The reaction of the editors of the Washington Post to the support the Chinese have received for their treatment of their Uighur minority would be funny if the situation weren’t so tragic:
T A SESSION of the U.N. Human Rights Council this month, 22 mostly Western ambassadors joined in a letter expressing concern about China’s mass detentions in the Xinjiang region and calling for “meaningful access†for “independent international observers.†It was another tepid gesture in what has been a weak international effort to respond to Beijing’s campaign of cultural genocide against the Uighur ethnic group and other Muslim minorities.
What was remarkable was what came next. Four days later, countries recruited by Beijing delivered their own letter to the council, signed by 37 ambassadors, which endorsed what it whitewashed as a “counter-terrorism and de-radicalization†operation and claimed that “the fundamental human rights of people of all ethnic groups there are safeguarded.†The signatories included the usual global rogue’s gallery — Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela. But a dozen Muslim governments also joined in — thereby sanctioning one of the largest assaults on Islam in modern times.
The statement represents a shameful capitulation by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria and other majority-Muslim states that frequently pose as defenders of the faith — especially when it involves condemning Israel. And it offers an augur of what international affairs will look like if the Chinese regime of Xi Jinping realizes its global ambitions: a world where most states meekly submit to Beijing’s dictates and endorse its crimes.
Don’t they realize that “Muslim solidarity” is a contradiction in terms? Condemnation of assaults on Islam only apply to the United States not China and then only if they are attacks on Arabs. Beyond that the Saudis think they’re the only real Arabs.
Here’s a bigger question. Why aren’t those condemning racism condemning China? The Han Chinese leadership are among the greatest racists on the planet. Does keeping the supply of cheap consumer goods flowing outweigh the principle of opposing racism?
“Does keeping the supply of cheap consumer goods flowing outweigh the principle of opposing racism.”
Yes. Plus is doesn’t satisfy the obligatory bash Trump quotient.
Is this surprising? Or no?
https://www.somalispot.com/threads/ilhan-omar-puts-light-on-the-uyghur-genocide-taking-place-in-china.61327/
Surprising or not I’m glad to see it.
But I doubt even making these peoples’ plight a priority won’t help, as no one has any leverage over China, and you can’t appeal to a sense of decency they don’t recognize as legitimate.
“Why aren’t those condemning racism condemning China?”
They don’t live there. There isn’t enough time available to condemn everything that needs condemning, so people start with their own countries.
Steve
Steve, that just isn’t true. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time living and working in countries other than the U. S. Self-criticism is rare. Complaining about the U. S. is common. The ability to criticize ourselves is one of the ways in which the U. S. is different. IMO it has become excessive. I want us to continue to be able to criticize ourselves but to do it without rancor.
A sense of proportion demands that you be more upset about the worst problems. We don’t have the worst problems in the world. We don’t have the worst problems with racism in the world. Most other countries are much worse.
Now, if you were to say that there’s political gain to be had by complaining about the U. S., I’d agree with you.