Greyfox questions the latest UN report on the Xinjiang situation.
This is a thread to question the latest UN report on the Xinjiang situation. There`s a lot of suspicious elements in the report that calls into question its objectivity and legitimacy. Given the report itself references tweets, I hope the UN will respond to this thread.
Assuming that the report was released simultaneously with the QT above, then the report was released at 12:20am Geneva time on 1 Sept and 6:20pm US EST on 31 Aug 2022. This means Bachelet`s term was technically over. The OHCHR is located in Geneva so the report was technically released on 1 Sept, instead of the stamped date, 31 Aug. There`s also no usual reference to the High Commissioner, Secretary General or Bachelet at the start of the report, in contrast to other reports from OHCHR. Compare the screenshots below.
So, who wrote the report? Could it be a partisan party? It would explain why the quality of the report is so low. Bachelet is silent and Chinese response was not aimed at Bachelet, so it seems reasonable to assume that the author was not Bachelet herself.
However, there are multiple references to the XJ Police Files, which was released at the same time as Bachelet`s visit. This again begs the question of who wrote the report and was there an agenda?
OHCHR has not relied on any of these documents as a sole source to make any findings. In this assessment, reference to such documents is included where its content comports with that from other sources of information.
Some concerns raised in the report have been raised already, notably forced birth control due to family planning laws. The concern was for reproductive rights of ALL women in China. So, what`s the justification for using this concern to imply ethnic discrimination now?
The recommendations assume the accusations are all true, and ignores contrary assessments. For example, in footnote 137, you can clearly see the Chinese government disputing evidence as presented by ASPI, but ASPI is still given the last word via Nathan Ruser`s twitter account (!). Why are the myriad of twitter rebuttals against ASPI and Ruser not also included?
Another example, the XJ Victims Database is also referenced repeatedly as a reliable source. However, there`s a "victim" in that database that was sent there by her mother. Why did the UN not speak to her mother to find out the reasons behind her action?
People like Shawn Zhang, Adrian Zenz, and organizations like ASPI, Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are uncritically cited in the report. However, they have been proven to be unreliable sources of information. Why was the UN not concerned about using these sources?
Why were the visits of diplomats from Muslim majority countries, and their assessments of the situation, not referenced at all in the report? If organizations like ASPI and Victims of Communism are considered reliable and relevant, then diplomats surely are worth quoting too?
Why are there so many unofficial translations? Can the UN not get the documents translated properly, even though they are believed to be genuine? Why does the report refer to a BBC article on labour transfer programs, which is entirely based on a CCTV report, rather than refer directly to the CCTV report itself? The BBC report presents an incomplete story that demonizes the process, whereas CCTV presented a more complete picture of the process, and has follow-ups.
Read this for a summary:
Why does Paragraph 42 say "Not a single interviewee said they were able to exit the facility or go home for a visit", when even the BBC has filmed students from one VETC going home on the weekend? Does this not indicate a biased sample of interviewees?
Why does Paragraph 125 say there`s an “inability of placed workers to freely change employers”, when an example Amnesty International gave shows a person being released because he said the work didn`t suit his experience? How biased is the UN sample?
Why does Paragraph 86 cite removal of minarets from mosques as a negative and indicates some sort of cultural or religious erasure, when ASPI`s report says these are likely to be recent additions and there are plenty of famous mosques without minarets?
In Paragraph 135, an individual lost contact with more than 30 relatives, as all had either changed their phone numbers or simply refused to accept his phone calls. Has the UN asked the family to confirm this is not because this person is someone that everyone wants to avoid?
There are also multiple instances where the report itself says that it cannot verify the information in the report that was presented as credible. Is it not worrying that many of the key conclusions are based on unverified information? If the OHCHR can`t verify it, then who can?
6. Finally, I`d like to point out that the original claim was genocide, and the UN report has concluded "serious human rights violation in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism..." This is a serious downgrade in the allegations, and it recognizes China is not targeting Uyghurs for destruction. France’s anti-terrorism campaign involves banning Muslim headwear, which is a human rights violation as well. And let’s not forget what the US has done in the name of War on Terror. So why is there so much focus on China? To all the countries that declared what`s happening as a genocide and to the Uyghur Tribunal, who ruled that there`s a genocide, what do you say now? Further, it’s interesting that all the media headlines stop at “serious human rights violations”, without giving the context.
