China Daily Global Weekly
Report on ‘genocide’ in Xinjiang dismissed
US, Canadian think tanks have relied on dubious sources, scholars say
A report recently published by United States and Canadian think tanks that accuses China of committing “genocide” in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region is void of any evidence and has an obvious political agenda, foreign and domestic scholars said, adding that such a groundless accusation is not in line with international law, and is an insult to Xinjiang people.
“Making a determination of genocide must follow strict legal procedures with solid evidence. It isn’t something that can be randomly determined by certain countries, organizations or people that have an ideological bias and political agenda. The deliberate move of claiming that ‘genocide’ is occurring in Xinjiang has trampled on international laws. Furthermore, it’s an insult to people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang,” said Arken Samsak, deputy dean of Xinjiang University’s School of Law.
He made the remarks after the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, based in Sweden, released on April 27 “The Xinjiang Genocide Determination as Agenda”, an analysis debunking the false accusation of “genocide” in Xinjiang.
The analysis pointed out many gaps in “The Uyghur Genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention”, a report jointly published on March 8 by the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights in Montreal, Canada.
The report comes across as containing fake, dubious or biased sources and deliberately leaving out crucial perspectives, theories, concepts and facts, the analysis found.
“When you accuse another country of genocide, you must have rock-solid documentation. The supportive documentation of the report mainly comes from a database that is anonymous,” Jan Oberg, co-writer of the analysis, told China Central Television during a recent interview.
Also, the sources used in the report lean in the same politicoideological direction, the analysis found.
Moreover, the so-called independent scholars who produced it are actually not independent. Some of them are closely linked to the US State Department or have a military background, Oberg said.
“This report takes the role of being the documentation for US foreign policy,” he added.
The report is perfect for US policies instead of a genuine human rights-only campaign and trustworthy advocacy, the analysis found.
“Those so-called scholars preferred choosing to believe in lies fabricated by certain individuals than listening to the Xinjiang people. It shows that they never care about facts, but make excuses for the forces behind them to interfere with China’s internal affairs,” said Mahmut Abudulwali, a researcher at the Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences.