Manufacturing consent for the containment and encirclement of China

The following detailed article by Carlos Martinez explores the escalating propaganda war being waged by the imperialist powers against China. Carlos notes that “propaganda wars can also be war propaganda”, and that the torrent of anti-China slander has a clear purpose of manufacturing broad public consent for the US-led New Cold War.

Carlos shows how the propaganda model described in Herman and Chomsky’s classic work Manufacturing Consent has been updated and enhanced using modern communication techniques, and how it is being applied today against China, in particular in relation to the allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang. Carlos introduces the most frequently-hurled slanders on this topic and debunks them in detail.

The author concludes that this propaganda campaign is serving to “break the bonds of solidarity within the global working class and all those opposed to imperialism”, and that all progressives must resolutely oppose and expose it.

If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. (Malcolm X)

The Western media is waging a systematic and ferocious propaganda war against China. In the court of Western public opinion, China stands accused of an array of terrifying crimes: conducting a genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang; wiping out democracy in Hong Kong; militarising the South China Sea; attempting to impose colonial control over Taiwan; carrying out a land grab in Africa; preventing Tibetans and Inner Mongolians from speaking their languages; spying on the good peoples of the democratic world; and more.

Australian scholar Roland Boer has characterised these accusations as “atrocity propaganda – an old anti-communist and indeed anti-anyone-who-does-not-toe-the-Western-line approach that tries to manufacture a certain image for popular consumption.” Boer observes that this propaganda serves to create an impression of China as a brutal authoritarian dystopia which “can only be a fiction for anyone who actually spends some time in China, let alone lives there.”[1]

It’s not difficult to understand why China would be subjected to this sort of elaborate disinformation campaign. This media offensive is part of the imperialist world’s ongoing attempts to reverse the Chinese Revolution, to subvert Chinese socialism, to weaken China, to diminish its role in international affairs and, as a result, to undermine the global trajectory towards multipolarity and a future free from hegemonism. As journalist Chen Weihua has pointed out, “the reasons for the intensifying US propaganda war are obvious: Washington views a fast-rising China as a challenge to its primacy around the world.” Furthermore, “the success of a country with a different political system is unacceptable to politicians in Washington.”[2]

Continue reading Manufacturing consent for the containment and encirclement of China

The UN human rights regime fissures as OHCHR’s politicized “Assessment” of Xinjiang alienates the Global South

This article by Casey Ho-yuk Wan, an attorney and independent researcher, analyzes the UN Human Rights Council’s 6 October 2022 vote against a Western-backed motion to hold a debate on China’s alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang. Casey observes that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is at serious risk of further losing credibility, particularly with the countries of the Global South, if it continues to allow itself to be used for a US-led anti-China propaganda campaign.

On 6 October 2022, the UN Human Rights Council (“HRC”) rejected the Western-sponsored draft decision A/HRC/51/L.6 (the “draft decision”) proposing that the HRC hold a debate on Xinjiang under agenda Item 2 at the 52nd HRC regular session in February 2023, with 17 supporting, 19 opposed, and 11 abstaining.[1] The draft decision’s defeat and the closure of 51st HRC regular session on 7 October 2022 provide an opportunity to reflect on the deepening fissures in the UN human rights regime, represented by the HRC and the Office of the High Commissioner of the Human Rights (“OHCHR”), and the growing alienation of the Global South, in particular with regards to Western politicization of human rights and the OHCHR’s complicity in the West’s instrumentalization of human rights as a weapon against developing countries.

Item 2 of HRC sessions generally cover “reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General” and thus customarily cover HRC-mandated proceedings. In the recently concluded 51st HRC regular session, Item 2 discussions included the report of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, established by HRC resolution 39/2, the report of the OHCHR on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, authorized by HRC resolution 46/1, and the report of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Nicaragua, authorized by HRC resolution 49/3.

Continue reading The UN human rights regime fissures as OHCHR’s politicized “Assessment” of Xinjiang alienates the Global South

Syrian Ambassador: Muslims in Xinjiang experience greater freedom than Muslims in the West

The below extract from CGTN’s popular The Point features an interview with Syria’s Ambassador to China, HE Muhammad Hasanein Khaddam. 

Although relatively new in his ambassadorial role, this is his second posting to China. Broadcast on September 7, the ambassador was one of a group of diplomats from 30 Muslim majority countries who had recently paid a visit to Xinjiang. Describing the region as an oasis, Ambassador Khaddam said the gap between what they saw with their own eyes and what is presented in the west is unbridgeable.

However, this did not surprise him, as the same lies had been told about his own country during 12 years of war waged by terrorist groups and the western powers. Muslim people in Xinjiang, he pointed out, enjoy freedoms that can’t be enjoyed by their co-religionists in many western countries that criticise China. 

Turning to the situation in Syria, the Ambassador notes that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), that Syria formally joined at the beginning of this year, brings hope of a new modality of ‘win win’, without dictation or disrespect. Companies from friendly nations that stood with Syria, he explains, will enjoy numerous opportunities in the reconstruction of the country, such as in the building of ports, roads, bridges and a railway to Iraq.

The flaws in the “Assessment” report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on China

In this important article, originally carried on Counterpunch, Alfred de Zayas, a former long-term United Nations employee, dissects the recent report of the Office of the (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights on China’s Xinjiang region, which he believes, “should be discarded as propagandistic, biased, and methodologically flawed.” The report, he notes, was not mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, comes in response to pressures from Washington and Brussels, and forms part of their geopolitical hybrid war against China.

De Zayas draws a comparison with his own mission to Venezuela, prior to which he read all the relevant reports from the OHCHR, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. But when he fact-checked these on the ground, he saw a fundamentally different picture from that contained in reports by ideologues who had not been to Venezuela. 

The author therefore writes that, “the questions must be raised whether and to what extent the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council are operating in the service of Western interests, to what extent the human rights concerns of the rest of humanity are taken on board.”

On 31 August 2022, the last day of Michelle Bachelet’s 4-year tenure as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Office released a 46-page document, which I believe should be discarded as propagandistic, biased, and methodologically flawed.  This document, which was not mandated by the Human Rights Council and responds to pressures on OHCHR by Washington and Brussels, bears the superficially neutral title “ Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region”[1].

Already in June 2022, at the beginning of the 50th session of the Human Rights Council, China’s ambassador Chen Xu deplored the increase in “politicization” of the Council, reminding the members that “disinformation has become rampant, which seriously runs counter to the original purpose of the Human Rights Council.”

High Commissioner Bachelet did well in delaying publication of the Xinjiang “assessment” and returning to Chile before the unappetizing and destructive debates start during the forthcoming 51st session of the Council (12 September-7 October 2022).  Already the Chinese mission has rejected[2] the “assessment” as unprofessional and incompatible with the end-of-mission statement issued by Michelle Bachelet after her successful mission to China and Xinjiang in May 2022, a statement, which I consider balanced, detailed and constructive[3].  Alas, Bachelet’s statement after her well-prepared visit did not succeed in silencing the Washington and Brussels critics that have been systematically misrepresenting the situation in Xinjiang and misusing it for purposes of their geopolitical hybrid war against China.  Bachelet’s sedate statement was met by hostility, media mobbing and calls for her resignation.

Continue reading The flaws in the “Assessment” report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on China

This is why the Arab world stands firmly with China

This article by Keith Lamb, first published in CGTN on 14 September 2022, describes the friendly relations between China and the Arab world, noting in particular that the Arab states have refused to support the West’s slanderous accusations in relation to human rights in Xinjiang. Indeed, numerous envoys from the League of Arab States have visited Xinjiang and spoken enthusiastically about the development of human rights in the region.

The author notes that imperialist apologists explain the above away on the basis that Arab states are somehow afraid of China; but surely it’s the countries which “committed carnage against the Arab world” that should be feared, not China, which “has not invaded a single Arab state and doesn’t maintain a myriad of military bases.”

Far from carrying out military aggression against the region, China is involved in extensive cooperation, trade and aid. “Where others have bombed, China builds.” The author observes that, last year, Iraq was the number one recipient of Belt and Road financing, receiving $10.5 billion; this sort of engagement compares favorably with the US-led genocidal war on Iraq. Meanwhile China is cooperating extensively with the countries of the region on cutting-edge technology, including in green energy, telecoms and AI. As Keith says, “this is not a new imperialism but a rejection of it.”

Those blinded by the “free” press believe China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region is the location of a “genocide” against Chinese Muslims who are simultaneously “enslaved.” In contrast, envoys from the League of Arab States (LAS), who have been to Xinjiang, talk about China’s social and human rights achievements.

Those who screamed for violence against Arab states, including Libya, Iraq, and Syria, in the name of human rights, solve this cognitive dissonance by claiming that the Arab world is afraid of China. However, their delusion is only carried one step further to absurdity as clearly those who committed the carnage against the Arab world are the ones who should be feared.

In contrast, China has not invaded a single Arab state and it doesn’t maintain a myriad of military bases, which blurs the line between cooperation and occupation. If anything, considering the vast military power accumulated in the Middle East, the LAS support for China shows that they, despite lurking threats, will bravely stand up for truth so that “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lies can no longer be leveraged for the tyrants of war.

Instead, a new page of history is turning, which seeks to constrain the unilateral whims of a hegemonic bully. It is China’s peaceful rise and developmental philosophy contrasted with a fading unilateral order of violence, lies, and uneven development that leads the Arab world to stand with China today.

Continue reading This is why the Arab world stands firmly with China

Statement condemning the OHCHR’s ‘Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China’

The following statement has been initiated by Friends of Socialist China. You can add your name as an individual signatory using Google Forms. Once you do so, your name will appear on this page within a few hours. Organizations wishing to add their signatures to this statement should contact us at info@socialistchina.org

We strongly condemn the publication by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) of its Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China. In the words of former OHCHR lawyer and human rights expert Alfred de Zayas, this document “should be discarded as propagandistic, biased, and methodologically flawed.”

Based on substandard research methods and biased sources, the Assessment is completely lacking in credibility. It treats arms of the military-industrial complex such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), along with professional anti-communists such as Adrian Zenz, as legitimate sources. Meanwhile the voices of Chinese NGOs, academics and individuals are suppressed, as are the numerous reports of diplomatic trips to Xinjiang – including by representatives of Muslim-majority countries – that have taken place in recent years.

The Assessment pointedly ignores China’s extraordinary progress in promoting the human rights of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang: in relation to poverty alleviation, social welfare, economic development, safety from terrorist attacks, and more. Instead, the document uses deliberately ambiguous language – that China’s actions “may” constitute crimes against humanity – in order to slander the People’s Republic of China whilst maintaining some plausible deniability.

It is highly suspicious that the Assessment makes no mention of then-UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s visit to Xinjiang in May 2022. Having visited a prison and spoken to former trainees at a vocational education and training center; having interacted with civil society organizations, academics, and community and religious leaders; Bachelet found no evidence of crimes against humanity. The numerous conversations she had do not form part of the data set for the Assessment.

What is the reason for the disparity between the OHCHR report and Bachelet’s end-of-mission statement? It is painfully obvious that the OHCHR has come under intense pressure from the US to bolster the credibility of the lurid slanders that have been thrown at China by Western politicians and journalists. Such propaganda forms part of the West’s imperial agenda of undermining China.

The OHCHR Assessment does a profound disservice to the cause of strengthening global human rights cooperation. The report does not enjoy a mandate from the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council, and it runs counter to the wishes and interests of the mainstream of the international community. A joint statement delivered by Cuba at the 50th session of the Human Rights Council in June this year stated its firm opposition to the “politicization of human rights and double standards, or interference in China’s internal affairs under the pretext of human rights”. This statement was signed by 69 countries, the overwhelming majority from the Global South.

Given the OHCHR’s relative silence in relation to persistent human rights abuses by the imperialist powers, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Assessment is politically-motived, produced under pressure from the US, and designed to contribute to a dangerous, escalating New Cold War.

We call on the OHCHR to withdraw its Assessment, and we stand in solidarity with the people of China, subjected to abhorrent and baseless accusations.

Initial signatories (organizations)

Initial signatories (individuals)

  • Kojo Amoo Gottfried (former Ambassador of Ghana to the People’s Republic of China)
  • Roland Boer (Professor, Dalian University of Technology)
  • Ben Chacko (Editor, Morning Star)
  • Michael Dunford (Emeritus Professor, University of Sussex)
  • Raymond Ferguson (National Secretary, Australia-DPRK Friendship and Cultural Society)
  • John Foster (Emeritus Professor, University of the West of Scotland)
  • Robert Griffiths (General Secretary, Communist Party of Britain)
  • Kenneth Hammond (Professor, New Mexico State University)
  • David Laibman (Editor Emeritus, Science & Society)
  • Dee Knight (DSA International Committee member)
  • Doug Nicholls (General Secretary, General Federation of Trade Unions)
  • Dirk Nimmegeers (Editor, ChinaSquare.be)
  • Ben Norton (Editor, Multipolarista)
  • Suzanne Berliner Weiss (author and activist for social justice)

Individual signatories

NameRole/organizationCountry
Niels Duus NielsenDenmark
Michael WongsamBritain
Simon HeimStudentHong Kong SAR, China
David AltimierProfessor, Political AnalystMexico
João RoqueBrazil
C Larsson
TAN KIN LIANSingapore
Peter OlechBritain
Stefania FuseroItaly
高玮鸿China
Ng Kong HungSingapore
Christopher HelaliInternational Secretary of the CC of PCUSAUnited States
JOSEPH PIETTEWorkers World PartyUnited States
Keith HeywoodBritain
Mark LeCanada
Joe LeeAustralia
Philippe GendraultPRCFUnited States
Daniel J. BrownAustralia
Lyn NeeleyTeacher AFTUnited States
Régis Apolinário CoelhoStudent/IFESBrazil
Jakob Ulrik MunckDenmark
Steve SweeneyJournalistBritain
Dan RossBritain
Gregory DunkelRetired, AFT2343United States
Nan ZhangCanada
Ng Sauw TjhoiChief-editor “China Vandaag”Belgium
Marie-France GermainCanada
DakotaIndigenous man of CanadaCanada
Edward Owen RedmondBritain
Tony KinderUniversity ResearcherBritain
Kim E Koo MDUnited States
Edward Owen RedmondBritain
De Maegd FransARLAC (Solidarity with Latin America and the Caraibes).Belgium
floyd gardnerveterans for peaceUnited States
Sue HarisInternational Action CenterUnited States
juan donostMexico
Matthew LouieUnited States
Man Leewenyahonline.comAustralia
Robin StoweUnited States
Ann LoganRetired book editorBritain
CRISTOBAL CANO MOREYSpain
Joseph ThompsonStudentUnited States
William MurphyRetiredUnited States
Jason BowersUnited States
Michael ChiaSingapore
MarcelBrazil
Alex TanMalaysia
Roger StollUnited States
Pat TurnbullBritain
Stewart Kellyconcerned citizenUnited States
Larry M LeeCanada
LekxMember-activist of grassroots movement Peace With Venezuela The Netherlands (Vrede Met Venezuela)Netherlands
Mitchell ShoreCanada
Dave ThomasChair Canadian-Cuban Friendship Association of NiagaraCanada
MaureUnited States
Doug NichollsGeneral Federation of Trade UnionsBritain
Zhen ChiChina
Peta ElmesUnited States
Peta ElmesUnited States
Victor KoppeLawyer (genocide specialist)Netherlands
Jonn MeroNorway
Clinton ScottBritain
Vicente CastellsBritain
James De BurgheChina
Mark Charles RosenzweigUnited States
Songyon JingChina
Stan SquiresCanada
Alexander ReysenbachPensionerBelgium
Bob OramBritain
Daniel B
Pete FoleyBritain
William DereJournalist and authorCanada
Wilhelm Reichmann
Chin K SeahCanada
Asfred MaldonadoPuerto Rico
Brandon MilesIndependent JournalistUnited States
Joe HerosyUnited States
Danny LiUnited States
Wilfred JayasingheSri Lanka Peace & Solidarity CouncilSri Lanka
Peggy Powell DobbinsUnited States
Elizabeth SmithCanada
AmritCanada
Matthew AlmonteUnited States
Edward TrippRetiredUnited States
Xiaoming GuoCanada
Stephen PaulmierHawai’i Friends of the Soviet PeopleOccupied country of Hawai’i
Iris YauLecturer & CuratorBritain
Laurence Wright
RAFAEL QUEIROZ ALVESResearcherBrazil
Sandy Eaton, RNUnited States
Kate LattimoreBritain
Ben LunnComposerBritain
Hank KeetonKeeton CorporationUnited States
BobAkamineUnited States
Mark PrenterAustralia
Giles GeetooahUnited States
phoebeBritain
Demba Moussa DembeleEconomistSenegal
Wei Weng LEONGSingapore
David AyrtonBritain
Ron JuddNew Zealand
Youri Smouterjournalist & host of 1+1 at 1+1 hosted by Youri Smouter fmrley Yuri Muckraker at youtubeBelgium
Calla Mairead WalshUnited States, Canada
Ping HuaNo Cold War BritainBritain
Peter RubinUnited States
Brishni ChattopadhyayIndia
Damien MarsicChina
Bill MeyerMichigan Peace CouncilUSA
Tom WickhamIreland
Fabio Massimo ParentiAssociate Professor of International Political EconomyItaly
Michael AwAustralia
Bertil CarlmanRetired teacherSweden
Yick Foon WONGRetireeAustralia
Arsenio PanuelosPhilippines
David LeeAustralia
Robert Fitzthum
Derek BlackmoreBritain
James K InkenbrandtUnited States
Matthew CampbellUnited States
Joris De WinterBelgium
Anna EckertUnited States
B. Keith BrumleyUnited States
David MüllerSwitzerland
Joe MonteroAustralia
Kevin LindemannUnited States
Karen AramUnited States
Kostas KalogeropoulosResearcherGreece
Dr. Tamara ProsicResearcher, Monash UniversityAustralia
Jui Ching LingNetherlands
Kevin Patrick Michael McCannCommunist Party of BritainBritain
Antonis BalasopoulosCyprus
Håkan DanielssonSweden
Laura WellsGreen PartyUnited States
Ethan EvaloboUnited States
Derek GrigsbyOrganizer / MECAWI ( Michigan emergency committee against war and injustice )United States
Iain InglisChina
Leo CollinsIreland
Michael ShaneUnited States
ko ruijterNetherlands
Loo Wen SiangMalaysia
Siqlme CqkftSingapore
Ruipeng LiChina
Andre S
Jake HemingwayUnited States
Joseph OstosUnited States
M. K. BrusselUnited States
Mike ShaneCommunist Workers League (Fighting-words.net)United States
Karen LiRetired teacherUnited States
Robert LaffinUnited States
Ray GastonTeam Vicar Parish of Central WolverhamptonBritain
Leonardo BargigliUniversità di FirenzeItaly
John SharkeyCanada
M. K. BrusselUnited States
Mushahed AhmedMember of the central committee, Communist Party of Bangladesh (M-L)Bangladesh
Dilip BaruaGeneral Secretary, Communist Party of Bangladesh (M-L)Bangladesh
Miguel FigueroaCanadian Peace CongressCanada
Elisabeth HillsUnited States
Ruipeng Li
Eddy SebahiFrance
Noah BermanBritain
Nino PaglicciaFrente Hugo Chavez - CanadaCanada
eloi ramirezUnited States
kwok zu limSingapore
Bobby ChenChinaRock.FMUnited States
Cui GuoweiChairman/Shaanxi Provincial Patriotic Volunteer AssociationChina
Hulun Buir Environmental Protection Volunteers AssociationChina
Shaanxi Patriotic Volunteers AssociationChina
Wang JunzhanChina Great Wall SocietyChina
Gansu NGO Network for International ExchangesChina
Dragon Design FoundationChina
北京春晖博爱公益基金会 Chunhui Children's FoundationChina
China Association for Promoting International Economic & Technical CooperationChina
China Arab Exchange AssociationChina
Ken StoneTreasurer, Hamilton Coalition To Stop The WarCanada
China Association for Promoting International Economic & Technical CooperationChina
China Arab Exchange AssociationChina
Middle East Foundation for Peace DevelopmentChina
World Digital Economy Forum SecretariatChina
China Africa Investment and Trade Promotion AssociationChina
Dragon Design FoundationChina
Chunhui Children's FoundationChina
Beijing Changier Education FoundationChina
Novel Inception FoundationChina
Enlai FoundationChina
Beijing Crafts CouncilChina
Beijing Hengji Health Management and Development FoundationChina
Beijing NGO Network for International Exchanges 感谢!China
Charles BritzUnited States
Arnold AugustThe Canada FilesCanada
Michael CalluraRetired SteelworkerCanada
Kit Aislyn HaynesSigilUnited States
Alias HopeUnited States
Farooque Chowdhury
John Considine
Clare HaririBritain
Raymond FergusonNational Secretary Australia-DPRK Friendship and Cultural SocietyAustralia
David LaibmanEditor Emeritus, Science & SocietyUnited States
Peter GoseCanada
China Society for Human Rights StudiesChina
China Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences(CUAES)China
Lijun ZhangChina Association of Ethnic Economy (CAEE)China
Xiaohua WuChinese Association For Ethnic Policy (CAEP)China
China Ethnic Minorities’ Association For External Exchanges (CEMAEE)China
Minzu Unity and Progress Association of China(MUPAC)China
Russel HarlandTrade UnionistBritain
Sara BarkerCanada

