My Take | Stop misusing ‘genocide’ for political purposes
- Either China is committing genocide, in which case the West’s response so far has been inept and inadequate, including the diplomatic boycotts of the Winter Olympics; or if it is not, and in that case, Western propaganda is disgraceful and risks rendering meaningless a term for the gravest of crimes
The idea of boycotting China’s Winter Olympics diplomatically because it is allegedly committing genocide against the Uygurs is absurd and contemptible. The ultimate result will not bring China to heel, but render a term in international law that exemplifies the worst horrors of the last century meaningless.
If Beijing really is committing genocide, refusing to send officials while allowing your athletes to compete is like imposing a small fine as punishment for first-degree murder. Very few scenarios in international relations justify the doctrine of “the responsibility to protect”; genocide is one of the few that should rightfully trigger international actions, including a concerted military response, to protect the targeted people.
A show of force by an international coalition or even a unilateral military threat by the United States would be justified. You may counter that while ideally, that should be the case, China is militarily powerful, and such a robust response could risk a horrendous all-out war.
Well, the US and some allies have had no trouble, in recent years, dispatching naval forces, combat submarines and spy planes in a show of support for Taiwan. China poses far less of an immediate threat to the Taiwanese than the Uygurs, assuming that is, it is really committing genocide.
Genocide used to be understood as an active state policy and/or systematic practice of eliminating whole groups of people on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Since Beijing is motivated by anti-terrorism, not genocide, the term has to be redefined, and its threshold lowered, to fit the purpose of the moment in Western discourse.