{"id":627,"date":"2025-12-16T16:31:15","date_gmt":"2025-12-16T21:31:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/?page_id=627"},"modified":"2025-12-16T16:33:32","modified_gmt":"2025-12-16T21:33:32","slug":"decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/","title":{"rendered":"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide"},"content":{"rendered":"

Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide<\/strong><\/p>\n

HANNAH SCROGGINS[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

[pdf]<\/a><\/p>\n

Not all moments of silence are warranted, especially in the context of an impending genocide. Yet not all genocides receive the same response from the global community that international law and legal principles demand. This is tragically evident in the case of the Uyghurs in the Autonomous Region of Xinjiang in Central Asia.<\/p>\n

The Uyghurs are a distinct group of approximately 11 million people in Xinjiang, China, comprising less than 1% of China’s population. They speak Uyghur (a Turkic language) and practice the Islamic faith. In contrast, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) promotes a secular and atheist platform, which leaves little room for religious practice and expression. Today, the Uyghurs\u2019 Islamic identity remains the grounds for their systematic exclusion from political, social, and economic processes by China\u2014aimed at preserving Han Chinese nationalism; a policy that has sparked intense controversy within the United Nations, including at the Security Council and General Assembly. In fact, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Canada have formally declared that China’s actions amount to genocide, as Uyghurs are systematically subject to the CCP’s state-endorsed indoctrination programs, forced sterilizations, forced abortions, forced labor in global supply chains, organ harvesting, wrongful imprisonments, and even enslavement (Uyghur Human Rights Project, n.d.). Despite labeling China’s actions as genocide, these six nations have failed to directly hold China accountable for these violations.<\/p>\n

Even international legal institutions including the UN Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court remain passive towards the Uyghurs. In 2020, the International Criminal Court (ICC) dismissed Uyghur testimony. Furthermore, several Muslim-majority countries rejected a motion in the U.N. Human Rights Council to hold a debate on the situation in Xinjiang, which thwarted an unprecedented opportunity to hold Beijing accountable for such grave crimes, and effectively absolved the CCP from accountability (Wang, 2023). That same year, at least 500,000 or more Uyghurs were imprisoned, and as of August 2024, Uyghurs comprised 34% of China’s incarcerations, which is \u201cthe world’s highest rate of ethnic imprisonment\u201d (Asat, 2024). In practice, this passivity translates to tacit approval of China’s actions against the Uyghurs, and complicity in the crisis itself. If the world fails to act, including the U.S., it is not just complicit but responsible for the potential annihilation of an entire people.<\/p>\n

Many researchers on the Uyghur genocide attribute the world\u2019s passivity\u2014or silence\u2014towards the Uyghurs to political complexities, China\u2019s economic stronghold, and the difficulty of proving criminal intent to commit genocide (Waller and Albornoz, 2021; Debata, 2010). This paper builds on those explanations by introducing a new lens: Edward Said\u2019s concept of othering<\/em>\u2014the binary division between the dominant us<\/em> and marginalized them<\/em>\u2014a concept that resides at the core of the Uyghur genocide. I argue that the erasure of Uyghur identity and the world\u2019s passive complicity are shaped by deeper ideological forces, including Islamophobia and postcolonial hierarchies. Othering<\/em> reveals a twofold process in the context of Uyghurs\u2014China’s intent to eradicate Islamic identity and Islamophobia-fueled international silence\u2014enabling a modern-day Holocaust and potential annihilation of a people.<\/p>\n

My paper addresses the erasure of Uyghur identity by examining China\u2019s practices and their legitimization through international silence, especially in the UN Human Rights Council and International Criminal Court. The paper begins with a discussion of the theoretical foundation of the concept of othering<\/em> and applies it to the empirical context of Islamophobia and China\u2019s subjugation of Uyghur identity. The second section builds on this conceptual understanding to discuss CCP policies specifically in Xinjiang. The third section applies realist frameworks to interpret the global response and international failure to hold China accountable. The fourth section counters Chinese and international narratives about Uyghurs through digital ethnography that centers the voices of Uyghurs and human rights organizations. The concluding section analyzes the path forward in protecting human rights of Uyghurs through international institutions. My essay advocates for the use of Uyghur narratives to inform international law and policy on genocides and impending genocides, apartheid, and colonialism. Given the urgency for action to hold the CCP accountable and institute international reform, my work resuscitates the world\u2019s commitment to the principle of \u201cnever again\u201d in the context of a modern-day holocaust.<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/strong><\/p>\n

My research method is primarily informed by the need for a bottom-up approach when discussing the Uyghurs, which determined how often I consulted Uyghur testimony to understand the nature of violations. The accounts of the Uyghur people are important in understanding how they frame China\u2019s human rights violations, especially when different groups use social media like X (formerly known as Twitter) to raise awareness of the issue. I conducted a digital ethnography to survey the global discourse surrounding China\u2019s genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. I monitored posts from three active X (formerly known as Twitter) pages: (1) the U.S.-based X account called Uyghur Human Rights Project (U.H.R.P.), (2) Voice of Uyghurs (East Turkestan), and (3) China\u2019s State Council Information Office (S.C.I.O.). I collected a random sample of 5 posts per X page. The posts primarily consist of tweets, reposts from other accounts, and pictures. Ideally, these posts show the lived experiences of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang in the context of international claims against China\u2019s genocide, although in reality some posts may mostly capture the Uyghur narrative from a distance, depending on the account. Given the data\u2019s idiosyncratic nature, digital ethnography enabled me to determine the breadth of grassroots-level reactions that shape the social and political context surrounding China’s genocide.<\/p>\n

While digital ethnography conveniently allows monitoring Uyghur discourse online, it has its limitations. First, the content may be censored by political authorities or subject to algorithmic filters, which likely influenced the immediately available posts. Secondly, I was limited to posts in English only since I do not read Chinese or Uyghur. Even where translation was available via Google or AI, I was apprehensive about the possibility of poor translation or meanings lost in translation, hence I refrained from translated posts to limit the chance of misrepresenting the Uyghurs\u2019 lived experiences in Xinjiang. Despite these deficiencies, digital ethnography was still an effective means for data collection since it allowed me to center the subjects\u2019 perspective and reveal China\u2019s intentionality in committing genocide against the Uyghurs. More specifically, it showed instances of violence and the nature of the reeducation camps and how they camouflage the decline of Uyghur existence. The Uyghurs\u2019 understanding of their lived experiences exposes China\u2019s egregious behavior against them and shows the breadth of resilience and resistance of the Uyghur people.<\/p>\n

Literature Review<\/strong><\/p>\n

Understanding Othering<\/em><\/p>\n

In the Western canon, philosophical debates have engaged with the concept of the other<\/em>, particularly through the works of Hegel, who explored the relationship between self and other<\/em> in terms of consciousness and recognition. Hegel\u2019s dialectical framework posited that the other<\/em> is foundational to the realization of the self; self-consciousness, he argued, emerges through a dialectical process of interactions with and recognition of other consciousnesses. Unlike Hegel, who framed the notion of other<\/em> in relation to the self, postcolonial and poststructural theorists like Gramsci, Foucault, Said, and Spivak use the concept specifically as a tool to analyze how domination, knowledge, and power operate through the production of othering<\/em>. Othering<\/em>, as they argue, is central to the construction of subordinate groups and the domination of subjects, especially in the context of colonialism, racism, and patriarchy.<\/p>\n

Knowledge production as a form of power is central to the concept of othering<\/em>. Michel Foucault, for instance, analyzes the contingent nature of power and how it operates through discourse and knowledge production. He argues that knowledge is a manifestation of power, and suggests the need to\u00a0 excavate the relationship between knowledge and the historical context it derives from, as this form of archaeology aids our understanding of what it means to exist as the other<\/em>. He reminds us that power is omnipresent, \u201cdiffused and embodied in discourse, knowledge, and \u2018regimes of truth,\u2019\u201d which allows certain ideologies to prevail at the expense of others<\/em> (Foucault, 1981). Although multiple \u201cregimes of truth\u201d exist, specific discourse and knowledge become dominant while others<\/em> may gradually become recessive and may ultimately become extinct (Foucault, 1981). This is clear in the context of European colonialism and their reducing history to a single linear timeline and projecting it onto colonized groups\u2014 as European explorers often did\u2014further objectifies subject populations as the Other<\/em> by erasing their knowledge systems and rendering them marginal within dominant historical narratives (Foucault, 1980).<\/p>\n

Drawing from Foucault, power operates through the language and discourse that constructs the other<\/em>. While these dominant discourses contain gaps and contradictions, they continue to shape how others\u2019<\/em> identities are understood and perceived (Foucault, 1980). Edward Said, in his seminal book Orientalism, builds on this understanding of discourse as political and cultural subjugation to examine how representation and knowledge function as forms of power (1994). Said argues that the East was not simply discovered by the West but constructed through a system of representation that framed it as exotic, backward, and inferior\u2014a process that enabled the West to define itself as rational, modern, and superior. This process of claiming ideological superiority yielded to the power relations that allowed the Occident to gain power and dominance over the Orient\u2019s existence (Said, 1994). Sociologist Francesca Polletta et al. (2011) adds that even the language used in these incomplete narratives \u201ccasts\u201d the other<\/em> as a \u201cviolent onslaught.\u201d The framework used to create the narratives of the other<\/em> is a form of power that is determined by those controlling a population (Said, 1994). Said\u2019s intervention demonstrates that Othering<\/em> is not merely cultural but deeply political, as it becomes the ideological foundation for empires. Orientalism, then, is a form of Othering<\/em> that transforms difference into a logic of domination.<\/p>\n

Often absent from this discussion of how power, knowledge, and domination operate is a deeper consideration of hegemony. For the purposes of this discussion, Foucault\u2019s notion of \u201cregimes of truth\u201d can be put into dialogue with Antonio Gramsci\u2019s concept of \u201cdominant truths,\u201d which derive from the bourgeoisie culture within the state. Gramsci argues that power is maintained not through coercion but through consent. The ruling class embeds its values and worldviews into the cultural fabric of society and hence, the knowledge and stories about the other<\/em> is produced from the vantage of the dominant. The dominant ideology becomes naturalized, marginalizing dissenting or subaltern identities. Like Foucault, Gramsci unpacks the hegemonic structures, especially showing how the ruling class\u2019 dominance of \u201ca culturally diverse society […] becomes the accepted cultural norm\u201d (Gramsci, 1926). In this context, othering<\/em> becomes a tool for preserving racial, ethnic, class, and national hierarchies by making them appear neutral. Cultural hegemony thus is a tactic that relies on othering<\/em> to maintain a homogenous state identity and gradually desensitize the world towards the other<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Othering<\/em>, in this frame, is a business of creating the enemy\u2014a process that reinforced the dominance of European powers over non-European subjects by commodifying the narratives of difference. Benedict Anderson (2006) offers a historical perspective on how this process unfolded with the European \u201cdiscovery\u201d of previously unknown civilizations during the Age of Exploration. In his pathbreaking book, Imagined Communities<\/em>, Anderson writes that societies in China, Japan, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent were \u201cdimly rumored\u201d or completely unknown\u2014as were Aztec Mexico and Incan Peru. Most of these civilizations had developed independently of Europe’s known history, separate from Christendom and Antiquity. Their genealogies existed outside the Edenic framework and could not be assimilated into it. Only homogeneous, empty time would offer them accommodation.<\/p>\n

The discovery of these civilizations revealed what Anderson terms \u201cpluralism\u201d\u2014the coexistence of different cultures, norms, values, traditions, customs, governments, and identities, some that even preceded European formation. This pluralism embodied in these civilizations challenged European norms and values grounded in Christendom and Antiquity. It destabilized the European sense of continuous and universal history, prompting colonial powers to impose a single linear narrative upon non-European populations and commodify their stories. In doing so, Europe not only erased these societies’ autonomous histories but also commodified their differences, circulating distorted representations that reduced these diverse cultures to objects of imperial knowledge. The objectification of cultures and peoples gave rise to the binary of us versus them, the European versus the non-European other<\/em>. As Anderson demonstrates, the invention of the printing press further cemented the Eurocentric nation-building project and legitimized the colonization of non-European territories. Print capitalism reinforced the idea of homogeneous national identity and enabled the formation of what Anderson calls \u201cimagined communities.\u201d In the face of deep inequality, the imagined \u201chorizontal comradeship\u201d of nation-states cultivated loyalty to an identity built in part through the exclusion and othering<\/em> of those who lie outside its borders.<\/p>\n

