{"id":243662,"date":"2022-10-07T14:19:16","date_gmt":"2022-10-07T21:19:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/?p=243662"},"modified":"2024-04-15T10:54:21","modified_gmt":"2024-04-15T17:54:21","slug":"u-n-human-rights-council-declines-debate-on-xinjiang-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/2022\/10\/u-n-human-rights-council-declines-debate-on-xinjiang-report\/","title":{"rendered":"U.N. Human Rights Council Declines Debate on Xinjiang Report"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Thursday, the U.N. Human Rights Council <\/span>voted against a motion to debate the human rights situation in Xinjiang<\/span><\/a>. The vote, occurring one month after then-U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet released a report finding serious human rights issues in the region that <\/span>may amount to crimes against humanity<\/span><\/a>, is a heavy blow to both the U.N.\u2019s credibility in many eyes, and to activists\u2019 hopes. It also marks only the second time in the Human Rights Council\u2019s history that it has <\/span>rejected a motion<\/span><\/a>. Jamey Keaten from the Associated Press reported on <\/span>the low bar that the council failed to overcome<\/strong><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

At the 47-member state Human Rights Council, 17 countries voted in favor, 19 were against, and 11 abstained in a vote to hold a debate on Xinjiang at its next session in March. The vote amounted to a test of political and diplomatic clout between the West and Beijing, and would have marked the first time that China\u2019s record on human rights would merit a specific agenda item at the council.<\/span><\/p>\n

[…] A simple majority of voting countries was required.<\/span><\/p>\n

[…] The proposal was for just to hold a debate, with no consistent monitoring of the rights situation, and amounted just about the least intrusive form of scrutiny that the council could seek.<\/span><\/p>\n

The call stopped short of creating a team of investigators to look into possible crimes in Xinjiang, or appointing a special rapporteur \u2014 a tacit acknowledgement by the Western countries that going after increasingly influential China would be a tall order. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There was a <\/span>rare burst of applause<\/span><\/a> in the council chambers after the <\/span>final result<\/span><\/a> was announced. AFP described <\/span>how each country voted<\/strong><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

The nations voting against a debate were Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Gabon, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.<\/span><\/p>\n

Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Brazil, Gambia, India, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico and Ukraine abstained.<\/span><\/p>\n

[…] The draft decision was put forward by the United States, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Turkey, among others.<\/span><\/p>\n

[…] In the end, only Somalia voted ‘yes’ out of 13 [African] countries. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In an op-ed for The New York Times last week, human rights expert and China specialist Nicholas Bequelin described <\/span>the danger of China\u2019s efforts to gut the U.N. human rights system<\/strong><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Chinese Communist Party\u2019s ultimate goal is to cripple the international community\u2019s ability to censure countries for human rights violations.<\/span><\/p>\n

[…] This is deeply concerning because, for all its defects, the United Nations plays a crucial role in protecting human rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

Before the world body was founded after World War II, no international framework existed for addressing the ethnic cleansing, mass murder, colonial brutality and other human rights abuses that states routinely committed, often against their own people.<\/span><\/p>\n

U.N. founders absorbed the grim 20th-century lessons of two world wars, tens of millions of deaths and the Holocaust, realizing that protecting human rights was essential for world peace. Nazi Germany was viewed as proof that political repression often precedes the rise of belligerent regimes. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Drawing a connection between China\u2019s <\/span>behind-the-scenes efforts<\/span><\/a> and this week\u2019s UNHRC vote, Human Rights Watch\u2019s China Director Sophie Richardson explained on Monday <\/span>the significance of the Human Rights Council\u2019s potential failure to hold a debate on Xinjiang<\/strong><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

If [China\u2019s attempt to suppress debate] prevails, it would undermine the institutional integrity of the Human Rights Council by placing the human rights situation in one country uniquely beyond international scrutiny. The council is explicitly mandated to discuss human rights violations committed by any state. To allow a single government to escape scrutiny for some of the worst violations under international law will not only mean failing victims and survivors, but also enabling abusers and creating a dangerous double standard. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

This is a rejection of the post-WWII order. After the horrors of the Holocaust – which was allowed because \u201csovereignty\u201d was considered sacrosanct even when the state murdered people – the world, including China, agreed that sovereignty was not absolute and HR does at times trump https:\/\/t.co\/CF9x7pRzPH<\/a><\/p>\n

— China Law & Policy (@chinalawpolicy) October 5, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n