The Economics of Repression: The Belt and Road Initiative, COVID-19, and the Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang

Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, Air University Press --

Since President Xi Jinping started his second term in 2017, Chinese forces have imprisoned up to two million Uyghurs in detention camps, which Beijing claims are educational centers for vocational training.[1] The international community has alleged human rights violations in Xinjiang, but Beijing defends that China’s measures are necessary to eradicate the so-called “three evils of terrorism, separatism, and extremism.”[2] Regarding Beijing’s motivations behind the repressive measures in Xinjiang, much analysis has focused on the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) views of internal security, social control, and Han-ethno nationalism.

However, it is important to note that China also has economic interests at stake in Xinjiang’s political stability. Experts have pointed out that the intensification of repression in Xinjiang coincides with Beijing’s growing emphasis on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects.[3] If the BRI projects facilitate the repression in Xinjiang, then one can also assume that the outbreak of COVID-19 has a secondary impact on Xinjiang through its immediate effects on the BRI projects. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the developments in Xinjiang, it is vital to track and identify the effects of the BRI and COVID-19 on the repression of the Uyghur minority.

BRI and Its Impacts on the Repression in Xinjiang

 

Xinjiang is a critical region to the success of the BRI projects, as its location connects China with the countries in Central Asia and Middle East.[4] Four of the six major BRI land routes—including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)—run through Xinjiang.[5] The massive investment in the infrastructure projects carries high risks for the periodic turmoil in the Xinjiang area.[6] As part of CPEC, for example, a significant amount of funding has been injected to develop Kashgar, a hub city on the ancient Silk Road that Central Asian countries have historically competed over. Given its significance as a strategic point for commercial networking, Beijing made Kashgar a special economic zone. It is noteworthy that Kashgar also has been traditionally regarded as the “spiritual heart” of the Uyghurs.[7] Thus, China’s commercial interests with BRI projects intersect with the Uyghur’s cultural identity problems.

 

The strategic importance of BRI projects has driven the CCP to intensify its repression of Xinjiang Uyghurs for two major reasons. First, the BRI projects will enhance Xinjiang’s connectivity with countries in Central Asia and the Middle East, and that means the Muslim population in Xinjiang will be more widely exposed to the external influences from those regions. The CCP has good reason to be worried about such increased connectivity. In 2014, the East Turkistan Islamic Party threatened to conduct a jihad in China, a year after Beijing announced the launch of the BRI projects.[8] In the same year, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) also threatened to seize the territory of Xinjiang, which it identified as a legitimate part of Islamic Central Asia.[9] Such threats from Central Asia and the Middle East amplifies the CCP’s concerns about terrorism, separatism, and extremism in Xinjiang. In this context, Anna Hayes, a professor at James Cook University, argues that Beijing started to focus on “re-educating” the Muslim minorities so China could fortify the population against the external influences when it launched BRI projects.[10]

Second, the BRI projects facilitate the oppression of the Uyghurs by creating permissive conditions in world politics. There is evidence that many countries are inclined to support China at global fora because they benefit from billions of dollars in Chinese investments through BRI programs. Muslim countries are no exception.[11] Given the Muslim countries’ outraged response to the Western satire of their religion and culture, as seen in the incident of Charlie Hebdo, some observers expected the Muslim-majority countries to form a united voice in the name of Muslim solidarity against the CCP’s harsh treatment of Muslim populations. However, these Muslim countries remain oddly silent on the religious and cultural oppressions in Xinjiang.

More than silence, some of them even express overt support for Beijing, praising China’s human rights record in Xinjiang. In July 2019, 22 mostly Western countries issued a joint statement at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council criticizing Beijing on Xinjiang issues. This marked the first major collective challenge to China’s crackdown on Uyghur Muslims.[12] A day later, 37 other countries issued another letter in Beijing’s defense. Nearly half of the signatories were Muslim-majority nations, including Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. These nations collectively blocked a Western motion at the United Nations calling for China to allow “independent international observers” into the Xinjiang region.[13] The “Muslim solidarity” in support of the CCP’s crackdown of Muslims in Xinjiang demonstrates how powerful China’s diplomatic and economic might could be in quashing criticism from these countries.[14]

COVID-19 and Its Impacts on the Repression in Xinjiang

If the BRI projects facilitate the oppression of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs, the coronavirus has been breaking the causal chain. Due to the pandemic crisis, the BRI projects have been stumbling in 2020; the participating countries could not pay back the Chinese investment, and Beijing could not deliver the funds and labor forces as mutually agreed with the participating countries.[15] Such trends, unexpectedly created by the coronavirus, may have impacts on the repression in Xinjiang in two ways. On the one hand, the hard negotiations between China and the BRI participating countries on adjusting the contract terms may provide more incentives for the participating countries to avoid criticizing Beijing on Xinjiang issues. On the other hand, it is also possible that these countries feel less obligated to support Beijing, as China is also failing to implement the BRI projects in the agreed upon timeline.[16]