Bachelet’s “Assessment of Human Rights Concerns in Xinjiang” Risks Discrediting the OHCHR and Politicizing the Human Rights Regime

This article by Casey Ho-yuk Wan, an attorney and independent researcher, provides a rigorous critique of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ recently-released Assessment of Human Rights Concerns in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, the People’s Republic of China.

Casey gives an overview of the contents of the Assessment, noting that it makes no reference to the most serious charge against China – ie that it engaged in a genocide against Uygur people in Xinjiang – and furthermore that its accusations are couched in deliberately ambiguous language, for example “[China’s actions] may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity”.

The author observes that Chinese voices are near-absent from the source interviews, in particular Chinese NGOs, academics and individuals. The Assessment does however extensively cite US-funded NGOs such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and ideologically-driven anti-communist researchers such as Adrian Zenz. As such, the Assessment suffers from a profound bias. Meanwhile it makes no mention of human rights that the Chinese government has been very actively promoting in Xinjiang: poverty alleviation, development, and safety from terrorist attacks.

Casey makes the crucially important point that the Assessment does not enjoy a mandate from the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council. Through a detailed analysis of voting and statements at the United Nations, he makes it clear that the majority of the world’s countries – and the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries – support China’s position and reject the accusations that have been thrown around by the US and its allies regarding Xinjiang. As such, and given the OHCHR’s relative silence in relation to persistent human rights abuses by the imperialist powers, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Assessment is politically-motived, produced under pressure from the US, and designed to contribute to the escalating New Cold War. One by-product is that the Assessment “will likely weaken the credibility of the OHCHR in the eyes of the Global South”, thereby causing lasting damage to the entire UN-based human rights framework.

The article is fairly long and detailed, but deserves to be thoroughly read.

Introduction

On 31 August 2022, shortly before the tenure of Michelle Bachelet as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ended, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released its “Assessment of Human Rights Concerns in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, the People’s Republic of China.”[1]

This write-up is a response to the “Assessment”, which raises serious doubts as to the impartiality, objectivity, and non-selectivity of the OHCHR’s work with implications for the credibility not merely of the Assessment, but of the OHCHR as a responsible international organ capable of conducting human rights work in a constructive manner while avoiding double standards and politicization. This write-up will also speculate on potential political consequences of the Assessment. In summary, the Assessment risks the discrediting of the OHCHR and the politicization of the global human rights regime the OHCHR is mandated to promote, while likely serving to widen the chasm between the OHCHR and the Global South and to aggravate ongoing and potential international conflicts. 

The Contents of the Assessment

It is important to identify what the Assessment has stated. While much has been made by mainstream media of the Assessment’s seeming indictment of China’s crimes against humanity[2], the Assessment cannot be definitely said to be a sort of indictment or supposition of fact. Paragraph 148 of the Assessment provides:

The extent of arbitrary and discriminatory detention of members of Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim groups, pursuant to law and policy, in context of restrictions and deprivation more generally of fundamental rights enjoyed individually and collectively, may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.

This sentence is deliberately ambiguous. In particular, the use of the word “may” can take on two different meanings. The sentence could be stating that, given what the OHCHR currently knows, the extent of arbitrary detention likely constitutes crimes against humanity. This interpretation would be strengthened had the sentence been placed in present perfect tense – that the extent of arbitrary detention may have constituted crimes against humanity. Instead, the sentence placed in the present tense gives rise to a second interpretation: that, given the right circumstances, the extent of arbitrary detention could give rise to the level of crimes against humanity. In other words, “may” could imply either a preliminary finding or supposition of fact, or the mere possibility of a fact.

Leaving the sentence ambiguous in this manner seems to serve the purpose of staking out a position but without committing the OHCHR to find one way or the other in regards to China. At any rate, the sentence is by no means a definitive statement of fact that China committed crimes against humanity. The Assessment is also notable for making no mention of genocide, making only a passing reference to slavery, and presenting no definitive finding on forced labor in Xinjiang.

The Assessment limits itself to the evaluation of certain human rights concerns: China’s laws and policies regarding counter-terrorism and extremism; imprisonment and deprivation of liberty (particularly in regards to the vocational education and training centers (VETCs)); conditions and treatment in the VETCs; religious, cultural, and linguistic identity and expression; privacy and freedom of movement; reproductive rights; employment and labor; family separations and enforced disappearances; and intimidations, threats, and reprisals.

A full review of the Assessment is beyond the scope of this write-up. Suffice to say that in each of the areas listed above, the OHCHR found great cause to be concerned, and have definitively concluded that “serious human rights violations have been committed” in Xinjiang that are “characterized by a discriminatory component.”

Concerns Regarding the Assessment

UN General Assembly Resolution 48/141 of 1994 established the post of High Commissioner of Human Rights, who would be “the United Nations official with principal responsibility for United Nations human rights activities under the direction and authority of the Secretary-General; within the framework of the overall competence, authority and decisions of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights.” Among other responsibilities, the High Commissioner of Human Rights would “promote and protect the effective enjoyment by all of all civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.”

Resolution 48/141 further emphasized the “need for the promotion and protection of all human rights to be guided by the principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, in the spirit of constructive international dialogue and cooperation…” These principles were reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 2006, which established the Human Rights Council (HRC) to replace the Commission on Human Rights. Resolution 60/251 further aspired to eliminate “double standards and politicization” of human rights issues. Resolution 48/141 also requires the High Commissioner to “respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and domestic jurisdiction of States”, as well as to recognize that “all human rights – civil, cultural, economic, political and social – are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated” and to “promote and protect the realization of the right to development”.

The Assessment raises serious concerns about the work of the OHCHR, as the Assessment fails to live up to the principles of impartiality, objectivity, and non-selectivity, risking the proliferation of double standards and politicization in contemporary human rights work.

The Assessment is one-sided, and sets a worrying precedent

The Assessment claims a “rigorous review of documentary material currently available to the Office, with its credibility assessed in accordance with standard human rights methodology.” It pays special attention to the laws, policies, data, and statements of the Government of China, including document leaks by journalists alleged (and accepted by the OHCHR) to be of an official nature. Supplementing the review of documentary material, the OHCHR interviewed 40 individuals with claimed direct and first-hand knowledge of the matter at hand.

However, a review of the 306 footnotes of the Assessment reveals a concerning omission. Citations in the Assessment overwhelmingly consist of Chinese governmental material, “the vast amount of research that has been completed by non-governmental organizations, researchers, journalists and academics over the last years”, and the interviewed individuals. Missing from citations entirely are non-government Chinese material, including material from Chinese non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academics, and individuals. Also missing are Chinese-language sources apart from Chinese governmental materials such as laws and regulations, and mass media reporting.

Continue reading Bachelet’s “Assessment of Human Rights Concerns in Xinjiang” Risks Discrediting the OHCHR and Politicizing the Human Rights Regime

The OHCHR human rights report on Xinjiang lacks credibility

Co-editor of FoSC Danny Haiphong analyzes the latest OHCHR report on Xinjiang, highlighting its lack of credibility as research and deconstructing the anti-China propaganda that informs the report throughout. The article was first published on CGTN.

The Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) at the UN released a highly anticipated report regarding the human rights situation in China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. The report followed intense pressure from certain Western countries, especially the United States. It should come as no surprise that this politicized context would produce a highly incredible report that serves nothing but the political aims of the U.S.-led campaign to slander China.

The OHCHR report lacks credibility for a number of reasons. First, there is a complete absence of research protocols meant to enhance the reliability and validity of the 40 “in-depth” interviews used in the report. Direct quotations from interview participants were nowhere to be found. None of the interviews occurred on the ground in Xinjiang. Also left out of the report was any mention of the direct testimonial of dozens of diplomats from Muslim-majority nations who have visited the region and denied Western allegations of human rights abuses.

Furthermore, it is customary when using qualitative methods to acknowledge biases and shortcomings that may impact the results of the research. The OHCHR report not only lacked any acknowledgement of potential biases but was also allowed to masquerade as factual research in the Western media. However, bias in the report is not difficult to identify. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) are both cited in the report. These institutions receive funding from the United States government, with the ASPI receiving a total of $5 million from the U.S. Department of Defense in 2020 alone.

Continue reading The OHCHR human rights report on Xinjiang lacks credibility

OHCHR report on Xinjiang is a patchwork of disinformation and Cold War propaganda

Just three months ago, UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet was subjected to relentless criticism in the West when, having visited Xinjiang, she failed to find evidence supporting the hysterical slander about a genocide against Uyghur Muslims. It is very unfortunate that she has, just hours before the end of her tenure, succumbed to US pressure and released a deeply flawed report which relies on a handful of submissions from dubious sources, and which contains insinuations rather than substantive charges.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Wang Wenbin described the report well, as “a patchwork of disinformation that serves as a political tool for the US and some Western forces to use Xinjiang to contain China.” Wang noted that 60 countries have sent letters to the UN High Commissioner opposing the release of the report. “They are the mainstream of the international community”.

We reproduce below an article from the Global Times summing up the Chinese response to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

China on Thursday denounced a so-called UN human rights report on China’s Xinjiang region as completely invalid and a political tool serving the US and some Western forces to contain China, and said that it proved the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has descended into the accomplice of the US and some Western forces against developing countries. 

In response to the so-called “assessment of human rights concerns” in China’s Xinjiang released by the OHCHR on Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin told a press conference on Thursday that the so-called assessment is a patchwork of disinformation and a political tool serving the US and some Western forces to contain China by using the Xinjiang topic.  

Such a “report” seriously violates the mandate of the OHCHR, infringing on the non-political and objective principles. It once again proved that the OHCHR has descended into an enforcer and accomplice of the US and some Western forces against the developing countries, Wang Wenbin said. 

