According the exact same logic used by this ZENZ guy, China's majority group (Han) has been subjected to such "genocide" for decades. As a result of such "suppression", only 400 million Han Chinese were born in the last 30 years rather than the estimated 800+ million.
I may be mistaken but Han Chinese weren't forced to undergo sterilization. If you had a second child, you were fined and your child wouldn't be recognized as a Chinese citizen. Still horrible though.
> The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.
> But while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show. Some rural Muslims, like Omirzakh, are punished even for having the three children allowed by the law
> Leaked data obtained and corroborated by the AP showed that of 484 camp detainees listed in Karakax county in Xinjiang, 149 were there for having too many children - the most common reason for holding them. Time in a camp — what the government calls “education and training” — for parents with too many children is written policy in at least three counties, notices found by Zenz confirmed
> Seven former detainees told the AP that they were force-fed birth control pills or injected with fluids, often with no explanation. Many felt dizzy, tired or ill, and women stopped getting their periods. After being released and leaving China, some went to get medical check-ups and found they were sterile
> But are Han Chinese sent to concentration camps?
All of them? Certainly not, China would look pretty empty. Some of them? Yeah, unless you have a special definition of concentration camp.
The organ harvesting also does not seem to have an ethnic component. You tend to be targeted if you're loudly critical of the government or engage in unwanted religion, your ethnicity does not spare you.
> The organ harvesting also does not seem to have an ethnic component. You tend to be targeted if you're loudly critical of the government or engage in unwanted religion, your ethnicity does not spare you.
If Surgeon Enver Tohti’s testimony is to be believed, then Uyghurs are indeed targeted for organ harvesting.
Most likely, my point is: so are Han Chinese that are imprisoned for a variety of reasons. It's not an ethnic thing, it's primarily an authoritarian-regime-with-little-regard-for-human-rights-thing. Falun Gong practicioners for example are also heavily targeted, and they are predominately Han.
That's actually not true. The Han Chinese are imposed forced sterilization. Even worse, pregnant Han women who violate the policy have been taken from home to do forced abortion. I hate this policy as much as anybody, but I won't call it genocide.
Fair point, my comment was incorrect. I suppose the distinction I would draw is that the restrictions on Han births were imposed by a Han government. That seems different than imposing it on other groups.
The U.N. guidelines for genocide extend beyond suppression of birth. You typically have to meet several of the guidelines, "with intent to destroy," for the UN to classify policy as genocidal. You can find them here:
And even the U.N. guidelines are controversial in genocide study circles due to the ongoing academic debate on intent.
Edit: Intent is the most fierce academic discussion in genocide studies. It's the first major academic topic introduce in Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (Adam Jones), which is the standard introductory book. Here's a collection of books, not even articles, primarily concerned with intent:
* With Intent to Destroy: Reflecting on Genocide
* The Khmer Rouge and the Crime of Genocide: Issues of Genocidal Intent with Regard to the Khmer Rouge Mass Atrocities
* A Collective Theory of Genocidal Intent
* On the Nature of Genocidal Intent
Not to mention dozens of articles, symposia, proceedings, debates, book chapters, reviews, and more. The UN-defined "with intent to destroy" has become the most notorious and controversial phrase in genocide studies. Adam Jones pp 11-39, 49-51 is my recommended reading for a primer on the subject. It's online for free. [0]
Suppression of birth does not mean “limiting”, it means “preventing”. The actual U.N. article phrasing is as follows:
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
If the Chinese government was imposing sterilization on their own people in the native ethnic majority, then that too would qualify under that definition, as long as the intent to "physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" is proven (emphasis mine). The same need to prove intent applies to this situation with the Uighur people as well.
The intent matters. Suppression of birth among Han Chinese was intended to limit population growth. Locking up 1.5 million Uyghurs in concentration camps, sterilizing them, and harvesting their organs is done with quite a different intent.
The UN guidelines that Zenz is following:
> 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:
According the exact same logic used by this ZENZ guy, China's majority group (Han) has been subjected to such "genocide" for decades. As a result of such "suppression", only 400 million Han Chinese were born in the last 30 years rather than the estimated 800+ million.