United Kingdom public tribunal to probe Uighur 'genocide' claims
London: A prominent British human rights lawyer is convening an independent tribunal in London to investigate whether the Chinese government's alleged rights abuses against Uighur Muslims in the far western Xinjiang region constitute genocide or crimes against humanity.
The tribunal is expected to reveal new evidence and testimony over several days' hearings next year. While the tribunal does not have government backing, it is the latest attempt to hold China accountable for its treatment of the Uighurs and ethnic Turkic minorities, who have been subject to an unprecedented crackdown since 2017.
Barrister Geoffrey Nice, who previously led the prosecution of ex-Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic over the Balkans war and worked with the International Criminal Court, was asked by the World Uighur Congress to investigate ongoing atrocities and possible genocide against the Uighur people.
Allegations against China about potential genocide are questions that should be asked and answered but such claims have never been legally scrutinized in public, Nice told The Associated Press.
Organisers are in the initial stages of gathering evidence, and expect to receive a substantial number of submissions from Uighurs exiled abroad over the next few months.
New evidence that may emerge includes testimony from several former security guards who were involved in the Xinjiang detention camps.
At the moment, the strongest evidence would appear to be evidence of incarceration and possibly evidence of enforced sterilization, Nice said.
A recent investigation by the AP found that the Chinese government is systematically forcing birth control on Uighurs and other Muslims in an apparent effort to reduce their population.
The report found that authorities regularly subject minority women to pregnancy checks and force intrauterine devices, sterilisation and abortion on hundreds of thousands.
While scores have been thrown in detention camps for alleged religious extremism, many others were sent to the camps simply for having too many children.
Such enforced sterilization practices could breach the Genocide Convention, Nice said.
The Chinese Embassy in London did not respond to emailed requests for comment. Chinese officials have repeatedly derided allegations of rights abuses in Xinjiang as fabricated, and insist that all ethnicities are treated equally.
China has long suspected the Uighurs, who are mostly Muslim, of harbouring separatist tendencies because of their distinct culture, language and religion.
In a lengthy press conference in August, the Chinese ambassador to the U.K. played graphic videos of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang to show that the Chinese government's measures there are necessary and important.
Ambassador Liu Xiaoming also called allegations about rights abuses in Xinjiang made in Western media lies of the century," and denied that nearly 1 million Uighurs have been detained in Xinjiang.
The London tribunal's judgement is not binding on any government. However, Nice said the process will nonetheless be one way to address the lack of action in tackling the alleged abuses by filling the gap with reliable information.
There is no other way of bringing the leadership of the (Chinese) Communist Party collectively or individually to judgement, Nice said.
In July, lawyers representing exiled Uighur activists filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court against China, asking the court in The Hague, Netherlands, to investigate the forced repatriation of thousands of Uighurs from Cambodia and Tajikistan and alleged genocide in Xinjiang.
However, Beijing does not recognize the international court's jurisdiction, and Nice who is not involved in that case said it will likely focus more on the repatriating countries' culpability and less on that of Chinese authorities.
The World Uighur Congress, an international organization representing Uighur exiles, has provided initial evidence and funding to the London tribunal. Organisers expect to hold two public hearings in London next year.
The tribunal will comprise of at least seven members who will act as jury.
They include British property businessman Nicholas Vetch, one of the organizers. A verdict is expected by the end of 2021.
Joanne Smith Finley at Newcastle University, an expert on Uighur studies, said the tribunal's findings may help pressure governments to impose sanctions such as bans on cotton from Xinjiang.
It does not have any true legal teeth in the sense that its determination will not be able to force any government to take any kind of action, she said.
However, I do think that its determination will be important in terms of putting pressure on the U.K. government and hopefully also other governments to take clear measures to persuade China to desist from these abuses.
Darren Byler, an academic at the University of Colorado, said an independent investigation would add a new perspective to the prevailing U.S.-centric reaction to the issue.
So far the world response to what is happening to the Uighurs and Kazakhs in northwest China has been largely confined to unilateral actions by the United States and been associated with President Trump's more general anti-China position, Byler said.
In July, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on three senior Chinese Communist Party officials for alleged human rights abuses targeting Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs and other minorities in Xinjiang, including mass detentions and forced population control.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
