Well, they don't meet the definition the other poster put up - unless you want to interpret it in a very loose sense that would certainly tar a lot of nations,

Well, they don't meet the definition the other poster put up - unless you want to interpret it in a very loose sense that would certainly tar a lot of nations, for instance India. I'm not really attached to the word or it's definition. It just occurs to me that 'genocide' is the causus beli for every well-remembered war the west have had since WW2. When the word starts getting thrown around in the middle of a trade war, when US hegemony is being contested, when the world has a new number one in terms of economic and industrial might, well, I think its deployment is basically cynical. Insofar as it has already forced changes for (I think) the better in Chinese government policy, I'm glad. But I also think the airtime would be better spent less cynically, on countries like India, who are probably way easier to pressure and frankly just as bad. If world leaders like the UK go on air to call what's happening in Xinjiang genocide while selling arms to the Saudis so they can bomb the Houthis, then they just look about as cynical as they are. And that's what the Chinese domestic audience probably thinks, because ultimately, the west doesn't have moral credibility when it only makes a fuss over human rights when it's also in the west's strategic interest.