you know, is more than a little ironic. The inherent and obvious tensions at play remains a significant reason to be suspicious of the cogency of cultural genocide as a concept. Where do you draw the lines? Who gets to draw them? Xi Jinping or the latest pop star in Critical Race Theory circles? Without clear boundaries moral authority is quickly diminished, especially on an international stage where cultural distinctions are most pronounced. A more inclusive document may be more just in theory but much less effective in practice. Indeed, it may very well be the case that China would otherwise be slaughtering Uyghurs en mass this very moment but for its commitment under the 1948 convention. (They may be violating other conventions, but suffice it to say that "genocide" carries particular gravitas, partly because of its historically narrow definition.) Start changing the rules of the game and they're far more likely to walk away from those commitments entirely. I'm more of an idealist than a realist when it comes to politics, but that doesn't mean I ignore the dynamics of hard power. As clear as the narrow definition is, the international community still stood by during the Rwandan genocide, just as it did for the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and just as it did for the Holocaust. Unfortunately, I'm less well versed in situations where genocide was averted, though that's probably because when it is averted, intervention comes much earlier in the process, before population-scale killing becomes imminent. Muddy the waters further and nations will be even less likely to intervene than they already are.