Live data from Hacker News

China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

npr.org

61–70 of 239 posts

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#62
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless we are willing to go to war - there are no viable ways to prevent China from doing whatever they feel like in the territory they control. This just seems false. There are no ways to guarantee that they won't do something, but China, like everyone else, is vulnerable to international pressure. An optimistic historic parallel to which one could look is the Helsinki Accords, where diplomatic measures far short…

It seems but it is not. China is ascending power whereas USSR was in the first stages of decay. The only game the big boys play is Realpolitik. And they were not binding anyway. And I can assure you that USSR and the eastern bloc didn't comply at all.

> And they were not binding anyway. And I can assure you that USSR and the eastern bloc didn't comply at all.

Of course, there is no such thing as a binding international agreement—a state that feels itself empowered to abrogate an agreement will do so, regardless of anything that it has signed. As you say, in the end, the only sure-fire tool of enforcement is war, and even that is not sure fire, because victory in war is not guaranteed. Nonetheless, despite the many and flagrant violations of the Helsinki Accords, it is plausible to trace the beginning of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact directly to the accords.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#63

I understand that China is extremely powerful both militarily and economically, but it just makes me so sad that such atrocities against humanity are occurring at the hands of a superpower, deep into the 21st century. Forgive my naiveté, but aren't we supposed to be past this type of thing as a species already? Wasn't that the whole point of the 20th century - to show us all the things we shouldn't be doing?

As I've gotten older, I've come to really feel like humans just haven't been around that long and we really haven't progressed that much outside of technology. WW2 wasn't really that long ago and neither was the the American civil war, both wars based on race and atrocities. I think it's a bit of a fallacy to think that just because some country is technology and economically advanced it will have correct moral value…

We've progressed in technology because of war & conflict.

But yes, it was incorrect to assume the CCP would play nice once they were a superpower.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK cannot simultaneously piss off Brussels and Beijing. Not going to happen. And UK is 1/6th of China economy.

The UK was 1/6. Back when we had a financial services sector, before we brucked it all up for blue passports. Strange how we ever punched that high. We only have 1/23 the people, and barely make anything ourselves these days.

Gunships + British Raj. Would have lasted longer too if the UK didn't start the road to bankruptcy by entering WW1.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#65
post #41

I understand that China is extremely powerful both militarily and economically, but it just makes me so sad that such atrocities against humanity are occurring at the hands of a superpower, deep into the 21st century. Forgive my naiveté, but aren't we supposed to be past this type of thing as a species already? Wasn't that the whole point of the 20th century - to show us all the things we shouldn't be doing?

Are we? A survery in The Lancet estimated that the Iraq invasion caused an excess of 650k deaths by October 2006. A simple extrapolation would surely put the excess deaths in the middle east into millions. It's different though. We're the good guys.

Not to defend the invasion, but the difference between say Japan post WWII and Iraq is almost entirely internal. Blaming the invasion for those deaths is not unreasonable, but it’s glossing over a lot of context.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#66

I understand that China is extremely powerful both militarily and economically, but it just makes me so sad that such atrocities against humanity are occurring at the hands of a superpower, deep into the 21st century. Forgive my naiveté, but aren't we supposed to be past this type of thing as a species already? Wasn't that the whole point of the 20th century - to show us all the things we shouldn't be doing?

Just replace China with the US in this comment and you’ll understandz

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just me or does this happen for every article about anything China-related?

Sssh, you're getting close to noticing that HN, a popular anonymous message board, has become the clear target of professional propagandists. You'll get banned for that. The mods are determined to never see this particular elephant in the room.

> clear target

Which means you have clear evidence you can share with everyone, right?

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#68
post #52
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> loosened the limit to 2 kids per family Still a limit, and a low one at that, so doesn’t sound “desperate” at all. TFA says “I uncovered evidence that the Uighurs are subject to internment in camps if they violate birth control policies, have too many children.” Presumably too many is greater than 2, but who knows.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/250650/number-of-births-... The trend is clear, the limit was loosened late 2015, and it's not working coz people don't want/can't afford 2 kids. China didn't care minorities having 10 kids before, why bother now?

> why bother now?

Of course I can’t answer that question, it’s not like I’m particularly perturbed by minorities having 10 kids. (I am in general perturbed by people giving birth to many children without the means to properly support and educate them, though. This is a problem in many parts of the world.)

My point is either one child policy was a genocide against the ethnic majority (which would frankly be ridiculous) or this one is not a genocide against an ethnic minority. Pretty sure whether the two occurred at the exact same time isn’t a factor in the cited definition.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#70
Hahaha, Zenz. People, please look at the sources before you go blindly believing the latest anti-China scare story.

https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-...

> The second study relied on flimsy media reports and speculation. It was authored by Adrian Zenz, a far-right fundamentalist Christian who opposes homosexuality and gender equality, supports “scriptural spanking” of children, and believes he is “led by God” on a “mission” against China.

> As Washington ratchets up pressure on China, Zenz has been lifted out of obscurity and transformed almost overnight into a go-to pundit on Xinjiang. He has testified before Congress, providing commentary in outlets from the Wall Street Journal to Democracy Now!, and delivering expert quotes in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ recent “China Cables” report. His Twitter bio notes that he is “moving across the Atlantic” from his native Germany.

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1208837915687706624

Post reply on HN