Thread by @GFPhilosophy

There's a new report out on the Uyghur genocide issue, purporting to show credible evidence of genocide. This time, there's finally a discussion on the intent of state action, with references! Let's take closer a look at this section in the report:

…c3hdi6ss66vpc-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/upl…

The section on intent start on page 35, and there are a number of cases used as references. I will focus on Bosnia v Serbia and Croatia v Serbia, because they discuss the issue of proving state intent directly and in the most amount of detail.

In Croatia v Serbia, the ICJ said that the intent must be to achieve physical or biological destruction of the group. Mental harm or forcible transfer of children will constitute genocide, if that is indeed the end goal. (Para. 136, page 64)

icj-cij.org/public/files/c…

The scale must be to target the group and not certain individuals (Para. 139, page 65). The critical criterion is whether a substantial part of the group is destroyed, with the quantity element being taken into account (Para. 142, page 66).

Crucially, the evidence must be such that it could only point to the existence of the intent to destroy the group (Para. 145, page 67 & Para. 148, page 68), i.e. if the intent is not explicitly stated, but inferred, the inference has to be the only reasonable one.

In Bosnia v Serbia, the Court said deliberate unlawful killings of the group is insufficient and insufficient that members of the group are targeted because they belong to that group. The precise intent must be defined and established (Para. 187, page 82) icj-cij.org/public/files/c…

The specific intent has to be distinguished from other reasons and the facts have to show a sufficiently clear manifestation of that intent (Para. 189, page 83). The Court again affirmed the pattern of conduct must point only to the existence of such intent (Para. 376, page 159).

At this point, it's also instructive to note that the UN website specifies that other case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy.
un.org/en/genocidepre…

Therefore, for an act to constitute genocide, there must either be; 1) an explicit statement of intent (e.g. "XX must be erased"); or 2) to infer intent, there must be no other reasonable explanation for the behaviour. Let's see if the evidence presented satisfies this test.

…c3hdi6ss66vpc-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/upl…

On page 37 of the Report, President Xi's offensive in Xinjiang is mentioned, which is a "struggle against terrorism, infiltration and separatism". So, right off the bat, the explicit intent is to fight terrorism and not to kill Uyghurs.

Second part of above paragraph says the orders given were to show no mercy (to terrorists), and education and transformation of "these people" (i.e. terrorists) must continue after being RELEASED. My capitalization, because I think that shows no physical destruction was intended.

So, it seems Xi's statements fall well short of the requisite intent for physical destruction. In fact, it shows the exact opposite intent, in that the policy is to identify terrorists and rehabilitate them.

The Report then alleges explicit statements of intent from the gov.

Who in the government? The camp guards of course! These ever reliable sources of information "reportedly" informed detainees that they have orders to ensure that all Muslim nationalities would be extinct. A check of the reference revealed that 1 victim remembers this conversation

This evidence is so unreliable that I'm surprised it made it into this report. Only 1 person was cited (i.e. can't verify it), from their memory (subject to error), interpreted from Chinese (subject to mistranslations) and was from a Camp guard (may be from personal prejudice).

The Report then quotes another government official, who referred to terrorists as weeds. The insinuation is "kill them all" refers to Uyghurs, but a more logical interpretation is that the term refers to terrorists (i.e. the weeds) and re-education is the weed killing spray.

This shows gross, potentially deliberate, mis-interpretation of government statements to fit a narrative. Whereas in reality, the intent is clearly not to physically destroy terrorists (let alone Uyghurs), but to rehabilitate them.

Page 38 of the Report has a inflammatory subtitle quoting "Round Up Everyone", except if you read the body of the section it clearly says "round up everyone WHO SHOULD BE ROUNDED UP", obviously referring to terrorists. The last sentence shows the goal is "to safeguard stability".

Page 38 continues by stating that "religious extremist thought" was a "malignant tumour", and that if not rooted out, "violent terrorist acts" will multiply. Clearly, this shows the target and intent is to root out terrorism. There is no reference to Uyghurs at all.

On top of page 39, the Report says Uyghurs were compared to cancer and this dehumanizes them for destruction. Firstly, there's 0 reference to Uyghurs, unless you assume all Uyghurs are terrorists. The "rooting out" is also for "extremist thought" (ie not physical destruction)

So again, the evidence presented in these 2 sections are completely consistent with an anti-terrorism campaign, aimed at rehabilitation via re-education, and completely inconsistent with a campaign intended to achieve physical destruction of the Uyghurs in part or in whole.

Page 39 of the Report goes on to talk about the mass internment campaign. The quoted policies mention the hand that EDUCATES must also be tough and RE-EDUCATION must wash brains and cleanse hearts. My capitalisation because these show the goal is, again, rehabilitation.

