Metten also stressed the critical need for nations to hold China accountable for its ‘severe human rights violations’ during its fourth Universal Periodic Review, done by the UN Human Rights Council in January. Such as what’s happening in Tibet.
Several other nations seconded that opinion. Including Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
“The Chinese government’s ongoing policy of repression aims to eradicate the authentic and self-determined Tibetan culture. This policy must be stopped immediately,” Metten said.
Having China in a human rights council would be as ironic as having Russia in a peace counsil
They already are. China, Russia and the USA are permanent members of the Security Council. Russia and the USA were both current members of the Human Rights Council for separate concurrent terms, but Russia was removed as part of the aftermath of their invasion of Ukraine.
Part of the idea is having these dangerous nations included at the table so they can be held accountable to whatever degree the UN is capable. If they are removed from that process entirely, what motivation do they have to comply with the UN at all?
If they are removed from that process entirely, what motivation do they have to comply with the UN at all?
China’s government doesn’t see a motivation to comply with UN (or any) rules as long as they don’t support their expansionism and economic colonization. What they want is to influence UN decisions and re-writing human rights and other rules to their benefit, eliminating democracy.
Didn’t literally all the Muslim countries visit Xinjiang and come out of it with the consensus of “yeah, y’know what, China’s doing pretty good all things considered.”
What makes the opinions of white non-Muslim people matter in this context?
Didn’t literally all the Muslim countries visit Xinjiang and come out of it with the consensus of “yeah, y’know what, China’s doing pretty good all things considered.”
All things considered? There are some Uyghurs who could flee the country, and they don’t say “it’s pretty good” (this statement alond is disgusting given the human righrs violations hapoening there), and independent NGO hasn’t been allowed to enter Xinjiang.
What happens there is a human catastrophe, comparable to what Nazi Germany did in the second world war.
By definition, you’ve described a self-selecting sample.
Nobody is questioning whether China is policing Xinjiang very heavily, but calling it a genocide implies that China is somehow targeting all Uyghurs and not just radical elements. Most people are fine and Uyghurs are still represented in government and at top educational institutions. Comparing it to Nazi Germany is both reductionist and downright inaccurate.
Radical elements, sure. Let’s just ignore the forced sterilizations, abortions, literal concentration camps, suppression of culture etc (sources can be found in the source list of eg this wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide)
nein ist es nicht halt die fresse und hör auf naziverbrechen zu verunglimfplichen
A genocide is a genocide. Bist Du es nicht leid, immer wieder diesselbe Propaganda abzurufen als selbst zu denken?
