A so-called Uyghur Tribunal was launched in 2020 in United Kingdom by Sir Geoffrey Nice, the lead prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal that tried Slobodan Milošević’s war crimes in the former Yugoslavia based on the genocide allegations against Uyghur, Kazakh and other Muslim minorities in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Sir Geoffrey Nice, said on 9 December 2021 that its panel was satisfied China had carried out “a deliberate, systematic and concerted policy” to bring about “long-term reduction of Uyghur and other ethnic minority populations” and claimed to found out a genocide. He added that the panel believed senior officials including the Chinese president Xi Jinping bore “primary responsibility” for the abuses against Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region. Reading the tribunal’s judgement, Sir Geoffrey said there was “no evidence of mass killings” in Xinjiang, but he said that the alleged efforts to prevent births amounted to genocidal intent.
It is not the legality of the so-called Tribunal that must be determined but whether the decision of the so-called Tribunal on genocide is legally legal. A genocide is defined as “the crimes of the crimes.” In addition, the word genocide is now often used by various groups and governments as a political strategy. The legality of the judgement of the so-called Tribunal is the answer if the so-called Tribunal is established as a political instrument of a political strategy against PRC or not. The legality of the judgement of the so-called Tribunal if is null and void, than the false accusations can be amount to hate speech under the definition of Sinophobia.
“Intermittent and fluctuating tension between the indigenous people in the region including the Uyghurs and Han-centric China intensified in 2014 following the spilling out of violence into ‘mainland’ China. The CCP launched the ‘War on Terror’ the purpose of which was to eradicate the perceived security threat posed by its Muslim minority population but also to transform the region into a more integrated part of China for, amongst other purposes, economic benefit.”
The wording “but also to transform the region into a more integrated part of China for, among other purposes, economic benefit” is an open violation of the UN Charter in different senses. Xinjiang is a territory of China. In order to prove an intent for committing genocide, the so-called Uyghur Tribunal used some word games on the assumption that as if Xinjiang is outside the PRC and defined the economic integration of Xinjiang with other parts of China as if a crime. The integration of the economies of different regions of China is a solely a domestic matter of China, and it is a right of the Chinese people to be developed and integrated. In Article 2.7 of the UN Charter, it is written that “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. The so-called Tribunal had even raised itself above the UN Charter, within the meaning of legibus solutus, not bound by law. A clear violation of the UN Charter by the so-called tribunal.
The so-called plan, as described in the judgement, was already made public for years by the PRC. The so-called plan can easily be found on different webpages of the UN. The so-called plan that the so-called Tribunal claimed to find out is just the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of PRC.
SDGs, also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by the UN in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that by 2030 all people enjoy peace and prosperity. The 17 SDGs are integrated—they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and that development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability. The SDGs are designed to end poverty, hunger, AIDS, and discrimination against women and girls.
PRC’s SDGs also include 27 minority areas, such as Yunnan, Qinghai, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, in an effort to create new job opportunities and alleviate poverty through the combination of traditional and innovative practices. The so-called Tribunal had defined the SDG of PRC and one more time, defined itself above the UN by rejecting the SDGs of PRC.
The so-called Tribunal has objected the right to development of Chinese minorities which is a universal human right. The Declaration on the Right to Development made development a right for all individuals and peoples, with active, free and meaningful participation in its process and fair distribution of its benefits. Locally and globally. For present and future generations.By opposing the right to development of the minorities in China, in fact, the so-called Tribunal has violated a universal human rights.
China has a long history of prioritizing population control. Since the implementation of family planning policies, 400 million fewer people have been born in China. Family planning was first applied to the Han people in the region in the early 1970s, and ethnic minorities were exempt until the mid and late 1980s. The Measures on Family Planning released by the autonomous region in 1992 stipulated that urban Han residents could have one child per couple and those residing in farming and pastoral areas could have two, while for ethnic minorities, urban residents could have two children per couple and those in farming and pastoral areas could have three. Ethnic minority groups with smaller populations were not required to follow the family planning policy. This was one of the main reasons why the ethnic minority populations in Xinjiang maintained a rapid growth rate. Xinjiang amended the Regulations on Population and Family Planning in 2017, introducing universal family planning policies for all ethnic groups: two children per couple for urban residents and three per couple for rural residents.
