Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
US Navy Taiwan Strait
TAIWAN STRAIT (August 23, 2019) – US Naval Officers scan the horizon from the bridge while standing watch, part of Commander, Amphibious Squadron 11, operating in the Indo-Pacific region to enhance interoperability with partners and serve as a ready-response force for any type of contingency. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Markus Castaneda)

Despite setbacks, trends still point to US foreign policy restraint

Military Industrial Complex

It’s been only a few days since Israel first struck Iranian nuclear and regime targets, but Washington’s remaining neoconservatives and long-time Iran hawks are already celebrating.

After more than a decade of calling for military action against Iran, they finally got their wish — sort of. The United States did not immediately join Israel’s campaign, but President Donald Trump acquiesced to Israel’s decision to use military force and has not meaningfully restrained Israel’s actions. For those hoping Trump would bring radical change to U.S. foreign policy, his failure to halt Israel’s preventative war is a disappointment and a betrayal of past promises.

keep readingShow less
iraqi protests iran israel
Top photo credit: Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims hold a cutout of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they attend a protest against Israeli strikes on Iran, in Baghdad, Iraq, June 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ahmed Saad

Iraq on razor's edge between Iran and US interests in new war

Middle East

As Israeli jets and Iranian rockets streak across the Middle Eastern skies, Iraq finds itself caught squarely in the crossfire.

With regional titans clashing above its head, Iraq’s fragile and hard-won stability, painstakingly rebuilt over decades of conflict, now hangs precariously in the balance. Washington’s own tacit acknowledgement of Iraq’s vulnerable position was laid bare by its decision to partially evacuate embassy personnel in Iraq and allow military dependents to leave the region.

This withdrawal, prompted by intelligence indicating Israeli preparations for long-range strikes, highlighted that Iraq’s airspace would be an unwitting corridor for Israeli and Iranian operations.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani is now caught in a complicated bind, attempting to uphold Iraq’s security partnership with the United States while simultaneously facing intense domestic pressure from powerful, Iran-aligned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) factions. These groups, emboldened by the Israel-Iran clash, have intensified their calls for American troop withdrawal and threaten renewed attacks against U.S. personnel, viewing them as legitimate targets and enablers of Israeli aggression.

keep readingShow less
George Bush mission accomplished
This file photo shows Bush delivering a speech to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. via REUTERS

Déjà coup: Iran war activates regime change dead-enders

Washington Politics

By now you’ve likely seen the viral video of an Iranian television reporter fleeing off-screen as Israel bombed the TV station where she was recording live. As the Quincy Institute’s Adam Weinstein quickly pointed out, Israel's attack on the broadcasting facility is directly out of the regime change playbook, “meant to shake public confidence in the Iranian government's ability to protect itself” and by implication, Iran’s citizenry.

Indeed, in the United States there is a steady drumbeat of media figures and legislators who have been loudly championing Israel’s apparent desire to overthrow the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

keep readingShow less

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.