Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1388613473-scaled

How the US should respond to China’s oppression of its Uyghur population

A new report shows that Beijing is actually expanding the indoctrination prisons for Muslim citizens in Xinjiang, not closing them.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

A new report and satellite imagry shows that the Chinese government has continued to expand the number of prison camps in Xinjiang holding many of the country’s Muslim minority Uyghur population, despite the ruling Communist Party’s insistence that the “re-education” camps therehave been closing and the detainees “graduating.”

According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, there are 380 suspected prisons in the province, with 61 identified as having expanded over the last year, and 14 still growing. 

“Evidence suggests that many extrajudicial detainees in Xinjiang’s vast ‘re-education’ network are now being formally charged and locked up in higher security facilities, including newly built or expanded prisons,” lead researcher Nathan Ruser wrote in the report.

The camps are part of President Xi Jinping’s broad campaign of repression aimed at enforcing ideological conformity throughout China, but it is particularly harsh in Xinjiang. Over the weekend, Xi said that his policies there “make a shared awareness of Chinese nationhood take root deep in the soul” and were “totally correct.”

The question is what can the current administration or future one do about it while recognizing the limits of American power? 

The campaign against Uyghurs began in 2009, after attempts to suppress their ethnic identity eventually triggered what became the Urumqi riots. The regime blamed “separatists” and Islamists for the violence. 

Repression redoubled around six years ago when the Chinese Communist Party began to create the ultimate totalitarian state in Xinjiang. Last year CNN reported on “surveillance cameras about every 150 feet, monitoring people’s faces and daily routines. Mobile police checkpoints popped up at random throughout the region, leading to long lines on public roads. At the checkpoints, and sometimes randomly on the street, police officers stopped people to ask for their ID cards and occasionally demanded to plug unidentified electronic devices into cellphones to scan them without explanation.” As detentions rose, some of these measures were eventually reduced in some communities.

There also is a systematic campaign to extinguish Uyghur culture. Respecting Muslim tenets, such as dress code, praying, and fasting, has reportedly resulted in threats and punishment. Since 2014 Han Chinese have been encouraged to move to Xinjiang; as many as a million have been essentially quartered in Uyghur homes to act as spies and enforcers. According to an Associated Press investigation in June, the government has conducted forced birth control measures, including abortions and sterilizations, to supress the minority population there. 

Eventually the regime decided to “re-educate” much of the population, hence the prison camps. (These are not “concentration camps” of the Nazi variety since prisoners are not murdered.) While indoctrination — in Han identity and communist ideology — is the prime purpose of the camps, inmates have been reportedly subjected to multiple forms of abuse.

The regime has claimed that the large compounds situated behind high walls topped with barbed wire and patrolled by armed guards are merely vocational training centers. Official tours were highlighted by inmates singing “if you're happy and you know it clap your hands” under the watchful eyes of their minders.

Even after formal release, many Uyghurs end up in other forms of de facto confinement. Explained the Australian Strategic Policy Institute: “Under conditions that strongly suggest forced labor, Uyghurs are working in factories that are in the supply chains of at least 83 well-known global brands in the technology, clothing and automotive sectors, including Apple, BMW, Gap, Huawei, Nike, Samsung, Sony and Volkswagen.”

Estimates of the number of Uyghurs officially incarcerated run a million or more, though the total obviously is impossible to verify and has been criticized by some as an exaggeration. Nevertheless, the camps evidently exist. Firsthand reports by those released confirms the facilities’ malign purpose.Indeed, Beijing has treated family members in Xinjiang as hostages to stifle criticism from emigres. 

Explained Deutsche Welle: “Uyghurs who fled to the US and Europe have told DW that Chinese authorities are trying to suppress the activism of the overseas Uyghur community by going after family members still living in China. Activists said that their released family members were discouraging them from protesting against the internment program.”

The New York Times’ published leaked materials as “The Xinjiang Papers” last November, reporting that, “Even as the government presented its efforts in Xinjiang to the public as benevolent and unexceptional, it discussed and organized a ruthless and extraordinary campaign in these internal communications. Senior party leaders are recorded ordering drastic and urgent action against extremist violence, including the mass detentions, and discussing the consequences with cool detachment.”

Beijing attempted to diffuse criticism by arguing that the camps would close as they fulfilled their purpose. Indeed, some of the older facilities have been emptied and abandoned. However, as the new study by ASPI reports, their findings “contradict Chinese officials’ claims that all ‘trainees’ from so‑called vocational training centers had ‘graduated’ by late 2019.”

As should be painfully evident, there is little Washington can do about this. Despite substantial Western criticism, Xi declared over the weekend that the Xinjiang policy was a “success” and now a “favorable setting of social stability with the people living in peace and contentment.”

Absent war it is impossible to force any state to comply with American human rights standards. The task is even more difficult when confronting a rising, nationalistic power with the world’s second largest economy and conventional military.

Nor are sanctions a serious option. So far the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaigns against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela are a complete bust. A similar effort certainly won’t work against China. Indeed, Washington has had difficulty rounding up international support to simply criticize the PRC’s crackdown in Hong Kong. The administration has sanctioned CCP apparatchiks for their role in oppressing the Uyghurs, but this is faux action for the cameras. Xi is not going to close the camps because some of his minions cannot visit America.

Then what?

Whoever is elected November 3 should continue to draw attention to the Uyghurs’ plight. However, this will be most effective if done as part of a broad international effort rather than as part of a partisan political campaign. The U.S. should make a diplomatic push for Muslim majority states to speak out.

The next administration also should rally support to protect overseas Uyghurs from Chinese pressure. Attempts to intimidate Uyghurs living in the U.S. and elsewhere contradict Beijing’s demand for non-interference in the PRC. Perhaps a multi-national threat of narrow economic sanctions, expulsion of Chinese diplomats and journalists, and other targeted steps would deter the PRC.

Also appropriate is barring reliance on what is effectively slave labor. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently acted against goods thought to be produced by coerced Uyghur workers. The prohibition should be international.

Finally, people should not wait on government. They should organize to protest and embarrass Beijing and its enablers, especially in the Muslim world. Activists also should engage Chinese people outside of government, highlighting how the mistreatment of Uyghurs has blighted the PRC’s reputation.

Beijing’s brutal repression of the Uyghurs is a human rights atrocity. However, good policy rests on recognition of the limits of American power. The U.S. should build collective international support and set narrow, realistic objectives. The objective should be to help real people rather than score political points.


Photo: Jer123 / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS
Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

Middle East

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Hundreds of people attend a pro-democracy demonstration against U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., U.S., on February 28, 2026. Demonstrators cited a number of reasons for their opposition to Trump, including his involvement with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, ICE raids, authoritarian policies, and today’s bombing of Iran. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto) via REUTERS CONNECT

How does this war with Iran end? Or does it?

QiOSK

Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?

There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.