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.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS