China’s Abuse of
the Uighurs: Does the Genocide Label Fit?
While multiple reports indicate that China has committed major abuses of
the Uighur minority group, determining the most serious charges is difficult.
Article by John
B. Bellinger III
February 3, 2021, 7:00 am (EST)
Chinese flags on a road leading to a facility in China’s northwestern Xinjiang region believed to be a reeducation camp where mostly Muslim ethnic minorities are detained. Greg Baker/AFP
On
his last full day in office, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo determined
that the Chinese government is committing genocide against the Uighurs and
other minority groups in the Xinjiang region. The Joe Biden administration is
reviewing the decision.
Here’s
what the genocide label means and what using it could entail for U.S. foreign
policy.
What
was the basis for Pompeo’s determination?
Secretary
Pompeo did not provide a detailed legal or factual justification for his
genocide determination. He stated that “we
are witnessing the systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs by the Chinese
party-state,” and that Chinese authorities “have made clear that they are
engaged in the forced assimilation and eventual erasure of a vulnerable ethnic
and religious minority group.” However, he did not explain how the governing
authorities had “made clear” that they were engaged in genocide.
Additionally,
he determined that the Chinese authorities are also committing “crimes against
humanity” against the Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. These crimes
include “arbitrary imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical
liberty,” “forced sterilization,” “torture,” and “forced labor.”
How
has the U.S. government traditionally made such determinations?
There
is no formal procedure for genocide determinations. Previous secretaries of
state have announced findings of genocide in at least five other situations:
Bosnia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Iraq (1995), Darfur (2004), and areas under the
control of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (2016 and 2017). The internal
procedure for these determinations has varied, but secretaries of state have
generally made decisions based on evidence collected by the State Department’s
policy and intelligence staff, which is typically assessed by department
attorneys.
However,
the process has sometimes led to disagreements within the State Department and
between the department and Congress. Department attorneys have historically
adopted a strict interpretation of what constitutes genocide for purposes of
the 1948
Genocide Convention.
Why
has there been such caution about using the genocide label?
There
are several reasons. First, State Department lawyers have wanted to be rigorous
in ensuring that a genocide determination is consistent with the Genocide
Convention’s definition of the term. Second, policy officials have often been
reluctant to make genocide determinations because doing so would result in
pressure on the U.S. government to stop the genocide, which is often difficult
to do. And third, both lawyers and policy officials have not wanted to lessen
the impact of genocide determinations by applying the term to atrocities that,
however horrific, do not rise to the level of genocide.
In
2019, Avril Haines, now director of national intelligence, and I chaired the
advisory committee for a report written
by two former State Department officials and published by the U.S. Holocaust
Memorial Museum, that explained how the U.S. government makes genocide
determinations. The report stated that “determinations viewed as based on
doubtful evidence or deviations from the internationally accepted legal
definition will be less effective in helping to mobilize support for tangible
action to address the atrocities, and the value of such determinations as a
means to help establish a historical record or to bear witness will be eroded.”
What
is the definition of genocide?
There
is a difference between use of the word genocide in common parlance, and even
by human rights groups, and the Genocide Convention’s definition, which is
quite narrow.
There is a difference between use of the word genocide
in common parlance, and even by human rights groups, and the Genocide
Convention’s definition, which is quite narrow.
The
Genocide Convention, which the United States ratified in 1988, defines
genocide as: “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such:
(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.”
So
the label hinges on the scale of the crimes?
Yes,
but also on the intent of the perpetrators. The convention requires that the
listed genocidal acts be conducted with an “intent to destroy” the relevant
group “in whole or in part,” which the U.S. Senate has interpreted to mean in
whole or “in substantial part.” U.S. law implementing the convention provides
that “substantial part” means “a part of a group of such numerical significance
that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the
group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part.”
