1) Here we go again. The self-defeating "genocide" political name game that ultimately hurts victims. Where is my soapbox?!? Thread time. "Beijing’s own words and actions highlight the intent to end the Uyghurs as a people by @PLMattis" https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/15/xinjiang-uyghurs-intentional-genocide-china/

2) To be clear from the onset, I am ill-placed to conclude whether or not the actions of Chinese gov't officials towards Muslim #Uyghurs constitute a genocide. And that is part of the point of this thread: genocide is a legal term, not a political one.

3) A determination requires professional investigation, prosecution, and adjudication in a court of law w/ due process & fair trial rights that arrives at an informed decision re: whether individuals in China have committed a genocide. Period. Anything else is pure politics.

4) Sure, political&civil society actors can&should raise the alarm that there are indications of an ongoing genocide&action should be taken (as these actors should for crimes against humanity and war crimes w/ the same vigor, as argued below).

5) But politicians & bureaucrats are not the arbiters of whether a genocide has occurred. Nor should they be given all the ills that have come from the genocide name game that snuffs out actual discussion about effectively confronting atrocity crimes.

6) Quick digression: international jurisprudence has concluded that a genocide requires biological/physical destruction, so contrary to what has been said in this article, death of a significant nature is an obligatory threshold.

7) Likely for this reason @HRW (an org not known for conservative advocacy&legal analysis) appears to have determined Uyghur people are victims of crimes against humanity (not a genocide), an equally despicable atrocity crime that deserves a response. https://news.trust.org/item/20210419192607-8qvyk

8) Why is this genocide name game a problem? By concentrating so much on whether a genocide has occurred, the discussion both unjustly belittles the reprehensibility of other atrocity crimes AND blunts actual debate on effective ways to confront all instances of atrocity crimes.

9) For purposes of argument, if Chinese officials' treatment of Uyghur people amounted to "just" crimes against humanity (which can include persecution, extermination, rape, torture, detention), nothing should change w/r/t the US' or any country's response

10) Another problem with this name game is what are we actually fighting for? The victims or a label? Sure, genocide has a certain power in modern nomenclature, but it does not necessitate the US gov't to do anything different or more substantial.

11) E.g.,if Uyghurs are the victims of a genocide or crimes against humanity, the US gov't has all the same tools at its disposal. No magic cupboard of tools are opened if it is a genocide. A genocide determination does not mandate the US gov't to do anything of substance either.

12) To be more strategic about galvanizing int'l efforts to combat atrocity crimes, we should work towards bringing the term "genocide" back to earth and elevating crimes against humanity and war crimes in modern lexicon considering that these terms have lower legal thresholds.

13) Think of a world where the genocide name game is no longer a distraction, and when there are instances of any type of atrocity crime anywhere in the world, we could concentrate on organizing an int'l effort to stop such criminality and hold accountable those who participated.

14) But the current trajectory of the term "genocide" being co-opted for political purposes (both domestically in the US and on the int'l stage) is both a disservice to all victims of all atrocity crimes and undermines our collective ability to confront atrocity crimes anywhere.