Ronny Tong

Opinion | UN report on Xinjiang goes too far in its conclusions

In the absence of convincing facts and arguments, it is difficult to understand how the mere enactment of a legal regime on terrorism can constitute a crime against humanity

The report also relies too heavily on the testimonies of self-declared victims and their family members

Reading Time:3 minutes

Why you can trust SCMP

A farmer walks past murals and posters depicting ethnic minority residents studying the constitution with slogans reading “Unity and stability is fortune, separatism and turmoil is misfortune” near Kashgar, Xinjiang, on March 19, 2021. Photo: AP

Ronny Tong

Published: 6:45am, 7 Sep 2022

As a trained lawyer, I would probably feel nauseous if a judge said my client may be guilty of a crime. How can the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) conclude in its recent report that Chinese government actions in Xinjiang “may [emphasis added] constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity”? Some say this is downright irresponsible; perhaps it is.

In any event, I urge you to read the OHCHR report, all 46 pages of it. It is not long and not difficult to read. You can form your own conclusions.

Here, I shall highlight a few of the report’s observations and conclusions. Make of it what you will. The report zeroed in on five areas: vagueness of the legal regime against terrorism; application of the legal regime by imprisonment; the conditions in vocational education and training centres; “other” human rights concerns; and issues of family separation and reprisals.

The first is a critique of the vagueness of China’s anti-terrorism regime in Xinjiang. The report had “concerns” that the legal definitions raise the “potential” of legitimate protests and religious activities attracting “coercive legal restrictions”, and that such provisions are “vulnerable to being used – deliberately or inadvertently – in a discriminatory or otherwise arbitrary manner”.

First, the report did not say the regime was being used to repress human rights. It said it might be. Second, does not the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly say such rights are subject to reasonable legal restrictions to protect national security and public order? Third, and perhaps most importantly, how is the Chinese law any different or more unreasonable compared with other national security or terrorism laws?

02:47

UN human rights body says China may have committed crimes against humanity in Xinjiang

Without producing convincing facts and arguments, it is difficult to understand how the mere enactment of a legal regime on terrorism can constitute a crime against humanity.

Opinion | UN report on Xinjiang goes too far in its conclusions

In the absence of convincing facts and arguments, it is difficult to understand how the mere enactment of a legal regime on terrorism can constitute a crime against humanity The report also relies too heavily on the testimonies of self-declared victims and their family members

In the absence of convincing facts and arguments, it is difficult to understand how the mere enactment of a legal regime on terrorism can constitute a crime against humanity

The report also relies too heavily on the testimonies of self-declared victims and their family members