Thread by @GFPhilosophy

After examining many flawed pieces accusing China of genocide in XJ without providing much evidence, I want to examine a report that actually does present convincing evidence of genocide in Myanmar against the Rohingya people, as a comparison of quality. ohchr.org/Documents/HRBo…

There are four aspects I would like to highlight, which are in direct contrast to the "Uyghur genocide" reports (hereon referred to as UG reports) I've read.

1. Right from the start, this report states the methodology used and the standard applied to accept evidence.

Exactly 875 in-depth interviews were done in total from targeted and random selections. The report only relied on “verified and corroborated information” from a wide range of sources, including documents, photographs, videos, specialist advice and, yes, satellite images.

Before anyone says “but the Chinese government would never agree to this kind of investigation!”, the Myanmar government also did not cooperate with the UN mission. Non-cooperation by suspects is not an excuse for sub-standard investigations.

They also visited other countries (mostly neighbouring ones), did field missions, consulted a wide range of stakeholders and received written submissions.

To my knowledge, none of the UG reports mentions this kind of due diligence research and fact finding in their reports.

2. There is a very detailed discussion of the element of intent, required in the UN genocide definition, with supporting evidence of the intent (e.g. marginalization of Rohingya people via not being considered one of the 135 "national races", so do not "belong").

This is in direct contrast to how Uyghurs are considered in China, as they are one of the 56 recognized ethnicities in China.

The Rohingya are also not given proper citizenship status, depriving them of nationality. This is also in direct contrast to Uyghurs in China.

Rohingya were also labelled "illegal immigrants" and "terrorists", portrayed as an existential threat and denied access to education.
This is again in contrast to what's happening in China, where Uyghurs are considered part of the Chinese family and given (too much?😅) education.

The report noted Rohingya are reviled by much of the population and dehumanizing rhetoric is nurtured by the leadership in Myanmar.

Again, this is in direct contrast to Uyghurs in China, where the government will censor you, if you tried to dehumanize Uyghurs.

Given this evidence (and the atrocities to be discussed later), it was concluded that this is consistent with genocidal intent in other contexts.

Note how they were careful to not say anything was proven. This is because it is up to a court to decide whether anything is proven.

Many UG reports I've read do not even address this issue of intent. When they do address it, they rely on misinterpretations and illogical inferences, or try to waive away this onus of proof with statements like "the intent is obvious", without actually giving evidence.

3. High degree of specificity in alleged atrocities, confirmed by evidence. No reliance on questionable statistics, inconsistent witness testimony or unverified satellite images.
E.g. Satellite images corroborate first hand accounts of destruction to at least 40% of settlements.

What often appears in UG reports are words like "maybe", "possibly", "could be". They also point to statistics like Net IUD placements and birthrate drops to argue genocide, even though the connection to population change is unproven in the former and incomplete in the latter.

In this report, there are no such uncertain terms and statistics. They tell you exactly what they've found, supported by various sources of evidence, and the estimated number of dead people. No need to wait generations for the population to slowly dwindle; it is happening now.

4. The report describes the impact of atrocities committed, with massive human displacement and refugees, even with restrictions on movements.

During the escape, these refugees faced starvation, dehydration and being hunted down by soldiers chasing them and at borders.

Yet, they still tried to escape.

Anyone who wants to explain away the missing Uyghur refugees by saying "they are watched by the Chinese government" has no clue what human beings would do to survive.

Refugee numbers are consistent with UNHCR figures: unhcr.org/rohingya-emerg…

Note the total population of Rohingya in Myanmar was about 1m, and over 742k have become refugees.

There are ~12x more Uyghurs, so we may guess 12 x 742k ~ 9m refugees in countries neighbouring China. Actual figure? 7,386, mostly from Afghanistan: reporting.unhcr.org/node/3412

And what’s the recommendation after all this evidence?

Not calls for sanctions, but further investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators, so that a court can determine what crimes have been committed.

So, my challenge questions for the UG narrative pushers are:
1. Why is it that none of your reports unequivocally say you relied on credible and corroborated evidence?
2. Can you state the total number of credible and corroborated pieces of evidence you relied on to conclude UG?

3. Why have you not visited countries neighbouring China to verify whether there are spill over effects of the atrocities you allege?
4. Why is your evidence of intent to commit genocide so lacking in substance and not supported by the evidence you present?

5. If the scale of the atrocities are happening on such a large scale, compared to what happened in Myanmar, why are there so few refugees and issues for neighbouring countries?

6. Why are you pushing for sanctions against businesses dealing in Xinjiang, and not recommending prosecution or other forms of legal action which will help with fact finding?

To be taken seriously, they have to at least answer these questions.

My guess is they can't, and they rely on the fact that most people would not have seen genocide reports before, so it is easy to play on their emotions by using emotive words to trigger outrage.

By doing this thread, I hope to show the standards required when arguing that genocide is happening.

We must look objectively at the evidence presented to us, and not be swayed by images and words aimed at triggering an emotional response, but have no substance behind them.