Sign In  |  Register  |  About Menlo Park  |  Contact Us

Menlo Park, CA
September 01, 2020 1:28pm
7-Day Forecast | Traffic
  • Search Hotels in Menlo Park

  • CHECK-IN:
  • CHECK-OUT:
  • ROOMS:

Xinjiang Tribunal verdict on genocide based on questionable ‘evidence’

By Beulah Naidoo

Source: ICIJ

[This photo shows how the documents have parts taken out – not the entire document]

 

The outcome and conclusions of the Xinjiang Tribunal is a heated issue right now with international attention. Yet, the material which makes up the Xinjiang Papers seems to say nothing at all about the issue of the perpetration of genocide, or even about the personal responsibility of members of the central leadership of the Communist Party of China for any possible wrongdoing by Chinese state authorities in Xinjiang. But these are the conclusions reached by the unofficial body referred to as the Xinjiang Tribunal.

The Xinjiang Papers consist of leaked internal documents of the Chinese Government that form the substantive core of the evidence. The Xinjiang Papers were obtained by The New York Times in 2019 from an unknown person, and were subsequently handed over to the Xinjiang Tribunal in 2021 by another (not necessarily different) unknown person, conveniently in time for the second part of the hearing, which took place in September 2021.

While the desire to conceal the identity of the source of the leaked secret and top-secret documents is understandable given the likelihood of sanctions by the Chinese Government, it raises the very important question of how the collection of leaked material was assembled. There is considerable doubt cast on the assumption that the source of the leak handed over all the documents in his possession in the interests of general fairness. Rather, it is more likely that the set of leaked documents was carefully selected from a much larger set of documents deliberately, with the intent to give a certain impression and thus distort the perception of the world public. This raises the serious question of the authenticity of the leaked documents.

The danger of the material for the reader (especially in the preface) drafted by Adrian Zenz (anti-Chinese activist and member of the Xinjian Tribunal) is the classification of the documents into secret and top-secret, a fact that Zenz mentions throughout the text. For the naïve reader, this may create or strengthen the incorrect impression that when a government classifies a document as secret, it is incriminating itself of dishonest or even criminal intent. This is highly inaccurate; the very nature of a sovereign state’s national interest and national security means that documents with highly sensitive material are classified secret and top-secret. This is a distorted perspective which the Xinjiang Tribunal wishes to pursue, which raises the question of the objectivity of the Tribunal.

For example, the top-secret content of President Xi Jinping’s speech could be viewed with heightened suspicion simply because it is classified. Zenz seems to use this potential reader’s naivety quite skillfully in his preface to capture and create the flawed impression of criminality on the part of the Chinese Government. However, readers that are more informed will recognize that all governments of all political establishments keep many elements of their activities secret not necessarily to protect themselves from the exposure of disreputable plans, but rather because revealing their perfectly legitimate priorities, plans and methods could severely damage the viability of these plans.

Zenz attempts to identify in the leaked secret documents the connections (so-called “links” and “linking”) of specific elements of statements made by members of the central leadership of the Communist Party of China with the criticized practices of the Xinjiang state authorities. By carefully translating and quoting every single pertinent section of the leaked documents and comparing them with the alleged actions of the Xinjiang authorities, this method attempts to interpret the statements and create an ‘overall picture’ of the direct involvement of the central Chinese authorities in the criticized events in Xinjiang. The author endeavors to demonstrate how and to what extent the priorities and implementation principles articulated by the central leadership correspond to the actions of the local authorities. However, structural similarity of expression, the hierarchy of authorities and even time-based sequence cannot be equated to causality. This means that the attempt to create a ‘big picture’ of the central Chinese leadership’s involvement in the alleged illegal or criminal persecution of the Xinjiang population is merely hypothetical (historical-sociological) in a scientific sense, rather than empirically and scientifically sound.

A simple comparison of the elements that Zenz finds in the statements of the central authorities in the leaked documents that demonstrate the alleged criminality of the Chinese central leadership can be compared with similar domestic political elements in other countries: re-education against religious extremism (“combating religious extremism” in the US phrasing and context), transfer into full-time employment (“state investment incentives for big employers” in the EU; “FED bailouts of stock market” in the US), equalization of ethnic minorities (and ethnic majority) in the area of birth control (“equal rights in family planning” in the West), planning the distribution of ethnic groups in own territory (“desegregation” in the US). National values are an intrinsic part of forming a national and cultural identity in a sovereign state and the policy of Sinicization in China should be viewed in this context.

The attempt by the unofficial tribunal which possesses no sanction or enforcement powers to create verdicts on questionable evidence is inconsistent with international law. The admission of the Tribunal on this matter is revealing: “The Tribunal has borne in mind that the allegations themselves and much of the evidence provided by witnesses came from people predisposed against the PRC, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or communism itself” (Uyghur Tribunal Summary Judgement, 9 December 2021). At the China-United States meeting in March 2021 in Anchorage, Chinese Communist Party Foreign Affairs Chief Yang Jiechi asserted: “China upholds the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law and …the principles enshrined in the UN Charter”. It is imperative that the legitimacy of international law must be upheld. The sovereign state of China demands no less.

***ENDS***

The writer is Beulah Naidoo (Masters in Diplomatic Studies, University of Pretoria)

Former South African diplomat at the United Nations (New York and Geneva)

Tutor in International Relations at the University of South Africa

Independent Consultant (Alpha Consultancy) on International Relations

Data & News supplied by www.cloudquote.io
Stock quotes supplied by Barchart
Quotes delayed at least 20 minutes.
By accessing this page, you agree to the following
Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.
 
 
Copyright © 2010-2020 MenloPark.com & California Media Partners, LLC. All rights reserved.