[1vonzhang]

1. The populated of "genocided" Uyghur ethnic group has increased from 10.17 million to 12.71 million from 2010 to 2018. This sort of contradicts with the concept of genocide. The increase rate of ~25% is higher than Xinjiang ~14% and much higher than the main ethnic group Han ~2%.

2. I personally tried really hard to track down a source that DOESN'T ULTIMATELY LEAD TO ADRIAN ZENZ but has failed to do so. As GameOfFrowns commented earlier, he is at a position with many reasons to fabricate/exaggerate negative facts against China. If hundreds of articles from many different organizations/countries are based on one single person, it's hard for me not to regard this Adrian Zenz as a pretense. Even interviews with so-called family relatives are connected to this magical Zenz.

Many BBC reports/articles claims a resource of "some investigation" or "some research" that either leads to nowhere or to Adrian Zenz. If one claims that it's barely possible to know what's really happening in an authoritarian country, these reports are at least as untrustworthy as China's claims. It's even more amazing that Adrian Zenz has this power to do the investigation that all other organizations/governments cannot do.

3. My personal option: China started this so-called educational camp because of the peak of terrorism in Xinjiang in 2009. And it's very possible that the anti-terrorism action went beyond what it should have. Investigations, evidence etc. should be encouraged to correct any mistake that have happened and prevent them from happening in the future. That being said, if this motive also goes beyond what it should be and turns into a means against China, the accusation makes no difference from what's accused of.

[tnjm]

If you read the UN definition of genocide [0], you'll see that a population increase doesn't contradict (the UN concept of) genocide at all. The key is intent.

[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

[DiogenesKynikos]

The UN definition almost cerrtainly requires mass killing, and a steadily increasing population is extremely strong evidence that there's no genocide, under the UN definition. As the UN points out (per your source), the word "genocide" literally means the killing of a race or tribe:

> It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing.

It's often claimed that the UN definition is somehow radically broader than the popular definition (i.e., extermination of an ethnic or religious group). This just isn't true. In fact, the UN states that its definition of genocide is stricter than the popular definition:

> The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law.

The UN definition is very clear that "genocide" means a deliberate plan to physical (not culturally) destroy a group:

> To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.

There's simply no evidence that the Chinese government is enacting a plan to physically eliminate the Uyghurs. The claims that China is carrying out a genocide are ludicrous. It's a gambit on the part of the US government: they're making a transparently false, but extremely serious accusation, on the bet that they won't be called out on their lies. Nobody wants to be viewed as a "genocide denier," the Western public knows pretty much nothing about China, and the media is usually willing to go along with the government narrative about "enemy" countries (see: Western media complicity in the lies about Iraqi WMD in the lead-up to the Iraq War).

Finally, even if one were to accept the claim that the UN definition of genocide is broader than the popular definition (it isn't, but let's play along), the people making this accusation would still be engaged in a dishonest rhetorical game. When the public hears "genocide," they think of the Holocaust. That's what the US government wants people to think when it accuses China of "genocide." When really challenged (which rarely happens in major media), defenders of this charge will claim that the UN definition is radically different from the popular definition. But the whole reason they're using this charged word is because they want people to think that what China is doing is equivalent to the Holocaust.

[legalcorrection]

A convenient sleight of hand for international liberals. To the average person, genocide means extermination by mass murder. So people make that incredibly damning accusation, and then when it's pointed out that no such thing is happening, they retreat into a technical definition that no one outside of the NGO/activist world cares or knows about.

[tnjm]

Is it really sleight of hand, though, when you'd get essentially the same answer when consulting the UN, Wikipedia or... a dictionary?

[legalcorrection]

Yes. We speak to an audience of people, not dictionaries. If you're talking to a conference of international NGO activists, then that's one thing. But mass media headlines are for the consumption of the common person. You choose your words according to what they mean to your audience.