The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has recently faced widespread condemnation after retroactively legitimising internment camps in Xinjiang, or East Turkestan as it was known before the Chinese renamed it Xinjiang. The purpose of these camps has been to force non-Chinese societies – in this case, the Uyghurs of Xinjiang – to accept Chinese rule via the employment of extrajudicial detentions, surveillance, political indoctrination or “re-education,” torture and abuse.
These camps are not dissimilar to the Re-education through Labour (RTL) camps that have long existed within Tibet. Meant to root out dissent, the camps demonstrate the extent to which the Chinese government will go in order to maintain control over the lands and people they claim as their own. Yet, in spite of the obvious human rights implications, many people who live outside of the PRC believe that this issue does not affect them personally. As a result, they dismiss the abuse and choose to ignore the problem. However, even if we are able to ignore the fact that the PRC’s “solution” to political dissidence is eerily reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps and United States Japanese internment camps, there is still cause for concern about these coercive practices, if only for our own sake. After all, if we failed to raise alarm as a fire burned our neighbour’s home, could it not eventually engulf our own home, too? In much the same way, some are starting to realise the possibility that it may be “Tibet and Xinjiang today, us tomorrow.”
Even if the PRC hasn’t laid claim to physical territory within our respective states – as it has in at least 23 countries, not including the once independent states it now occupies – we still remain vulnerable to its influence. With globalisation on the rise, the PRC is finding novel ways to assert its dominance. In today’s age, power can be established via the employment of money and media, which can be equally coercive. Instead of invading a country, the PRC can utilise “soft power” to achieve control without firing a shot. Other countries even welcome them to do so, as they are unaware of what they are forfeiting in exchange for what the PRC purports to offer. Examples of this can be found the world over, as international investments, Confucius Institutes, educational exchanges and foreign language news outlets are all used to create footholds within other countries.
First, the PRC engages in an information campaign meant to soften its image abroad. Confucius Institutes, educational exchanges, and foreign language news outlets are all utilised for this purpose. Confucius Institutes – Chinese government-funded educational institutions that partner with universities and schools around the world to teach Chinese language, culture, and history – are actually spreading misinformation since they teach a very particular, Beijing-approved version of Chinese culture and history that ignores concerns over human rights and teaches that Taiwan and Tibet indisputably belong to mainland China. Li Changchun, a standing member of the politburo, has even called the institutes “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.” Yet, there has been an alarming willingness for other countries, particularly Western liberal democracies, to accept the money tied to these partnerships at the expense of principles that they are ostensibly devoted to upholding. Similarly, educational exchanges, and the vast sums of money dedicated to providing scholarships to foreign students, are used to bring students from other countries to Chinese universities to be taught a skewed version of its history and culture.
Of even more concern is the PRC’s investment in foreign language news outlets. Meant to establish greater control over narratives about the PRC, CCTV – the PRC’s state-sponsored television broadcasting news service – has rebranded itself as China Global Television Network, from which it broadcasts six channels in more than seventy countries. Additionally, China Radio International broadcast 392 hours of programming per day from more than 27 overseas bureaus, including a covert network of radio stations in 14 countries that are run through front companies in order to mask the PRC’s influence. Furthermore, the PRC’s “50 Cent Army” – a group of state-backed internet commentators – are used to blanket the internet with posts proclaiming the positive influence of the PRC. With each of these tools, the goal is the same: legitimise the PRC’s abuses by exposing foreign audiences to Chinese propaganda, often without their knowledge.
Second, by investing in the development of other nations, the PRC secures itself an upper hand. If other countries become dependent upon its funding, the PRC is able to dictate the terms of the relationship as noncompliance could mean the loss of those funds or worse. This might explain the PRC’s willingness to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the development of other countries. Britain, for example, has recently been forced to review the terms under which it would accept Chinese support for a new nuclear facility amid concerns that it would leave the country susceptible to “energy blackmail.” Nonetheless, many accept the PRC’s financial support despite the possible implications of accepting such aid. Last year, Sri Lanka was forced to hand over the strategic Hambantota Port after it failed to meet its commitments to the PRC. Likewise, Djibouti is expected to cede control of another key port, the Doraleh Container Terminal, further demonstrating the fact that Chinese lending is not done in the name of altruism. Instead, the PRC is engaging in “debt-trap diplomacy,” described by former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as “encouraging dependency using opaque contracts, predatory loan practices, and corrupt deals that mire nations in debt and undercut their sovereignty, denying them their long-term, self-sustaining growth.” With this practice, the PRC gains control without ever needing to engage in any militaristic dispute.
Currently, it remains unclear what happens next. Once the PRC has gained economic or physical control within another country, will it tolerate dissent? Considering China’s willingness to justify grave abuses against its own citizens, it is difficult to hold out hope that the country would simply change course. International law and the principle of sovereignty would likely bar some of its more extreme practices from occurring outside of its own borders, but we should be wary, nonetheless, of any country willing to demonstrate such disregard for the rights of man.
Print
Email