Thread by @GFPhilosophy

This is a thread to examine below report from Campaign for Uyghurs, including evidence presented in the report. There will be 3 main sub-threads, S for Section of Report, R for References provided, and C for my Conclusions. This will be long...

campaignforuyghurs.org/wp-content/upl…

S0.0: Description on page 2 of cover image is incorrect. The image comes from a 3 day event on de-radicalization or anti-extremism, which was held across multiple locations in XJ. Participants included religious figures who gave speeches. Source: web.archive.org/web/2018082015…

S0.1: Here are some other images from the event. Note the prevalence of both Uyghur and Chinese text.

S0.2: More images.

S0.3: One villager said this: "The Communist Party’s policies are indeed good. Not only did it not prosecute these people who were polluted by extremist ideology, but it also gave them food and housing for learning, training and educational transformation."

R1.0: First reference used is uyghurcongress.org/en/east-turkes…
Suffice it to say it is a very biased report of the history of the region and minimizes previous Han Chinese influence in Xinjiang (XJ). For a more balanced view, refer to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs

R2.0: Second reference used is bbc.com/news/world-asi…

The contents of this article are in no way related to the section in the report. The article focuses on ethnic Kazakhs being detained in China and separated from their family in Kazakhstan.

R2.1: The article also relies mainly on personal testimonies, which are anecdotal evidence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal…

The article even admits this:

R2.2: The article mentions that people were let go after their detention, so it does not support claims of genocide.

R2.3: Quote in article “China’s aim is...to erase the [Kazakh] ethnicity.” This is illogical. There are 12m Kazakhs in Kazakhstan, compared to 1.8m in China. It would be far easier for Chinese government to ask these people to move to Kazakhstan if they want no Kazakhs in China.

S1.0: Zenz's report is linked and used to justify claims of genocide, but it isn't part of the official references, which is an interesting omission. Most of his data is publicly available, so it's inaccurate to say they were leaked documents. Will do a thread on Zenz's report.

S2.0: Claim of 20m Uyghur population in General Info section is inconsistent with official Chinese data and doubted by experts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs:
"...there is "scant evidence" to support Uyghur claims that their population within China exceeds 20 million."

S2.1: The historical summary is incomplete and minimizes Han Chinese influence in the region. A more balanced summary is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs.

S2.2: The section on WWII seems completely at odds with other historical accounts I've read, and is confused about the end date. They also seem to indirectly blame the Western powers for abandoning the Uyghurs back in the 1940s.

S2.3: Rushan Abbas claims that persecutions ramped up in 2017, but below claims it started from 1949. That's a huge gap of 68 years with no information about what happened.

Also, note the reference to 9/11 and attempt to link it to Uyghur persecution, with little evidence.

R.3.0: Third reference used is this book by Hao Shiyuan. It's unclear which part of the book is relevant and how it fits into the part of the report that references it. The summary of the book is very positive about China's treatment of minorities within its borders.

R4.0: Fourth reference is the UN page on Genocide: un.org/en/genocidepre…

The report never discusses the requisite element of intent, so it fails to build a valid case for genocide of Uyghurs, even if we accept all the other points in the report.

R5.0: Fifth reference is a document on Prevention of Genocide: ombudsman.gov.tr/contents/files…

This doc is in Turkish, which is an interesting choice since UN documents typically has an English version and it's for an English genocide report. It doesn't mention when China approved it.

R6+7.0: Sixth and seventh references are same as the fifth reference. It's interesting that this is considered a more official or convincing reference than the UN website.

R8.0: Eighth reference is the Punishment Agreement for the Khojaly Massacre in 1992: hukukdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/dergi/C4S1maka…

I will assume it supports their argument on definition of victim group, since I think it's self evident that Uyghurs can be classified as a potential victim group.

R9.0: Ninth reference is same as the eight reference. Again, I will assume that it supports their claim that type of people targeted is a relevant consideration in determining whether there's genocide, since it makes intuitive sense.

S3.0: Third section is about the UN definition of Genocide, trying to show that the definition has been met. Crucially, the report omits any discussion of the requisite element of intent. Without proving intent, there is no case for genocide.

S3.1: The report states "Withal, China targets millions of Uyghurs, eliminating them and holding them in concentration camps and prisons in the 21st century" without any references or proof.

S3.2: The report states "The majority of the people targeted and sent to camps in East Turkistan are poets, professors, academics, writers and leading figures" without any references or proof.

S3.3: The report includes these photos, as evidence of purging of religious materials. However, it's not clear from the photos what is happening and why, since there is no reference to the article related to the photos and it seems like a Muslim man is sorting the materials.

S3.4: This photo allegedly shows a concentration camp. To me, it looks no different to what I expect a prison would look like. The fact that it's possible to take this photo indicates the government is not trying to hide it and it is more likely to be a prison.

S4.0: Fourth section goes through the various alleged ways Uyghurs are suffering.

There's an interesting admission that a "plan for the mass murder of the Uyghur people has not yet been implemented, so we do not have enough data on the "killing of the members of the group"".

R10.0: Tenth reference is this article: independent.co.uk/news/world/asi…

This is evidence is worthy of investigation, but not conclusive by itself. I'd like to know why she was arrested 3 times by Chinese authorities. Testifying to US Congress doesn't increase her credibility in my view.

R10.1: I think the fact that she was released so many times, and allowed to leave China on multiple occasions, indicate that there's not a widespread agenda to eliminate Uyghurs and refutes claims that Uyghurs can't get passports.

R10.2: Her experiences described in the article are from prisons, not from the "concentration camp" per the report. Therefore, her experiences should not be extrapolated to represent people who go to the re-education centres.

R11.0: Eleventh reference is this documentary by PBS: pbs.org/wgbh/frontline…

I don't have access rights, so I will assume it supports the report's claim of abuse on Gulzire Awulkan.

R11.1: Interestingly, there's a follow up article on PBS: pbs.org/wgbh/frontline…

Seems like Gulzire's sister has been released and is now living a somewhat normal life. They are probably been monitored, which is bad, but it's not genocide.

R12.0: Twelfth reference is same as the second reference, and this time it is more relevant to the claims in the report. Same comments from R2.x tweets apply here.

R13.0: Thirteenth reference is this article: npr.org/2018/11/13/666…

Samarkand seems to have had a difficult life and the system may have failed him in this case. If we look at the hard facts in relation to the Uyghur genocide claim, his story doesn't support this claim.

R13.1: It's difficult to verify his story, but I will assume it's true at face value. First, he is a Kazakh, not Uyghur. Second, he says no one was tortured, except for him, because he showed aggression to the guards.

R13.2: Third, he was released after attempting suicide and given all his belongings. Is this consistent with genocide? Why not just let him die? Fourth, he hates the government now, so the "brainwashing" failed. Last, he showed a violent streak in bashing innocent neighbours.

R13.3: The article also mentions details of the re-education centres that are similar to any Chinese school. Teachers taught Pinyin and Chinese writing. Lei Feng's stories were taught to illustrate selflessness and sacrifice for your friends and community, not for communism.

S4.1: Section D.1. goes through a few examples of alleged torture. 2 out of 4 alleged victims were Kazakh, not Uyghur. All have survived without any permanent physical damage. Their testimonies also do not support genocide claims, since they were all released, none had to escape.

R14.0: Fourteenth reference is the PBS video in R11.0. Therefore, the same comments apply. It's interesting that they say this video gives clues to the crimes covered in the report, not actual evidence of the crimes.

R15.0: Fifteenth reference is the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act in the US: congress.gov/bill/116th-con…

Besides the fact that this legislation is obviously politically motivated, it doesn't mention mass surveillance, which is where the legislation is referenced.

R16.0: Sixteenth reference is the PBS video in R11.0. Therefore, the same comments apply. I'm not sure why removing head cover is equated to forgetting love of motherhood and children.

R17.0: Seventeenth reference is the Qaraqash document, as disclosed by the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP): docs.uhrp.org/pdf/UHRP_Qaraq…

The immediate concern would be the veracity of this document, given the origins of the UHRP.

R17.1: Even so, the contents of this document is devastating against the claims of genocide. Let's start with the statistics: 1) The document contains a list of 311 detainees, from 4 training centres in Qaraqash county. This is hardly an alarming number of detainees.

R.17.2: The total population of Qaraqash county is 646,202 and 97.7% are Uyghur. Therefore, the detainees represent 0.05% of the total population. 2) The population of Qaraqash county grew 12% between 2015 and 2017, with Uyghur population having largest growth.

R17.3: 3) Out of 311 detainees, 29 were women, which is 9% of total and contradicts claims that there's a campaign targeting Uyghur women. The report also notes many women are released and allowed to marry foreign nationals, which is not consistent with genocide tactics.

R17.4: 4) Per the disclosed table of reasons, there are many reasons that seem valid to me (e.g. birth policy violation, ex-convicts, possession of illegal media, two-faced official and fraudulent marriage certificate). Other reasons need more investigation to judge.

R17.5: 5) Per final decisions table, many people were let back into their communities or released for work (74%). 14% will be released after another year. 12% to continue training with no end date. Only 2 were sentenced to prison. This is inconsistent with genocide tactics.

R17.6: Throughout the document, there are unsubstantiated and speculative sections about the intentions of the government. For example, Qaraqash County establishing new district management committees to build concentration camps, under direction from central government.

R17.7: Another example, officials are interning people to meet quotas, which is of itself inconsistent with intention to commit genocide. Wouldn't being Uyghur be reason enough for internment in a genocidal society?

R17.8: Finally, the acknowledgements leave no doubt about who is contributing to this document. This Qaraqash document may be a reasonable source for possible human rights violations worthy of further investigation, but it absolutely destroys any claims of genocide.

S4.2: Section D.2. goes through more evidence of alleged suffering. Only problem is the references provided do not support the claim of genocide. They may indicate possible human rights violations worthy of investigation, but not genocide. See R14-R17:

https://twitter.com/GFPhilosophy/status/1330343994572767234?s=20

S4.3: Section D.2. also has unsubstantiated claims, e.g. Uyghurs cannot go to mosques, and state that their references provide "clues" to the crimes being committed, instead of actual evidence of the crimes being committed.

S4.4: Section D.2.1. claims there is government sponsored mass rape. This description comes from the fact that the report alleges some Uyghur women have to share the same bed with male government officials, without evidence. Even if true, "mass rape" is a complete exaggeration.

S4.5: Section D.2.1. also includes these photos, without any context. They are meant to prove their claims, but without context, it's not possible to know. First photo could be a normal couple and the second photo shows a normal sleeping arrangement in rural China.

R18.0: Eighteenth reference is this Bloomberg article: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
But it is behind a paywall.

This articles seems to be based on the following AP article, which is not behind a paywall, so I will base the comments on this AP article instead: apnews.com/article/9ca1c2…

R18.1: Overall, the article actually tries to present counter-balancing views, but accentuates the negatives, whilst doubting the positives. None of it seems to indicate genocidal tactics. E.g. below extract was implied to be abnormal, but actually sounds innocuous to Chinese.

R18.2: One of the interviewees described government cadres as "our enemy". This could indicate a separatist mentality and may be why he's treated as suspicious by the government, why officials were sent to his family home and why he lost contact with his family.

R18.3: This screenshot suggests male officials living with families, but doesn't say sleep with them, which is the claim in the report. The article also seems to take issue with encouragement of intercultural marriage, which is bizarre.

R18.4: Here is where the article actually mentions some counter-balancing aspects of the home visit program, with multi-ethnic participation, focus on understanding problems and assistance in poverty alleviation.

R18.5: But the article never quite manages to objectively assess the issues, because it reverts back to doubting the positives. Some aspects of poor rural lifestyle (minority race or not) is incompatible with modern ideals (e.g. arranged marriages), and should be changed.

R19.0: Nineteenth reference is to this US State department's communication (propaganda?) website: share.america.gov/tr/cin-uygur-k…

Interestingly, the report links to the Turkish version of this page, instead of the actual English version, but easy enough to translate to English.

R19.1: The article makes accusations without evidence, quotes Rushan Abbas directly and takes issue with encouragement of inter-ethnic marriage. The only independent reference used is below article (not linked), which is also the next reference examined. supchina.com/2019/08/07/uyg…