Xinjiang test case for western values
China’s pitiless war on Muslim Uighurs is posing a dilemma for the West, writes The Observer’s Simon Tisdall.
CHINA is facing mounting international criticism over its systematic repression of Muslim Uighurs in western Xinjiang province, where an estimated one million people have been detained in ‘‘reeducation’’ camps and subjected to prolonged physical and psychological abuse.
But Chinese leaders remain defiant, telling the UN and human rights activists earlier this month to, in effect, mind their own business. The standoff highlights one of the most challenging 21stcentury dilemmas for western democracies: how to sustain the pretence that an increasingly totalitarian China is a ‘‘normal’’ country with which they can do business.
The crackdown on the Uighurs, who make up about 11 million of Xinjiang’s 24 million inhabitants, has intensified since Xi Jinping became Communist Party leader in 2012 and president in 2013. Xi claims the campaign is necessary to defeat Islamist terrorism and the ‘‘ideological virus’’ of separatism, despite anecdotal evidence that it is having the opposite effect.
Uighurs say the harsh measures, effectively criminalising an entire ethnic group, are intended to erase their identity, religion, culture and language while assuring the party’s ascendancy. Hundreds of thousands — exact figures are unobtainable — have been sent to the camps, where they are indoctrinated in party dogma, forced to learn Mandarin and ordered to correct their thinking through selfcriticism.
Uncounted thousands more are held in prison, while the remainder of the population is subject to an Orwellian surveillance system comprising cameras placed in Uighur homes and neighbourhoods, networks of local snoopers, biometric data collection and voice and face recognition technologies. As in Stalin’s Russia, children are encouraged to inform on their parents.Winston Smith, of George Orwell’s 1984, would have recognised Xi’s Xinjiang.
A UN human rights panel challenged China last month over ‘‘credible reports’’ that up to three million ethnic Uighurs had been subjected to detention or forced reeducation. Xinjiang, it was claimed, had become ‘‘a massive internment camp’’.
Chinese officials responded with a variation on Vladimir Putin’s ‘‘Skripal defence’’, in which truth is fungible, or fluid. China’s policy towards minorities promoted unity and harmony, said Hu Lianhe, a senior cadre: ‘‘There is no such thing as reeducation centres.’’ Not only were reports of repression in Xinjiang incorrect, the events complained of had never actually happened.
When UN human rights chief and former president of Chile Michelle Bachelet proposed this month that international monitors be allowed into Xinjiang, Beijing accused her of listening to ‘‘onesided information’’ and demanded the UN respect China’s sovereignty. In other words, butt out.
Telling the UN to get lost is one thing. Telling the Americans to do so is another. Following pressure from Congress, the US confirmed this month it was considering sanctions on named Chinese companies and officials, including Xi loyalist Chen Quanguo, the party’s Xinjiang chief who transferred to the province after a career of repression in Tibet.
Beijing was taken by surprise. Donald Trump, the US president, after all, has shown scant interest in human rights abuses, and has praised Xi as a strong leader. But this was no sudden change of heart. The threat originated in what is becoming known as Washington’s parallel government, where senior officials routinely bypass the President.
Human Rights Watch has added to the chorus of condemnation. Its new report on Xinjiang, based on interviews with former detainees and their relatives, concluded China was daily violating fundamental rights to freedom of expression, religion and privacy and breaking international law on discrimination against minorities.
‘‘Those detained have been denied due process rights and suffered torture and other illtreatment . . . The human rights violations in Xinjiang today are of a scope and scale not seen in China since the 196676 Cultural Revolution,’’ the organisation said.
The gathering furore over Xinjiang, and China’s flat rejection of international concerns, is likely to draw attention to other aspects of what Chinese liberals and western analysts say is a broader regression into Maoera totalitarianism under Xi.
What is happening in Xinjiang mirrors China’s behaviour in Tibet, where Buddhist proindependence forces have suffered brutal repression since the Chinese occupation began in 1949. The fact they have still not been crushed suggests there is hope for the Uighurs.
Xi’s success in abolishing term limits and establishing himself, de facto, as unelected ‘‘paramount leader’’ for life, his aggressive stance over the South China Sea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, his party purges and his nationwide curbs on religious freedoms, free speech and independent media all add up to a wider challenge to Western double standards. European countries seek a ‘‘golden era’’ of trade, investment and new markets, exemplified by Theresa May’s Beijing visit in February. At the same time, their beliefs and values, long enshrined in international law, are being shredded by a regime that treats their opinions with disdain.
In this sense, Xinjiang is a test case. So far, China has avoided any significant political costs. Its UN security council veto protects it from meaningful censure. But the Western democracies are not without leverage and influence, from the use of economic sanctions to political and moral pressure applied across a range of international platforms. If the abuses suffered by Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar require investigation by an international criminal tribunal, as the UN has suggested, then so too does Beijing’s war on the Uighurs.
China’s slide into totalitarianism is accelerating. But who among Western leaders will admit that the price of doing business is too high? — Guardian News and Media
❛Beijing accused [Bachelet] of listening
to ‘onesided information’ and demanded the UN
respect China’s sovereignty. In other
words, butt out