Then there’s this from 2018 discussing why “cultural genocide” isn’t in the Genocide Convention.
The discussion held by the Sixth Committee on 25 October 1948 reveals the chasm between supporters and objectors to the inclusion of cultural genocide in the Convention.[89] The former believed that a group can be destroyed by destroying its cultural foundations,[90] or that cultural genocide is always a part of physical genocide and at times its precursor, and that, therefore, excluding cultural genocide can thwart efforts to prevent physical genocide.[91] The Pakistani delegate also expressed an even more fundamental view; not only were physical and cultural genocide intrinsically linked, but cultural genocide was the aim, whereas physical genocide was the means.[92] The objectors, on the other hand, thought that the right place for cultural genocide was in instruments that protected minorities, such as the protection of freedom of expression in national constitutions and civil codes or by the protection afforded to language, religion and culture under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[93]
Although the arguments in the debate revolved around legal considerations, the subtext of the discussion reveals that the real fear was expressed by states with minorities or by colonial powers that feared international interference in what they saw as internal matters.[94] They were worried that the Genocide Convention would bring in the backdoor the discarded minorities’ protection regime and that it would create an international review power on the manner in which states treat their minorities.[95] This is apparent in the concerns expressed by states with national minorities or indigenous peoples that their assimilationist policies would be regarded as ‘cultural genocide’.[96] Ultimately, the emphasis on the group’s protection at the centre of cultural genocide ran against the current of protecting the rights of the individual in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the IMT’s judgment, which prioritized crimes against humanity over genocide.[97]
The final definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention abandoned the division into techniques or types of genocide and opted instead for a list of five prohibitions, including the one of ‘[f]orcibly transferring children of the group to another group’ (Article 2, paragraph e), which is regarded by experts as the only remnant of cultural genocide.[98] This concession, Ana Vrdoljak argues, undermines the insight that the destruction of collective identity is the fundamental driving force of genocidal activities aimed at destroying the group as such.[99]
I would include the numbered references but at least one is quite long and could result in this quote failing fair use.