> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> ethnic cleansing
> n : the mass expulsion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> genocide
> n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group [syn: {race murder}, {racial extermination}]Perhaps. Although, at this point international law more and more seems like an optional thing, that is used only when it’s convenient, and only when there is a clear path to win the case.
For example, there is a clear genocide (although not via a military campaign) of Uighurs in China: declining birth rates, re-education camps, eradication of a culture and a language. Clearly done in a systemic way. However, no one dares to take a clear action here because China is too powerful.
Yeah, international law and international bodies have always been more or less a bad joke. They were developed with good intentions, but ideals never last long in the face of reality. Game theory and basic human nature necessitate conflict and tribalism when trapped at the bottom of a gravity well with limited resources. It's depressing.
Ethnic cleansing: removal of a group due to their ethnicity from a piece of land. The result: this group of people stays alive, but has to go to a different place.
Genocide: physical extermination of an ethnic group. The result: they are all dead.
Why these two distinct events should have the same name???
And? What are you trying to say?