Read on Twitter
LONG 
I didn't want to do this, but let's take the PS piece more or less paragraph-by-paragraph. First, reasonable people can disagree on whether the atrocities in Xinjiang amount to genocide. I am persuaded that they are, but one can make a good faith argument to the contrary. https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/1385079291147399168
I didn't want to do this, but let's take the PS piece more or less paragraph-by-paragraph. First, reasonable people can disagree on whether the atrocities in Xinjiang amount to genocide. I am persuaded that they are, but one can make a good faith argument to the contrary. https://twitter.com/Dalzell60/status/1385079291147399168
The Sachs/Schabas piece does not strike me as a good faith argument, as @Dalzell60 seems to suggest. @SheenaGreitens explains one reason why here: https://twitter.com/SheenaGreitens/status/1385354043048927233?s=20
Anyway, here goes...
Paragraph 1: Cites a @NickKristof column as an example of a pundit calling for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics. In that article, Kristof argues that...wait for it...the games should proceed as scheduled.
Paragraph 1: Cites a @NickKristof column as an example of a pundit calling for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics. In that article, Kristof argues that...wait for it...the games should proceed as scheduled.
One could reasonably stop reading there, but let's continue our journey...
Paragraph 2: Cites the @ForeignPolicy reporting that top @StateDept lawyers are skeptical of the genocide charge. Doesn't engage with the fact that many others in the department--including those trained as lawyers--disagree.
Paragraph 3: The authors criticize the @StateDept Human Rights report for failing to provide evidence of genocide. They note that the report only mentions "genocide" twice--in the preface and the executive summary of the China chapter--leaving readers to guess about the evidence.
The report goes into more detail than the authors suggest. It looks an awful lot like they hit ctrl-f for "genocide" and didn't read the report in detail beyond that. The para from the exec summary is below. Guess what--all of the crimes listed here are described in more detail.
In fairness, I do believe the @StateDept report could have provided an even more compelling case. There's an abundance of evidence at this point (more on this below), but the idea that State has alleged a genocide without backing up the claim is false on its face.
Paragraphs 4 and 5: I want to reproduce these in full below. The fact of the matter is we DO NOT need to understand the context of the Chinese crackdown in Xinjiang. Literally NOTHING excuses the ongoing crimes, however we define them.
The difference between these passages and Trump's comments below is less than the authors would like to thing. Lipstick, meet pig.
Paragraph 9-10: Authors claim there is no "proof of intent to destroy the group physically." Not so fast. Here's @PLMattis showing "proof of intent." https://twitter.com/PLMattis/status/1382861761322319874?s=20
And here's the @NewlinesInst report on the atrocities, which dedicates about 11 pages to the question of whether there is "intent to destroy in whole or in part" the group. (Stick a pin in this--I'll come back to Newlines momentarily.) https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Chinas-Breaches-of-the-GC3.pdf
Paragraphs 12-13: The authors dismiss the accusation of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" because China has long had a one-child policy.
In noting that "stricter measures have been imposed on Xinjiang's Muslim minority" of late, they note that those "families are traditionally larger than China's average."
The assertion seems to be that it's *reasonable* to target Muslims because they have lots of kids and this is just the sort of the thing the CCP does--but this is not proof of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." Ok.
The authors also note that for the period 2010-2018, Xinjiang has "a positive overall population growth rate, with the Uighur population growing faster than the non-Uighur population in Xinjiang." This is what we call selective presentation of facts.
. @VOANews, citing *China's* National Bureau of Statistics, notes that the birthrate in Xinjiang nearly halved from 2017 to 2019 and that the natural population growth rate plummeted by two-thirds during that period. Here's the full passage:
And here's a chart from the reporting. That red, nose-diving line? That's Xinjiang's birth rate.
Whole story here: https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/voa-news-china/chinese-statistics-reveal-plummeting-births-xinjiang-during
Paragraph 14: Back to Newlines. The authors note: "The genocide charge is being fueled by 'studies' like the Newlines Institute report that recently made global headlines." That they put "studies" in scare quotes is telling.
The authors dismiss the study because Newlines is tied to a "tiny Virginia based university w/ 153 students, eight full-time faculty, and an apparently conservative policy agenda." THE HORROR! Do the authors engage with the Newlines report at all? No, they do not. Again, telling.
This gets at one of the main problems with the PS article. It does not engage--AT ALL--with the mountains of evidence now available.
It focuses exclusively on the @StateDept report (which is better than they suggest), dismisses the Newlines report for no apparent reason, and ignores everything else.
It is fair to focus on @StateDept documents given the State determination of genocide--but that determination is not based solely on classified intelligence. It's based on the collective work of journalists and researchers the world over.
And again, as @SheenaGreitens notes, if you're going to insist on defining the crimes as not-genocide, you should grapple with whether they do amount to crimes against humanity--which seems far less debatable.
And if they *are* crimes against humanity, we're left with a similar problem set. What, if anything, can we do to stop it?
Paragraphs 15-16. The authors argue there should be a UN investigation. I agree! They also (approvingly?) quote the PRC delegate to the UN Human Rights Council, who said the following:
Two things to note here. First, if you think this is anything other than a PRC delaying tactic, you are incredibly naive.
Second, if you have watched how the @WHO investigation played out and think that China will somehow be *more* transparent with and *more* open to an investigation into its alleged CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and GENOCIDE, your naivety knows no bounds.
If there were to be a UN investigation, it should absolutely be fair and balanced. It should also be unfettered. But much as Sachs and Schabas might enjoy putting lipsticks on pigs, pigs will never fly. /END
PS: @ProSyn should never have published this piece. At the very least, they should have assigned it to an editor with a critical eye.
