This post originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2021/01/a-few-points-on-human-rights.html.
***
One of the most egregious of abuses against human rights is war. Other abuses, including killing, rape, torture, destruction and other barbarities all are likely to occur, and on a wide scale. It is therefore, in my opinion, incumbent on all people who care about human rights to care about issues relating to war and peace - peace activism, as exemplified by SIPRI and Paul K Chappell, monitoring, as exemplified by ACLED and Airwars (and SIPRI), and prevention, as exemplified by the International Peace Institute, The Elders, and - albeit with flaws - the UN.
One such organisation which could be said to fit into all three categories is the International Crisis Group, who have recently released their assessment of ten conflicts to watch in 2021 - see here.
The
article provides a good summary of the current situation, how that was
reached, and key issues. Their regular releases during the year contain
specific recommendations for all parties in a situation -
recommendations framed for governments and leaders to be able to act on,
should they so choose.
(The
conflicts are Afghanistan, Ethiopia, the Sahel, Yemen, Venezuela,
Somalia, Libya, Iran-USA, Russia-Turkey, and climate change.)
Moving slightly away from war, to crimes that also encompass horrific abuses committed on individuals, but to a scale that is egregious, we come to genocide and crimes against humanity.
In my opinion, the actions of China in Tibet meet the definition of genocide.
From the Genocide Convention (Article II):
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:The first issue to consider is that of motivation.
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The CCP has a long history of religious discrimination with policies against religion included in official documentation (see here, here, and here) - all with, mind you, a touch of hypocrisy (see here and here).
After China's violent invasion of Tibet, China's abuses in Tibet have included deliberate suppression of religion, deprivation of life, disappearances, torture, poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrest and detention, denial of fair public trial, denial of freedom of speech, political and religious repression, forced abortions, sterilisation, and infanticide.
In other words:
- the motivation is proven by official documents, at least as far a religion goes, which was a key aspect of Tibetan culture;
- the acts cover items (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Article II of the convention.
I
consider it likely proof exists of the CCP's motivation of destruction
with regard to the other acts - perhaps most notably by the large scale
movement of Han Chinese into Tibet, but proving that may be difficult. For more on this, see here (on the cultural genocide), here, here (which has a useful reminder of the abuses in China), and here.
More recently, there has been concern over China's actions against the Uyghur, particularly in the western province of Xinjiang.
The trigger for me writing this part of the post was an article in "The Economist" titled "The persecution of the Uyghurs is a crime against humanity".
In actuality, those actions have already been categorised as a genocide by some - the actions include forced sterilisation (Genocide Convention Article II (d) ), for instance, as well as other abuses. The anti-religion aspect reflects the anti-Tibetan Buddhism aspects of the China's actions in Tibet, and this article includes the following:
One factor that predicts whether a genocide will occur is whether it already happened in a place once, or if the same perpetrators carried out a genocide somewhere else and then used their playbook in a second place.The actions of China against ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang are gravely concerning; the actions of China against Hong Kong have shown the "one nation, two systems" claim to be a lie; repression within China is concerning; and the actions of China against other nations have raised serious concerns about how peaceful China's intentions are.
For example, Germany’s Second Reich exterminated the Indigenous Herero and Nama people in 1904 in the African country now known as Namibia. The techniques, the perpetrators, and the motivations were refined, updated, and used a few decades later in the Holocaust. Same perpetrators, different location.
The United States carried out a genocide against the American Indians and used many similar techniques of enslavement and brutality against Blacks. Same perpetrators, same location.
China is another example: first a genocide against the people of Tibet, then against the Uighurs.
The Economist article linked to above included the following sub-title:
"It is also the gravest example of a worldwide attack on human rights."
The addition to The Economist's article, this article on China's abuses in Hong Kong raised the risk to the world order, and this assessment by Human Rights Watch is titled "China’s Global Threat to Human Rights".
I consider it fair to say that there are reasonable grounds for considering China is likely committing two genocides.
Under the Genocide Convention, which is part of international law, other nations are obliged to act.
Infamously, the USA has tied itself in word knots trying to allege there are differences between "acts of genocide" and genocide, which is a disingenuous lie that was indulged in for political comfort at home.
More recently, with the genocide against the Rohingya, despite worldwide outrage, the most effective action was by The Gambia, a relatively small nation (two million people - fewer than my home city, 146th GDP in the world, and an army of 3,000 troops) with a bigger heart and conscience than any other nation in the world, a nation with its own experience of atrocities and overcoming them (although some problems still continue), which commenced legal action against burma in the International Court of Justice.
Others
have subsequently joined in, but it took The Gambia's heart to get the
ball rolling - that, and a recognition that the response to genocide
does NOT have to be a military invasion.
Will someone do that against China?
Well, it is unlikely to be any of the major powers.
Apart from China's economic clout, which is being wielded like a blunt instrument to bludgeon other nations into thinking the way the CCP wants, there are considerable military risks as a result of China's new aggression. I linked recently to a Caspian Report video on how China is attempting to shape India's actions and thinking on military matters, and I have also speculated (a few years ago) that China could create a distraction at one of its Belt and Road Initiative facilities and then invade Taiwan while the world is looking elsewhere.
(I'm now inclined, following the signs of India's astuteness around shipping channels, to suspect any distraction may be in the East China Sea,
against Japan - and it would be large, serious, and enough to distract
the USA, leaving China relatively free to invade Taiwan, which has a
good supply of military assets but lacks military personnel - see here, here, and here.)
Military action against China is unlikely to be initiated by other nations for the next few decades, so legal action and sanctions
are most probably the tools that can be used against China for now.
There are nations which do not have significant financial indebtedness
to China (yet), so it is possible another nation will be as brave as The Gambia, and commence legal action.
China has a history of rejecting international decisions, so sanctions are probably going to be what we see for the time being.
However, China could be subject to influence from nations we haven't heard much from yet - nations like Indonesia.
Those nations are where, in my opinion, the hope for human rights lie - flawed nations with their own internal problems, as with The Gambia, but a large market likely to be interest to China, a position to cut off China's oil flows (as India can), and a history of "non-alignment" (although Indonesia has been largely pro-West in recent decades).
And on history, I'd like to end with a video assessing one of the key parts of a past genocide: the Holocaust. The video examines the term antisemitism, including the history of the term and nuances around its use.
PS - there are ten stages of genocide (see here). To put the preceding into a global context, the organisation that publishes those stages currently has issued a special report on Uganda (the imminent election will exacerbate ethnic tensions), and also the following:
- "watch" (early stages) for: Kashmir, India (Assam State), Burundi - 3 places
- "warnings" for: Israel/Palestine, Venezuela, Turkey/Syria/Iraq (Kurds) - 3 regions
- "emergency" (genocides are happening): Mali, Yemen, Iraq, burma (Rohingya and Kachin), Nigeria, Central African Republic, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria - 11 places
Even without Xinjiang and Tibet, there are ELEVEN genocides happening in the world right now . . .
