CHINA / DIPLOMACY
Pseudo-court on Xinjiang ‘a farce’
Stories and evidence of so-called victims full of loopholes
Published: Jun 04, 2021 08:03 PM
Xinjiang Photo: Xinhua

Xinjiang Photo: Xinhua



Filled with one-sided voices and fabricated stories of so-called "victims" that are hard to verify, the latest farce that tries to label China for committing "genocide" in its Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region - the "Uyghur Tribunal" - began its "hearing" in London on Friday. Being neither a legitimate legal body nor having the authority to review "genocide" accusations against a country, the "tribunal" only exposes the malicious purpose of anti-China forces behind the event, analysts said. 

Qelbinur Sidik, the first so-called victim from China's Xinjiang, sat in front of a number of "counsels" and "experts," telling her stories of being a "teacher" in the re-education center and "witnessing" almost all "crimes" that seem to fit the malicious imaginations of the West to the training centers in Xinjiang, from torturing to forced sterilization--and, of course, death. 

With pictures of satellite images of "re-education" centers waiting for her to display and tissues putting ahead of Qelbinur's "touching" narration, reasonable people will question "If people are strictly oppressed in the centers as Qelbinur claimed, how could she see all the torturing?"

Omir Bekali, another "victim," brought a chain to the "hearing" and said [through translation] that it was the chain that was used on him in Xinjiang for seven months. But later after the chair questioned how he got the chain, Omir said he bought it online. 

Like Qelbinur and Omir, many "victims" came to the Friday "tribunal" with their stories full of loopholes and contradictions. At a press conference on May 25, the Xinjiang regional government exposed the lies of these "victims."

Established in September 2020 in the UK upon request of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), a US-funded secessionist network, the "Uyghur Tribunal" is a "pseudo" one that follows the presumption of guilt and serves anti-China forces' smears on Xinjiang, analysts said. 

The "tribunal" is not a legitimate legal body nor does it have the right to review "genocide" accusations, Zhu Ying, deputy director of the National Human Rights Education and Training Base of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times. 

As the most serious crime, genocide is a well-defined term under the UN Genocide Convention, international laws and related cases, and the most respected international tribunals have agreed that proof of the crime of genocide depends on an extremely convincing presentation of factual evidence.

After the Convention was established in 1948, main cases on genocide were judged by an international court established under the Convention or special court authorized by the UN Security Council, Zhu said.

"No judge or credible lawyer who cherish their reputations would be engaged in such a farce aimed at political hype," Zhu said.

Geoffrey Nice, an anti-China British barrister, is the founder and chair of the tribunal. The Global Times also found out that the main members of the fake tribunal have working experience on the "China Tribunal," which was commissioned by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC). The ETAC is connected to Falun Gong, a cult banned by the Chinese government.

Zhu said that these anti-China groups are playing the tactics in processing some certain case under Anglo-American law system-setting a simulated trial to collect cases and testimonies, drawing public attention using various means, including shooting films or documentaries and pressing the official court to take part and make a final judgment.

Graham Perry, a British solicitor and international arbitrator, called the "tribunal" an anti-China event and people behind it want to convict China of the charge of genocide without even reviewing evidence. 

Perry said that evidence is key to genocide cases. However, most of the evidence presented were from the WUC and Adrian Zenz, an uncredited and right-wing individual. Organizations that have supported Zenz have encouraged these independent testimonies.

There is no genocide, no forced labor and no sterilization in Xinjiang. The current "genocide" accusation on Xinjiang is about geopolitics played by white countries, the US and the West in particular, the British lawyer said.

"Despite the satellites flying overhead, they've got no evidence from Xinjiang… without a murder, without deaths, without crematoriums, without executions, without refugees, without a stream of people running away from Xinjiang seeking safety outside… they call this genocide?" Perry said.

He noted the previous legal opinion given by the Essex Court Chambers, which said China committed "genocide" in Xinjiang. "The evidence they offered is very poor" but Prime Minister Boris Johnson need it as a lever with China. 

Johnson wants more of China - he wants more trade as he has pulled Britain out of the European Union and he is having trouble making a trade deal with America. Boris welcomes the opportunity of closer economic relations with China. But at the same time, he is being urged to stand up to China, it is said on the Uygur issue, Perry said.

Zhu said that the British government has taken a prudent and blurry attitude toward the "tribunal." "When people from China criticize it for supporting an anti-China farce and undermining China-UK ties, it could shift responsibility to NGOs or individuals. But it is turning a blind eye to law violators." 

China has reportedly replaced Germany as the UK's biggest single import market for the first time. Goods from China to the UK increased by 66% since the start of 2018 to £6.9 billion ($23.8 billion)in the first quarter of 2021, the Guardian reported.

The tribunal does not meet the criteria for a non-governmental organization either, as it does not conform to the UK's Charities Act 2011. It claims to work for Uygurs amid the "Chinese governments' violence," but the goal is not based on verified facts, and the tribunal has no clear regulatory articles or trusteeship council. Those conditions prove the tribunal has no legal validity. 


blog comments powered by Disqus