【文/田士臣、暴华英，翻译/暴华英，校译/褚家玮】
（转自“观察者网”，原文6月12日首发于中美聚焦网站。）
日前，应美国资助的维吾尔游说团体要求召开的伦敦“维吾尔法庭”公开听证会，是民间层面企图在中国新疆推动成立种族灭绝罪的又一次尝试。此前，美国新线研究所专家和伦敦埃塞克斯园大律师事务所律师已经就此问题提供了两份法律意见。
中国并不是唯一被扣上种族灭绝罪名的国家。近年来，前南斯拉夫、卢旺达、苏丹和缅甸也面临类似的情况。这一罪名是由波兰律师拉菲尔·莱姆金（Raphael Lemkin）于 1944 年创立，没想到几十年后这一罪名会成为一个爆发点。但二战后出现的这些案件没有一项指控指向西方国家。尽管围绕西方国家的种族灭绝暴行的报道并不少见，上周在加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省坎卢普斯市一所原住民寄宿学校旧址发现215具土著儿童遗骸就是一个典型的例子。人们可以想象，如果在中国发现了这些遗骸，西方会作何反应？
为何目前所有灭种罪的指控只针对非西方国家？为何美国如此痴迷于利用“种族灭绝”这一标签？特别是与新疆维吾尔族相关的？鉴于美国对国际刑事法院官员的制裁，以及美国发动的伊拉克、阿富汗战争并未受到任何追责，很难说美国真的想代表整个国际社会追求正义。在西方高举的人权旗帜的背后隐藏着诸多理由。
从现实角度看，在大国竞争的背景下，制造人权问题首先是美国议程设置的迫切需要。更何况与前任相比，美国总统乔·拜登是制造人权问题的“大师”。以种族灭绝为幌子设置议程的神奇之处在于，可以凭空捏造任何东西，就像巫师的帽子。如此设置议程的优势简直太多了。首先，类似美国这样的国家提出这样的指控成本低廉、操作方便，但却给像中国这样的国家带来了高昂的自卫成本。
其次，做议程设置的国家其实不会有任何损失，因为必须做出反应并投入资源来处理既定议程的是抵挡议程设置的防御国。最后，通过对中国制造议程设置陷阱，美国可以使自己永远处于不败之地。只要能够不断耗费中国的资源，损害中国的国际声誉，那么美国就赢了。这些与其所做出的指控的真假并无关系。
为了更好地实施其议程设置，从南海到新疆人权等各个方面，美国一直在持续策划针对中国的信息欺骗行动（disinformation campaign）。中国为应对当地伊斯兰极端暴力所推行的再教育，被抨击为将100万或更多的维吾尔人监禁在“教化”营；一个以为新疆减贫为目标的本来积极的创造就业计划，却被编织成了强迫劳动。
中国在这方面的被动局面，是由西方的语言和文化优势以及中国在沟通技巧方面的劣势并行造成的。文化和语言认同的力量结合在一起塑造了国际舆论。基于语言或文化的意识形态为拜登将建立意识形态联盟作为优先事项奠定了基础。
由于西方国家有着相似的意识形态认同，一方面会强烈批评中国并对中国吹毛求疵，另一方面对美国的斑斑劣迹却又包容度更高。双重标准一直是西方的标签。
从技术层面讲，语言和文化在塑造与种族灭绝罪相关的耸人听闻的敏感环境方面也发挥了重要作用。种族灭绝罪是一个带有强烈情感的词语，它会自然而然的使人将之与大屠杀中的纳粹者联系起来。美国当然知道这种强大的情感力量，并且善加利用至极致。
身份认同问题也说明了一个无可争议的事实——西方的声音在国际媒体中具有更大的影响力。国际媒体可以总体上被视为是对西方友好的媒体。更为糟糕的是，中国传统教育体系中没有系统的沟通训练（比如发表演讲）。如何恰当地说不（How to nicely say no）一直是中国学者和官员面临的一个挑战。这一技术问题与世界范围内日益高涨的民粹主义相结合，为西方媒体的负面报道提供了很好的素材。
从心理学角度来看，指责其他国家犯下种族灭绝罪，是一种根植于西方殖民主义历史的黑暗记忆的唤醒反应。美国的印第安人、加拿大的因纽特人、澳大利亚的土著人都遭受了此种暴行，而整个西方殖民扩张过程都是以入侵、酷刑、监禁和大屠杀为标志。
其实，指责别人是掩饰自己过去的好方法。一旦当你开始指责别人时，全世界都会关注被指责的人或国家还，有谁会关心埋葬在加拿大寄宿学校下的土著人？
在这一点上，中国学者和外交官尤其应谨慎使用“你也如此（Tu Quoque）”的论证逻辑，因为中国与那些真正发生过暴行的国家完全不同，对中国的指责完全是莫须有的罪名，这是两者的本质区别。
最后，用列举问题的方式做一总结，值得思考的是：虽然中美战略竞争是现实，特朗普和拜登政府都采取了“全政府”方式来遏制中国，但他们的科学、技术、军事和意识形态措施是否如此缺乏，以至于必须使用过时的所谓种族灭绝武器来惊扰莱姆金的灵魂？扩大种族灭绝罪的适用范围是否是世界真正需要的？援引这一罪名是否符合这一罪名的设立目的？世界欠莱姆金一个答案。他绝不会想到，只是为了要扳倒一个对手，这个法律术语会被美国武器化和政治化。
The Genocide Diversion
In addition to two legal opinions, one by experts at the Newlines Institute in the United States and another by lawyers at the London-based Essex Court Chambers, the ongoing public hearing conducted by London’s “Uygur Tribunal” — requested by a U.S.-funded Uygur lobbying group — is just another attempt at the nongovernmental level to establish a case of the crime of genocide in China’s Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region.
China is not alone. In recent years, this obsolete legal term, coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin back in 1944, was rejuvenated in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan and Burma. Lemkin would never have thought that it would become a flashpoint decades later. All these cases also point to the single fact that none of the allegations targeted Western states. Although it is not uncommon to see reports of genocide and other atrocities in Western countries, as evidenced by the preliminary discovery last week of the remains of 215 indigenous children. One can imagine how the West would have responded if those remains had been found in China.
Why are only non-Western states targeted? In particular, why is the U.S. so obsessed with the label of “genocide” in connection specifically with the Uygurs in Xinjiang? Given the sanctions by the U.S. on officials of the International Criminal Court and the country’s lack of accountability in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it is hard to say that the U.S. really wants to pursue justice representing the international community as a whole. There is no single reason behind the high-flying banner of human rights so enthusiastically hailed in the West.
From a realistic point of view, creating human rights issues is a primary requirement of agenda-setting on the background of big power competition. Needless to say that U.S. President Joe Biden is a master of human rights issues compared with his predecessor. The magic of genocide-related agenda-setting is that it can create anything out of nothing, like a wizard’s hat. There are so many advantages. First, it is very cheap and convenient for countries like the U.S. to make allegations. Conversely, it imposes high costs on states like China to defend themselves.
Second, the agenda-setting states have nothing to lose because it is always the defending states who have to respond and devote resources to deal with the set agenda. Finally, by setting up this agenda-setting trap for China, the U.S. will always be in a winning position. As long as it costs China resources and damages China’s international reputation, then the U.S. wins. This has nothing to do with whether the allegations are true or false.
To better implement its agenda-setting, the U.S. has been persistently orchestrating a disinformation campaign against China on all fronts, ranging from South China Sea to Human rights in Xinjiang. Chinese efforts to deal with Islamist-inspired violence in the area with re-education was blasted as incarcerating a million or more Uygurs in “indoctrination” camps. What would appear to be a positive job creation program with the goal of poverty alleviation in Xinjiang was spun a forced-labor crime.
China’s passive situation in this regard also results from a mix of language and culture advantages of the West and the disadvantage of China in terms of communication skills. The power of cultural and linguistic identity combined to shape international public opinion. The shared ideology based on language or culture laid foundation for Biden to make a priority of setting up ideological alliances.
Having a similar ideological identity, Western countries are more tolerant of the U.S even as they are critical of China. Double-standards have always been a hallmark of the West. Technically speaking, the language and culture also plays an important role in creating the sensational environment linked with the crime of genocide. As a crime of crimes, genocide is such a strong word that it carries emotions with it, naturally leading one to connect the violator with Nazis in the Holocaust. And the U.S. surely knows this emotional power and is good at exploiting it.
The identity issue also speaks to an undisputed fact — that the voice of the West has more influence in international media, which could be viewed as West-friendly. Further worsening the situation is that there is no systematic communication training in the traditional Chinese educational system. How to say no nicely has been a persistent challenge for Chinese scholars and officials. This technical issue combines with rising populism worldwide to provide good material for the negative reports by the Western media.
From a psychological point of view, accusing other states of committing genocide is a reflection of an awakening of dark memories deeply rooted in the history of Western colonialism. Atrocities were committed against Indians in America, against Innuits in Canada, against Maoris in Australia and in the whole process of colonial expansionism is marked by invasions, torture, incarceration and mass killings. In fact, accusing others is a good way to hide their own past. When you start accusing someone all the time, the world pays attention to the person or country that is being accused. Who else cares about the indigenous people buried under the resident school in Canada? On this point, Chinese scholars and diplomats should be cautious in making a tu quoque argument since China is totally different from those countries where there were real atrocities.
To sum up with questions: While U.S.-China strategic competition is a reality, and both the Trump and Biden administrations have taken a “whole-of-government” approach to containing China, are their scientific, technological, military and ideological measures so lacking that they must disturb Lemkin’s resting soul by using the outdated weapon of alleged genocide? Is the expansion of the application of this crime what’s really wanted? Does invoking this crime of crimes really serve the purpose of creating it in international law? The world owes an answer to Lemkin, who would never expect that this legal term be weaponized and politicalized by the U.S. just to take down a rival.
About the author:
Tian Shichen，Founder & President, Global Governance Institution
Captain (Retired) Tian Shichen, a senior research fellow, is Founder & President of the Global Governance Institution and director of the Center for International Law of Military Operations in Beijing. He is also a China Forum expert.
Bao Huaying，Associate fellow, Global Governance Institutionn
Bao Huaying is associate fellow at the Global Governance Institution. She is also a visiting fellow at the East Asia National Resource Centre, George Washington University, and chief of division for international exchange in the Office for International Exchange and Cooperation at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
