- Pronouns
- He/Him
For only the second time in its 16-year existence, the UNHRC has rejected a motion for debate on a human rights concern:
With 17 nations voting for, 11 abstaining, and 19 voting against, long-standing allegations of mass internment camps, forced labour, mosque razing, and family separation in China’s Xinjiang province, with an estimated 1 million victims affected so far, will not be formally debated by the Human Rights Council. This is in spite of the council’s own report in August, which cited major human rights offences being committed in Xinjiang with some of them amounting to possible crimes against humanity.
Nations voting against the motion have been variously described as not wanting to endanger Chinese investments domestically, not wanting to isolate China on the global stage, or not wanting to open themselves up for scrutiny. A group of 66 Uyghur organisations from 20 countries have called for an end to Chinese impunity. China’s own response, however, is that “Xinjiang-related issues are not human rights issues at all, but issues of counter-terrorism, de-radicalisation and anti-separatism,” with the motion constituting the West attempting to interfere in domestic affairs via international institutions.
Surely, this must be a major blow to HRC and by extension UN credibility. Regardless of any external incentives behind such a motion by individual Western countries, one would think that the severity of the accusations would at least warrant a debate in international institutions. If the big players on the international stage are exempt from scrutiny in human rights affairs, why even bother with something like the UNHRC?
U.N. body rejects debate on China's treatment of Uyghur Muslims in blow to West
The U.N. rights council on Thursday voted down a Western-led motion to hold a debate about alleged human rights abuses by China against Uyghurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang in a victory for Beijing as it seeks to avoid further scrutiny.
www.reuters.com
With 17 nations voting for, 11 abstaining, and 19 voting against, long-standing allegations of mass internment camps, forced labour, mosque razing, and family separation in China’s Xinjiang province, with an estimated 1 million victims affected so far, will not be formally debated by the Human Rights Council. This is in spite of the council’s own report in August, which cited major human rights offences being committed in Xinjiang with some of them amounting to possible crimes against humanity.
Nations voting against the motion have been variously described as not wanting to endanger Chinese investments domestically, not wanting to isolate China on the global stage, or not wanting to open themselves up for scrutiny. A group of 66 Uyghur organisations from 20 countries have called for an end to Chinese impunity. China’s own response, however, is that “Xinjiang-related issues are not human rights issues at all, but issues of counter-terrorism, de-radicalisation and anti-separatism,” with the motion constituting the West attempting to interfere in domestic affairs via international institutions.
Surely, this must be a major blow to HRC and by extension UN credibility. Regardless of any external incentives behind such a motion by individual Western countries, one would think that the severity of the accusations would at least warrant a debate in international institutions. If the big players on the international stage are exempt from scrutiny in human rights affairs, why even bother with something like the UNHRC?