On page 40 of the Report, it claims there is evidence the government is targeting prominent Uyghur leaders. I question the reliability of the evidence. But, even if we accept it as true, targeting of individuals is not considered genocide, per Para. 139 of Croatia v Serbia.

Page 40 mentions an ominous sounding term, "assault-style transformation through education". If you consider this shows there's a goal of TRANSFORMATION through the method of EDUCATION, then this term is indicating, again, how there's no intention to physically destroy Uyghurs.

Page 41 discusses classified telegrams (sure it's not emails??), showing secrecy and surveillance, but also revealing that repentance and confession is a target outcome. Employment after "completion" is also mentioned. Do these indicate an intention to physically destroy Uyghurs?

Curiously, page 41 goes on to claim that Uyghur population growth rates are being reduced...by promotion of Han-Uyghur marriages. This is perhaps the most illogical claim in the report, because marriages tend to lead to reproduction, which will increase population.

Whoever wrote this line has to believe that mixed Han/Uyghur children are not part of the Uyghur community, because they are not pure blood Uyghurs. This is dangerously close to eugenics, which in fact laid the foundations for genocide in the past.

Page 41 also mentions that there were directives to contain illegal births. Given China has birth limits per family, and illegal births above this limit were a problem in the past, this is not an unreasonable move, causing a dip in birth rates. Goal is not to destroy the Uyghurs.

Page 42 refers to a tweet by the Chinese Embassy in the USA, interpreting it as an open admission to a systematic birth prevention campaign. But, that tweet mentions improving gender equality, leading to lower fertility rates, which is historically and scientifically accurate.

It's illogical to interpret this tweet as confessing to a birth prevention campaign, and feels like someone threw this part in at the last minute to pad up the content and to ride on the sense of outrage to build their narrative, even though it's an incoherent argument.

The last part of the highlighted paragraph on page 42 says that forced sterilizations and internment of Uyghur men prevents regenerative capacity of the group, and shows intent to biologically destroy Uyghurs. This is the first time there's any reference to the requisite intent.

However, they did not provide evidence to support this claim, and a search of available evidence shows that this claim is totally false, because the Uyghur population has continued to grow and the latest birth rates are almost double the death rates.

Skimming through the rest of the report, there is heavy reliance on previous "research", most of which has questionable conclusions based on questionable evidence from questionable sources. The Report offers no significant new information, besides the discussion on intent above.

In Conclusions section on p. 49, it is said that the evidence must be viewed in their totality. As discussed above, I would argue the Report presents a very biased interpretation of the evidence and ignores legitimate explanations of gov policies in question.

In fact, there are many pieces of evidence that is omitted, which will add context to the situation and when considered holistically, is completely consistent with the stated goal of terrorism prevention, and inconsistent with the claim intent of physical destruction of Uyghurs.

For example, there is the evidence of previous terrorist attacks in Xinjiang and evidence of Uyghur separatists being trained in Syria, neither of which was discussed in the Report. The Report also ignores the growing Uyghur population, birth rate trending above death rate...

...increasing average income for Uyghurs, investment in tourism and better living facilities in XJ, government propaganda showing equality and unity between all ethnicities, promotion of Uyghur culture all across China, the lack of Uyghur refugees in surrounding countries...

...the open declaration of Uyghur-ness by Uyghurs all across China and on social media, the use of Uyghur language on official websites/currency etc. If we consider all these together, in my mind, it is impossible to conclude that there is intent to destroy the Uyghur community.

To accept the Report's conclusion that there's genocidal intent, you have to assume when the Chinese government say "terrorists", they mean "Uyghurs", and when they say "re-education", they mean "physical destruction". You also have to assume that the Uyghur community...

...has not realized this double speak, because there is no wide-spread panic in their community and no clamour to escape. All told, the conclusions of the Report is not convincingly supported by the evidence, unless you start by assuming there is a Uyghur genocide in China.

In summary, the Report fails to provide convincing evidence for any element required to prove genocidal intent as required in Croatia v Serbia and Bosnia v Serbia:
(i) Explicit statements of intent: None, unless you assume words used in official documents...

...have alternative meanings (not justified in the Report) and you accept uncorroborated third hand hearsay of one former detainee.
(ii) Inferred intent: The test is whether the pattern of behaviour can only be explained by intent for physical or biological destruction...

...The evidence shows the pattern of behaviour is consistent with anti-terrorism and poverty alleviation campaigns, and inconsistent with a campaign intended to physically or biologically destroy Uyghurs...

(iii) Physical or biological destruction: The undisputed evidence shows a growing Uyghur population, which will continue to grow because birth rates are higher than death rates, even after recent drops in birth rates. Therefore, there is no imminent destruction.