this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2022
3 points (53.8% liked)
World News
32311 readers
889 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Love the bouquet of weasel words and qualifiers. "May have", "indications", "allegations", "may constitute"
I think there should be a general rule of thumb that when a Western news article uses this many qualifiers, it's probably bullshit and they're trying to cover their ass when it inevitably gets called out for being bullshit.
This isn't that though. It's a UN report that's the result of an investigation by Michelle Bachelet (former president of Chile and head of the Socialist Party of Chile). The only reason you're seeing articles saying "may have" instead of making up some N+1 million figure (N being the last time they pulled a random number out their ass) is because that's the language the report uses
The report is linked in the second paragraph:
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf
Wasn't the UN also involved the the OPCW scandal not too long ago? Didn't the UN spend half a century pretending Taiwan was China? Wasn't it the UN who, along with the US, invaded and murdered a fifth of the Korean population, leaving not a building standing in the northern country in their wake? Not necessarily as neutral as you'd consider it.
Beyond the point, the UN had just recently sent a representative who came back saying quite the opposite. The report that happened just a month ago, I think, came back saying there was no evidence of anything. What happened in such a short amount of time for the UN to completely change its story. If the UN is so certain, and this isn't another WMD's or incubator babies in Kuwait moment, why aren't they more willing to use less qualifiers in their speech?
Many of the people in opposition have no reason to like China or any of the other countries. We're tired of our own countries bullshit. We don't have an interest in eating any more of it.
I never said anything about the UN's credibility. You are attacking it but then you also go and cite a UN report that you failed to even link to... I would love a link if you have it. Regardless I think the report is worth reading. They specifically explain how all the evidence was gathered and some of it is stuff you could even check for yourself
I definitely would never purposely imply that the UN is "neutral". It's a collection of large and complex institutions, sometimes fighting against each other. The previous president of the World Bank for example, Jim Yong Kim, spent the 90s protesting about the fact that the World Bank and the IMF were the US's tools to financially enslave the Third World. Attributing something to "the UN" is meaningless. That's why I specifically pointed out the background of the report, who did it, etc
Btw I think you should reread my comment. I think there was some misunderstandings. I'm pretty clearly critical of the media narratives around it. You're kinda going off for no reason
Would the US or EU let China just walk in and rifle through the country(ies)? No? Why is that? I thought if they had nothing to hide they should be open to that!
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3003217/eu-rejects-chinas-offer-xinjiang-tour-says-its-open-one-later If the EU really thinks a human rights violation is being committed, they're not taking it seriously. What are they, too busy or something?
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2019/11/11/world-bank-statement-on-review-of-project-in-xinjiang-china Wait so Western orgs do go there?
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/422970-pakistani-diplomat-narrates-visit-to-chinas-xinjiang Pakistan too! And they saw the actual reeducation camps!
You're real naïve if you think the UN is actually neutral and not a sock puppet of the West. Take a look how disproportionately they let atrocities committed by the West and their allies slide and how much they antagonize countries the West hates. Actually, just look at fucking Israel and Saudi Arabia and how well they're treated by them. Now look at Iran or Cuba. Notice a pattern?
Why the hell would they? They have no obligation to prove the rest of the world right or wrong of their doings.
Are you equally surprised the USA gov isn't letting other nations to come inspect all the south American refugees they have locked in cages? Not to mention allegations of sterilization and torture in these prisons.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/914465793/ice-a-whistleblower-and-forced-sterilization
Not to mention the USA and Canada have genocided and brainwashed the natives of north america and have yet to provide any meaningful reputations to them. Even worse they continue to oppress these minority groups, which only happen to be minorities because they've killed off the majority of them.
Hell yeah! Now tell the US to open their borders to a joint Chinese-Russian-Iranian-DPRK investigation unit! They better get to take a microscope to the Pentagon and the White House and generally do whatever the hell they want with all the human rights allegations on the US!
The US doesn't listen to the UN or the ICC either. Hmm...
Do you really believe the UN is a neutral organization? The US and few Western countries, with less than 10% of the world population, take up over 80% of OHCHR posts. Also, wasn't the UN an active participant in the Korean War on the side of empire not so very long ago?