Politics UN Human Rights Council refuses to discuss Uyghur genocide

[Chaotic Neutral]

For only the second time in its 16-year existence, the UNHRC has rejected a motion for debate on a human rights concern:

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?

 

[Kenka]

My heart is with the Uyghur people. Beautiful people with a beautiful culture being ripped apart in a savage manner.

This is monstruous.

 

[neil]

Thanks for sharing, this hasn't been covered in news I usually check

 

[Kenka]

Sorry to jump several steps in the discussion (and forgive my somehow selfish post) but I don't get the root of the Xinjiang conflict.

How can Xinjiang, one of the poorest regions in China with a population of only 25 million inhabitants, have the balls to think it can challenge Beijing's authority and who was foolish/assholish enough to assist them in their cause?

It was clear from the very beginning that since China is not exactly a rich country, any insurgency in a remote area would be met with a cheap and fast answer (aka brutality). So anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have known that assisting the Uyghurs in an act of rebellion would cause them harm by the hand of the government.

 

[Deleted member 341]

this world is fucked up and it makes me honestly speechless.

 

[Kenka]

this world is fucked up and it makes me honestly speechless.

I don't know who you are but I want to cry in your arms.
It doesn't matter that you are random stranger.

 

[Chaotic Neutral]

I'm just genuinely deeply saddened by the inability of international institutions to tackle the (by numbers affected) largest persecution since WW2. Everyone knows that the UN does not technically overrule nations' domestic laws and policies but if it can't even discuss humanitarian crises of such enormity, let alone influence them in a meaningful way, it is failing in its basic purpose.

 

[Kenka]

I'm just genuinely deeply saddened by the inability of international institutions to tackle the (by numbers affected) largest persecution since WW2. Everyone knows that the UN does not technically overrule nations' domestic laws and policies but if it can't even discuss humanitarian crises of such enormity, let alone influence them in a meaningful way, it is failing in its basic purpose.

Excuse me for the quick and somehow rash answer to what is a genuinely concerning question.

But I think it never really had a sincere purpose to begin. Going back to Jules Ferry in the 1880s, it was clear that the rest of the world (or colonies as it was called) only served one purpose and that was to benefit those in the West (at that time it was Germany/France/UK/Italy).

The League of Nations only emerged 40 years later and was supported - in France at least - by people that were no different from Ferry. Sure it wasn't the same faces but no alternative theory was available to secure (domestic) economic growth. And we haven't had a fundamental change in economic theory ever since, so...

 

[neil]

Sorry to jump several steps in the discussion (and forgive my somehow selfish post) but I don't get the root of the Xinjiang conflict.

How can Xinjiang, one of the poorest regions in China with a population of only 25 million inhabitants, have the balls to think it can challenge Beijing's authority and who was foolish/assholish enough to assist them in their cause?

It was clear from the very beginning that since China is not exactly a rich country, any insurgency in a remote area would be met with a cheap and fast answer (aka brutality). So anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have known that assisting the Uyghurs in an act of rebellion would cause them harm by the hand of the government.

Can you elaborate on this "act of rebellion" and "conflict" because you seem to have a different perspective on this to others I've read. This is generally presented as an intervention by the Chinese state against the Uyghurs because of their culture and religion (as I understand it).

 

[Chaotic Neutral]

Excuse me for the quick and somehow rash answer to what is a genuinely concerning question.

But I think it never really had a sincere purpose to begin. Going back to Jules Ferry in the 1880s, it was clear that the rest of the world (or colonies as it was called) only served one purpose and that was to benefit those in the West (at that time it was Germany/France/UK/Italy).

The League of Nations only emerged 40 years later and was supported - in France at least - by people that were no different from Ferry. Sure it wasn't the same faces but no alternative theory was available to secure (domestic) economic growth. And we haven't had a fundamental change in economic theory ever since, so...

This is a good point and I don't disagree, but I still think its stated purpose is important and that most people who work in some capacity for UN programs today, at least on the proverbial floor, believe in it. At least that's my experience of talking to workers and volunteers throughout the years and I think it's genuine.

This might be a bit of a tangent, but in my mind it's a bit like how we know most corporate shareholders don't really care about the green initiatives many companies are finally starting to work on out of the kindness of their hearts, but because there is an economic incentive to appeal to environmentally thinking consumers. Myself, I don't care what they feel they're gaining in the short run (i.e. since we're not meaningfully rearranging the world economy anyway) as long as it lowers global emissions for the collective benefit of humanity.

Similarly, the big nations can have their political concerns affect their behaviour in international institutions for all I care if they can at least protect human rights and maintain peace across the world (to the maximum realistic extent) while they're at it. This decision is in direct opposition to that and is a genuine failure to fulfil an important promise, whether it's sincere or not.

 

[ZephyrPhoenix]

UN being worthless as usual. What's new.

 

[Kenka]

Can you elaborate on this "act of rebellion" and "conflict" because you seem to have a different perspective on this to others I've read. This is generally presented as an intervention by the Chinese state against the Uyghurs because of their culture and religion (as I understand it).

Sure. Chinese authorities (including the police) have argued for decades that the Uyghur are hostile to the Chinese and that they complot against both the government and the population. Now, this idea is probably just the result of propaganda (we agree on that) but it still resulted in increasing the resentment towards the Uyghurs. On the other hand, there was indeed a successful secession of part of what is currently Xinjiang that was made with the support of the Soviet Union in the 40s.

While this discussion about the history of the region is nowhere as important as the current treatment of the Uyghurs, I still want to know what exactly happened over the years and what action led to what reaction. This is of relevance to me because I am from Eurasia and I have witnessed over the years that every piece of land around my birthplace has either gone backwards or has been simply destroyed. Hell, with the exception of the Gulf countries, the whole axis between Dakar and Beijing has had non-ending issues with poverty, war and wide illetrism. If we want to do better, we have to understand what forces are at play.

Yeah, I simply need to know what the hell is happening.