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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS