对新疆“种族灭绝”的指控只是美国对中国采取信息欺骗行动的延续

编者注：为了给参加国际刑事法院模拟法庭中文赛的同学提供更多与国际法大师交流的机会，国际法促进中心特举办大师课系列活动。5月7日，大师课系列第一场——William Schabas教授国际刑法线上漫谈活动圆满完成。本次活动邀请到了国际知名的人权法、种族灭绝和死刑方面的专家William Schabas教授，同时邀请到复旦大学陆志安教授和经士智库的田士臣总裁（武汉大学国际法博士候选人）两位对谈人，由国际法促进中心刘毅强主任主持，围绕职业规划、死刑、种族灭绝等话题，开展了一场精彩的对话讲座。国际法促进中心特将本次讲座的主要内容总结，以供大家参考回顾。原文首发于国际法促进中心公众号，由葛奕君编辑，经授权在头条摘编首发。

刘毅强：

谢谢您，沙巴斯教授。这是我这边的最后一个问题。我想给两位中国的对谈人田博士和陆教授留点时间，来回答他们的问题和评论。现在，我可以先邀请田博士吗？

Dr. Tian:

田博士候选人：

谢谢刘主任。这是你和威廉·沙巴斯教授之间一次很棒的对话。我们真的学到了很多。我代表中国的国际法学者说，我们真的很幸运，也很荣幸能请到沙巴斯教授，因为我认为我们找不到比您这样一位写过《国际法中的种族灭绝：罪行中的罪行》的国际法教授更合适的教授来讨论这个问题了。我想我们可以更广泛地宣传您的演讲，这样更多的国际法学者可以从中受益，理解这个罪行中的罪行的真正含义。我也想分享我自己对这个问题的一些看法，特别是关于新疆种族灭绝的指控。我对您提到的那篇与Jaffery Sachs教授合著的文章也很受触动。

作为国际法学者，我们都知道波兰律师拉斐尔·莱姆金（Raphael Lemkin）的影响。当拉斐尔·莱姆金教授创造“种族灭绝”这个词，并成功地将其说服成为一项被特别条约认可的国际罪行时，他可能认为这个法律术语会变成历史遗留下来的古董。在他那个时代，直到1945年，纳粹德国战犯被指控犯有种族灭绝罪。1933年到1945年间，欧洲生活的现实呼唤着创造这样一个术语，提出这样一个关于毁灭人类群体的法律概念。当这个法律术语在或者是在南斯拉夫、或者是在卢旺达、或者是在缅甸、又或者是在指控中国新疆被重新提及时，如果莱姆金还活着，他会怎么评论？扩大这种犯罪的适用范围是他想要的吗？滥用这种罪行符合将其纳入国际法的目的吗？让我转到新疆。作为一个经常去新疆的人，我震惊地发现西方报道中新疆和我亲眼看到的新疆完全不同。我在新疆度过了2018年春节，当我还是一名现役军官的时候，我去过很多次新疆。一个受欢迎的旅游目的地怎么会变成一个与二战中的大屠杀有关的种族灭绝的地方？随着年轻人口的增长速度快于非年轻人口的增长，那些英国或美国的律师们又怎么能确定毁灭人类群体的犯罪意图呢？虽然中美战略竞争已经成为现实，而且特朗普和拜登政府都采取了政府整体（whole-of-government）的方式来诋毁中国，他们所采取的科学、技术、军事和意识形态措施还不够支持对抗，以至于他们不得不扰乱莱姆金安息的灵魂，去使用过时的种族灭绝武器吗？我在想，美国还是那个拯救纳粹德国种族灭绝受害者生命的美国吗？美国还是那个帮助莱姆金将种族灭绝定为犯罪的美国吗？美国还是那个倡导建立联合国和通过《世界人权宣言》的美国吗？维护全球霸权的愿望如此强烈和必要，以至于需要这样使用一个公认的国际法准则，使得整个国际社会都可以被忽视或滥用？考虑到美国（也包括澳大利亚）的种族歧视，利比亚、伊拉克的叙利亚平民丧生，以及2003年美国在没有任何国际法法律依据的情况下单方面使用武力，谁应该为伊拉克战争中平民和军事人员的死亡负责呢？伊拉克人民的生命重要吗？阿富汗人民的生命重要吗？叙利亚人民的生命重要吗？还是只有美国人民或白人的生命重要？

最后，请允许我坦率地与沙巴斯教授分享我对新疆人权状况的不同看法。我注意到您在文章中也提到新疆种族灭绝的指控是站不住脚，您认为联合国专家呼吁联合国调查新疆局势是正确的。我不反对联合国的调查，只要它是基于交流与合作，而不是基于有罪推定。但我的问题是，为什么只针对中国。考虑到其大规模种族主义和白人至上主义，美国的侵犯人权行为是否也符合联合国人权调查的条件？澳大利亚在阿富汗的战争罪行呢？如果所有这些侵犯人权的行为都符合联合国调查的条件，为什么只针对中国？这是我的问题。

总而言之，人权是一个过程，而不是一个固定的现状。是的，新疆和世界上任何地方一样，都存在人权问题，永远不是完美的，需要不断改进。然而，西方对人权状况的审查一直是横向的，而非纵向的，有意忽略人类历史上巨大的人权进步，没有看到惠及亿万中国人民的贫困消除。就拿我自己来说，我出生在中国一个农村，那时我家的房子是用泥土和稻草建造的，我家里唯一的电子设备就是一个手电筒。您可以想象一下，改革开放之后中国人生活水平有了怎样的提高。我认为，我们中国人民只想过一种幸福和平的生活，就像美国人民一样，就像英国人民一样，就像世界上任何其他国家的人民一样。具有讽刺意味的是，作为一个拥有传统意义上强大军队的国家，一个曾经在朝鲜战争中与美国对抗的国家，中国与它的14个邻国中的12个都是通过和平谈判签署的陆地边界划定协议，而没有利用中国强大的陆军军队。同样具有讽刺意味的是，我们并不是传统上的海上强国，但中国被指责在东海和南海都采取了武装行动，尽管事实上，是美国军舰从千里之外到达中国的国门。所以，从一个普通中国人的角度，我想说的是，对新疆种族灭绝的指控只是另一场针对中国的虚假信息运动的延续。而且这完全是政治的。

最后，教授您还没有去过新疆。您是否愿意接受我们智库的邀请，亲自访问新疆？我想我可以做到。谢谢大家。

沙巴斯教授：

我希望田博士能够理解，我同意他所说的98%的内容。我常常认为自己是一名专注于人权和种族灭绝问题方面的、与全球秩序中存在的双重标准作斗争的国际律师。从这个意义上说，我认为我们在这些问题上的立场完全一致。我和杰佛瑞·萨克斯（他是美国一位非常杰出的教授）一起在网站上发表的那篇文章包含了妥协。我最初的草稿有点激进。特别是，我必须就拘留指控说一句，西方媒体对中国的主要指控之一是有一百万维吾尔人被拘留，但以这种方式拘留一个种族群体的成员不是种族灭绝行为。但这是他们所做的指控。我加了一句话说，世界上只有另外一个国家我们知道有一百万少数民族的人被拘留，那就是美利坚合众国。

你提到了拉斐尔·莱姆金，他是种族灭绝这个词的发明者。他不是美国人。他是一名来自东欧的犹太难民。他来自一个离我祖父母出生的城镇只有20公里的小镇。莱姆金是以难民身份来到美国的，他没有得到美国政府的大量支持。我在我的书中解释了这一点，他提出的种族灭绝的建议是对美国人在纽伦堡审判中提出的针对反人类罪的限缩解释的回应——因为他们想确保反人类罪不会适用于在美国对黑人的迫害。联合国在成立的早期一直被这件事困扰。这是肯定的。当针对中国时，他们对种族灭绝有一个宽泛的定义，而当被针对的是他们的朋友时，则用一个狭隘的定义。这只是美国将种族灭绝武器化的方式。这不是专门针对中国的，但它会对中国起作用。有一个很棒的卡通，它显示了一张俄罗斯地图，台词显示了俄罗斯人的侵略性——他们在我们所有的基地附近建立了他们的国家——并且他们展示了周围所有的美国基地。然而，你知道的，他们的海军应该处于他们自己的领海内，并保持在那里。我一直认为国际刑事法庭的活动之一应该是要更多地处理针对美国的指控，当然，也包括针对其最大的盟友以色列的指控，因为某些检察官的勇气，他们都在接受法庭的调查。国际刑事法庭也不能幸免于全球政治，但在某种程度上可以减轻美国及其盟友的控制。有时候，你可以得到一些有趣的结果。在文章中，杰佛瑞·萨克斯和我有一个关于允许事实调查任务的提议。当然，这必须得到中国的同意。我相信杰佛瑞·萨克斯也会同意我的观点，这无意指在美国不应该有事实调查任务。我们完全同意美国应该对某些情势负责。

在过去的两三个月里，我花了很多时间研究联合国。在第一年，也就是1946年的第一届大会上，有一些反种族主义的决议。由于很明显的原因，他们不是来自美国。他们来自南方国家。这太令人惊讶了。我以前不知道了。这对我来说是一个新发现。有两个关于国际刑法的决议。一个是关于纽伦堡原则的，直接来自白宫。是由杜鲁门提出的第95号决议，是为了肯定纽伦堡会议的原则而提出的。另一个是种族灭绝决议，它是由来自南方的三个国家提出的——印度，巴拿马和古巴。种族灭绝决议将适用于和平时期的所有国家，这意味着它将适用于美国，也适用于其他国家。所以我把这个决议叫做“黑人的生命很重要”决议；另一个关于纽伦堡的决议，我把它叫做“黑人的生命无关紧要”决议。这太令人着迷了。我现在正在写一本关于种族主义和国际法的书。它可能会在一年后问世。整个大纲是关于联合国会议上发生了什么。有一项决议来自日本对国际联盟关于种族主义的盟约修正案，但遭到美国总统伍德罗·威尔逊的阻挠。其中一个支持日本这一决议的国家是与日本关系不好的邻国，因为日本想从德国手中得到山东，我是说中国。但是伟大的中国外交官顾维钧说，“在这个问题上，我们和日本是一致的。我们同意日本的观点。我们必须把反种族主义决议包括进来。”

附英文原文如下：

Mr. TIAN:

Thank you Michael for the kind introduction. It’s a great conversation between you and Professor William Schabas and we really learned a lot. And I should say on behalf of Chinese international law scholars that we are really lucky and greatly honored to have you with us today because I don’t think we can find a more suitable professor to discuss this issue than a professor of international law who wrote a book entitled Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. I think we could give more publicity to your talk so that more international law scholars can benefit and understand the true meaning of this crime of crimes.

I would like to share some of my opinions on this issue, in particular taking the alleged Genocide in Xinjiang for example. And I may also touch upon your article co-authored with Jeffery Saches.

As international law scholars, we all know the influence of Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. When Professor Raphael Lemkin coined the word ‘genocide’ and successfully persuaded it into an international crime sanctioned by a special treaty, he would have thought that this legal term would turn into an old antique left over from history. In his time, it was only in 1945 that the Nazi German war criminals were indicted, among other things, on the charge of genocide. It was the realities of European life in the years 1933-45 that called for the creation of such a term and for the formulation of a legal concept of destruction of human groups. When this obsolete legal term is rejuvenated either as confirmed in Former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, or allegedly accused in Burma, and in Xinjiang China, what would Lemkin like to comment if he was still alive? Is the expansion of the application of this crime what he really wants? Does the abuse of this crime of crimes really serve the purpose of creating it in international law?

Let me turn to Xinjiang. As a frequent traveler to Xin Jiang, I was shocked to know a Xinjiang in the western report which is totally different from the Xinjiang which I saw through my personal experiences and with my own eyes. I spent my 2018 Spring Festival in Xinjiang as a tourist and made many business trips to Xinjiang When I was still an active-service military officer. How could a place as a popular tourism destination become a place of genocide which used to be related to memory of holocaust in World War II? With the growing of Uighur population faster than the non-Uighur population, how could the criminal intent to destroy permanently a human group be established by those UK and US lawyers?

Although U.S.-China strategic competition is a reality and both Trump and Biden administration has taken a “whole-of-government” approach to contain China, are the scientific, technological, military and ideological measures they have taken not enough so that they have to disturb Lemkin's resting soul to use the outdated weapon of genocide? Is the United Stated still the United States who saved victims of Genocide from Nazi Germans? Is the United States still the United States who helped Lemkin criminalize genocide in international law? Is the United States still the United States who championed the establishment of the UN and adoption of Human Rights Declarations? Is the desire to maintain Global Hegemony so strong and necessary that a jus cogens norm of international law recognized as such by the whole international community can be ignored or abused?

Given the racial discrimination in the U.S., in Australia; given the loss of thousands of civilian life in Syria, Libia and Iraq, Given the unilateral use of force by the U.S. without any legal basis in international law in 2003, who should be accountable for the loss of both civilian and military lives in the Iraq war? Do the Iraqi lives matter? Do the Afghanistan lives matter? Do the Syrian lives matter? Or only the U.S. lives or White lives matter?

Finally, please also allow me to frankly share my dissenting opinion with Professor Schabas on the human rights condition in Xinjiang. You echoed in the article “The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified” co-authored with Professor Jeffery Sachs that “UN experts are rightly calling for the UN to investigate the situation in Xinjiang”. I do not disagree with an UN-led investigation as long as it is based on “exchanges and cooperation,” not on “guilty before proven.” But why only targeting China? Do the human rights abuses in the U.S. also qualify for an UN-led investigation in terms of its massive racism and white supremacism? How about the Australia in terms of its war crimes in Afghanistan? How about the illegal war in Iraq? If all those human rights abuses qualify for an UN-led investigation, why only targeting China.

In conclusion, human rights is a process instead of a fixed status quo. Yeah, there are human rights problems in Xinjiang as with any part of the world which is forever not perfect and needs to be improved constantly. However, when it comes to China, the western scrutiny of human rights condition has always been through a horizontal approach vs a vertical approach. At the end of the day, what is intentionally neglected is a huge human rights progress in the history of mankind. Not to say the poverty eradication of hundreds of millions of people, just take myself for example, when I was born in rural village, the house where we lived is made of mud and straws. The only electronic thing in my home is a torch. You could imagine how living standard has improved after the reform and opening up.

We Chinese people only want to live a happy and peaceful life just as the American people, the British people, as any other peoples in the world do. Ironically, as a country with a traditionally strong army, which used to confront the U.S. in the Korean War, China signed land border demarcation agreements with 12 of its 14 neighbors, all though peaceful talks instead of taking advantage of its strong army. Equally ironically, while not a traditionally maritime power because of its weak navy, China is accused of taking assertive action in in both East and South China sea, despite of the fact that it is the U.S. warships that travels thousands of miles to the door of China. From the perspective of an average Chinese, what I would like to say is that, the accusation of Genocide in Xinjiang is just a continuation of another disinformation campaign against China.

There have been debates about facts and law regarding the alleged genocide in Xin Jiang. You said you have not been there to Xinjiang. Are you willing to accept an invitation from our think tank to visit Xinjiang in person?

Professor Schabas:

I hope Dr. Tian understands that I agree on 98% of everything he said. I often had seen myself as an international lawyer with a specialist in human rights and genocide issues as fighting the double standards that are present in the global order. To that extent, I think we're on exactly the same wavelength on these issues. The article I made with Jeff Sachs, a very distinguished professor in the United States, published on the website involved compromise. My original drafts is a little more aggressive. In particular, I had to put in a line in there where I spoke about the allegations about detentions, because one of the Western media’s main allegations against China is they say there are 1 million Uighurs in detention. Having members of an ethnic group in detention that way is not an act of genocide anyway. But this is the allegation they make. So I put a line in things saying that there's only one other country in the world where we know that there are 1 million members of an ethnic minority in detention, and that's, of course, the United States of America.

You mentioned Raphael Lemkin, the man who developed the word. He was not American. He was a Jewish refugee from Eastern Europe. He came from a town that was only 20 kilometers from the towns where my grandparents were born. Lemkin came to the United States as a refugee, and he didn't have a great deal of support from the US government. His proposal of genocide, and I explained this in my book, was a reaction to the narrow approach to crimes against humanity proposed by the Americans for the Nuremberg Trial - because they wanted to make sure that crimes against humanity would not apply to the persecution of black people in the United States. They were haunted by this in the early years of the United Nations. That's for sure. They have a broad definition of genocide for China, and a narrow definition when it is their friend. This is just the way the United States is is weaponizing. It wasn't about China, but it would work with China. There was a wonderful cartoon somewhere. It showed a map of Russia. The captions showed how aggressive the Russians are - they built their country near all of our bases. And they showed all the American bases that surround. However, you know, they should have their Navy in their own territorial waters and keep it there. I've been campaigning, amongst other things, for the International Criminal Court to be much more engaged with dealing with allegations against the United States, and, of course, against its its great ally, Israel, who are both being investigated by the court because of a certain amount of courage by the prosecutor. The International Criminal Court is not immune to the global politics, but to an extent you can loosen the control by the United States and its allies. Sometimes you can have some interesting results. You know, in the article, Jeff Sachs and I had this proposal about allowing fact finding mission. Of course, it would only be on the Chinese consent. There was no intention to suggest, and I'm sure Jeff Sachs would agree with me, that there should not be fact finding missions in the United States too. There have been some situations that we totally agree that the US should be held accountable.

I've been spending a lot of time in the last two or three months studying the United Nations in the early years. In the first year, the first session of the General Assembly of 1946, there were a number of anti-racist resolutions. They didn't come from the United States, for obvious reasons. They came from the countries of the global south. This was an amazing. I didn't know it before. This was a discovery for me. There were two resolutions on international criminal law. One was on the Nuremberg principles, which came straight from the White House. It is resolution 95, proposed by Truman. It was to affirm the principles of Nuremberg. The other resolution was the genocide resolution and it was proposed by three countries from the south - India, Panama and Cuba. So I described the genocide resolution would apply to all countries in peacetime, and that meant it would apply to the United States as well as to other countries. So I call this resolution the Black Lives Matter resolution; and the other resolution on Nuremberg, I call it the black lives don't matter resolution. This is fascinating. I'm writing a book now about racism and international law. It will be out in maybe a year. A whole pattern is about what was going on in UN conference. There was a resolution that came from an amendment to the covenant of the League of Nations on racism that came from Japan, and that was blocked by Woodrow Wilson, the American president. A country that supported Japan was a neighbor of Japan's that wasn't in love with Japan, because Japan wanted to get Shandong from the Germans, and I'm talking about China. But the great Chinese diplomat, Wellington Koo, said, “We're with Japan on this. We agree with Japan. We have to include the anti-racism resolution.”