In a culturally hegemonic state, the ruling class manipulates the \u2018subaltern\u2019 class, or the other<\/em>, into accepting the dominant worldview as natural and inevitable, asserting that the subaltern is incapable of having its own distinct political existence beyond state borders. Although Gramsci urges the subaltern class to claim its voice by restoring its history and using it to counter that of the bourgeoisie, he underestimates the strength of the dominant narrative and the long discursive lineage that follows from years of bourgeoisie indoctrination within the state. As Gramsci noted, the ruling class’ dominance never ceases, requiring the continuous minoritization of the subaltern, whose differences become increasingly marked (1926). Differences in practices, customs, norms, traditions, and history are all points that are subject to the ruling class\u2019 othering<\/em> or minoritization of the subaltern class. Eventually, the hegemonic project produces a homogeneous state that eliminates the subaltern\u2019s existence due to their original differences. Put differently, the ruling class\u2019 identity begins where the subaltern\u2019s identity ends. The implication of this state-endorsed hegemonic project is the inevitable eradication of the subaltern\u2019s original identity, allowing the ruling class to prevail without retribution or acknowledgment by the world. Especially in times of genocide, the subjectivity of knowledge gives rise to the question of who speaks for non-European subjects like the Uyghurs.<\/p>\n

In a similar vein, Gayatri Spivak, in her seminal essay Can the Subaltern Speak?<\/em>, takes the subaltern\u2019s position a step further. She argues that subalterns are not simply silenced but are structurally excluded and made invisible in political and meaning-making spaces. Any attempt to \u201crepresent\u201d the subaltern runs the risk of reproducing the very systems of power it seeks to critique. Her understanding of othering<\/em> (1999) reflects its colonial nature more vividly (1999). She writes it is \u201ca process by which the empire can define itself against those it colonizes, excludes and marginalizes. [\u2026] The business of creating the enemy\u2026in order that the empire might define itself by its geographical and racial others<\/em>\u201d (Spivak 1999). Spivak names the erasure of subaltern agency as epistemic violence. In Spivak\u2019s analysis, Othering<\/em> is not only a means of domination but a process of epistemic violence, whereby the subaltern is spoken for, appropriated, or erased by both colonial power and well-meaning intellectuals. Othering<\/em> is in other words a discursive containment, where even narratives of suffering can be co-opted into state or humanitarian logics that strip the subaltern of agency.<\/p>\n

This form of epistemic violence, as Spivak warns, is not always imposed from above by colonial authorities alone, but can also emerge through humanitarian narratives that speak on behalf of the subaltern while silencing their agency. Across literature on the Uyghur crisis, many scholars document the lived experiences of Uyghurs from various age groups, genders, occupations, and physical, and cognitive abilities in Xinjiang\u2019s reeducation camps. Upon compiling these narratives, many scholars cite the content in Uyghur testimonies as direct evidence of China’s complicity in genocide. For instance, Darren Byler (2020) uses the experiences of a young college student, whereas Rayhan Asat (2023) uses narratives of physically compromised Uyghurs who are largely precluded from global discourse. Byler and Asat\u2019s approach demonstrates prosecutorial finesse, but both works employ victim language and risk speaking for the Uyghur subjects rather than letting them share their authentic experiences themselves. Consequently, disseminating this victim language advances a fixed narrative of the Uyghurs as voiceless others<\/em> who are a distant concern for the international community, thus reinforcing the \u201cus versus them\u201d element of othering<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Despite being counterintuitive to Byler and Asat’s intent, using victim language is one instance when a single incomplete story about the Uyghurs is projected upon them, which constitutes othering<\/em> in itself. There are gaps in these stories that preclude the voices of Uyghur activists, survivors, and the work that they have achieved. Presently, these narratives about Uyghurs create a static representation of them as other<\/em>, in which the world may only view them as eternally suffering, helpless, vulnerable, voiceless victims who are incapable of reclaiming their existence and identity from China. This is not to minimize the pain and suffering that genocide entails, but the language that even human rights activists use can make it difficult for Uyghurs to excavate, restore, and communicate their history in its most authentic form, free from the narratives that China and the world project upon them.<\/p>\n

This discursive containment is not limited to scholarship or media; it also shapes the moral and political logics of global response. Samantha Power\u2019s A Problem from Hell<\/em> (2002) offers a compelling real world illustration of how othering<\/em> operates not only through language but also through foreign policy decisions and legal inaction in the face of genocide. She draws attention to the U.S.\u2019s indifference to the Rwandan genocide as a prime example to show how othering<\/em> resides at the core of state-sanctioned genocide and that geopolitical value, racialized perceptions, and cultural proximity shape the boundaries of the international community\u2019s moral obligation in responding to genocide. Comparing the U.S. response to the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides, Power demonstrates that while the United States elected to provide Bosnia with assistance, financial resources, military intervention, food, and water, it ignored the atrocity in Rwanda. The U.S.\u2019s disparate reaction was driven by more than just economic interests. From a postcolonial lens, Power argues that the U.S. perceived Rwanda as the other<\/em>\u2014a fundamentally inferior and politically insignificant place of perpetual warfare and irrelevance. It was not considered to be part of the \u2018us\u2019 to whom international norms and responsibility applied. Power posits that \u201cothering<\/em> absolves us of responsibility, allowing us to turn a blind eye to the suffering of those who do not fit our narrow definition of \u2018us\u2019\u201d (2002, 175 & 205).<\/p>\n

For Power, the Rwandan Genocide illustrates how othering<\/em> functions as a \u201cproject of categorization and dehumanization, of differentiation and discrimination (that) demonize(s) adversaries, spurring one\u2019s own group to action, uniting the group and justifying extremism\u201d (2002, 55). This definition captures the tragic consequences that come with othering<\/em>, which include but are not limited to dehumanization, discrimination, and demonization. While Power does not explicitly account for how othering<\/em> is inherently colonial like Said, her account foregrounds how global hierarchies operate through embedded assumptions about who counts as fully human or politically meaningful, whose voice counts, but more importantly, who decides whose voice counts.<\/p>\n

This political othering<\/em> that Power identifies extends into legal institutions as well. Legal scholar Robert Cover (1983) draws attention to legal narratives and how they uphold\u2014or erase\u2014violence. For Cover, law is a \u201cbridge linking a concept of reality to an imagined alternative,\u201d shaped by the stories societies tell about themselves. These narratives \u201care the codes that relate our normative system to our social constructions of reality and to our visions of what the world might be\u201d (Cover, 1983). In the context of law and courts, judicial decisions are projections of the legal imagination of judges. He describes judges as \u201coutsiders looking in at state violence,\u201d often deferring to authoritarian power\u2014whether through court orders or administrative systems. This deference mirrors the state\u2019s othering<\/em> of minority groups and demonstrates that legal frameworks reinforce, rather than disrupt, structural violence. The judicial acceptance of state violence normalizes the state’s othering<\/em> of religious or ethnic groups within the state. Essentially, the significance of Cover\u2019s work lies in exposing the subjectivity that often infects judicial institutions that administer decisions about religious and ethnic groups from a distance.<\/p>\n

Legal institutions, then, are not neutral arbiters but are shaped by the same hegemonic narratives that define the Other<\/em>. This framework is particularly revealing when examining the international community\u2019s legal response to the Uyghur genocide. Despite mounting evidence and formal declarations of genocide by several Western nations, international legal bodies have largely failed to act. In 2020, for instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) dismissed Uyghur testimony, claiming jurisdictional limitations (Al Jazeera, 2020). That same year, a motion in the U.N. Human Rights Council to debate the situation in Xinjiang was rejected by several Muslim-majority nations, effectively thwarting an unprecedented opportunity to hold Beijing accountable (Wang, 2023). These refusals mirror not just silence but a legal erasure that legitimizes the violence itself.<\/p>\n

This erasure is not limited to legal institutions; it also emerges through narrative frameworks that silence subaltern voices under the guise of representation. When we consider Said\u2019s argument about the Occident and compare it with China\u2019s construction of Uyghur identity on social media, we see how the Uyghurs are repeatedly othered<\/em> by China, the ICC, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and even the nations that formally recognized genocide. This accounts for the frequent judicial \u201cdeference to the authoritarian application of violence\u201d that Cover speaks of (1983). The international judicial deference toward authoritarian application of violence normalizes China\u2019s othering<\/em> of the Uyghurs, leaving them with virtually no institutional intermediary to intervene and advocate for them. The imposition of Chinese laws that target the Uyghurs destabilizes the Uyghurs\u2019 legal and social structures, thus preventing them from forming a truly autonomous region grounded in their traditional Islamic values and culture.<\/p>\n

The ICC\u2019s response to the Uyghur genocide also exemplifies Cover\u2019s point on the indifference in judicial response to state-sanctioned violence. As an \u201coutsider looking in at state violence,\u201d the ICC continuously defers to China\u2019s \u201cauthoritarian application of violence\u201d in its dismissal of Uyghur testimony delivered by Uyghur nationals, legal representatives, and human rights activists since the first attempt in 2020. This deference effectively turns a blind eye toward the Uyghurs. When the ICC and the U.N. Human Rights Council administers their decisions from a distance, they prolong the Uyghurs’ suffering and delay their path to international accountability.<\/p>\n

In contrast to China\u2019s sanitized narrative of denial, the Uyghurs have voiced a disturbing, chilling reality of state-sanctioned genocide. At one point, nations like China were categorized and represented as the “Orient” or the Other<\/em> while European powers were framed as the “Occident.” However, the nations in these positions of power and subjugation are not fixed. The sites of power are nested and dynamic; nations’ capacities within the Orient and Occident have mutated throughout history. That said, the concepts of othering<\/em>, Orientalism (as a form of othering<\/em> that targets non-European nations), and cultural hegemony, which fuels a state’s quest for homogeneous national identity, are all applicable to the Uyghur crisis. In this case, China reinscribes these hierarchies internally, reproducing Orientalist logics in its treatment of the Uyghurs. China has assumed the role of the Occident, the bourgeoisie, and the dominant “Self,” whereas the Uyghurs represent the Orient, the subaltern, and the Other<\/em>.<\/p>\n

While scholars agree that China’s genocide against the Uyghurs is wrongfully met with international silence, existing explanations remain insufficient. Some scholars point to economic and political factors: Dr. James Waller and Dr. Mariana Albornoz (2021) argue that the international community fears China’s economic and political reprisal, while Mahesh Debata (2010) suggests that silence toward Uyghurs represents a strategic choice to maintain trade relations with China. Others<\/em> focus on legal challenges: Caylan Ford (2022) and Dr. Helen Hintjens (2021) agree that China’s actions constitute genocide but argue that proving China’s intent remains difficult, accounting for international inaction. A few scholars have begun to examine Islamophobia as a factor. Ali \u00c7aksu (2020) identifies how Islamophobia manifests through various forms of internment, including the reeducation camps targeting Uyghurs. However, even this work overlooks the deeper question of why international institutions remain silent about China’s internment system. While these economic, legal, and religious explanations offer important insights, they fail to account for the underlying ideological forces that enable both China’s internal subjugation of Uyghurs and the international community’s passive complicity. This gap in the literature points to the need for a theoretical framework that can explain both the domestic othering<\/em> within China and the international silence that enables it. Said’s concept of othering<\/em>, understood as a dynamic rather than fixed process, provides this framework.<\/p>\n

Building on Said’s Orientalism, the Orient\/Occident binary is not geographically fixed but shifts with power dynamics. Functioning as the Occident in this context, China’s narrative is more dominant, so information that it reproduces about the Uyghurs (or the Orient) is constructed to defend China’s image as an upright state that is wrongfully accused of genocide. However, where China\u2019s acts of deception and manipulation of global discourse end, the solidarity of the Uyghur community and its pursuit of truth begins. At its core, othering<\/em> is a mechanism of violence that has been used to legitimize domination and exclusion. Postcolonial scholars like Carol Breckenridge and Arjun Appadurai (1994) argue that colonial powers developed their national identities through othering <\/em>marginalized populations. Breckenridge adds that the violence of othering<\/em> traumatizes future generations of the othered<\/em>. Similarly, Emmanuel L\u00e9vinas and Nidra Poller (2006) argue that othering<\/em> constitutes a form of violence, as it weaponizes the other\u2019s<\/em> humanity, narrative, culture, and existence. In a broader context, the violent nature of othering<\/em> has the potential to sponsor cultural obliteration of marginalized populations and provides the ideological foundation for genocide, often enabled by international silence.<\/p>\n

The mechanism of othering<\/em> is not strictly confined to Western colonial contexts but represents dynamic, shifting power relations. As demonstrated in the Uyghur case, China functions as the dominant power that others<\/em> the Uyghurs, while international institutions perpetuate this othering<\/em> through legal inaction and narrative erasure. The process becomes particularly visible in the context of international silence toward the Uyghurs. Despite the fact that othering<\/em> is a foundational mechanism that enables ethnic cleansing and genocide, the concept does not receive attention in international criminal law. This silence becomes particularly evident in China\u2019s impunity within international institutions. The ICC and U.N. Human Rights Council\u2019s dismissal of Uyghur testimonies, along with the inaction of nations that declared genocide, constitutes a form of othering<\/em> that enables China to continue its oppression (Al Jazeera 2022). This systematic othering<\/em> decreases the possibility of meaningful intervention and allows heightened abuses against the Uyghurs to continue without international accountability.<\/p>\n

Taken together, these interventions and China\u2019s actions against the Uyghurs raise a difficult but essential question: what happens when states that were once themselves othered<\/em> reproduce similar hierarchies within their own borders? It calls for, as I argue, attention to the processes of mutation and the underlying power dynamics that produce internal othering<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Legal Impunity and Institutional Othering in the ICC’s Response to Uyghur Genocide<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today, there is a controversial debate about whether China’s actions against the Uyghurs amount to genocide. According to Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is a crime that contains the following:<\/p>\n

A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting upon the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [or]<\/p>\n

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. A mental element: the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” (United Nations, 2022).<\/p>\n

Additionally, the convention not only defines genocide but also outlines international obligation to prevent and act against genocide. It states\u2014any country that is a signatory and either suspects or formally declares genocide is obligated to act immediately and combat the genocide until the point of its termination (United Nations, 2022). Regardless of whether states have ratified the Convention, they are all bound \u201cas a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under international law\u201d (United Nations, 2022). As a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, the U.S. formally declared that China is committing genocide against the Uyghurs (U.S. Department of State, 2021). If it continuously fails to act and end the genocide immediately, then the U.S. and any other nation that declared genocide is rendered complicit under international law. While the U.N. alleges that China’s actions against the Uyghurs amount to crimes against humanity, the U.S. formally declared that a state-sanctioned genocide was occurring in Xinjiang against the Uyghurs on January 19, 2021 (US Department of State, 2021). While it is critical to refrain from using the label \u201cgenocide\u201d loosely, we must also not minimize the underlying acts of killing, the serious bodily and mental harm, and the deplorable conditions that are fueled by China’s intention to eliminate the Uyghur population. That said, I will adopt the U.S. stance that China’s actions against the Uyghurs amount to genocide, based on groundbreaking Uyghur testimony and evidence from U.N. reports.<\/p>\n

Two elements of the genocide convention deem consideration in light of complaints by Uyghurs in the ICC: whether China\u2019s actions can be defined as genocide, and if ICC has jurisdiction over China, since it is not a signatory of the Rome Statute. Unlike other grave crimes, such as crimes against humanity, genocide requires that a nation demonstrate specific intentionality, also known as dolus specialis<\/em>, which is a high burden of proof for the alleging nation (United Nations, 2022). Given this legal framework and the U.S. determination of genocide, the international community’s response\u2014particularly through legal institutions like the ICC\u2014becomes crucial for accountability.<\/p>\n

On July 6, 2020, Uyghur survivors and legal representatives submitted allegations against China to the ICC Prosecutor’s Office. According to the ICC Prosecutor’s Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (2020), Chinese officials committed \u201cmurder, deportation, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty, torture, enforced sterilisation, persecution, enforced disappearance and other inhuman acts … in the context of (Uyghur) detention in mass internment camps in China.\u201d Despite the seriousness of the complaint, the ICC Prosecutor\u2019s Office refused to take the case to the courts, signifying the first real distancing between international legal institutions and the Uyghurs. Even during the first Pre-Trial Chamber, the ICC determined that it \u201cdid not have jurisdiction under article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute\u201d (ICC Prosecutor Rejects Uighur Genocide Complaint against China, 2020).<\/p>\n

The ICC also reasoned that \u201cactus reus or active crime was committed solely by Chinese nationals within the territory of China, a State which is not a party to the Statute\u201d (ICC Prosecutor Rejects Uighur Genocide Complaint against China, 2020). As a non-signatory to the Rome Statute, China is not subject to the ICC\u2019s jurisdiction and cannot be tried in ICC court. The court also determined that territorial jurisdiction \u201cdid not appear to be met with respect to the majority of the crimes alleged in the communication (genocide, crimes against humanity of murder, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty, torture, enforced sterilisation and other inhumane acts\u201d (Office of the Prosecutor, 2020).<\/p>\n

The prosecutor’s office, when addressing China\u2019s deportation (actus reus<\/em>) that occurred in Cambodia and Tajikistan, both of which are signatories to the Rome Statute (2002), acknowledged that China\u2019s actions \u201cappear to raise concerns with respect to their conformity with national and international law, including international human rights law and international refugee law, (but) it does not appear that such conduct would amount to (even) the crime against humanity of deportation\u201d (Office of the Prosecutor, 2020).<\/p>\n

There are exceptions to the ICC\u2019s response and rationale, however. According to international attorney Rodney Dixon, the \u201cevidence presented to the (ICC) prosecutor’s office uncovers a pervasive plan to round up Uyghurs in neighboring countries, including an ICC member State, and elsewhere, to force them back into China\u201d (Hui, 2021). Dixon also contends that the ICC could act because the deportations occurred in Tajikistan and Cambodian territory, both of which are ICC members. The ICC\u2019s argument contradicts \u201ca precedent set when the court\u2019s judges ruled that the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate abuses against Myanmar\u2019s Rohingya minority, despite Myanmar not being a member of the court, because thousands of Rohingyas were forced to flee to Bangladesh, which is an ICC member\u201d (Office of the Prosecutor, 2020). The ICC\u2019s differential treatment becomes particularly evident when contrasted with its handling of the Rohingya case, where similar jurisdictional challenges did not prevent investigation.<\/p>\n

Other petitions to the ICC to reconsider have been made, but its initial response demonstrates its lack of expediency and willful blindness toward Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang. This selective application of jurisdictional limitations exemplifies Cover\u2019s concept of legal institutions deferring to authoritarian power when the victims are othered<\/em> populations\u2014in this case, Muslim minorities. Together, this reflects how the ICC perceives Uyghurs as an exception in its determination of who is worth saving, even in times of genocide. This reveals that Islamophobia extends beyond interactions between Western nations and Muslims to legal institutions that ignore religious persecution amounting to genocide. The ICC\u2019s response exemplifies how legal institutions perpetuate othering<\/em> through selective application of jurisdictional rules, effectively enabling China’s impunity while reinforcing Islamophobic hierarchies that determine which populations deserve international protection.<\/p>\n

China’s Systematic Othering<\/em> and Deceptive Narratives<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ICC is not unique; its institutional othering<\/em> of Uyghurs reflects a broader pattern in which China has successfully repositioned itself from the \u2018Orient\u2019 to the \u2018Occident\u2019 in Said\u2019s framework. Having once been subjected to Western orientalism, China now deploys similar mechanisms of othering<\/em> against its own Muslim minorities. This transformation reveals that orientalist logics can mutate across different power relations. China has assumed the role of the Occident to construct Uyghur identity as fundamentally threatening to Han Chinese nationalism. This section traces China\u2019s campaign against Uyghurs, from demographic engineering to surveillance, revealing intentionality and the systemic nature of this othering<\/em> process.<\/p>\n

Today, over 90% of China\u2019s population identifies as Han Chinese, which constitutes the ethnic majority. (Central Intelligence Agency, 2024). Like any nation, China\u2019s interest in preserving its culture, secular interests, politics, and nationalism are legitimate, but its efforts to further secure its ethnic majority have reached a new impetus. China\u2019s end goal of achieving a homogenous state wrongfully justifies its means of eradicating the Uyghurs through the imposition of the dominant Han culture. In addition, the CCP is known for its traditions of secular statehood, atheist platform, Mandarin language, and CCP ideology. When the state refers to the Han Chinese, this label solidifies those within Han Chinese culture while excluding those in its periphery, particularly the Uyghurs who were incorporated into China (Chaudhuri, 2013). China’s interest in maintaining ethnic and cultural homogeneity is evident in its forced renunciation of Islam, which constitutes cultural conversion of the Uyghurs from Uyghur to Han Chinese identity. Consequently, the reinforcement of Han Chinese culture from within the state excludes Uyghurs, who remain in the geographical and cultural periphery (Chaudhuri, 2013).<\/p>\n

China’s systematic othering<\/em> of Uyghurs began with demographic manipulation. Between the 19th and 20th centuries, Uyghurs constituted the ethnic majority in East Turkestan (also known as Uyghuristan), a region that \u201cfell in and out of China’s control\u201d (Kanat, 2017). By 1955, China incorporated East Turkestan \u201cinto the People’s Republic of China as the \u2018Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region\u2019\u201d (Kanat, 2017). At this point, Han Chinese comprised approximately 10% of the population, but China initiated state-sponsored Han Chinese migration that significantly reduced the Uyghur majority in their homeland. By 2010, Han Chinese comprised 40% of the population compared with Uyghurs at 46% (Kanat, 2017)<\/p>\n

China’s forced migration was facilitated by the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, \u201ca paramilitary agricultural organization started under Mao Zedong\u201d that organized migration and maintained jurisdiction over Xinjiang, securing China\u2019s legal and political dominance (Kanat, 2017). This created a border system that was permeable for Han Chinese immigrants but rigid for Uyghurs, despite the fact that Xinjiang was their homeland. Furthermore, the Chinese government offered Han Chinese \u201chigh wages if they move from northern cities to the Uyghur-dominated south to join the police or work as teachers,\u201d while Uyghur-dominated cities \u201ccontinued to have stricter education and income requirements for obtaining residency permits\u201d (Kanat, 2017). The intention behind incentives to Han Chinese to join police forces and education becomes apparent in the context of surveillance and reeducation of Uyghurs. While the creation of a robust police force enabled China to monitor and control the Uyghur population through \u201cpolice checkpoints, house searches, and arbitrary detainment in reeducation centers\u201d, Han Chinese teachers carried out the mission to indoctrinate Uyghurs and force them to renounce their Islamic faith and cultural existence (Kanat, 2017). These policies eliminated \u201cthe use of Uyghur language in bilingual schools, which now operate only in Mandarin\u201d (Kanat, 2017).<\/p>\n

The War on Terror as Justification<\/strong><\/p>\n

China has consistently justified its persecution of Uyghurs by claiming it is a counterterrorism measure. In a post-9\/11 context, China positioned itself within the Global War on Terrorism, arguing that \u201cits actions against the Uyghurs are part of the Global War of Terrorism\u201d and that it would \u201ccombat the \u2018three evils\u2019\u2014separatism, religious extremism, and international terrorism\u2014at all costs\u201d (Maizland, 2022). This framework allowed China to characterize \u201call Uyghurs as potential terrorists or terrorist sympathizers\u201d due to their Islamic faith (Maizland, 2022). In 2017, for example, Xinjiang province \u201cpassed an anti-extremism law prohibiting people from growing long beards and wearing veils in public.\u201d (Maizland, 2022). By banning \u201clong beards and wearing veils in public,\u201d China restricted the practice of Islamic faith and identity. China even argued that this expression of Islam is reminiscent of radical \u201cextremism\u201d such as that of the 9\/11 terrorists, who were an extremist sect of Islam.<\/p>\n

The 2009 \u00dcr\u00fcmqi riots marked \u201ca turning point in Beijing\u2019s attitude towards Uyghurs\u201d (Maizland, 2022). Although these riots were in reality protests by Uyghurs \u201cagainst state-incentivized Han Chinese migration in the region and widespread economic and cultural discrimination,\u201d China used these events to justify a comprehensive crackdown (Maizland, 2022). Rather than addressing individual perpetrators, China subjected all Uyghurs to collective punishment based on their shared religious and ethnic identity.<\/p>\n

Within five years after the riots, President Xi Jinping announced that \u201call religions were to conform to the People’s Republic of China atheist party’s doctrines and the majority Han-Chinese society\u2019s customs\u201d out of fear that other religions would \u201cspur separatism\u201d (Maizland, 2022). Building on this framework, President Xi warned of the \u201ctoxicity of religious extremism\u201d and urged the government to utilize \u201cdictatorship\u201d to counter it (Ramzey & Buckley, 2019). Although he \u201cdid not explicitly call for arbitrary detention,\u201d Xi \u201claid the groundwork for the crackdown in Xinjiang\u201d (Maizland, 2022). In 2016, former Tibetan leader Chen Quanguo relocated to Xinjiang as Communist Party Secretary, bringing experience from Tibet where he had \u201cincreased the number of police and security checkpoints, as well as state control over monasteries\u201d (Maizland, 2022). Within one year of Quanguo’s appointment, reeducation camps were officially recognized for eliminating \u201creligious extremism,\u201d old centers were \u201crefashioned into high-security checkpoints,\u201d and existing facilities drastically expanded (Maizland, 2022).<\/p>\n

Technological Surveillance and AI Targeting<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since 2019 China has deployed artificial intelligence, especially AI facial recognition software,\u00a0 as \u201ca racial profiling mechanism for Uyghurs\u201d (Hernandez & Faith, 2023). AI facial recognition software \u201calerts law enforcement officials if Uyghur numbers increase so police can carry out their goal of managing and controlling sensitive groups\u201d (Mozur, 2019). This technology detects Uyghurs based on \u201cfacial and physiological features, including skin pigmentation\u201d (Mozur, 2019), creating an inherently racist surveillance system. The AI system reflects the stereotyping of Uyghurs as \u201cextremists\u201d and their treatment as a \u201csensitive group\u201d whose population increases are offensive to Han Chinese nationalism (Maizland, 2022). It is noted that within a month of implementation of these technologies, Chinese law enforcement identified over 500,000 Uyghurs and subjected them to arbitrary arrest and detainment (Mozur, 2019).<\/p>\n

Detention and Deception: From \u201cVocational Training\u201d to \u201cHospitals for Mental Illness\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The increase in surveillance has been marked by budget increases to create detention centers. China\u2019s budget for building new security facilities in Xinjiang increased by nearly $3 billion in 2017 alone (Zenz, 2018). However, these centers are deceptively labeled as \u201cjob-training centers,” “reeducation centers,” and “vocational centers” (Maizland, 2022). The deceptive labeling of detention facilities reveals both its awareness of international scrutiny and its intent to continue operations. When pressed, officials explained that these are \u201chospitals for ideological illness because they consider Islam a mental disease\u201d (Mozur, 2019). This medicalization of Islamic identity represents perhaps the most explicit expression of China’s Islamophobic worldview.<\/p>\n

The reality inside these facilities contradicts China\u2019s benevolent descriptions. The U.N. Human Rights Office documented \u201cpatterns of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment\u201d as well as sexual abuse against Uyghur women (Hill et al., 2021). Detainees are \u201cforcibly medicated with unknown substances\u201d and subjected to forced organ removal (U.S. Department of State, 2024). The facilities operate under\u201d prison-like conditions\u201d where \u201csleep deprivation\u201d is common, and \u201cfailure to quickly learn lessons leads to beatings and food deprivation\u201d (Denyer, 2018; Maizland, 2022).<\/p>\n

China\u2019s deception also extends to false promises of closure. In 2019, officials claimed they would close reeducation camps, with the Xinjiang governor stating that detainees had \u201cgraduated\u201d (Maizland, 2022). However, satellite images revealed an \u201congoing system of mass detention,\u201d with researchers identifying more than 380 suspected detention facilities (Ruser, 2020). China had simply \u201crefashioned some lower-security reeducation camps into formal detention centers or prisons and constructed new, high-security detention centers throughout Xinjiang.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Reality of Systematic Oppression<\/strong><\/p>\n

The cumulative effect of these policies creates what journalists describe as an \u201copen-air prison\u201d due to \u201cpervasive surveillance across Xinjiang\u201d (Maizland, 2022). Uyghurs face restrictions on \u201cservices at mosques; having more than three children; and sending texts containing Quranic verses\u201d (Maizland, 2022). Chinese officials have demolished \u201cthousands of mosques\u201d and \u201cconverted some into Communist propaganda centers,\u201d while remaining mosques \u201care often guarded and monitored, with entry limited via checkpoints with electronic ID scanners\u201d (Maizland, 2022). These restrictions deny Uyghurs the right to live authentically. They cannot openly practice their faith, gather in places of worship, have families of their choosing, or communicate their religious beliefs. The Uyghur existence in Xinjiang has been \u201cmodified and manipulated by Han Chinese majority\u2019s restrictive policies,\u201d forcing compliance to avoid further persecution and fundamentally denying Uyghur humanity and dignity.<\/p>\n

As Uyghur Human Rights Activist Omer Kanat observes, \u201cThe state cannot simultaneously assimilate and discriminate against Uyghurs\u201d (Kanat, 2017). Yet this contradiction serves China\u2019s purposes, allowing it to claim equality while systematically destroying Uyghur identity. China’s statements present \u201ca modified version of Uyghur existence that does not invoke skepticism from the international community,\u201d exploiting the fact that \u201caccess to Uyghur testimony is severely limited due to China’s restrictions on freedom of speech.\u201d Since 2020, mounting evidence has exposed China’s systematic campaign. As Adrian Zenz noted, \u201cwe already know all that we really need to know\u201d (2019). Despite this evidence, the ICC dismissed Uyghur complaints, thus enabling China\u2019s impunity through selective application of jurisdictional rules.<\/p>\n

Realist International Legal Order and China’s Impunity<\/strong><\/p>\n

The sovereign equality of all states, which undergirds international law, does not always manifest within the aggressive reality of international politics. In the words of Antonio Cassese, the first President of the International Criminal Tribunal, “In principle, all States are equal” and all states “possess full legal capacity, that is, the ability to be vested with rights, powers, and obligations” (Cassese, 2005, pp. 198\u2013212). However, in reality, “one particular class\u2014a handful of States with strong economic and military systems\u2014holds authority in the international community” (Cassese, 2005, pp. 198\u2013212). This reality reveals how realist power dynamics shape international responses to atrocity crimes, privileging economic and military strength over human rights considerations.<\/p>\n

Hierarchy of International Power<\/strong><\/p>\n

Realism, as an international relations theory that emerged after World War II, defines state survival primarily through three metrics: economic strength, material interests, and military capacity (Slaughter, 2012). It is, as Slaughter claims, defined by its polarity, emerging right after the most horrific genocide in human history that resulted in the deaths of nearly 6,000,000 Jews. Despite the framework\u2019s inherent weakness, it precludes consideration of critical variables such as human security, the effects of war, family life, and global class relations and reduces nations to their economy and militaristic existence, it is the prevailing approach to international relations.<\/p>\n

According to realist logic, states operate as rational actors whose \u201cprincipal goal is survival,\u201d making them prioritize \u201csufficient power to defend themselves and advance their material interests\u201d over humanitarian concerns (Slaughter, 2012). This framework inherently marginalizes considerations of human security, family life, and the experiences of minority populations.The realist worldview rests on four critical assumptions: survival as the primary state goal, rationality in pursuing self-interest, uncertainty about neighbors\u2019 intentions, and the decisive role of \u201cGreat Powers\u201d with superior economic and military capabilities (Slaughter, 2012). Under this logic, \u201cstate power is the key\u2014indeed, the only\u2014variable of interest, because only through power can States defend themselves and hope to survive\u201d (Slaughter, 2012). This singular focus on power accumulation creates conditions where human rights violations can be overlooked when committed by economically and militarily powerful states.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn such an anarchic system, State power is the key\u2014 indeed, the only\u2014 variable of interest, because only through power can States defend themselves and hope to survive.\u201d (Slaughter, 2012). The United States, for example, may be considered Realist in its pursuit of economic and military development. The variables of interest, primarily its economy and military that we typically associate with the U.S., are not accidental. In other words, the U.S. is known for its economic strength and military readiness, which are key to its identity. Powerful states\u2019 quest for dominance never ceases, insinuating a Gramscian-style hegemonic approach without restraint, which legitimizes dominance over \u201cculturally diverse society […] so that the worldview of the dominant ruling class becomes the accepted cultural norm.\u201d (Gramsci, 1926).<\/p>\n

The UN Security Council as Realist Institution<\/strong><\/p>\n

The UN Security Council exemplifies how realist principles structure international governance. Created after World War II to \u201caddress the failings of the League of Nations in maintaining world peace\u201d (Tandon, 1969), the Council grants permanent membership and veto power to five \u201cGreat Powers\u201d\u2014the United States, China, France, Russia, and Britain. As the only UN body authorized to issue legally binding resolutions and sanctions, the Security Council concentrates decisive power in the hands of states that achieved their positions through economic and military dominance (United Nations, 1945).<\/p>\n

There is legitimacy to the existence of the five U.N. Security Council permanent members, one of the primary reasons being that the permanency prevents terrorist-seeking nations from obtaining more power on the international stage. In the recent past, the U.N. Security Council sanctioned Iran regarding its nuclear program, alleged advocacy for terrorism, and condemned Iraq for invading Kuwait in 1991 (Meisler, 1995, 264-277). This structure creates inherent contradictions. While the Council exists to maintain international peace and security, its composition privileges the very states most likely to commit or enable atrocities through their pursuit of hegemonic power. The permanent members\u2019 veto authority means that any one of them can block international action, effectively placing them above international law when their interests are threatened.<\/p>\n

China\u2019s Exploitation of Realist Structures<\/strong><\/p>\n

China\u2019s treatment of Uyghurs and lack of accountability shows the power it wields in the UN. As a permanent member of the Security Council, China has veto power. In addition, China has leveraged its economic and military influence to extend its control and persecution of Uyghur people beyond its borders. As Deputy Assistant Secretary Scott Busby testified to the US Senate, \u201cFleeing China is not enough to escape the long arm of the Chinese Communist Party. China has routinely pressured other countries to return Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and members of other Muslim minority groups to China\u201d (United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 2018). China\u2019s reach extends even to jurisdictions legally obligated to prevent genocide. Busby notes that \u201cin 2015, Thailand returned nearly 100 Uyghurs to China, and roughly 50 remain in detention in Thailand today. In July 2017, Egyptian authorities deported two dozen Uyghurs, who promptly disappeared upon arriving in China\u201d (2018).<\/p>\n

Even countries that are signatories to the Rome Statute\u2014and thus legally required to prevent genocide\u2014circumvent their obligations when faced with Chinese economic and political pressure. Busby claims, China persuaded other countries \u201cto arrest Uyghur dissidents on politically motivated charges\u201d through INTERPOL, with \u201cDolkun Isa, the President of the World Uyghur Congress, repeatedly detained and harassed around the world due to an INTERPOL Red Notice issued based on China\u2019s false accusation of terrorism\u201d (2018). Although INTERPOL eventually rescinded the notice, the incident demonstrates how China weaponizes international institutions against Uyghur activists.<\/p>\n

The Silencing of Uyghur Voices<\/strong><\/p>\n

China\u2019s systematic suppression of Uyghur testimony reveals the deliberate nature of its campaign. As Busby testified, \u201cthe government blocks U.S. press and social media websites and imprisons its people for sharing their opinions online\u201d (2018). This information control ensures that Uyghur narratives remain marginalized while Chinese state narratives dominate international discourse.<\/p>\n

Even Chinese citizens who advocate for Uyghur rights face severe punishment. Human rights lawyer Wang Quanzhang was \u201cimprisoned for over three years because of his work defending in court those whose human rights were abused\u201d and was \u201csentenced to four and a half years for subverting state power\u201d (Wu, 2023; Busby, 2018). Similarly, Huang Qi, who founded the Tianwang Human Rights Center to track human rights abuses, has been \u201cin and out of prison since 1998\u201d and was reportedly tortured \u201cto extract a confession to \u2018leaking state secrets overseas\u2019\u201d (Busby, 2018).<\/p>\n

The Limitations of Humanitarian Discourse<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even well-intentioned advocacy can inadvertently perpetuate othering<\/em> through victim language. Human rights activist Rayhan Asat, while documenting the experiences of \u201cinvisible victims who often can\u2019t comply with authorities\u2019 demands,\u201d risks reinforcing narratives that cast Uyghurs as permanently helpless (2023). The phrase \u201cinvisible victim\u201d implies that Uyghurs are \u201cunseen or incapable of being recognized by the world,\u201d potentially advancing \u201ca fixed narrative of the Uyghurs as an essentialized other<\/em> who can never be anyone more than a distant concern for the international community.\u201d This victim language, while intended to mobilize support, constitutes \u201cothering<\/em> in disguise\u201d that \u201cweaponizes the Other’s<\/em> humanity and existence\u201d (L\u00e9vinas, 2006). Such discourse must be carefully examined to ensure it does not inadvertently support the very othering<\/em> processes it seeks to combat.<\/p>\n

Realism as Modern Colonialism<\/strong><\/p>\n

The international community\u2019s response to the Uyghur crisis demonstrates how realist structures enable modern forms of colonialism. Just as colonial Britain and France defined themselves against Orient nations, China now \u201cexudes the Occident role against the Uyghurs who constitute the Orient\u201d within an international system that continues to privilege dominant powers (Said, 1994). The UN Security Council’s realist foundation means that \u201cactions that amount to genocide against minority subjects are overlooked or even tolerated, mainly when they occur within a nation in a position of power like China\u201d<\/p>\n

This analysis reveals that the international community’s silence toward Uyghurs is not merely a failure of political will but a structural feature of a system designed to privilege economic and military power over human rights. As long as international institutions operate according to realist logic, powerful states like China will continue to exploit these structures to avoid accountability for atrocity crimes against marginalized populations.<\/p>\n

Listening to Uyghur Voices: Digital Ethnography and the Language of Resistance<\/strong><\/p>\n

If we listen closely, we can hear the world\u2019s silence towards the Uyghurs. When it dismissed the Uyghur petitions in 2020, the ICC rejected the firsthand account of people\u2019s experiences in Xinjiang. The ICC prosecutor reasoned that the ICC does not have jurisdiction to hear the case since China is not an ICC member. However, attorneys and human rights activists arrived at a much different conclusion, showing that the ICC did have jurisdiction since the mass deportations occurred in regions that are ICC members.<\/p>\n

At a macro level, the ICC\u2019s rejection of petitions and Uyghur testimony mirrors\u00a0 the global dismissal of Uyghur narratives. Besides, even those who attempt to mobilize the issue, do so from a distance, so we rarely ever hear the Uyghur narrative in its distilled authentic form, as told by Uyghurs themselves. It is quite rare for the world to directly engage with the Uyghurs\u2019 \u201chistories and struggles\u201d and how they are \u201crelegated to the margins of international legal theory, primarily as a consequence of colonialism and imperialism\u201d (Wong, 2017, p. 4). So often, the language we may use to describe the Uyghurs advances a fixed representation of them as an essentialized other<\/em>. There is an apparent \u201clanguage of oppression\u201d or \u201clanguage of trauma,\u201d which does not empower the international community to confront China. That said, a bottom-up approach, like TWAIL, that amplifies the lived experiences of the Uyghurs may constitute a more appropriate means for restoring a balance of power between the Uyghurs and China.<\/p>\n

The top-down approach to international relations, which state governments and human rights organizations currently use to discuss the Uyghur genocide, does not consult the Uyghur subjects\u2019 perspective. Consequently, speaking for the Uyghurs allows for contributions to be made to \u201cthe perpetration of neo-colonialism\u201d without retribution under international law (Wong, 2017, p. 4).<\/p>\n

In this context, \u201cperpetration of neo-colonialism\u201d refers to China\u2019s physical, legal, institutional, and systemic targeting of the Uyghurs, as well as the world\u2019s conformity through silence. As established previously, even with the efforts of human rights activists, much of their work incorporates a \u201clanguage of oppression\u201d and victimization of the Uyghurs, which advances this fixed representation as other<\/em>, despite that this is contrary to their intent to build solidarity. Prior to confronting China, we must shift from using a \u201clanguage of oppression\u201d to a \u201clanguage of emancipation,\u201d which TWAIL provides for those \u201c[seeking to] re-conceptuali[ze \u2026] international rules and subsequent reformation of institutions in light of the lack of representation of the Third World perspective in existing international law rules\u201d (Wong, 2017, p. 5).<\/p>\n

Digital Ethnography<\/strong><\/p>\n

The following analysis of social media posts reveals three distinct narrative frameworks: China’s sanitized propaganda, well-intentioned but distanced human rights discourse, and authentic Uyghur voices of resistance.<\/p>\n

China’s Sanitized Narratives<\/em><\/p>\n

After S.C.I.O. joined X in August 2015, China began coercing ICC member nations to detain and return Uyghurs to China. Since then, the S.C.I.O. account has posted only six times about the Uyghurs. The long timespan between China\u2019s first post about the Uyghurs in 2017 and its most recent upload in 2024 is even more peculiar. What is particularly disturbing is how the narratives of the U.H.R.P. and the Voice of Uyghurs contrast with those told by China\u2019s S.C.I.O. While Uyghur and U.H.R.P. tweets communicate suffering, the Chinese S.C.I.O. depicts sanitized imagery of the Uyghur existence in Xinjiang, as I will demonstrate.<\/p>\n

On July 8, 2017, the S.C.I.O. first uploaded an image of a small-business owner named Abdulla and his family. The caption reads \u201cUyghur businessman in Nanchang: Abdulla\u2019s story,\u201d and includes a link that further explains the history of his small business (China S.C.I.O, 2017). This seemingly innocuous post, however, must be understood within its broader context of intense crackdown on \u2018religious extremism,\u2019 in Xinjiang and increased state security and detention centers.<\/p>\n

China’s propaganda efforts continued with more explicit cultural messaging. On January 16, 2024, the S.C.I.O. praises Uyghur culture by saying:<\/p>\n

\u201cColombian Andres Osorio visited Urumqi with his friend Dilbar Bahtiyar and got a taste of #Xinjiang culture. He was amazed by how the #Uyghur language is spoken everywhere and how it shapes the locals\u2019 daily lives. Can you guess the first Uyghur phrase he picked up?\u2019 (China S.C.I.O, 2024).<\/p>\n

The S.C.I.O.\u2019s tweet portrays Xinjiang as a unique bridge between cultures, thanks to the Chinese state which seemingly endorses racial and ethnic diversity. From this tweet alone, the S.C.I.O. presents a positive impression of the Uyghur culture and how the Uyghur \u201clanguage is spoken everywhere and […] shapes the locals\u2019 daily lives.\u201d However, the S.C.I.O.\u2019s tweet deliberately camouflages China\u2019s pro-assimilationist policies that intend to eliminate \u201cthe use of Uyghur language in […] bilingual schools, which now operate only in Mandarin\u201d (Kanat, 2017, p. 5).<\/p>\n

The pattern of deceptive representation becomes even more pronounced in subsequent posts. The S.C.I.O.\u2019s post from September 29, 2024, included a video of a young Uyghur child playing the accordion and a caption that read as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cTacheng in #Xinjiang, once a bustling Silk Road stop, is a vibrant melting pot of over 20 ethnic groups! From Han to Kazakh, Hui to Uyghur, and more, this city celebrates #diversity. The #accordion, Tacheng\u2019s beloved folk instrument, captures its rich cultural tapestry\u201d (China S.C.I.O, 2024).<\/p>\n

Once again, the S.C.I.O. advertised an enriched, colorful image of Xinjiang, a diverse and \u201cvibrant melting pot of over 20 ethnic groups!\u201d Interestingly enough, the post implies that Xinjiang is better now than when it was \u201conce a bustling Silk Road stop.\u201d According to the S.C.I.O., Xinjiang is thriving as a safe and diverse \u201cmelting pot.\u201d In other words, the S.C.I.O. implies that this diversity further enriches Xinjiang and is pivotal in its continued development as a thriving region. However, the S.C.I.O. deliberately camouflages how \u201cChinese security services and their proxies continue to harass and intimidate (Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and other members of Muslim minority groups)\u201d (Busby, 2018). In contrast to this sanitized narrative, human rights organizations present a markedly different discourse, though one that also remains problematically distant from Uyghur voices themselves.<\/p>\n

Human Rights Organizations: Distance and Limitations<\/em><\/p>\n

More recently, the U.H.R.P. requested that several European Travel Companies \u201cdrop East Turkestan Tours\u201d as part of its project to \u201cend (…) organized tourism amid crimes against humanity.\u201d In a post from March 21, 2024, the U.H.R.P. tweeted that \u201ctravel companies should not be profiting from running tours amidst atrocities\u201d (Uyghur Human Rights Project, 2024). In line with this mission, U.H.R.P. also conducted \u201cresearch on #GenocideTours (that) scrutinizes travel companies offering tours to the region amidst atrocities (against the Uyghurs),\u201d for \u201cthese tours normalize atrocities, amplify state narratives of Uyghurs as lacking modernity, and offer \u201cexperiences\u201d like visits to Uyghur homes\u201d (Uyghur Human Rights Project, 2024).<\/p>\n

The U.H.R.P.\u201ds post is to be recognized for reminding the world of the context that the S.C.I.O. is deliberately masking. In times when the annihilation of a group may not be out of the question, the U.H.R.P. recognizes how the predatory nature of consumerism is allowed to outweigh grave crimes that are \u201cnormalized.\u201d Tourists do not question the generational indoctrination programs for children and adults, forced sterilizations, forced abortions, forced organ removals, and forced unpaid labor that occur. Tourists do not question the Chinese \u201cstate narratives of Uyghurs as lacking modernity,\u201d nor the intrusion into \u201cUyghur homes.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, despite these important interventions, the U.H.R.P.\u2019s approach reveals significant limitations. While it certainly addresses the implications of tourism on Uyghur soil, the U.H.R.P. falls short in its mission to end the Uyghur genocide. Among the posts that I analyzed through digital ethnography, the U.H.R.P. confronts China\u2019s genocide against the Uyghurs from a distance, in that none of the posts directly solicit Uyghur narratives. Only one-fifth of the U.H.R.P.\u2019s posts assert a specific call to action demanding the release of the \u201cthree Uyghurs brothers in Kashmir\u201d within the broader context of how \u201cthe 11-year confinement of Uyghurs (…) violates UN detention standards and fundamental human rights, while (… China\u2019s) treatment (of the Uyghurs) defies international protections against arbitrary imprisonment\u201d (Uyghur Human Rights Project, 2024).<\/p>\n

Again, this is the only U.H.R.P. tweet that has an explicit call to action. The other tweets describe various issues that the Uyghurs face, but do so from a distance. While the purpose of the tweet is to inform the world of X users about the wrongful detainment of Uyghurs beyond China\u2019s jurisdiction, the U.H.R.P. takes a minimalist approach in the tweet. It broadly sweeps across \u201cthe UN detention standards\u201d in place and the \u201cinternational protections against arbitrary imprisonment,\u201d but it fails to remind the world of its legal duty to confront China under international law. Rather than mobilizing urgent action, the U.H.R.P. primarily functions as an information distributor, circulating the data it collects, as well as various kinds of human rights violations occurring in Xinjiang and beyond. For instance, the U.H.R.P. tweeted on November 12, 2024, that<\/p>\n

\u201cAccording to a 2023 U.H.R.P. report, the (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) is often \u201cunable to provide meaningful protection to Uyghur refugees.\u201d As many as 1,000 are waiting for the results of their asylum applications, according to U.H.R.P. \u201cUyghurs aren’t really safe anywhere,\u201d U.H.R.P.\u2019s @PeterIrwin_ says\u201d (Uyghur Human Rights Project, 2024).<\/p>\n

The U.H.R.P.\u2019s third-person point of view creates distance between the world and the Uyghurs. Its statement that \u201cUyghurs aren’t really safe anywhere,\u201d implies that there is no place for the Uyghurs beyond China\u2019s power stronghold. While this may contain some truth, however, the U.H.R.P. is speaking for the Uyghurs, rather than letting them speak for themselves. In this post, the U.H.R.P. does not directly consult narratives from the Uyghurs who exist, which would have bridged the distance, in spite of China\u2019s border restrictions in Xinjiang. This pattern of speaking for rather than with Uyghurs ultimately reproduces the very othering<\/em> the organization seeks to combat. The dialogue about the Uyghurs that is currently circulating not only lacks a call to action, but it also others<\/em> the Uyghurs.<\/p>\n

The U.H.R.P.\u2019s reproduction of information about the Uyghurs from a limited third-person point of view lacks urgency for the international community to confront China collectively, and laxness becomes the standard response of the international community. According to the U.H.R.P. website, only Canada, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Taiwan formally recognize genocide in China against the Uyghurs. Without a call to action, the reproduction of China\u2019s genocide and crimes committed against the Uyghurs incidentally creates a cyclical language of oppression that the world often uses to describe and understand them. The reinforcement of this language others<\/em> the Uyghurs to the point at which the world may only see them as victims.<\/p>\n

China\u2019s Defensive Responses<\/em><\/p>\n

When confronted with international pressure, China\u2019s social media strategy shifts from promotional content to explicit denial and deflection. On December 24, 2021, S.C.I.O. posted a tweet in response to the U.S.\u2019 enactment of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which banned imported goods that were produced using Uyghur forced labor. Nearly nine months prior, the U.S. had formally declared that China\u2019s actions against the Uyghurs amounted to genocide. Given the looming tension, the S.C.I.O. issued a statement in a tweet that:<\/p>\n

\u201cChina deplores and firmly rejects the U.S. signing of the so-called \u201cUyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act\u201d into law, and urges the United States to correct the mistake immediately, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Friday\u201d (China S.C.I.O, 2021).<\/p>\n

Based on its language in the tweet, the S.C.I.O. presents the U.S.\u2019 signing of the Act as unwarranted. Hence, it urges the U.S. to \u201ccorrect the mistake immediately.\u201d However, the U.S. had good reason to sign the Act. First, there is minimal accountability for corporations that rely on forced labor for the production of goods. Corporations cannot be sued under international law for forced labor, despite the fact that many companies manufacture products, such as cars and garlic, using Uyghur enslavement (Human Rights Watch, 2024). Secondly, there are multiple companies that rely on forced Uyghur labor for mass production, which include but are not limited to \u201cEsquel Group, Guangdong Esquel Textile Co., Ltd., Turpan Esquel Textile Co., Ltd., (and) Changji Esquel Textile Co., Ltd\u201d (Uyghur Human Rights Project, 2024). In fact, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act banned the importation of products specifically from these aforementioned companies in China.<\/p>\n

China\u2019s most direct denial of genocide allegations came in response to mounting international pressure. On March 2, 2022, S.C.I.O. responded to several nations\u2019 declarations of genocide by writing:<\/p>\n

\u201cOver the past 60-plus years, the population in China\u2019s #Xinjiang region increased fourfold, and the #Uyghur population has grown from 2.2 million to about 12 million. The accusation of \u201cgenocide\u201d in Xinjiang is a flat-out lie\u201d (China S.C.I.O, 2022).<\/p>\n

From this post, it appears that the S.C.I.O. is praising the significant uptick in the Uyghur population, which casts the claim of genocide as a deliberate distortion of the truth. However, this statement was issued in a direct attempt to deny the accusation of \u201cgenocide\u201d in Xinjiang, which diminishes the illusory sincerity in the S.C.I.O.\u2019s tweet.<\/p>\n

This demographic argument deliberately obscures the historical context of China\u2019s colonization of Xinjiang. As of 2022, the U.S., along with other nations and organizations, had collected dockets of evidence that demonstrated China\u2019s actions against the Uyghurs amount to genocide, but China\u2019s project against the Uyghurs had deeper historical roots. In 1955, the Han Chinese constituted approximately 10% of the Xinjiang population, but China initiated a state-sponsored Han Chinese migration into the region, which significantly reduced the Uyghur majority in their homeland over the next 55 years (Kanat, 2017, p. 5). By 2010, the Han Chinese comprised 40% of the population compared with Uyghurs at 46% (Kanat, 2017, p. 5). While Xinjiang\u2019s borders became more permeable for Han Chinese immigrants, the border became increasingly more rigid for Uyghurs, even though Xinjiang is their homeland. From this evidence, Chinese law encouraged fluctuations in border permeability that actually reduced the Uyghur majority in Xinjiang, which shows that its forced migration was racially motivated, despite its claim that Uyghurs increased \u201cfourfold\u201d from March 2, 2022. China also ignores how Uyghurs are \u201cexcluded from high-paying jobs and the most powerful political offices, which are overwhelmingly Han,\u201d as a result of the waves of forced Han Chinese migration (Kanat, 2017, p. 5).<\/p>\n

Moreover, China’s population statistics fail to account for the contemporary reality of detention and abuse. More recently, the X users who viewed the tweet may not be aware that a 2024 report from the U.S. Department of State reported that Uyghur detainees are:<\/p>\n

\u201cforcibly medicated with unknown substances\u201d and subjected to forced organ removal, specifically for [Uyghur] political prisoners. (U.S. Department of State, 2024.) Some released detainees even \u201ccontemplated suicide or witnessed others kill themselves\u201d (U.S. Department of State, 2024).<\/p>\n

Authentic Uyghur Voices: Resistance and Resilience<\/em><\/p>\n

Where the S.C.I.O.\u2019s silence ends and the U.H.R.P.\u2019s distant advocacy continues, a third narrative framework emerges that fundamentally challenges both approaches. While the U.H.R.P. also speaks of the Uyghur crisis from a distance, a different model exists for centering authentic voices. To bridge the gap between the Uyghurs and the world, activist efforts may be more effective if we allow the \u201csubaltern,\u201d or the Uyghurs, to speak for themselves. This is precisely where the Voice of Uyghurs account offers a transformative alternative. Weaving narratives from an X account that can balance and inform the world about the Uyghur crisis from an up-close perspective\u2014the Uyghurs\u2014is precisely what we need for accountability and international reform. Thankfully, the Voice of Uyghurs achieves just that.<\/p>\n

The Voice of Uyghurs account (based in East-Turkestan) deviates from the U.H.R.P. (based in the U.S.) in its reproduction of information concerning the Uyghur crisis in Xinjiang. This account uniquely allows the narratives of Uyghur nationals to be received by the online community without being tainted by othering.<\/em> For the majority of posts, the Voice of Uyghurs reposts tweets directly from Uyghur nationals who are directly affected by the crisis in Xinjiang, which reveals China\u2019s intentionality in committing genocide against the Uyghurs. Consider, for example, the powerful testimony of Tahir Iman. On September 24, 2024, the Voice of Uyghurs re-tweeted a post from Tahir Iman, a Uyghur national, who tweeted:<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m Uyghur, and I\u2019m standing. I endured the loss of my mother, two brothers to prison, my wife was forced into divorce, my daughter was taken from me. Friends were imprisoned, I lost my business & finances, my library was shut down. I\u2019m facing relentless CCP troll attacks\u201d (Tahir Imin, 2024).<\/p>\n

Tahir\u2019s narrative communicates a very different story than the S.C.I.O.\u2019s first post about Abdulla from 2017. Like Abdulla, Tahir owned a business but lost everything to the \u201crelentless\u201d \u201cCCP troll attacks.\u201d Unlike the U.H.R.P. posts, Tahir\u2019s post conveys a story of resilience since he is \u201cstill standing.\u201d In spite of the impact of China\u2019s brutality on Tahir\u2019s life, his narrative brings grief to a whole new level, allowing for a shared sense of empathy across borders. Moreover, Tahir\u2019s narrative creates a new language of resilience, in that as a \u201cUyghur,\u201d he is \u201cstill standing.\u201d<\/p>\n

This language of resistance appears consistently across multiple Uyghur testimonies. Recently, Voice of the Uyghurs re-tweeted the narrative of Tumaris Yalqun, daughter of respected Uyghur writer and literary critic Yalqun Rozi, which incorporates the same language of resilience as that of Tahir\u2019s story. The tweet contains a brief message that reads as:<\/p>\n

\u201cEight years have passed since my father, Yalqun Rozi, was taken from us. His courage and love guide me as we continue to seek justice and fight for his freedom\u201d (Tumaris Yalqun, 2024).<\/p>\n

Tumaris\u2019 story uses language that communicates strength and faith amidst a long span of time filled with uncertainty. For nearly eight years, Tumaris has not seen nor heard from her father. In spite of this hardship and the trying circumstances, there is also a glimmer of solidarity in Tumaris\u2019 story and in how she recognizes that she is not alone in the continued quest for her father by using the phrase \u201cwe continue to seek justice and fight for his freedom.\u201d These narratives also reveal the extensive reach of China\u2019s intimidation tactics beyond its borders.<\/p>\n

Voice of Uyghurs also retweeted a post from Uyghur national Abdurehim Gheni who wrote that:<\/p>\n

\u201cA day before testifying at @CourtTribunal against China\u2019s treatment of Uyghurs, Chinese police threatened me by having my family back in #EastTurkestan […] send [me] a video telling me not to testify while my father lies ill in bed\u201d (Abdurehim Gheni, 2024).<\/p>\n

There is a serious risk when it comes to Uyghurs speaking out against the CCP, which leverages Abdurehim\u2019s silence by means of intimidation. Unfortunately, this is just one example of how Chinese law enforcement will go to extreme lengths to silence testimonies such as that of Abdurehim that could potentially compromise the state in front of the world. The way in which the police capitalize upon Abdurehim and his family\u2019s vulnerability highlights the predatory nature of the Chinese state towards the Uyghurs, thus reinforcing its intentionality of committing genocide against the Uyghurs.<\/p>\n

The personal cost of China\u2019s systematic campaign emerges clearly in family testimonies. On June 15, 2024, Voice of Uyghurs re-tweeted Uyghur national Mamutjan Abdurehim\u2019s tweet:<\/p>\n

\u201cI wish I could spend the #Eid with family. So many of us #Uyghurs haven\u2019t been able to do so in more than 7 years due to China\u2019s mass incarceration of our loved ones for their identity\u201d (Mamutjan Abdurehim, 2024).<\/p>\n

Mamutjan\u2019s story reflects the longing and sorrow for family that is universal among the Uyghur experience of China\u2019s brutality and genocide. It is clear that the CCP’s political actions, including mass incarceration and reeducation camps, directly impacted the lives of Uyghur individuals, causing the separation of families, prolonged disruption of religious practices, and displacement of their Uyghur community. From his story, the fact that Mamutjan expresses how China imposes mass incarceration of his \u201cloved ones for their identity\u201d indicates China\u2019s intentionality in targeting the Uyghurs for their identity, since they deviate from the fixed Han Chinese atheist national identity. Perhaps most significantly, Uyghur voices themselves explicitly frame their experience within historical context.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Voice of Uyghurs also re-tweeted that Uyghur nationals expressed that<\/p>\n

\u201cWe now have overwhelming proof that we are witnessing the largest mass-internment of an ethnic group since the atrocities of the 1940s. #Uyghurs are being killed, tortured and imprisoned. We cannot stay silent\u201d (Abdugheni Sabit, 2024).<\/p>\n

This shows that Uyghur nationals understand China\u2019s actions amount to a modern-day Holocaust. The reference to the World War II Holocaust is telling; China\u2019s political acts of \u201cmass-internment,\u201d killings, torture, and imprisonment of the Uyghurs are appropriately likened to the Jewish Holocaust. In the same way that Nazi Germany exterminated the Jewish population through religious persecution, internment camps, and othering<\/em>, China employed similar tactics that targeted the Uyghurs (Ellis, 2022). In other words, China\u2019s actions against the Uyghurs are tantamount to the national socialism that Nazi Germany sponsored in the 1940s. Given that the tweet also uses the phrase \u201cthe largest mass-internment of an ethnic group,\u201d Uyghur narratives once again prove China\u2019s intentionality of committing genocide against the Uyghurs.<\/p>\n

From Silence to Authentic Voice<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the most popular explanations for the international community\u2019s silence towards China’s genocide against the Uyghurs is the difficulty in proving China\u2019s intent. To overcome this difficulty, we can use the tweets and narratives from X to show China\u2019s intentionality. As Gayatri Spivak would put it, in the context of the Uyghur genocide, true activism is letting the subalterns (the Uyghur nationals) speak for themselves, rather than letting non-Uyghur journalists and activists speak for them. The authentic narratives of Uyghur nationals not only reveal China\u2019s intentionality of committing genocide against the Uyghurs, but they also can be used to inform accountability for genocide and international reform in the U.N. Security Council, thus adhering to the TWAIL approach.<\/p>\n

Finding a Way Forward: International Reform for the Uyghurs<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide\u2014from authentic Uyghur testimonies to documented patterns of systematic oppression\u2014the international community, including Muslim-majority nations, remains largely silent toward China’s persecution of Uyghurs. This contradiction demands examination of the structural forces that enable such inaction.<\/p>\n

The world\u2019s silence derives, at least in part, from economic concerns, self-interest, and the difficulty in proving genocide, but the evidence presented in the previous chapters also indicates the world\u2019s tendency to other<\/em> Orient populations like the Uyghurs. From the age of colonialism, othering<\/em> has been used to justify the portrayal of a group as fundamentally inferior and the systematic exclusion of that group from political, social, and economic processes. In the same way that colonial Britain and France defined themselves against Eastern nations through othering<\/em>, China assumes this colonial \u201cOccident\u201d role against the Uyghurs who constitute the figurative \u201cOrient,\u201d enabled by an international system grounded in realist traditions that continues to permit othering<\/em> today.<\/p>\n

On a broader scale, the international community, as demonstrated by the ICC and U.N. Human Rights Council, has repeatedly dismissed the Uyghurs\u2019 narratives of suffering, which constitutes a systematic form of othering<\/em>. As a result, the international community\u2019s failure to hold China accountable after learning of the atrocities in Xinjiang signals tacit approval of the People\u2019s Republic of China\u2019s state-sanctioned genocide against the Uyghurs. While China\u2019s actions against the Uyghurs may not be a priority, even for nations that recognize genocide, the Uyghur genocide affects us all at a fundamental human level.<\/p>\n

The stakes could not be higher. An entire group of the human race is at risk of being exterminated as part of a modern-day Holocaust. Given the broad knowledge base of the impending genocide, nations that formally recognize China\u2019s genocide, including the U.S., risk complicity in this crime through their failure to immediately confront China. Moreover, there is insufficient pressure from the international community to act upon its legal obligations. As of now, there appears to be no straightforward solution to the Uyghur genocide that would not incur the risk of China\u2019s economic, political, or military reprisal. However, not all hope is lost.<\/p>\n

Toward Institutional Reform and Uyghur-Centered Solutions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Given that the ICC dismissed Uyghur testimony, there is a pressing need to amplify Uyghur voices and confront the perpetrating Chinese government using their narratives while minimizing subjecting themselves or the international community to China\u2019s political, economic, and military reprisal. Building on the TWAIL framework and the authentic voices demonstrated in this analysis, I propose several interconnected strategies:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Strengthening International Legal Mechanisms<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Reform ICC jurisdiction to address cases where crimes cross borders of member states, preventing powerful non-member states from exploiting jurisdictional gaps. Establish alternative legal venues that can hear testimony from marginalized populations when traditional institutions fail. Create binding international standards for corporate accountability in supply chains involving forced labor<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Amplifying Authentic Uyghur Voices<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Support platforms like Voice of Uyghurs that center authentic Uyghur narratives rather than speaking for them. Provide resources and protection for Uyghur activists and testimony-givers facing transnational intimidation. Integrate Uyghur perspectives into international policy discussions rather than relying solely on third-party advocacy<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Multilateral Diplomatic Pressure<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Coordinate among the six nations that have recognized genocide (U.S., U.K., Czech Republic, Netherlands, Taiwan, and Canada) to develop consistent diplomatic responses. Work within existing UN mechanisms to document violations and maintain international attention. Support civil society organizations that can operate with greater flexibility than state actors<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Economic and Corporate Accountability<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Expand enforcement of forced labor prevention acts beyond individual nations. Increase transparency requirements for companies operating in or sourcing from Xinjiang. Develop alternative economic partnerships that reduce dependence on Chinese markets for countries willing to take principled stands<\/p>\n

          Limitations and Realistic Expectations<\/strong><\/p>\n

          While peacekeeping forces in Xinjiang represent an ideal outcome, they require Chinese consent under current international law, making them unlikely in the near term. Instead, the focus must be on sustained pressure through multiple channels, documentation of violations, and support for Uyghur communities both within China and in diaspora. The goal is not immediate resolution but persistent accountability that makes the costs of continued persecution increasingly untenable for China.<\/p>\n

          Uyghur narratives demonstrate a relentless fight for survival and dignity. Their struggles provide strength not just for potential U.N. initiatives but also for human rights movements globally. Their stories present new possibilities for human rights within the larger Uyghur movement and provide an opportunity to reimagine freedom for the Uyghurs. The framework developed in this analysis should be prioritized to restore our promise to the world: \u201cNever again.\u201d The path forward requires acknowledging that the international system itself enables the very othering<\/em> it claims to prevent. Only by fundamentally reimagining how marginalized voices are heard\u2014and ensuring they speak for themselves rather than being spoken for\u2014can we begin to address not just the Uyghur genocide, but the structural conditions that make such atrocities possible.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          References<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Abdugheni Sabit [@AbdugheniSabit]. (2024, November 1). The issue of East Turkistan is not a matter of China\u2019s internal affairs. East #Turkistan is an occupied nation, and our commitment to its independence is absolute and non-negotiable. [Image attached]. [Tweet reposted by Voice of Uyghurs]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/AbdugheniSabit\/status\/1852418847959064950<\/a><\/p>\n

          Abdugheni Sabit [@AbdugheniSabit]. (2024, October 21). Free Idris Hasan: The World Cannot Stay Silent Idris Hasan, a Uyghur activist and father of young children, is being unjustly held. [Video attached]. [Tweet reposted by Voice of Uyghurs]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/AbdugheniSabit\/status\/1848479577867231600<\/a><\/p>\n

          Abdurehim Gheni [@AbdurehimGheniUyghur]. (2024, October 31). A day before testifying at @CourtTribunal against China\u2019s treatment of Uyghurs, Chinese police threatened me by having my family back in #EastTurkestan to send a video telling me not to testify while my father lies ill in bed. [Video attached] [Tweet reposted by Voice of Uyghurs]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/AbdurehimGheni\/status\/1816919157537145304.<\/p>\n

          About the Uyghur Tribunal. (n.d.). Uyghur Tribunal. Retrieved March 16, 2025, from https:\/\/uyghurtribunal.com\/abouttribunal\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          Al Jazeera. (2022, October 7). Outrage as UN debate on China’s alleged Xinjiang abuses rejected.https:\/\/www.aljazeera.com\/news\/2022\/10\/7\/un-human-rights-council-rejects-debate-on-treatment-of-uighurs<\/p>\n

          Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso.<\/p>\n

          Asat, R. (2023, December 12). No One Is Talking About the Plight of Uyghurs with Disabilities in Detention. The World Owes Them More. China File. https:\/\/www.chinafile.com\/reporting-opinion\/viewpoint\/no-one-talking-about-plight-of-uyghurs-disabilities-detention-world-owes<\/a><\/p>\n

          Asat, R. (2024, November 26). China\u2019s Atrocity Crimes in Xinjiang are Entering an even Darker Phase. The UN must act. Atlantic Council. https:\/\/www.atlanticcouncil.org\/blogs\/new-atlanticist\/chinas-repression-in-xinjiang-is-entering-an-even-darker-phase-the-un-must-act\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          Aziz, S. F., & Esposito, J. L. (2024). Global Islamophobia and the Rise of Populism. Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

          Byler, D. (2020, December 30). \u201cBecause There Were Cameras, I Didn\u2019t Ask Any Questions.\u201d China File. https:\/\/www.chinafile.com\/extensive-surveillance-china<\/a><\/p>\n

          \u00c7aksu, A. (2020). Islamophobia, Chinese Style: Total Internment of Uyghur Muslims by the People\u2019s Republic of China. Islamophobia Studies Journal, 5 (2), 175\u2013198. https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/10.13169\/islastudj.5.2.0175<\/a><\/p>\n

          Carol Appadurai Breckenridge, & Van der Veer, P. (1994). Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament : Perspectives on South Asia. University Of Pennsylvania Press.<\/p>\n

          Cassese, A. (2005). International law (pp. 198\u2013212). Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

          Central Intelligence Agency. (2022). China – the World Factbook. Www.cia.gov; Central Intelligence Agency. https:\/\/www.cia.gov\/the-world-factbook\/countries\/china\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          Chaudhuri, D. (2013). China and its Peripheries: Beijing, Xinjiang & Han-Uyghur Schism. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/resrep09028<\/p>\n

          China SCIO [@ChinaSCIO]. (2017, July 8). Uyghur businessman in Nanchang: Abdulla’s story. [Link and image attached] [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/chinascio\/status\/883687680931840001<\/a><\/p>\n

          China [SCIO] [@ChinaSCIO]. (2021, December 24). China deplores and firmly rejects the U.S. signing of the so-called “Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act” into law, and urges the United States to correct the mistake immediately, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Friday. [Link and image attached] [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/chinascio\/status\/1474255305101901824<\/a><\/p>\n

          China [SCIO] [@ChinaSCIO]. (2022, March 2). FM spokesperson: Over the past 60-plus years, the population in China’s #Xinjiang region increased fourfold, and the #Uyghur population has grown from 2.2 million to about 12 million. The accusation of “genocide” in Xinjiang is a flat-out lie. [Link and image attached] [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/chinascio\/status\/1499230784518983680<\/a><\/p>\n

          China SCIO [@ChinaSCIO]. (2024, January 16). Colombian Andres Osorio visited Urumqi with his friend Dilbar Bahtiyar and got a taste of #Xinjiang culture. He was amazed by how the #Uyghur language is spoken everywhere and how it shapes the locals\u2019 daily lives. Can you guess the first Uyghur phrase he picked up? [Video attached] [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/chinascio\/status\/1747434617425289311<\/a><\/p>\n

          China [SCIO] [@ChinaSCIO]. (2024, September 29). Tacheng in #Xinjiang, once a bustling Silk Road stop, is a vibrant melting pot of over 20 ethnic groups! From Han to Kazakh, Hui to Uyghur, and more, this city celebrates #diversity. The #accordion, Tacheng’s beloved folk instrument, captures its rich cultural tapestry. [Video attached] [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/search?q=China%20SCIO%20%22Uyghur%22&src=typed_query&f=top<\/p>\n

          Cover, R. M. (1983). The Supreme Court, 1982 Term. Harvard Law Review, 97(1), 1\u2013306. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/1340787<\/a><\/p>\n

          Debata, M. R. (2010). INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO UYGHUR SEPARATISM IN XINJIANG. Himalayan and Central Asian Studies, 14(4), 55-0_4. http:\/\/library.ramapo.edu:2048\/login?url=https:\/\/www.proquest.com\/scholarly-journals\/international-response-uyghur-separatism-xinjiang\/docview\/1315177139\/se-2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

          Denyer, S. (2018, May 17). Former inmates of China\u2019s Muslim \u201creeducation\u201d camps tell of brainwashing, torture. The Washington Post. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/asia_pacific\/former-inmates-of-chinas-muslim-re-education-camps-tell-of-brainwashing-torture\/2018\/05\/16\/32b330e8-5850-11e8-8b92-45fdd7aaef3c_story.html<\/a><\/p>\n

          Ellis, Jordan R., “A Comparative Analysis of the People’s Republic of China and Its Treatment of Uyghur Muslims and Nazi Germany and Its Treatment of the Jewish People” (2022). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 1131. https:\/\/stars.library.ucf.edu\/honorstheses\/1131<\/a><\/p>\n

          Ford, C. (2022, July 22). Genocide in The People\u2019s Republic of China | Journal of Political Risk. Www.jpolrisk.com; Journal of Political Risk. https:\/\/www.jpolrisk.com\/genocide-in-the-peoples-republic-of-china-violations-of-international-criminal-law-in-the-suppression-of-falun-gong\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          Foucault, M. (1980). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Pantheon Books.<\/p>\n

          Foucault, M. (1981). Discourse and Power. University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

          Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Q. Hoare, Ed.; G. N. Smith, Trans.). International Publishers. https:\/\/files.libcom.org\/files\/Gramsci%20-%20Selections%20from%20the%20Prison%20Notebooks.pdf (Original work published 1926).<\/p>\n

          Helen Hintjens. (2021, September 28). Is The Persecution Of Falun Gong In China Tantamount To Genocide? | Journal of Political Risk. Www.jpolrisk.com; Journal of Political Risk. https:\/\/www.jpolrisk.com\/is-the-persecution-of-falun-gong-in-china-tantamount-to-genocide\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          Hernandez, K., & Faith, B. (2023). “18: How Digital Discrimination Affects Sustainable Development for Religious and Ethnic Minorities”. In Poverty and Prejudice. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press. Retrieved Mar 19, 2025, from https:\/\/doi.org\/10.51952\/9781529229066.ch018<\/a><\/p>\n

          Hill, M., Campanale, D., & Gunter, J. (2021, February 2). \u201cTheir Goal Is to Destroy Everyone\u201d: Uighur Camp Detainees Allege Systematic Rape. BBC News. https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/world-asia-china-55794071<\/a><\/p>\n

          Hui, S. (2021, December 16). UK Independent Body: China Committed Genocide in Xinjiang. AP News. https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/europe-religion-china-genocides-xi-jinping-9f20b0f7a77b1071ad32c81241678f3b<\/a><\/p>\n

          Human Rights Watch. (2024, February 2). Cars Driven by Forced Labor. Human Rights Watch. https:\/\/www.hrw.org\/the-week-in-rights\/2024\/02\/02<\/a><\/p>\n

          ICC prosecutor rejects Uighur genocide complaint against China. (2020, December 15). www.aljazeera.com. https:\/\/www.aljazeera.com\/news\/2020\/12\/15\/icc-rejects-uighur-genocide-complaint-against-china<\/a><\/p>\n

          Kanat, O. (2017). China: Assimilation Nation. World Policy Journal 34(4), 4-5. https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/article\/686513<\/a><\/p>\n

          Kennedy, Paul (2006). The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-375-50165-4<\/p>\n

          Le\u0301vinasE., & Nidra Poller. (2006). Humanism of the other. University Of Illinois Press.<\/p>\n

          Maizland, L. (2022, September 22). China\u2019s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Council on Foreign Relations. https:\/\/www.cfr.org\/backgrounder\/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights<\/a><\/p>\n

          Meisler, S. (1995). United Nations: The First Fifty Years (pp. 264\u2013277). Atlantic Monthly Press. https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/unset0000unse_z7w4\/page\/n5\/mode\/2up<\/a><\/p>\n

          Mozur, P. (2019, April 19). One Month, 500,000 Face Scans: How China Is Using A.I. to Profile a Minority. New York Times. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/04\/14\/technology\/china-surveillance-artificial-intelligence-racial-profiling.html<\/a><\/p>\n

          Office of the Prosecutor. (2020). Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2020. In www.icc-cpi.int. International Criminal Court. https:\/\/www.icc-cpi.int\/cases<\/a><\/p>\n

          OFFICE TO MONITOR AND COMBAT TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS. (n.d.). Trafficking in Persons for the Purpose of Organ Removal. In State www.state.gov\/j\/tip . Retrieved March 16, 2025, from https:\/\/www.state.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/24-02934-TIP_Factsheet-Forced-Organ-Removal_Accessible-8.22.20224.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

          Polletta, F., Chen, P. C. B., Gardner, B. G., & Motes, A. (2011). The Sociology of Storytelling. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 109\u2013130. https:\/\/doi.org\/41288601<\/a><\/p>\n

          Power, S. (2002). A Problem from Hell : America and the Age of Genocide. Basic Books.<\/p>\n

          Ramzey, A., & Buckley, C. (2019, November 16). \u201cAbsolute No Mercy\u201d: Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims. New York Times. www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2019\/11\/16\/world\/asia\/china-xinjiang-documents<\/a><\/p>\n

          Ruser, N. (2020). Documenting Xinjiang\u2019s detention system. In cdn.xjdp.aspi.org. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. https:\/\/cdn.xjdp.aspi.org.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/25125443\/documenting-xinjiangs-detention-system.cleaned.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

          Said, E. (1994). Orientalism. Random House.<\/p>\n

          Slaughter, A.-M. (2012). \u200b\u200bInternational Relations, Principal Theories. In R. Wolfrum & et al (Eds.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

          Spivak, G. C. (1999). A Critique of Postcolonial Reason : Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Harvard Univ. Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/j.ctvjsf541<\/a><\/p>\n

          Tadros, M., Mader, P., & Cheeseman, K. (2023). Poverty and Prejudice. Policy Press. https:\/\/www.degruyter.com\/document\/doi\/10.56687\/9781529229066\/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOooq3joQIKw-O5mJrGlwAf65O_PP4uPP7aklShUCFACHaqw4NAvn#contents<\/a><\/p>\n

          Tahir Iman [@Uyghurian]. (2024, September 24). I\u2019m Uyghur, and I\u2019m standing. I endured the loss of my mother, two brothers to prison, my wife was forced into divorce, my daughter was taken from me. Friends were imprisoned, I lost my business & finances, my library was shut down. I\u2019m facing relentless CCP troll attacks. [Image attached] [Tweet reposted by Voice of Uyghurs]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/Uyghurian\/status\/1838660334120288471<\/a><\/p>\n

          Tandon, M. P., & Tandon, R. (1969). Public International Law (12th ed.). University of Michigan. https:\/\/www.google.com\/books\/edition\/International_Relations_1914_1965\/RsslAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=inauthor:%22Mahesh%20Prasad%20Tandon%22<\/a><\/p>\n

          Tumaris Yalqun [@YTumaris]. (2024, October 6). Eight years have passed since my father, Yalqun Rozi, was taken from us. His courage and love guide me as we continue to seek justice and fight for his freedom #FreeYalqunRozi #FreeUyghurs. [Video attached]. [Tweet reposted by Voice of Uyghurs]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/YTumaris\/status\/1843125138025529396<\/a><\/p>\n

          United Nations. (1945, June 26). Article 23 (1) of the Charter of the United Nations. www.un.org. Archived from the original on April 10, 2019. Retrieved March 19, 2025.<\/p>\n

          United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee On East Asia, The Pacific, And International Cybersecurity Policy (2018, December 4). Testimony of Scott Busby.\u00a0 https:\/\/www.foreign.senate.gov\/imo\/media\/doc\/120418_Busby_Testimony.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n

          U.S. Department of State. (2017). Tiers: Placement, Guide, and Penalties for Tier 3 Countries. State.gov. https:\/\/2009-2017.state.gov\/j\/tip\/rls\/tiprpt\/2011\/164221.htm#<\/a><\/p>\n

          U.S. Department of State. “Determination of the Secretary of State on Atrocities in Xinjiang.” Jan. 19, 2021, https:\/\/2017-2021.state.gov\/determination-of-the-secretary-of-state-on-atrocities-in-xinjiang\/<\/p>\n

          United Nations. (2022). Definitions of Genocide and Related Crimes | United Nations. United Nations. https:\/\/www.un.org\/en\/genocide-prevention\/definition<\/a><\/p>\n

          United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (2022). OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People\u2019s Republic of China. In OHCHR.org. https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/countries\/2022-08-31\/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

          Uyghur Human Rights Project. (n.d.). International Responses to the Uyghur Crisis. Uyghur Human Rights Project. Retrieved March 16, 2025, from https:\/\/uhrp.org\/responses\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          Uyghur Human Rights Project [@UyghurProject]. (2024, December 5). New UHRP #Insights “Faithfully Implementing Propaganda: Chinese State Media Inserts in Overseas Media” @HenrykSzad @PeterIrwin_ + Ben Carrdus uncover how @NXSTMediaGroup funnels Chinese state-controlled media into tens of millions of Americans’ homes. [Link and image attached] [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/UyghurProject\/status\/1864670366670438639<\/a><\/p>\n

          Uyghur Human Rights Project [@UyghurProject]. (2024, November 12). According to a 2023 UHRP report, [UNHCR] is often “unable to provide meaningful protection to Uyghur refugees.” As many as 1,000 are waiting for the results of their asylum applications, according to UHRP “Uyghurs aren\u2019t really safe anywhere,” UHRP’s @PeterIrwin_ says. [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/UyghurProject\/status\/1856363149718397403<\/a><\/p>\n

          Uyghur Human Rights Project [@UyghurProject]. (2024, November 6). Our research on #GenocideTours scrutinizes travel companies offering tours to the region amidst atrocities\u2014these tours: Normalize atrocities, Amplify state narratives of Uyghurs as lacking modernity, Offer “experiences” like visits to Uyghur homes. [Image attached] [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/UyghurProject\/status\/1854282520113647642<\/a><\/p>\n

          Uyghur Human Rights Project [@UyghurProject]. (2024, November 7). “The 11-year confinement of Uyghurs […] violates UN detention standards and fundamental human rights, while their treatment defies international protections against arbitrary imprisonment. Three Uyghur brothers in Kashmir must be released.” [Image attached] [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/UyghurProject\/status\/1854629471602540746<\/a><\/p>\n

          Uyghur Human Rights Project [@UyghurProject]. (2024, October 31). UHRP is glad to see continued additions to the #UFLPA Entity List by @DHSgov to ensure goods made w\/ Uyghur forced labor are not entering the US. Esquel Group, Guangdong Esquel Textile Co., Ltd., Turpan Esquel Textile Co., Ltd., Changji Esquel Textile Co., Ltd. [Image attached] [Tweet]. X. https:\/\/x.com\/UyghurProject\/status\/1852063856685617195<\/a><\/p>\n

          Waller, J., & Albornoz, M. S. (2021). Crime and No Punishment? China\u2019s Abuses Against the Uyghurs. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 22(1), 100\u2013111. ProQuest. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1353\/gia.2021.0000<\/a><\/p>\n

          Wang, M. (2023, May 3). How Governments and Civil Society Can Help China\u2019s Uyghurs. Democracy for the Arab World Now. https:\/\/dawnmena.org\/how-governments-and-civil-society-can-help-chinas-uyghurs\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          Wong, E. (2017). Maturing as the Rational Opposition: Analysing TWAIL\u2019s Utility to the Theory of International Law [Essay]. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.3051276<\/a><\/p>\n

          Wormington, J. (2024). Asleep at the Wheel Car Companies\u2019 Complicity in Forced Labor in China. In A. Ganesan & et al (Eds.), Human Rights Watch. https:\/\/www.hrw.org\/report\/2024\/02\/01\/asleep-wheel\/car-companies-complicity-forced-labor-china<\/a><\/p>\n

          Wu, H. (2023, June 23). Chinese human rights lawyer chased out of 13 homes in 2 months as pressure rises on legal advocates. AP News. https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/china-human-rights-lawyers-beijing-wang-quanzhang-1e327eb9cf0959d6e643d6101618e8c6<\/a><\/p>\n

          Zenz, A. (2018). Xinjiang\u2019s Re-Education and Securitization Campaign: Evidence from Domestic Security Budgets [Review of Xinjiang\u2019s Re-Education and Securitization Campaign: Evidence from Domestic Security Budgets]. China Brief, 18(17), 4\u20139. The JamestownFoundation.jamestown.org\/program\/xinjiangs-re-education-and-securitization-campaign-evidence-from-domestic-security-budgets\/<\/a><\/p>\n

          Zenz, A. (2019, November 24). China Didn\u2019t Want Us to Know. Now Its Own Files Are Doing the Talking. The New York Times. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/11\/24\/opinion\/china-xinjiang-files.html.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          [1]<\/sup><\/a> Hannah Scroggins graduated in 2025 with a degree in Law and Society from Ramapo College of New Jersey and is pursuing a J.D. at Rutgers Law School.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide HANNAH SCROGGINS[1] [pdf] Not all moments of silence are warranted, especially in the context of an impending genocide. Yet not all genocides receive the same response from the global community that international law and legal principles demand. This is tragically evident in the case of the Uyghurs […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":293,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-627","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nDecoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide - Ramapo Journal of Law & Society || Ramapo College of New Jersey<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide HANNAH SCROGGINS[1] [pdf] Not all moments of silence are warranted, especially in the context of an impending genocide. Yet not all genocides receive the same response from the global community that international law and legal principles demand. This is tragically evident in the case of the Uyghurs […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ramapo Journal of Law & Society\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/RamapoCollege\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-16T21:33:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@ramapocollegenj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"66 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/\",\"name\":\"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide - Ramapo Journal of Law & Society || Ramapo College of New Jersey\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-16T21:31:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-16T21:33:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Ramapo College of New Jersey Home Page \u00bb Academics \u00bb SSHS \u00bb Ramapo Journal of Law & Society\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/\",\"name\":\"Ramapo Journal of Law & Society\",\"description\":\"Just another Ramapo College of New Jersey Sites site\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide - Ramapo Journal of Law & Society || Ramapo College of New Jersey","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide","og_description":"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide HANNAH SCROGGINS[1] [pdf] Not all moments of silence are warranted, especially in the context of an impending genocide. Yet not all genocides receive the same response from the global community that international law and legal principles demand. This is tragically evident in the case of the Uyghurs […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/","og_site_name":"Ramapo Journal of Law & Society","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/RamapoCollege","article_modified_time":"2025-12-16T21:33:32+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@ramapocollegenj","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"66 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/","name":"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide - Ramapo Journal of Law & Society || Ramapo College of New Jersey","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-12-16T21:31:15+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-16T21:33:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/decoding-the-worlds-silence-towards-the-uyghur-genocide\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Ramapo College of New Jersey Home Page \u00bb Academics \u00bb SSHS \u00bb Ramapo Journal of Law & Society","item":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Decoding the World\u2019s Silence towards the Uyghur Genocide"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/","name":"Ramapo Journal of Law & Society","description":"Just another Ramapo College of New Jersey Sites site","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/627","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/293"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=627"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/627\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":632,"href":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/627\/revisions\/632"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ramapo.edu\/law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}