The situation in China’s Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region is rapidly deteriorating. Multiple reports on the ground in addition to analysis of satellite imagery and open-source data paint a bleak picture of repression and forced internment in the isolated region.
On this side of the Taiwan Strait, anyone who still believes that unification with China is a viable option should sit up and take note.
An analysis of government documents by German academic Adrian Zenz and a special investigation by the BBC has revealed the sinister reality of a rapidly expanding network of “vocational education and training centers” in Xinjiang.
Tender documents show that the centers’ construction is replete with razor wire and watchtowers. Documents also reveal that staff in some centers are armed with a plethora of weapons and restraining devices, such as electric cattle prods, tear gas, stun guns, Tasers and spiked clubs known as “wolf’s teeth.”
At least one center requested the purchase of “tiger chairs,” a device used by Chinese police to torture interrogation subjects.
There are estimated to be at least 181 re-education facilities in Xinjiang, which Zenz believes could be holding as many as 1 million ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities.
Beijing initially denied their existence, but now claims that enrollment is entirely voluntary and has released propaganda videos in an attempt to spin the centers as vocational schools for grateful students to brush up on their Mandarin and try knitting or baking.
In reality, an ethnic and religious minority is being interned: 20th-century history shows that this will not end well.
Radio Free Asia reported that in Haniqatam, up to 6,000 villagers have been indefinitely detained in centers; the initial batch of inmates has been incarcerated for two years.
Arbitrary quotas appear to be in effect and local sources have said that as many as 40 percent of residents in each village are being rounded up.
“In some houses the husband has been taken away, while in others the wife has been taken away and others still have had both detained, leaving the children behind,” said a local police officer who wished to remain anonymous.
It is becoming ever more apparent that under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), China is fast regressing to its authoritarian past and the dark days of Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Cultural Revolution.
An Agence France-Presse report quotes Xinjiang Party Secretary Chen Quanguo (陳全國) as saying: “To build new, better Chinese citizens, the centers must first break their lineage, break their roots, break their connections and break their origins.”
The Chinese Communist Party of course has experience in this field. It invaded and conquered Tibet in the early 1950s and since then, it has systematically worked to destroy Tibetan culture and displace Tibetans with Han Chinese.
By contrast, Hong Kong was “peacefully reunited with the motherland” in 1997, yet the methods and end result are the same — the importation of mainland Chinese to dilute the local population and the gradual hollowing out of Hong Kong’s independent judiciary, media and its mini-constitution.
The evidence could not be clearer. Whether conquered by force or through a peaceful accommodation with Beijing, Taiwan’s freedoms would be gradually and systematically snuffed out.
Like the hapless residents of Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, Taiwan would be left a shell of its former self and an impotent outpost of China’s colonial empire.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS