China News Service, Beijing, May 14 (Zhang Chenyi, Jiang Wenqian) Recently, the former mayor of Floen, Norway, Wester, Dutch scholar Di Moulin, and Danish scholar Obery issued a special report jointly written to criticize the United States. The so-called Xinjiang-related report by the Line Strategy and Policy Institute and the Canadian Raul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights.

  Former UN senior human rights expert, Cuban-American Alfred de Zayas, and Princeton University Professor Emeritus of International Law Richard Falck also issued an article specifically criticizing the United States’ allegations of “genocide” in Xinjiang.

  Research institutions are not independent

  Scholars such as Wester clearly opposed the presupposition in the article.

They said that we do not take a position in advance as to whether what happened in Xinjiang falls into the category of genocide.

Unless we have been to Xinjiang, we will not make such an opinion.

  They cited, for example, that the New Line Institute of Strategy and Policy, established in 2019, established the Uyghur Scholars Working Group in 2020.

The task of the working group is to "study and analyze how the U.S. government and its allies and partners can best respond to Beijing’s efforts to eliminate Uyghur identity and culture." Therefore, before this Xinjiang-related report was published, the institute had already done so. It presupposes a position for China's policies in Xinjiang.

  The reason for the presupposition is that the research institution itself is not completely independent.

They pointed out that the New Line Strategy and Policy Research Institute of the United States, the Raul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights in Canada, and other so-called scholars participating in the Xinjiang-related report and some American hawkish diplomatic groups, Christian fundamentalist groups, and extreme anti-communism Groups, Muslim Brotherhood and other political or interest groups.

Therefore, the statement that this Xinjiang-related report comes from an independent institution and an independent scholar is suspicious in itself.

  Scholars such as West emphasized that this reflects that in the West, especially in the United States, the "military industry-media-think tank" interest consortium is so powerful that academic institutions have long been reduced to accomplices of special interest groups.

  It is worth noting that the concept of "military industry-media-think tank" interest complex is an expansion of the "military-industrial complex" pioneered by the 34th U.S. President Eisenhower, showing that the media and think tanks have become their weapons. The military industry has formed a close symbiotic relationship.

  Purposefully falsified data and misinterpreted information

  Scholars such as West pointed out in the article that more and more facts prove that the Xinjiang-related report cited a lot of forged data and misinterpreted information.

There are obvious prejudices in the selection of original information, and a large amount of valuable real information is deliberately ignored or concealed.

"They deliberately omitted extremely important opinions, theories, concepts, and facts. This is problematic for a research institute that claims to be based on solid academics and values."

  After careful analysis of various sources of information, they pointed out that most of the sources they are based on are mainstream media in Western countries such as the United States, organizations carrying out anti-China missions, the U.S. State Department, and relevant persons in the Pentagon.

  Scholars such as West pointed out directly that this somewhat casually edited Xinjiang-related report may be to support the views of former U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo on Xinjiang at the beginning of this year, rather than to truly promote the value of human rights.

  They also condemned the western mainstream media for turning a blind eye to the serious loopholes in the above-mentioned Xinjiang-related reports, abandoning their advertised news reporting principles, and blindly reprinting hype without verifying the source.

  Double standard logic throughout

  Scholars such as Chad Falke and West have all refuted the double standards in Xinjiang-related allegations in their articles.

  Chad Falke and others said that the abuse of the term genocide itself is a kind of contempt and insult to the relatives of the victims of the Armenian and Rwandan genocide, and it is also an injury to history, law and the prudent handling of international relations.

  They said that genocide is a clearly defined term in international law.

Related experts also pointed out that the 1948 "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" and other legal texts strictly limited this concept.

For example, subjectively, there must be a specific intent to "completely or partially destroy a specific group", which is a key element in determining the crime of genocide.

  Determining whether a matter is a genocide requires authoritative and strict legal procedures and must stand the test.

Some government personnel and research institutions easily define certain things as genocide, which will have extremely bad effects.

  Scholars such as Chad Falke urged that politicians should be very cautious about bringing charges of genocide.

We should ask whether some facts are clear and we should seek independent international investigations.

  They commented that the allegations made by former US Secretary of State Pompeo that there was a "genocide" problem in China's Xinjiang region were not supported by actual evidence.

"This is an extremely irresponsible accusation under ideological opposition."

  Chad Falck commented and concluded that the Orwellian language corruption of US government officials, double standards, and mainstream media spreading false news are actually eroding our self-esteem.

"Manipulating public opinion will destroy our democratic system."

  The hype "China phobia" is intended to provoke geopolitical contradictions

  Scholars such as West bluntly stated that the Xinjiang-related report intentionally or unintentionally supported the tough US foreign policy and used human rights issues to promote confrontation with China.

"This is certainly not in line with the values ​​of'mutual understanding and peace' advocated by the New Line Strategy and Policy Research Institute."

  They pointed out that these reports portray China as the "source of all evil" and then achieve their own propaganda purposes.

Therefore, this type of report is actually meaningless.

  Scholars such as Chad Falke confessed that the United States’ sudden attention to the fate of the Uyghur people in China was not out of sympathy or protection of human rights, but an action designed in accordance with the most cynical scene in Machiavelli’s geopolitical script.

If Rafael Lemkin knew that "genocide" was just being used to raise the flag for "China Phobia", then he would definitely not look down.

  We should also ask President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken: The unsubstantiated allegations of "genocide" in Xinjiang, China, are not worthy of any country, including the United States.

  "If we embrace geopolitical struggles recklessly, it will seriously damage our own authority and credibility, and will not help reinvigorate the role of the United States as a global leader." Scholars such as Chad Falke said that they would weaponize human rights. Then confronting countries such as China or Russia will not be constructive.

  "The Biden administration should at least show respect for the American people and international law, stop abusing the term'genocide', and stop using human rights as a tool of geopolitical struggle." Chad Falke and other scholars said.

(Finish)

Keywords: