Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Before I get into my speech, I wish to say how disappointed I am with the amendment put forward by the Government. We need to acknowledge that often official relationships, and working within officialdom, in a sense, can be compromised when it comes to holding states to account. People's tribunals have provided a voice to the voiceless to advocate for legal and institutional reform. They have the potential to contribute to substantial rule of law and they should not be seen as something separate from or outside of, but as another body that can hold to account the bodies spoken about in the reasoning as to why we have introduce this in terms of unilateralism, the Security Council and the tribunal not being official.

On 9 December, the UK's Uyghur Tribunal found the Chinese Government guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing genocide, crimes against humanity and torturing Uyghurs and other minorities in north-west China. Nine short weeks after this verdict, China welcomed the world for the Winter Olympics and the Winter Paralympic Games. Countries around the world, including the UK, US and Canada, have protested and engaged in a diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics, citing the gross human rights abuses against Muslim ethnic minorities, which were confirmed by the 9 December verdict.

A date which could not be more significant in global history, 9 December marks the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and Prevention of this Crime. A date on which we, as part of an international community, think of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which was signed on the same day 73 years previously, and when we said, "Never again." The fact that the Uyghur Tribunal announced its decision on this day is, therefore, very fitting. It situates it firmly within the darkest chapters of human history. The Uyghur Tribunal implores us all, especially Ireland, considering our role on the UN Security Council, to take a leading role in publicly recognising the genocide of Uyghur people and, subsequently, taking the appropriate actions to show, rather than simply saying, "Never again." Unless we take real and tangible actions condemning the abhorrent behaviour of China's Government, we are tacitly encouraging this genocide and future genocides. We know there will be future genocides should this be allowed to slip.

The verdict delivered in the UK's tribunal is clear that the Chinese Government was responsible for deliberately lowering the birth rates of Uyghurs, indicative of the Chinese state's genocidal intentions. In announcing its judgment, the tribunal stated that it is satisfied that the People's Republic of China has effected a deliberate, systematic and concerted policy with the object of so-called optimising the population of Xinjiang. What the Chinese Government calls "optimising the population" is, by any other definition, genocide. This is a fact made clear in Article II(d) of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defines the act of genocide as, "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group".

Official statistics from the Chinese Government revealed during the course of the tribunal indicate that there was a 48.7% decline in birth rate in ethnic minority areas of Xinjiang. Yet, we have an amendment here stating we are deeply concerned. I am sure they are looking at us and are saying, "You can keep your concern."

As shocking as these figures are, they should not come as a surprise. We have heard them all before. It was only in December, on that evening, when many of us were in here flagging the same atrocities taking place in Xinjiang. These crimes were subsequently laid bare in the UN Special Rapporteur's report, which highlighted evidence suggesting that the Chinese Government has continued to use Uyghur and other ethnic minorities for organ harvesting.

What is most concerning is how these crimes are being powered. The report outlines the use of repressive AI-based technology used in targeting ethnic minorities in China. We know camera surveillance has become a feature of daily life for Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic minorities in China, both inside and outside the gates of the camps.

Testimonies from survivors and experts at the tribunal detailed that as the presence of cameras grew, so did the technological capabilities. Expert testimony at the UK tribunal detailed how companies, such as Huawei, the multinational hardware firm, and Hikvision, the largest global camera manufacturer, developed and tested technology that would detect a Uyghur from the Han Chinese majority. This facial recognition technology plays a role in tracking and eventual detention of the Uyghurs.

Earlier we spoke about this not being official but people are experiencing this. They are official, regardless of where they give their testimony. It is their experience and we should accept that, no matter what avenue it comes through. We should not dismiss it just because it is not official in the Government's eyes in terms of being the tribunal.

First, in co-ordination with other western states and allies, Ireland should stigmatise those responsible for designing and implementing repression in Xinjiang through strategic messaging and diplomatic interventions and boycotts. The US, for example, has issued increasingly powerful sanctions against China. So far, it has publicly sanctioned one government entity, about 50 Chinese firms and four officials in connection with the persecution of Uyghurs. Canada, under its Sergei Magnitsky Law, and the UK, which recently implemented its own version of the Global Magnitsky Act, called Global Human Rights, imposed financial and other restrictions on foreign nationals responsible for or complicit in violating internationally recognised human rights.

I ask the Government to think about its amendment, which removes the words "accepts its findings" and changes them to "deep concern". It removes the urgency, actions and seriousness of it. We should be calling for sanctions. Unfortunately, it took until Senator Joe O'Reilly raised this before anyone made an impassioned contribution about what was going on for people. The two other Government Members protested as to why it is putting forward this amendment. I did not feel any sense of the people that we are talking about in their contributions and it is deeply upsetting.