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.
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Southeast Asian food delivery platform Grab Holdings Ltd in March applied to acquire Delivery Hero SE’s Foodpanda operations in Taiwan, with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) scheduled to announce its decision on Oct. 27. On the surface, the deal is a business merger — but in substance, it involves personal data, national geospatial information and digital sovereignty. It cannot be assessed solely in terms of market share and price competition. Grab has extensive and long-standing connections to Chinese capital. In 2015, Chinese ride-hailing firm Didi Chuxing and China Investment Corp, a sovereign wealth fund, invested in Grab. Grab invested in Chinese autonomous-driving
The official English name for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) campaign is “the Taipei Current.” It comes from the Chinese term yangliu (洋流), a direct translation of which would be “ocean current,” using the last character of Shen’s name, yang (洋, “ocean”). The Chinese term is a reference to the 2018 campaign for Kaohsiung mayor that swept a hitherto marginal player within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), who is now legislative speaker, whose successful campaign then was termed the “Han Wave” (韓流). Shen’s usage of the Chinese term is intentional.
The most troubling message coming out of Washington for Taipei is not any single statement but the cumulative effect of a series of signals suggesting that US President Donald Trump is rethinking Taiwan’s strategic value while viewing the US-China relationship through the lens of a transactional great-power bargain. The danger behind Trump’s new softness toward Beijing is a potential US-China bargain that undermines Taiwan’s core interests. During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) recent state visit to Washington, Trump and Xi appeared to rewrite the history of World War II. In a Sept. 25 fact sheet on Xi’s visit, the White House said,
RSS