Recent developments show a complex pattern at work. This year, at the UN General Assembly, Western countries presented a statement to criticize the human rights situation in Xinjiang and Tibet. The Cuban representative then issued a letter in defense of Chinese policies. Compared to the UN assembly in 2019, there are 18 new countries that endorse China’s position. Interestingly, at the same time, 10 countries that had signed the 2019 letter decided not to endorse the 2020 statement. The 10 countries include Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Algeria, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Oman, the Philippines, Qatar, and Somalia. Catherine Putz, the editor of The Diplomat, found that many of the countries that did not renew their support for China’s Xinjiang policies are either Muslim-majority states or have sizeable Muslim minority populations.[17] It is too early to conclude, but this change may be the signs of Muslim countries’ retreat from supporting China’s crackdown of the Muslim population in Xinjiang.

While the COVID-19 pandemic crisis contributes to growing criticism of China externally, it leads to more suppression of the Uyghur minority internally. In response to the international accusation, President Xi reaffirmed that China’s policies in Xinjiang are “totally correct.”[18] Even worse, Beijing seemed to make up for the economic loss caused by the pandemic crisis by utilizing Uyghurs as a supplementing labor force. According to various reports, China has sent thousands of Uyghurs to Hunan, Jiangsu, Jiangzi, and Zhejiang to run the factories after the evacuation of the regular workers since the outbreak.[19] In different parts of Xinjiang, 30,000 workers were forced to resume their duties at the peak of the pandemic in February 2020.[20] The COVID-19 crisis also allowed the CCP to reinforce its religious repression and social control in the name of pandemic measures. Beijing closed the mosques in February, and the ban extended to the end of May.[21] Despite the outbreak in Xinjiang seemingly being under control, the restrictions are still in place, and many residents accuse the government of acting too harshly.[22]

Conclusion

In sum, the BRI projects have facilitated the oppression of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs, but the COVID-19 crisis has been complicating the pattern. The BRI amplifies Beijing’s concerns in Xinjiang because the enhanced regional connectivity may further radicalize the local resistance among the Muslim Uyghurs against the authorities in China. The BRI projects also externally create favorable conditions for Beijing to silence the participating countries’ criticism of China over Xinjiang issues. However, due to COVID-19, the implementation of BRI projects has slowed down. Many BRI participating countries, especially Muslim states, seem to be recanting their support of China. With Western objections to China’s actions in the South China Sea and Hong Kong added to the chorus, the international community’s disapproval of China’s policies in Xinjiang are only likely to grow over the next few years.

As far as the strategic implication of the BRI projects is concerned, much of the debate in the West has focused on whether Beijing deliberately tries to influence other countries to its advantage through the use of “debt-trap diplomacy,” and, if so, how effective such a strategy has been.[23] The case study of Xinjiang in this analysis suggests that more attention needs to be paid to the BRI’s effects on the social control and domestic policies of China.

Dr. Sungmin Cho

Dr. Cho is a professor at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (DKI APCSS), a US Department of Defense institute based in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Lt Joshua Turner, USAF

Lieutenant Turner is a research assistant at the DKI APCSS and a China focused Asian studies master’s student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Notes


[1] “Xinjiang: China defends 'education' camps,” BBC News, 17 September 2020, https://www.bbc.com/.

[2] Enshen Li, “Fighting the “Three Evils”: A Structural Analysis of Counter-Terrorism Legal Architecture in China,” Emory International Law Review 33, no.3. (2019): 311–65.

[3] Alexander Ma, “This map shows a trillion-dollar reason why China is oppressing more than a million Muslims,” Business Insider, 22 February 2019, https://www.businessinsider.com/.

[4] Ma, “This map shows a trillion-dollar reason.”

[5] Ayaz Wani, “COVID-19 in Xinjiang: Uyghurs pushed to the frontlines by Beijing,” Rasina Debates, 8 April 2020, https://www.orfonline.org/.

[6] Anna Hayes, “Interwoven ‘Destinies’: The Significance of Xinjiang to the China Dream, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Xi Jinping Legacy,” Journal of Contemporary China 29, no.121 (2020): 38.

[7] Hayes, “Interwoven ‘Destinies’,” 38.

[8] Beina Xu, Holly Fletcher, and Jayshree Bajoria, “The East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM),” Backgrounder, Council for Foreign Relations. 4 September 2014, https://www.cfr.org/.

[9] Gary Sands, “China and the ISIS Threat,” The Diplomat, 26 September 2014. https://thediplomat.com/.

[10] Hayes, “Interwoven ‘Destinies’,” 32.

[11] Nick Cohen, “Why do Muslim states stay silent over China’s abuse of the Uighurs?,” The Guardian, 4 July 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/.

[12] Joyce Hwang, “UN Human Rights Council Divided Over China’s Xinjiang Policies,” VOA News, 17 July 2019, https://www.voanews.com/.

[13] Tamara Qiblawi, “Muslim nations are defending China as it cracks down on Muslims, shattering any myths of Islamic solidarity,” CNN, 17 July 2019, https://www.cnn.com/.

[14] Jane Perlez, “China Wants the World to Stay Silent on Muslim Camps. It’s Succeeding,” New York Times, 25 September 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/.

[15] Maria Abi-Habib and Keith Bradsher, “Poor Countries Borrowed Billions from China. They Can’t Pay It Back,” New York Times, 18 May 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/.

[16] Ashutosh Pandey, “Coronavirus could force China to rein in Belt and Road ambitions,” DW, 17 April 2020, https://www.dw.com/.

[17] Catherine Putz, “2020 Edition: Which Countries Are For or Against China’s Xinjiang Policies?,” The Diplomat, 9 October 2020, https://thediplomat.com/.

[18] Chris Buckley, “Brushing Off Criticism, China’s Xi Calls Policies in Xinjiang ‘Totally Correct’,” New York Times, 26 September 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/.

[19] Joshua Lipes, “Xinjiang Authorities Sending Uyghurs to Work in China’s Factories, Despite Coronavirus Risks,” RFA News, 27 February 2020, https://www.rfa.org/.

[20] Lipes, “Xinjiang Authorities Sending Uyghurs to Work.”

[21] Michael Sainsbury, “China uses Covid-19 to ratchet up religious oppression,” UCA News, 4 May 2020, https://www.ucanews.com/.

[22] Javier C. Hernández, “China Locks Down Xinjiang to Fight Covid-19, Angering Residents,” New York Times, 24 September 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/.

[23] David Dollar, “Seven years into China’s Belt and Road,” Order from Chaos (blog), 1 October 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/.

 
USAF Comments Policy
If you wish to comment, use the text box below. AF reserves the right to modify this policy at any time.

This is a moderated forum. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, we expect that participants will treat each other, as well as our agency and our employees, with respect. We will not post comments that contain abusive or vulgar language, spam, hate speech, personal attacks, violate EEO policy, are offensive to other or similar content. We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly "off topic", promote services or products, infringe copyright protected material, or contain any links that don't contribute to the discussion. Comments that make unsupported accusations will also not be posted. The AF and the AF alone will make a determination as to which comments will be posted. Any references to commercial entities, products, services, or other non-governmental organizations or individuals that remain on the site are provided solely for the information of individuals using this page. These references are not intended to reflect the opinion of the AF, DoD, the United States, or its officers or employees concerning the significance, priority, or importance to be given the referenced entity, product, service, or organization. Such references are not an official or personal endorsement of any product, person, or service, and may not be quoted or reproduced for the purpose of stating or implying AF endorsement or approval of any product, person, or service.

Any comments that report criminal activity including: suicidal behaviour or sexual assault will be reported to appropriate authorities including OSI. This forum is not:

  • This forum is not to be used to report criminal activity. If you have information for law enforcement, please contact OSI or your local police agency.
  • Do not submit unsolicited proposals, or other business ideas or inquiries to this forum. This site is not to be used for contracting or commercial business.
  • This forum may not be used for the submission of any claim, demand, informal or formal complaint, or any other form of legal and/or administrative notice or process, or for the exhaustion of any legal and/or administrative remedy.

AF does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by individuals on this forum is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. AF may not be able to verify, does not warrant or guarantee, and assumes no liability for anything posted on this website by any other person. AF does not endorse, support or otherwise promote any private or commercial entity or the information, products or services contained on those websites that may be reached through links on our website.

Members of the media are asked to send questions to the public affairs through their normal channels and to refrain from submitting questions here as comments. Reporter questions will not be posted. We recognize that the Web is a 24/7 medium, and your comments are welcome at any time. However, given the need to manage federal resources, moderating and posting of comments will occur during regular business hours Monday through Friday. Comments submitted after hours or on weekends will be read and posted as early as possible; in most cases, this means the next business day.

For the benefit of robust discussion, we ask that comments remain "on-topic." This means that comments will be posted only as it relates to the topic that is being discussed within the blog post. The views expressed on the site by non-federal commentators do not necessarily reflect the official views of the AF or the Federal Government.

To protect your own privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include personally identifiable information, such as name, Social Security number, DoD ID number, OSI Case number, phone numbers or email addresses in the body of your comment. If you do voluntarily include personally identifiable information in your comment, such as your name, that comment may or may not be posted on the page. If your comment is posted, your name will not be redacted or removed. In no circumstances will comments be posted that contain Social Security numbers, DoD ID numbers, OSI case numbers, addresses, email address or phone numbers. The default for the posting of comments is "anonymous", but if you opt not to, any information, including your login name, may be displayed on our site.

Thank you for taking the time to read this comment policy. We encourage your participation in our discussion and look forward to an active exchange of ideas.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed or implied in JIPA are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government or their international equivalents. See our Publication Ethics Statement.