Taken
together, these definitions require the U.S. government to find that a
government or individuals have engaged in the listed acts with an “intent to
destroy” an entire national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, not just some
of its members. Showing that a government or individuals acted with the
necessary intent is often extremely difficult to do, and this is why State
Department lawyers have been reluctant to use the term genocide.
What
are the legal consequences of a genocide declaration?
The
legal implications are minimal under both international and U.S. law. Parties
to the Genocide Convention have agreed that genocide “is a crime under
international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” But the U.S.
government has long taken the position that the convention only requires it to
prevent and punish genocide that occurs in U.S. territory. The United States
does not interpret that the convention requires it (or any other country) to
prevent and punish genocide in other countries, or to intervene for
humanitarian reasons.
However,
use of the term still conveys a very powerful moral stigma. Raphael Lemkin, the
Polish lawyer who coined the term during the Holocaust, said it must be
“treated as the most heinous of all crimes.” A determination of genocide has
historically increased pressure on the executive branch from Congress, advocacy
groups, the press, and the public to take significant actions to address the
genocide, including through sanctions and even military intervention.
What
have Biden administration officials said about Pompeo’s determination?
They
have given somewhat mixed signals, but appear to have agreed with Pompeo’s
determination. Ahead of his confirmation, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said,
“We’re very much in agreement…forcing men, women and children into
concentration camps, trying to, in effect, reeducate them to be adherents to
the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, all of that speaks to an effort to
commit genocide.” However, Pompeo’s genocide determination was issued just as
Blinken’s confirmation hearing began, and the timing could have been intended
to put Blinken on the spot.
China’s
Repression of Uighurs in Xinjiang
Linda
Thomas-Greenfield was asked about the determination in her own confirmation
hearing for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and said, “The State
Department is reviewing that now because all of the procedures were not
followed. They’re looking to make sure that they are followed to ensure that
that designation is held.” When asked about Thomas-Greenfield’s statement,
Blinken later said, “My judgment remains that genocide is [being] committed
against the Uighurs, and that hasn’t changed.”
Have
other countries determined that China is committing genocide against the
Uighurs?
Other
governments have condemned China’s actions but none has formally determined
that China is committing genocide, although pressure is mounting on them to do
so.
What
happens next?
Pompeo’s
genocide determination has boxed in the Biden administration’s ability to
improve the U.S. relationship with China and, as with other last-minute Trump
administration actions, this could have been its intent. To be sure, the Biden
administration would have forcefully condemned Chinese actions against the
Uighurs, but endorsing the genocide determination will raise public
expectations for the administration to take more punitive actions against China.
As
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield suggested, the Biden administration will likely
start by reviewing Pompeo’s determination. Secretary Blinken could ask
department officials to issue a more detailed justification for the
determination, especially evidence that Chinese authorities have an intent to
destroy the Uighurs as a group. A more detailed justification will likely be
necessary to persuade other governments to make similar genocide determinations
and to impose multilateral sanctions.
However,
taking any meaningful actions against China would be difficult and would cause
significant friction between Beijing and Washington. Previous U.S. genocide
determinations involved much smaller countries—such as Bosnia, Rwanda, and Iraq—with
which the United States did not have significant economic relations. It
would be economically and politically impossible for the United States to
impose broad trade sanctions against China, even after accusing China of
genocide. New targeted sanctions are more likely.
It’s
also possible that, after a careful review, the Biden administration determines
that China is committing crimes against humanity and “acts of genocide,”
without saying that Chinese actions qualify as genocide under the Genocide
Convention. Taking this position, however, would likely generate criticism from
congressional Republicans and some human rights groups.
Hasn’t
the Biden administration also agreed to conduct a review of whether the
government of Myanmar is engaged in genocide against the Rohingya?
Yes.
Blinken announced last week that he would conduct an interagency review to
determine whether Myanmar’s government is committing genocide against the
Rohingya. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson conducted a similar review in
2018 and concluded that Myanmar was engaged in “ethnic cleansing,” but stopped
short of using the term genocide.
No comments:
Post a Comment