Comment: UN report on abuse of Uyghurs misses a vital word: genocide Published on: 7 September 2022 Writing for The Conversation, Dr Jo Smith Finley discusses how the UN report on human rights abuses against the Uyghurs is stronger than expected, but there is a glaring omission. , The long-awaited UN report into human rights abuses committed in China鈥檚 Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) was finally to a mixed reception. For some 鈥� principally the Chinese government 鈥� it went too far. Others thought it didn鈥檛 go far enough. Many hadn鈥檛 expected the examination of abuses against Uyghurs and other mostly Muslim minority peoples, authored UN high commissioner for human rights Michelle Bachelet, to see the light of day. And Beijing had made strenuous efforts to the report, and influence its content. But on August 31, ten minutes before Bachelet鈥檚 tenure as high commissioner was due to expire, the finally went online. It is surprisingly strong in some aspects but decidedly weak in others. I鈥檝e been researching Uyghur communities and Uyghur-Han relations in Xinjiang for more than three decades, including many field trips. I submitted to the , an independent people鈥檚 tribunal set up by former war crimes prosecutor Sir Geoffrey Nice QC at the behest of the World Uyghur Congress. Its published on December 9 2021 found that genocide, crimes against humanity and torture are being perpetrated against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. What the report does well Reading the UN鈥檚 report, there much that is strong. It gives voice to victims, as reaffirmed by camp survivor Zumret Dawut, who while reading it: 鈥淚 felt there was justice, that there are people who care in this world.鈥� It finds that legal pronouncements from the Chinese government (PRC) 鈥渃onflate what might otherwise be construed as matters of personal choice in relation to religious practice with 鈥榚xtremism鈥�, and 鈥榚xtremism鈥� with the phenomenon of terrorism鈥�. This, the report says, has the effect of 鈥渟ignificantly broadening the range of conduct that can be targeted under a counter-terrorism objective or pretext鈥�. This echoes the of on the . The report also confirms large-scale arbitrary and discriminatory 鈥渄eprivation of liberty鈥� of members of Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities in so-called VETC (vocational education and training centres), at least between 2017 and 2019. It concludes that this 鈥渕ay constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity鈥�. That use of 鈥渕ay鈥� was read with incredulity by some. , chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, : 鈥淭his is genocide, these are crimes against humanity 鈥� it鈥檚 not 鈥榤aybe鈥�, this is something that is already happening.鈥� What the report doesn鈥檛 say There鈥檚 also a glaring omission. The UN report makes no attempt to measure genocide allegations made against Beijing against the criteria laid out in the , despite several , , and on the . This sits in stark contrast to the , which found beyond a reasonable doubt that the PRC had committed genocide on the grounds of the UN convention article 2(d): imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. There are a number of reasons why this might be so. One reason is that, according to news website Politico, the OHCHR team was still rewriting the report to accommodate Beijing on August 31. Politico cites an unnamed diplomat as stating that the section on forced sterilisation was during the final hours to avoid giving rise to claims of genocide. Yet there is a growing scholarly that genocide is in this case. The UN report, while not framing those crimes in the context of the UN convention, finds credible evidence for acts that meet the criteria. These include the arrest and imprisonment of prominent , which it said has had a 鈥渂roader deleterious effect on the life of their community鈥�. This contravenes article 2(c): 鈥渄eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part鈥�. The report presents evidence of and . This contravenes article 2(b): 鈥渃ausing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group鈥�. There was also evidence of the , corresponding to article 2(c). There has also been a sharp in Uyghur-majority areas. The same decline has not been observed in areas where there is a majority Han Chinese population. This is a clear contravention of article 2(d): 鈥渋mposing measures intended to prevent births within the group鈥�. No reference is made to Chinese state and academic documents that elaborate its policy of 鈥溾�� and the way it is carried out via forced sterilisation and birth prevention in Xinjiang. And nor does the issue of forcibly appear in the report (beyond one brief sentence). This is a clear breach of article 2(e): 鈥渇orcibly transferring children of the group to another group鈥�. One last area of weakness concerns , where the report finds only 鈥渋ndications鈥� that labour and employment schemes 鈥渁ppear to be discriminatory鈥� and to 鈥渋nvolve elements of coercion鈥�. Turning point? The UN report is nonetheless a significant turning point. It paves the way for, as World Uyghur Congress president Dolkun Isa put it, 鈥� by member states, UN bodies, and the business community 鈥� Accountability starts now.鈥� Unfortunately, most of the report鈥檚 recommendations are directed to the Chinese government, which has , at least on the international stage. Beijing has asserted that the UN鈥檚 鈥溾�� are based on a 鈥減atchwork of disinformation鈥� and prove that the OHCHR has become 鈥渢he of the US and some western forces against developing countries鈥�. There are precedents for independent international mechanisms to report on human rights, including UN commissions of enquiry, fact-finding and monitoring missions, and evidence-gathering bodies in case of future prosecutions. But, relying on the UN itself for action, given Beijing鈥檚 and at the UN Human Rights Council, may prove insufficient. An alternative route is provided by the , as by the Uyghur Tribunal, which stated: 鈥淚t is unfortunate that no efforts have been made by those [countries who declared China to be perpetrating genocide in Xinjiang] or other countries to have the issue dealt with at the ICJ, as might happen if a country had the courage to take the matter there.鈥� A second route would be for the to open an investigation into PRC actions in Xinjiang in response to three by UK barrister Rodney Dixon QC. Whichever route is taken, Nury Turkel is right when he says the position of the international community is now 鈥� and that the report must translate into "real action鈥�. , Reader in Chinese Studies, This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the . Share: Latest News 缅北禁地 expert highlights climate crisis in a new film A leading 缅北禁地 climate scientist is featured in a new film about how the climate and nature breakdown will affect the UK. published on: 14 April 2026 Neolithic tombs reveal ancient kinship ties Male individuals buried in Neolithic chambered tombs in northern Scotland were often related to each other through the paternal line and some were interred in the same or nearby tombs, research shows. published on: 14 April 2026 We are our Memories New exhibition by Fine Art graduate Trish Hudson-Moses, 22 April 鈥� 4 May 2026 published on: 10 April 2026 Facts and figures
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}