In the jurisdiction of the so-called Tribunal, even if the wording “birth control” is used ten times, there is no mention of any discriminatory birth control policy of the PCR among its citizens and especially among Uyghurs, Kazakhs or other Muslim minorities. The implementation of the universal family planning policies for all ethnic groups: two children per couple for urban residents and three per couple for rural residents from 2017 can never be defined as a discriminative policy of the State. If there is no discrimination in the family planning in Xinjiang or in all the territories of the PRC, than no one can claim any intent, mens rea to commit genocide.
In the jurisdiction of the so-called Tribunal, even if the wording “sterilisation” is used six times, there is no mention of any discriminatory sterilisation policy of the PCR among its citizens and especially among Uyghurs, Kazakhs or other Muslim minorities.
The so-called Tribunal used as evidence for intent, mens rea for committing genocide the usage of sterilization for women in the childbearing age and enforced sterilization. The so-called Uyghur Tribunal claimed that “by 2019 it was planned that over 80% in the rural southern four minority prefectures would be subjected to “birth control measures with long term effectiveness” without entering any detail.The so-called Uyghur Tribunal in the same paragraph had written that “in 2018, Xinjiang fitted 45 times more net-added Intrauterine Device Sterilization (IUDs) per 100,000 of the population than China as a whole (963 vs. 21.5). Between 2015 and 2018, Xinjiang placed 7.8 times more net-added IUDs per capita than the national average.” The so-called Uyghur Tribunal had taken the data from an open source that is “China Health Statistics Yearbook 2019” which has an open access to any one in the World by internet. According to data from China Health Statistics Yearbook 2019, published by the National Health Commission, the number of new IUD insertion procedures in Xinjiang in 2018 came in at 328,475, accounting for only 8.7 percent of China’s total, which was 3,774,318. The evidence of the intent of genocide is taken from an open official PRC internet web page and if there is an intent to commit genocide, this information needed to be secret, not open to the public. The important question to be investigated as a due diligence standards is whether usage of IUDs are to prevent the Uyghur, Kazakh or other Muslim minority women`s to have children within the family planning policy of the PCR or not.
If sterilization is to be used as an evidence for genocide, first needed to be proved discriminative policies of the PRC against its own Family Planning Policy to prevent Uyghur, Kazakh and other Muslim minorities for urban residents having two children per couple and those in farming and pastoral areas having three children
The PRC has a non-discriminative birth control and sterilisation policy within the 56 ethnic groups living in China. The proof of non-discriminative policy nullifies the genocidal claims of any group against China. To prove a genocide against the Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other Muslim minorities, based on birth control and sterilization, one first needs to prove a discriminative policy of PRC against the targeted groups. Without prove of a discrimination policy, no one can claim of intent, or mens rea, required for committing genocide for PRC.
By not checking whether the birth control policy is based on discriminatory grounds, the so-called tribunal failed to fulfill its responsibility under the due diligence standards as written in the Genocide Case of the ICJ. There is no validity to the allegations of the so-called Tribunal’ on claims of genocide related to birth control against PCR.
By not checking whether the sterilisation policy is based on discriminatory grounds, the so-called tribunal failed to fulfill its responsibility under the due diligence standards as written in the Genocide Case of the ICJ. There is no validity to the allegations of the so-called Tribunal’ on claims of genocide related to sterilisation policy against PCR.
The non-legality of the judgement of the so-called Tribunal is supposedly an answer to the question of whether it is merely an instrument of a political strategy against PRC. The non-legality of the judgement of the so-called Tribunal with false allegations might amount to hate speech under the definition of Sinophobia as the so-called Tribunal had violated the UN Charter in its judgement within many aspects to achieve its political goal.
On the other hand, the non-legal judgement of the so-called Tribunal had proven one more time that PRC committed no genocide in Xinjiang against the Uyghur, Kazakh and other Muslim minorities