. @TheEconomist is wrong. 1/x https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/13/genocide-is-the-wrong-word-for-the-horrors-of-xinjiang

This editorial makes three arguments:

1) Atrocities in Xinjiang aren't genocide because they don't constitute "mass murder"

2) Hyperbolic rhetoric plays into CCP propaganda

3) Hyperbolic rhetoric undercuts cooperation w/ China

2/x

If the first argument holds, then @TheEconomist makes a fair point. Politicized rhetoric divorced from realty aids an adversary's disinformation campaign, and can even work against one's own broader interests. Words matter.

3/x

But how does the editorial make the technical case against genocide?

"By accusing it of genocide instead, in the absence of mass murder, America is diminishing the unique stigma of the term."

Thus, according to @TheEconomist, genocide = mass murder, by precedent.

4/x

The argument is one of enforcement precedent.

To wit: "Until now, America’s State Department had applied the 'genocide' label only to mass slaughter, and even then it often hesitated, for fear that uttering the term would create an expectation that it would intervene."

5/x

. @TheEconomist's point here is correct: genocide is a broad term. One could commit genocide in several ways. Again, quoting: "In principle it is, alas, possible to imagine the destruction of an entire people by, for example, the systematic sterilisation of all women"

6/x

BUT - by the legal standard, China would not have to sterilize "all" Uyghur women to have committed an act of genocide.

Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948 clearly stipulates the scope of action: "intent to destroy, in whole or in part"

7/x

Key word is "destroy," not "kill."

Article II goes ton to list 5 acts that could constitute genocide. "Killing" is one of them. Others are causing serious bodily/mental harm; inflicting life conditions calculated to destroy group; prevent births; (e) forcible transfer.

8/x

Based on my reading of this piece, I'm not sure @TheEconomist would even disagree with any of these points. But it's important to emphasize, because the legal precedent to issue an atrocity determination of genocide in Xinjiang exists - as both Pompeo & Blinken attest.

9/x

Now, this is key. Why does this op-ed argue for restricting genocide's political definition to "mass killing" if the legal definition is far broader?

1) it feeds into CCP propaganda. Quoting: "it accomplishes nothing to exaggerate the Communist Party’s crimes in Xinjiang"

10/x

Exaggerating atrocities is *not the same* as deciding to expand the political response to genocide under international law.

@TheEconomist can argue the merits of broadening the behavior we determine to be genocide, but calling it "exaggeration" is just, legally, incorrect.

11/x

The second point - it'll undercut our broader interests w/ China - is almost certainly correct. And it gets to this broader strategic challenge that I (and many others) have raised

12/x https://twitter.com/michaelsobolik/status/1357725292324925444?s=20

That is to say - *if* you define broader interests as cooperative. Which most in Europe, as evidenced by the CAI, have done.
If you define the broader relationship (as Biden has done) as "extreme competition," then, perhaps, our interests are advanced by telling the truth.

13/x

Which is a good ending note. @TheEconomist concludes the piece: "Mr Biden is right to decry China’s abuses, but he should do so truthfully."

Calling it genocide *is* telling the truth. It'll complicate the cooperative agenda, undoubtedly. But, perhaps, that's a good thing. 14/x

A good thing, especially, for Uyghurs.

/end