50
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Congress in recent years has passed laws to pressure China over what the State Department says is an ongoing genocide of Uyghurs and other largely Muslim minority groups from Xinjiang.

The U.S. has sanctioned a handful of Chinese officials and entities linked to Xinjiang under various channels, including the Global Magnitsky Act and by executive order, actions that activists say are inadequate to the scale of atrocities committed.

The letter, dated Sept. 19, asked Blinken and Mayorkas to explain why certain Chinese officials, including Xinjiang Communist Party secretary Ma Xingrui, had not been sanctioned given their role in formulating and executing China's crackdown.

It also asked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to explain why dozens of Xinjiang-linked companies had not been added to an entity list under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act that would bar their imports.

The State Department has long been mulling sanctions under UHRPA, but Reuters reported in May that related measures were among policies delayed in the wake of a diplomatic crisis spurred by the U.S. downing of a suspected Chinese spy balloon that flew over U.S. soil earlier this year.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Xinjiang in August and said maintaining social stability was a top priority, comments activists viewed as him doubling down on his approach.


The original article contains 501 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Armen12@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Don't expect the US to get back with an answer any time soon, they bury their head in the sand hoping people will just forget with enough time

[-] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

The reason is right there in the article:

which requires the U.S. president, absent a waiver, to identify and sanction Chinese officials responsible for abuses.

Problem is, they can't identify these officials (or the abuses) because of lack of evidence (or even proper investigation). As evidence of this lack of evidence, can anybody name any official known to take part in any of the vague accusations?

Even the abuses listed in the article are just "forced labor and labor transfers" and that'd be really funny of the US to use as a charge against any other country given their 13th amendment private prisons.

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
50 points (90.3% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1922 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS