The Diplomat in May published an article stating that “Chinese people” do not view Beijing’s treatment of Uighurs as genocide and that they support the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) policy toward Uighurs. The article implied that the US should reconsider its determination that China’s Uighur policy constitutes genocide.
Although the quotes cited in the article from “Chinese people” were illogical and insulting, it is not worth questioning their accuracy, because they appear in exactly the same style that the CCP has used to discuss its inhumane policies since it came to power in 1949. It is worth questioning that, shockingly, The Diplomat credits these quotes as the voice of the “Chinese people.”
Regarding the concentration camps in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, which hold more than 3 million people and have removed more than 500,000 children from their parents, Ma Ling, described in the article as a teacher in an educational institution in Xinjiang, said that “if they [Uighurs] don’t have this study experience in the training schools, they may only stay at home in the poor villages on the border, and they will become prey to Afghan terrorists, and maybe finally become jihadis.”
Is it appropriate to provide a forum for such a racist statement made in such an insulting tone? Is it appropriate for an employee to take part in cultural genocide indirectly by working with a government institution, thereby benefiting from that genocide by gaining a job?
The Diplomat also quoted an “outspoken” Uighur, Ehmet, who lives in Beijing and said that he video chats with his family daily.
“I do not understand why Americans use the term ‘genocide’ or ‘crimes against humanity’ to describe Xinjiang,” he told the online magazine, adding: “It is no different from the past and life is as usual. How could there be a massacre?”
What logic is there in describing as “outspoken” a person whose zero-risk statement sides with the oppressor? Did The Diplomat actually expect him to say something against China and in praise of the US?
In the US, there are more than 10,000 Uighurs, 90 percent of whom have at least one relative in an internment camp in Xinjiang, and at least a dozen of whom are themselves survivors of a camp. Among those interned are reportedly 48 family members of six journalists. Not a single Uighur in the US has denied the mass incarceration and torture. Do their voices in an open society carry less credibility than the voice of a single person living under the gun in China?
The Diplomat has the right to believe that Uighurs in the US decrying the fate of their relatives are a few overseas activists whose relatives are criminals, but it should have the courage to report a version of the Uighur genocide narrative that differs from mainstream international reporting.
If the views had been presented as those of “some Chinese,” it would have been acceptable, but The Diplomat repeatedly said that the views were those of “many Chinese,” and warned that if the US’ did not re-evaluate its determination that China’s treatment of Uighurs was genocide, the “Chinese people” and the CCP would unite to create a greater danger. This was actually the article’s main point.
In a country that does not allow freedom of expression or an independent judicial system, how can a statement be generalized to the entire society, or even many segments of it? The reality is that Chinese, who have been ruled for decades by a single party without elections and whose president has effectively extended his term indefinitely with no resistance, lack the courage to protest, and, in short, the ability to solve their own problems.
Given this, why do we not question their sincerity and “courage” when they speak out about the problems of other people, such as Uighurs?
The Diplomat seems to be deeply impressed by a question posed by Qianghua, described as a journalist from Beijing: “Do ordinary Chinese people trust their eyes and ears more, or do they trust English media reports and foreign governments’ accusations? Undoubtedly, of course they will choose the first option.”
It is known worldwide that Chinese eyes are blinded and their ears closed by media restrictions, so it is not possible that The Diplomat does not know this. Is it possible to gather accurate information while ignoring such a reality?
The only way for the CCP to justify its autocracy is by marketing its own opinions and will as those of the “Chinese people.” The CCP interprets the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square Massacre, the March 8, 2008, Lhasa Massacre, and the ongoing Uighur genocide as “practicing the will of the Chinese people.”
The fundamental task of Chinese media, including the Xinhua News agency, is to make it known that the CCP’s actions are the will of Chinese. Xinhua’s mission statement says this, and also that it is the eyes and ears of the CCP. This is so blatant that it sounds a warning, but The Diplomat has no such mission and is instead known as part of the objective Western media.
The Diplomat tried to differentiate its article from a Xinhua report by adding statements of dissent, including giving voice to Uighur advocates and experts, but a look at the quotes from CCP and Western sources shows that The Diplomat cloaked the CCP’s narrative in a Western media guise.
How did The Diplomat become a propaganda mouthpiece, dispensing the CCP’s narrative?
Avoiding conspiracy theories, and given The Diplomat’s previous valuable reporting on Uighurs, it is unlikely that the outlet or the author were bought off by the CCP, but the following could have been contributing factors: an eagerness to say something different on a hot international topic, as well as to facilitate the current US administration’s relationship with China, and maybe even the inability to escape the influence of a circle of friends in Chinese society.
Chinese do not want freedom for Uighurs in the form of independence for East Turkestan, nor can Uighurs avoid genocide through Chinese obtaining democratic rights. Rather, in the reality of today’s China, the “Chinese people” exist, but their voices do not. No voice in chorus with that of the CCP can be said to belong to the “Chinese people” unless they have freedom of speech.
Shohret Hoshur is a Uighur-American journalist.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS