The Economist - USA (2021-02-13)

The EconomistFebruary 13th 2021 Leaders 11

1

W

henronaldreagancried“teardownthiswall”,everyone

knewwhathemeant.Therewasa wall.ItimprisonedEast

Germans.It hadtocomedown.Oneday,it did.Inthestrugglebe-

tweendemocracyanddictatorship,it iscrucialthatdemocracies

tellthetruthinplainlanguage.Dictatorshipswillalwayslieand

obfuscatetoconcealtheirtruenature.Democraciescantellit

likeitis.BearthisinmindwhendecidingwhattocallChina’s

persecutionoftheUyghurs.Onhislastfulldayinoffice,Donald

Trump’ssecretaryofstate,MikePompeo,calledit “genocide”.Al-

thoughJoeBidendidnotusethatwordthisweekinhisfirsttalk

withXiJinping,China’spresident,hisadministrationhasre-

peatedit (seeUnitedStatessection)andlawmakersinBritainare

mullingit (seeBritainsection).Butisit accurate?

Bythecommonunderstandingoftheword,

it isnot.Justas“homicide”meanskillinga per-

sonand“suicide”meanskillingyourself,“geno-

cide”meanskillinga people.China’spersecu-

tionoftheUyghursishorrific:ithaslockedup

perhaps1moftheminprisoncamps,whichit

naturally mislabels “vocationaltraining cen-

tres”. It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur

women.Butit isnotslaughteringthem.

Callingitgenocidedependsona definitionrootedinaun

conventionwhichsuggeststhatoneneednotactuallykillany-

onetocommitit.Measures“intendedtopreventbirths”,orin-

flicting“seriousbodilyormentalharm”willsuffice,iftheiraim

is“todestroy,inwholeorinpart,a national,ethnical,racialor

religiousgroup”.Howlargea partisnotspecified.Inprincipleit

is,alas,possibletoimaginethedestructionofanentirepeople

by,forexample,thesystematicsterilisationofallwomen.Butif

conventionsarewordedwithunusualbroadness,theymustalso

beusedwithspecialcare.Untilnow,America’sStateDepartment

hadappliedthe“genocide”labelonlytomassslaughter,and

eventhenit oftenhesitated,forfearthatutteringthetermwould

createanexpectationthatitwouldintervene.Itdid notcall

Rwanda’sgenocidea genocideuntilit waspracticallyover.

America’spoliticalrhetorichasthusundergonea dramatic

shift,whichhasprofoundimplicationsfortheworld’smostim-

portantbilateralrelationship.ByaccusingChinaofgenocide,it

issendingthesignalthatitsgovernmenthascommittedthe

mostheinousofcrimes.Andyetatthesametimeit isproposing

todealwithit overglobalwarming,pandemicsandtrade.

Somecampaignersthinktherhetoricalescalationisnone-

thelesswise.Itwillstokeusefuloutrage,theyargue,rallying

companiestoshunChinesesuppliersandcountriestoboycott

nextyear’sWinterOlympics.Onthecontrary,it ismorelikelyto

becounter-productive.Fora start,it accomplishesnothingtoex-

aggeratetheCommunistParty’scrimesinXinjiang.Countless

truestoriesoffamiliestornapartandUyghurs

living in terror appal any humane listener.

WhenordinaryHanChinesehearthem,asa few

didonClubhouse,a newsocial-mediaplatform,

whichChinahasrushedtoblock,theyarehorri-

fied(seeChinasection).Bycontrast,ifAmerica

makeswhatsoundlikebaselessallegationsof

mass killing, patrioticChinese will be more

likely tobelievetheirgovernment’sline,that

WesternerslieaboutXinjiangtotarnisha risingpower.

Democraciesfaceanunprecedentedanddelicatetaskwhen

theydealwithChina,whichisbotha threattoglobalnormsand

anessentialpartnerintacklingglobalcrisessuchasclimate

change(seeChaguan).Torefusetoengagewithit istoendanger

theworldeconomyandtheplanet.

MrBidenisrighttodecryChina’sabuses,butheshoulddoso

truthfully.Thecountryiscommittingcrimesagainsthumanity.

Byaccusingitofgenocideinstead,intheabsenceofmassmur-

der,Americais diminishingthe uniquestigmaoftheterm.

Genocideshouldputa governmentbeyondthepale;yetAmeri-

canofficialswillkeepdoingbusinesswiththeregimetheyhave

brandedgenocidal.Futuregenocidaireswilltakecomfort. 7

How to talk about Xinjiang

“Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors China is inflicting on the Uyghurs

Human rights

A

merican exceptionalismtakes many forms. One, alas, is a

shockingly high rate of child poverty. According to the

oecd’s measure, which defines as poor those families living on

less than half of median family income, 21% of American chil-

dren are in poverty. This is double the rate in France and nearly

triple that in Poland. This grim statistic is cause to welcome two

proposals to reduce child poverty, one from Joe Biden’s adminis-

tration, the other from Mitt Romney, a Republican senator.

Helping poor Americans involves balancing a complicated

set of trade-offs. The more people who receive help, the more

money it costs. The solution to this is usually to means-test aid,

which does the most good per dollar spent. Yet help that is nar-

rowly targeted at a small group of Americans can easily be dis-

missed as aid to the undeserving, eroding the political support it

requires to exist. Highly targeted schemes are also more compli-

cated to administer. Much of the help to poor families comes in

the form of tax credits, which are confusing and go unclaimed by

many of those who are eligible to receive them.

It is so hard to get right that the last serious attempt at change

was a quarter of a century ago. The Biden and Romney plans both

balance competing imperatives by making monthly payments

per child ($350 at the top end for Mr Romney, $300 for the White

An end to exceptionalism

The White House and a prominent Republican senator propose to follow European schemes

Reducing child poverty