Through dots, we connect.
讓世界看到彩色的香港 讓香港看到彩色的世界

Opinion | The case against China—15 questions on Xinjiang for Western journalists

By Philip Yeung, A Chinese-Canadian Contrarian and University Teacher


Xinjiang is a geopolitical hit job on China—by the West and its press. The so-called defenders of democracy and freedom are less truth-seekers than hate-mongers. All it takes for them to paint China as a rogue nation is three words: "genocide", "camps" and "communist". Together, they percolate into a toxic cocktail that smears China's image. Case closed.

China is thus guilty until proven otherwise. But how do you prove your innocence when they have already made up their mind? How can you prove the negative anyway?

For China, it's "damned if you do, and damned if you don't"

In the West, news has no market if it is favorable to China. This rules out balanced reporting. Its coverage is all one-sided, all anti-China, all the time.

China is not just accused. It is being bullied.

This is a dangerous situation. In the past, wars had been fought over misread intentions. By aiding and abetting Washington's saber-rattling, the press is pushing both to the brink of conflict.

Tactically, this attack is well-orchestrated. By invoking three highly charged words, they ensure that China loses the war of semantics. The rest is left to the imagination. From there, it is all downhill.

Trump has taught us that fake news spreads like wildfire and is hard to refute.

The West no doubt harbors fantasies of doing to China what it did to the former Soviet Union, bringing about its collapse or splintering.

Except this is a serious miscalculation. Unlike the former Soviets, China is not an empire but a united nation. Its people are fiercely loyal to a government that has lifted at least 750 million of them out of extreme poverty, a loyalty kept burning by the raw memory of China's past humiliation by foreign powers. Foreign businesses stupid enough to sanction China soon face the wrath of Chinese consumers in spontaneous body-blow boycotts, as H & M and Nike now know.

Unlike Venezuela, China is ultra-rational and purposeful, singularly focused on education, technology breakthroughs and economic growth, much like Israel does. And China stays out of foreign wars. A thousand years from now, it will still be standing strong.

Quit your wishful thinking. If there is one thing awful about the West, it is called "climate of opinion". Once that takes hold, you risk becoming an outcast if you dare go against the grain. This herd mentality has turned politicians and journalists into cowards.

Without hard evidence of ethnic crimes, Western journalists and politicians owe the world answers to these hard questions:

1. The Muslim population has skyrocketed from 2.2 million in 1949 at the founding of the People's Republic to over 12 million today. How do you square this with "genocide"?

2. No Muslim country has come out to condemn China. Is it because they know first-hand what Islamic extremists are capable of?

3. Why are Muslims exempted from China's strict one-child policy, if it wants to decimate their population?

4. If Xinjiang Muslims are persecuted, why give them special rights to do street-hawking across China for a better livelihood?

5. Why do minority students enjoy 50 bonus points for lower admission requirements for university education?

6. Why are Han officials in Xinjiang given personal responsibility for improving the livelihood of its ethnic residents?

7. The Uyghurs are just one of 10 Muslim tribes in China. Why are they singled out for "genocidal" treatment? Unless they have done something savage? Can Uyghur allegations be taken at face value?

8. When France came under attack by Islamic terrorists, president Hollande declared: "France is at war" and announced drastic anti-terrorist measures that did not elicit any international condemnation. Why?

9. In the 1970 October Crisis, Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, invoked the War Measures Act and sent soldiers into Montreal. Hundreds of Quebec separatists were arrested without charges. Why was he not taken to task?

10. After 911, Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses, and took a million lives. These are crimes against humanity. Why no sanctions against America?

11. And what about Quantanamo, its indefinite detentions, torture and murder? Which is more humane: a Chinese Re-Educational Center or the American camp?

12. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, the US passed its Japanese Exclusion Act, authorizing forced relocation of coastal citizens of Japanese ancestry to inhumane inland camps. By contrast, China's centers are designed to bring terrorists back into society via de-radicalization and job-training. American fears of Japanese spies were imagined, but Chinese fears are real.

13. And what about Australian refugee detention camps in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, where asylum-seekers are considered security risks and detained over seven years, where rapes, torture and even murder by guards are documented by the UN? Yet, the world is silent.

14. Where is the hard evidence against China? Perhaps what China is guilty of is being communist? Without that label, it would be given kid-glove treatment like Canada, Australia or America.

15. The Xinjiang allegations are lumped together with quelling the riots in Hong Kong as proof that China is trampling on the rights of its people. Why can't China exercise her sovereignty over territories that are under prolonged foreign-instigated violent attacks?

You don't have to love communism, or China. But you must embrace the fairness principle. Is that too much to ask for?

China has done a poor job explaining itself. It keeps telling its critics that Xinjiang is China's internal affairs, but nobody listens. China has concealed news of the massacres for fear of copy-cats acts of terrorism and loss of face. But in keeping the savage attacks hushed up, it has paid a dear price for its concealment.

For the West and its press, the question is this: are you impervious to facts and logic? Or are you unable to look past China's communist label, and exploit it for domestic politics and strategic advantage?


The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.



Related Topics

New to old 
New to old
Old to new
Search Content