The spokesperson noted that even the report did not dare hype groundless topics of “genocide,” “forced labor” or “forced sterilization” – which were previously hyped by the US and some Western forces. Wang Wenbin said that this also showed that the lie of the century made by the US and the some Western forces on China’s Xinjiang has bankrupted. 

Analysts also pointed out that the “assessment” is neither objective nor professional and it is totally made to cater for the anti-China forces’ needs to further hype the topics on China’s Xinjiang region. 

Continue reading OHCHR report on Xinjiang is a patchwork of disinformation and Cold War propaganda

Open letter to UN High Commissioner for human rights

Friends of Socialist China is proud to be a signatory to this letter of nearly 1,000 Chinese and foreign NGOs to Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, calling on her to reject the demands of various fanatically anti-China elements who want her to use her position to slander China’s human rights record.

The full list of signatories can be found on Xinhua.

Dear Madame High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet,

During your visit to China including Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in late May, you had extensive exchanges with representatives from different sectors. We believe that you saw with your own eyes that Xinjiang has enjoyed sustained economic development, social stability, improvement of people’s livelihood, cultural prosperity and religious harmony. You gained a good knowledge of the fact and truth that people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang enjoy various forms of human rights in accordance with law. We expect that , you will draw a conclusion based on the facts, and present what you saw and heard in Xinjiang to the international community in an objective and fair manner.

We notice that for a period of time, certain anti-China forces, out of ulterior political motives, have publicly urged you to release the so-called assessment on Xinjiang, which is against the objective facts and confuses right and wrong. We express our serious concerns regarding this. It is reported that the assessment is entirely based on false accusations fabricated by anti-China forces and false testimony by overseas anti-China separatists, and echoes the biggest lies of the century that there are so-called genocide, crimes against humanity, forced labour, forced sterilization, religious repression in Xinjiang. Such an assessment is completely untrue. The assessment, once released, will be definitely used by certain countries as a political tool to interfere in China’s internal affairs and to contain China’s development under the pretext of human rights. It will badly damage the credibility of Madame High Commissioner yourself and the OHCHR, and seriously undermine the developing countries’ confidence in constructive cooperation with the OHCHR. It will deeply hurt the sentiments of all 1.4 billion Chinese people including the 25 million in Xinjiang and of all who support the development of Xinjiang. We are strongly opposed to the release of such an unreasonable, unauthorized, and untruthful assessment.

Facts should never be distorted. Truth should never be denied. We strongly call on you and the OHCHR to abide by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, respect the authoritative information provided by member states, and respect the serious concerns raised by all Chinese people and all people championing justice around the world. We call on you and the OHCHR to stand on the right side of history, and not to release an assessment full of lies.

Who really profits from ‘forced labor’?

The “Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act”, the latest anti-China legislation to be enacted in the United States, came into effect on June 23, having been signed by President Biden last December. Under this law, all goods from China’s Xinjiang are barred from the US unless the importer can prove they were produced “free of forced labor”. It is, of course, notoriously difficult to “prove” a negative, something compounded by the arbitrary designations and assertions already advanced by the US with regard to the autonomous region.

In this article, originally published by Workers World, Betsey Piette notes that this measure will harm US industries and further fuel inflation. More especially she notes that, “if US politicians and anti-China lobbyists are genuinely concerned about protecting people from being subjected to ‘forced labor,’ they should look no further than the US prison-industrial complex. According to a report the American Civil Liberties Union released June 15, incarcerated workers in the US produce roughly $11 billion in goods and services each year but receive pennies an hour in ‘wages’ for their work.”

The US imprisons a higher percentage of its population than any other country, with some 800,000 people subject to such forced labor.

First signed by President Joe Biden in December, the “Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act” took effect June 23. Under this latest anti-China measure, all goods made in Xinjiang province are banned, unless the importer can demonstrate the imports were produced “free of forced labor.” The ban also impacts programs that transport Uyghur workers to job sites. 

The new law could affect a handful of companies or far more. Its implementation could result in more detention of goods at the U.S. border, further delaying product deliveries and further fueling inflation. Hardest hit will be U.S. industries that rely on the import of commodities using lithium, nickel manganese, beryllium copper and gold mined in Xinjiang. These include manufacturers of solar panels, auto companies and energy firms.

This latest U.S. anti-China propaganda campaign is based on unsubstantiated claims that Uyghur people were forced to take up new jobs in industries recently relocated to Xinjiang. 

However, if U.S. politicians and anti-China lobbyists are genuinely concerned about protecting people from being subjected to “forced labor,” they should look no further than the U.S. prison-industrial complex. According to a report the American Civil Liberties Union released June 15, incarcerated workers in the U.S. produce roughly $11 billion in goods and services each year but receive pennies an hour in “wages” for their work.

Jennifer Turner, principal author of the report stated: “The United States has a long, problematic history of using incarcerated workers as a source of cheap labor and to subsidize the costs of our bloated prison system. Incarcerated workers are stripped of even the most minimal protections against labor exploitation and abuse. They are paid pennies for their work in often unsafe working conditions, even as they produce billions of dollars for states and the federal government.”

In the U.S., which imprisons a higher percentage of its population than any other country, roughly 800,000 people are subject to this forced labor, making roughly 13 cents to 52 cents per hour. In Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, incarcerated workers are essentially enslaved — paid nothing for their labor.

Over 75% of incarcerated workers interviewed by the ACLU told researchers that if they refuse to work, they are subjected to punishment, including solitary confinement, loss of family visits and denial of reduced sentences.

The Global Times, which is publishing a series of stories to expose the U.S. as a real “contemporary slavery empire,” says that this exploitation of incarcerated workers “plainly demonstrates the U.S.’s real disregard for basic human rights and their brutal exploitation of the country’s workforce.”

The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed on Jan. 31, 1865, while abolishing enslavement actually allowed enslavement to remain legal, as “a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” This amendment lets the government legally impose forced labor on incarcerated workers across the country.

Prison labor insourcing

Part of the problem for the U.S. enforcement of the anti-China labor ban is identifying what companies produce goods involving Uyghur labor in Xinjiang province. But it is very easy to find what U.S. companies are profiting directly from privatizing prisons or exploiting prison labor.

A majority of the labor performed by exploited prisoner-workers directly benefits the states managing prisons. Incarcerated workers are forced to perform various tasks from food preparation to laundry services. But many private companies profit as well.

Two major companies — Core Civic and Geo Group — are the giants of the U.S. private prison industry. Core Civic recognized $526 million in annual gross profits in 2021. Geo Group made $628 million. But these companies are not alone in profiting from prisons.

A Feb. 15 report by CareerAddict.com estimated that 4,200 large corporations use over 600,000 incarcerated workers to produce goods and services. There are several well-known companies on this list. McDonalds and Wendy’s use prison labor to produce frozen beef patties and other products. Calls to Verizon, Sprint or Avis for service may be answered by incarcerated workers.

Walmart and Starbucks use enslaved prison labor to cut down their costs of producing goods and services. Prison labor produces circuit boards for Compaq. For years Aramark has used incarcerated workers to prepare and package most food items used in prisons. In 2019 Aramark was sued for using “involuntary servitude” — they were not paying incarcerated workers anything.

Politicians could amend the 13th Amendment to remove the prison labor exclusion clause. Biden could take measures to end contracts with private prison companies. But none of this is likely to happen under capitalism.

Those genuinely concerned about “forced labor” should be on board with the movement to abolish prisons.

The cruel irony of the US obsession with politicizing human rights

Co-editor of Friends of Socialist China Danny Haiphong explains why the US’s obsession with politicizing human rights against China is both baseless in substance and a deflection from its own heinous human rights record in all areas of economic, social, and political development. This article was originally published on CGTN.

The 50th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has entered its last week of deliberation. This particular session of the UNHRC saw the United States immediately politicize the issue of human rights by signing a statement from the Kingdom of the Netherlands and 46 other countries condemning China. The letter expressed “grave” concern over the human rights situation in China, listing the popular talking points in the West regarding the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the Tibet Autonomous Region. 

China’s Permanent Representative to the UN Office at Geneva Chen Xu said that “disinformation has become rampant, which seriously runs counter to the original purpose of the Human Rights Council.” Cuba made a joint statement on behalf of 70 countries, stating that “the affairs of Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet are China’s internal affairs.”

The U.S.’s politicization of human rights against China is ironic in a cruel way. Washington refuses to acknowledge the mountain of evidence proving that its allegations against China are illegitimate in the eyes of the rest of the world. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) sent a delegation to China and expressed satisfaction with its treatment of Muslims, including Uygurs, in a resolution on their findings. The OIC includes 57 member states and a population of near two-billion people. In 2020, Cuba made a statement on behalf of 45 countries that praised China’s counterterrorism and deradicalization policies in Xinjiang.

Continue reading The cruel irony of the US obsession with politicizing human rights

US ‘forced labor’ allegations in Xinjiang nothing but imperial projection

The following article by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Danny Haiphong, originally carried in the Global Times on 3 July 2022, addresses the recent implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, effectively imposing a blanket ban on goods produced in Xinjiang. Danny notes the startling hypocrisy of the US – the global capital of prison labor and modern slavery – slandering China on this basis. He further points to the two central motivations for the ‘China Bad’ narrative: firstly, creating a scapegoat for the steadily worsening problems of contemporary US capitalism; secondly, increasing demand (and thereby profits) for the military-industrial complex. What is abundantly clear is that ordinary people in the US have absolutely nothing to gain from the ruling class’s New Cold War.

US President Joe Biden has begun enforcing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act that was passed in late 2021. The legislation is comprised of a set of economic sanctions that represent some of the broadest the US has leveled upon China since the normalization of relations between the two countries. This includes a ban on all imported goods from the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and a US Department of Commerce review of all goods produced outside of the region that may have connections to economic institutions in Xinjiang. These measures have been justified by Biden and the US political establishment as a measured response to China’s use of “forced labor” in Xinjiang, particularly of its Uygur minority ethnic group. Allegations of forced labor in the region have never been proven and both foreign companies and Uygur workers alike have denied its existence.

That the US would attempt to punish China over forced labor is a clear act of imperial projection. Forced labor is a serious problem in the US. According to a new report from the American Civil Liberties Union, US prisoners produce more than $11 billion in profits and services despite being paid an hourly wage of between $0.13 and $0.52. Seven states were found to pay no compensation for prison labor. Prisoners cited that punishment in the form of solitary confinement and family visitation was routinely employed against those who refused to work. 

Continue reading US ‘forced labor’ allegations in Xinjiang nothing but imperial projection

Media briefing on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ visit to China

We republish below the media briefing given by Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu in relation to the recently-completed visit to China by Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Politicians, journalists and various perpetually anti-China human rights groups have for years been clamoring for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang, in order to substantiate their claims that a genocide is taking place there. Now Ms Bachelet has visited numerous sites and met with many people from all walks of life in Xinjiang – including religious leaders – and has failed to find evidence of genocide, the accusers are doubling down on their slander, claiming the whole visit was staged. Ma Zhaoxu’s media briefing provides a useful summary of what actually happened during Bachelet’s visit.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet visited China in late May. On 28 May, Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu gave a briefing on the trip in an interview with the press.

Ma said that at the invitation of the Chinese government, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet visited China during 23 to 28 May. This is Ms. Bachelet’s first visit to China since she took office as well as the first such visit by a UN human rights chief in 17 years. President Xi Jinping met via video link with High Commissioner Bachelet on 25 May. State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with High Commissioner Bachelet, and senior officials from the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Ethnic Affairs Commission, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and All-China Women’s Federation held talks with the High Commissioner respectively.

Continue reading Media briefing on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ visit to China

Are the Uighurs ‘slave labourers’?

We are pleased to republish this article by Dr Jenny Clegg, academic, author and veteran activist, originally published in the Morning Star. Jenny dissects the latest report on the situation in Xinjiang from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), whose funding by the US State Department, NATO, the British and Japanese governments, arms manufacturers and other dubious sources, utterly refutes its specious claim to be an “independent, non-partisan think tank”, with help from detailed analysis by CoWestPro Consultancy, which is also Australia-based. Jenny also advances the view that problems and shortcomings in China have to be viewed against its background as a developing country.

THE issue of Uighur forced labour is held up as a particularly pernicious abuse of human rights in China.

Prominent here has been the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi) 2020 report, Uyghurs For Sale, claiming that the Chinese government is orchestrating a forced Uighur labour programme.

Aspi counts the US Department of State, Nato, and a number of arms dealers among its largest donors — why an organisation oriented towards strategy and defence should take up the issue of forced labour is anybody’s guess.

Be that as it may, Aspi’s report has been used to support recent US legislation to ban goods made by Uighur labour. Now, with cries of “slave labour” from the likes of Tom Tugendhat leading the way, Britain may well follow suit with a similar Bill this year.

Continue reading Are the Uighurs ‘slave labourers’?

Book review: Uyghurs – to put an end to fake news

We are pleased to republish this summary of the French-language book, ‘Uyghurs: To put an end to fake news’, reviewed by Roger Keenan on the website Marxism-Leninism Today. Written by Maxime Vivas, a writer, journalist and former postal worker, the book refutes new cold war propaganda and presents the true situation, based on the author’s research as well as his travel to Xinjiang.

The United States government is ratcheting up a cold war against China.  The Biden administration’s  agreement to supply Australia with nuclear submarines, its decision to create a new department in the CIA aimed at countering China, and its recent decision to impose a diplomatic boycott on the Chinese Winter Olympics are just three recent signs of the aggressive posture taken by the U.S. in the new cold war.   A key part of the new cold war is a tidal wave of ideological attacks on China aimed at showing that China is a threat—to human rights, democracy, women’s rights, labor rights, and American security.   All of this is geared to justify American belligerence toward China and generate support for this belligerence and a frightened public’s willingness to pay for it.  (Recently the Senate passed a bill previously passed by the House calling for $768 billion appropriation of Defense Department, $24 billion more than either Biden or the Pentagon sought.)  A centerpiece of this ideological offensive that the mass media amplifies on a daily basis is that China is committing genocide against its Moslem Uyghur minority in the Xinjiang autonomous region.

Even though  most politicians, as well as the general population,  have no idea who the Uyghurs are, where Xinjiang is on a map, what Chinese policy toward the Uyghurs is, or even how to pronounce Uyghur, they buy the idea of Uyghur genocide.    The widespread ignorance makes Maxime Vivas’s book  so valuable.  Vivas not only provides a primer on the Uyghurs and Xinjiang, but also explains the Chinese policy in Xinjiang, and makes a forceful argument that the charge of genocide is of apiece with other lies like those about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that serve to justify American imperial belligerence.

Continue reading Book review: Uyghurs – to put an end to fake news

Wang Wenbin debunks myths about human rights abuses in Xinjiang

At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs press conference of 14 January 2022, spokesperson Wang Wenbin gave a detailed response to a question from CGTN about recent US legislation penalizing China for alleged human rights abuses against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. Wang Wenbin’s response is reproduced below.

For some time now, US politicians, in collusion with some anti-China organizations and individuals, have been unscrupulously spreading and hyping up the lie of “genocide” and “forced labor” in Xinjiang for their ulterior political purpose. Today, I would like to take some time to share with you my experience of debunking lies on Xinjiang and avoid being misled so that you can all see the true face of those who fabricated those lies.

First of all, those who fabricate lies on Xinjiang always camouflage themselves with three cloaks. 

The first is the cloak of academic research. They spread rumors in the name of scholars and academic institutions. A typical example is Adrian Zenz. His claim that “900,000 to 1,800,000 people have been systematically held in detention in Xinjiang” comes from a groundless report by Istiqlal TV, a Turkey-based media organization with close ties with extremists. Abdulkadir Yapuquan, leader of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a UN listed terrorist organization, is a regular guest of it. Zenz also claimed that 70 percent of the cotton plantations in Xinjiang in 2019 were harvested by human labor. But fact tells a completely different story: 85 percent of the cotton in Xinjiang is harvested by machine. These facts have proved that Adrian Zenz, a so-called “China expert”, is just a pseudo scholar with no academic integrity at all. 

Continue reading Wang Wenbin debunks myths about human rights abuses in Xinjiang

Have you been lied to about Xinjiang, human rights − and China?

This statement from the International Action Center thoroughly dismantles US-led imperialist propaganda about alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and exposes how these are being leveraged to build public support for a reckless and aggressive anti-China strategy that offers nothing to ordinary people in the West.

Claiming that it is acting in defense of human rights, the U.S. tries to cover its own criminal record on internal human rights violations and its record of endless wars, assassinations, coups and devastating sanctions by making charges and targeting other countries.

Propaganda fuels U.S. wars 

The “2021 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community,” issued April 9 by Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence, labeled China as “the greatest threat to the United States.” Numerous other reports and official statements claim Washington must prepare an intensifying level of U.S. intelligence operations, cyberattacks and investment in military technology to counter China.

The U.S. military has encircled China. With joint Democratic and Republican Party backing, the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions, an onerous trade war and canceled cultural exchanges and visas for tens of thousands of Chinese students. This campaign is cynically justified as a defense of human rights.

Continue reading Have you been lied to about Xinjiang, human rights − and China?

Slanders about China’s treatment of Uyghurs are aimed at bolstering the military-industrial complex

Interviewed by Jacquie Luqman for Sputnik’s By Any Means Necessary radio show, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez discusses the US’s new Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and the Washington Post’s ‘smoking gun’ report linking Huawei to surveillance technology in Xinjiang. The full radio show can be found here.

Keith Lamb: Why the Uygur Tribunal is another sham that seeks to ignite atrocity

In this article Keith Lamb, following up on a piece published last week, further explores the sham nature of the ‘Uygur Tribunal’ – its spurious sources, its funding, its flagrant bias towards Uygur separatism, and its use by the Western military-industrial complex to further the drive to war on China. Republished from CGTN.

In my previous article, using the examples of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, I outlined a system where Western elites can further their geopolitical ends and drive up their profit margins through the atrocity of war. Essential for instigating these atrocities is a superb propaganda system that indoctrinates Western citizens into supporting these wars through exaggeration, decontextualization and distortion.

A simple narrative of “good” versus “evil” is laid out to justify Western belligerence. However, the tail wags the dog, the geopolitical and profit motives are the prime mover and then the atrocity is constructed.

For example, Afghanistan, and the never-ending war on terror, were always going to be a “fantastic” money-spinner for a military-industrial complex devoid of a cold war with the Soviet Union. Then Iraq and Libya, both rich in oil, were plundered of their resources. Furthermore, the independence asserted by all three states was not to be tolerated by the West.

Continue reading Keith Lamb: Why the Uygur Tribunal is another sham that seeks to ignite atrocity