Add The United Nations To The List Of Entities Helping The Chinese Government Oppress Its Minority Uighur Population
from the can-you-not???!!!! dept
It's no secret the Chinese government wants to control its population through pervasive surveillance. It's also no secret the government wants very badly to eliminate a certain sector of its population with (in every sense of the words) extreme prejudice.
China's minority Uighur Muslim population presents an existential threat to a government that is tasked with controlling the hearts and minds of billions of residents. The Uighurs don't buy into the government narrative or whatever passes for a national religion in a country where almost every religious expression has been suppressed.
The Chinese government claims to have no national religion. This may be true. But it will only tolerate so many, and Islam isn't one of them. The government has engaged in the mass disappearance of this minority. And it has done so with an alarming amount of assistance from non-Chinese entities, ranging from American tech companies to foreign government officials.
It's not like anyone's having trouble divining the Chinese government's intent when it comes to its Uighur population. But even multinational entities charged with keeping the (worldwide) peace and preventing large-scale human rights abuses are giving China what it wants.
Enter the United Nations, which has apparently become Nations United Against Uighurs, according to this report for Newsweek by Josh Feldman:
The United Nations, the very institution created to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," is assisting China in its violent efforts to wipe out the Uyghurs by helping the CCP cover its tracks. These were the findings of a recent report in Le Monde about the efforts of UN human rights officer-turned whistleblower Emma Reilly. Reilly claims that prior to every UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session in recent years, China has requested the names of Uyghur and other Chinese dissidents who were scheduled to speak. And despite this being explicitly forbidden by the UN's own rules, the UN, according to Reilly, has made it a practice to share this information with Chinese authorities, who use it to harass the dissidents' families who are still based in China.
True? False? Unconfirmed? Gentlepersons, place your bets. But me personally? I'm siding with confirmed. These complaints about the UN's willingness to aid and abet at least indirect harassment of Uighur residents seem to have a pretty solid basis. This isn't a recent development. The Chinese government has wanted Uighurs regulated to the background of their own genocide for years.
Reilly says she first discovered the practice in 2013, when China's Geneva delegation requested confirmation that certain "anti-government Chinese separatists" were set to speak at the Human Rights Council. Listed individuals included, among others, Dolkun Isa, current president of the World Uyghur Congress.
Emma Reilly, of course, is now faring worse than either the UN or the Chinese government atrocities the UN is helping enable. Despite official confirmation of her allegations by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), she was fired from her position the day after French newspaper Le Monde reported on her accusations.
Meanwhile, the UN tries to have it both ways.
The UN in fact confirmed Reilly's allegations in 2017, when the OHCHR acknowledged that it confirms attendees' names with Chinese authorities who "regularly ask the UN Human Rights Office... whether particular NGO delegates are attending the forthcoming session." So too, did a 2019 UN tribunal confirm "the practice of providing names of human rights defenders to the Chinese delegation."
Despite confirming the Chinese government's abuse of UN processes, the UN Secretary-General claimed it blew the Chinese government off when it determined it had no basis to request these names. This assertion was rejected by a UN judge, who said the OHCHR had lied about its actual responses to the Chinese government's demands for names of speakers it wished to silence.
But this declaration hasn't changed the math much for the censorial and violent Chinese government. It still gets to participate in worldwide discussions about governance and demand information on UN speakers it doesn't agree with for the apparent purpose of engaging in witness intimidation. It's not that no one can see what's going on in China. It's that, for the most part, those with the power to attempt to force positive change have decided they're outmatched and outgunned by a government whose bark has proven so efficient it never needs to bite. Someone needs to call China's bluff. But those who can not only refuse to challenge the international bully, but actively participate in actions that consolidate its power.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: china, surveillance, uighurs, un
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is this the same UN that denied peacekeepers were banging the locals despite them transmitting STI's that only were in the home countries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the whistleblower got fired, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple misunderstanding, you see the council on human rights isn't there to protect those rights it's so the members can share the best ways they've found to violate them.
(I wish I could say the above was sarcasm but given the article...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, China is doing it's best to find partners to research the issue of human rights thoroughly and, obviously, independently:
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/01/vu-returns-human-rights-research-funding-from-c hina/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the Big Things
On this article? What Chamath Palihapitiya said.
How bout you write articles on things Americans care about? Like the homeless in Frisco?
The opioid crisis maybe?
But the Ughyrs/Uighurs/Wiggers??????
Aren't those the Muslim terrorists in the underbelly of a foreign country? Are you an American? Give me 1 reasons why what a Wigger is doing 10,000 miles away from Market Street poopsters and smack shooters has to do with, uh,, the price of tea in China?
P.S., Chamath Palihapitiya should never ever ever ever have backtracked for telling the truth. It won't get you anywhere Chamath least of all with the writers of Tech Dirt. Belieee that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the Big Things
Feel free to leave if you're not interested in the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's the Big Things
Also: Feel free to die if you're not interested in the plight of people who aren't exactly like you.
Callous cunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All together now
Fuck your feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Chinese government is their national religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulated
Relegated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just as hypocritical as the rest of the so-called 'anti' this, that, the other organisations!! dont give a toss about what it's doing or how it's doing it, let alone the harm being donr to people by what is now, surely, the topmost nation for rights abuses!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The Chinese government claims to have no national religion. This may be true. But it will only tolerate so many, and Islam isn't one of them."
Interestingly this is a very late development. China has tolerated a plethora of religions in the past, Islam among them - and notably Christianity as well, which historically has been far more under fire given its role during the "century of humiliation".
The Uyghur and Tibetans stand out as being a people being persecuted as well as over their religious reasons, but in all cases it's inaccurate to call this an "anti-islamic" sentiment by the chinese government.
I'd say that starting with the crackdown on Falun Gong we are simply in one of those regularly recurring periods where the Chinese government comes down heavily on any spiritual value not aligned directly with Chinese culture and government doctrine.
As they've done in the past, plenty of times.
The Uyghur and Tibetans would have gotten hit no matter which given their cultures explicitly states they aren't chinese, but the broader current crackdowns on Islam, Christianity and Judaism has the same explanation as when China went to war against Buddhism back in the day - foreign ideologies have no place in Hua Xia.
So please, Tim, separate those issues. China is persecuting the Uyghur and the Tibetans. This is ethnic cleansing performed to make sure chinese territory only has "chinese" people in it.
There is also a broader persecution of, well, every spiritual philosophy which is either foreign or acknowledges authority over that of the party. This is objectively speaking equally bad.
But although they overlap this is about two different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is it in the interest of a nation state to have law applied to it, when the alternative is to sneeze in the wrong direction; diplomacy is a rule at the UN, perhaps. The basis of or, for the charter is to be a forum to discuss matters of the collective good, agreement may come when it is politically feasible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]