The UN Human Rights Commissioner's first visit in 17 years prompted China to make two preparations for the Xinjiang issue

On May 20, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet will start her visit to China on the 23rd. The six-day visit will take place in Guangzhou, Kashgar, Xinjiang and Urumqi.

From a historical perspective, this visit has two political significance. First, there are still voices in the West who are relatively willing to understand the real situation in Xinjiang. Bachelet's visit is the first visit to China by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights since 2005. It is also the first visit to China by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2014. The first visit of the high school. As early as before, Bachelet has repeatedly expressed his desire to visit Xinjiang, and finally reached an agreement with China in March 2022. The visit to Xinjiang officially "gives the green light", and his office is also preparing to publish a report on the human rights situation in Xinjiang.

Second, China has not given up its formal channels of communication with the West despite years of malicious siege and suppression by the West on the Xinjiang issue. Looking back on the past, "re-education camps" have become a hot topic in attacking China since 2014; in 2021, the West will once again concoct public opinion fronts such as forced labor in Xinjiang and blood cotton. On, there is a disagreement with Beijing. After experiencing such a conflict and confrontation, Bachelet's visit can still be facilitated. It has to be said that not only has the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights overcame a certain degree of political obstacles, but Beijing has also shown great goodwill and sincerity.

However, under the constraints of a series of public opinions initiated by the West, Bachelet's visit is still difficult to be separated from political interference.

Shadows from London and Washington

First of all, on May 24, the second day of Bachelet's visit to China, the BBC published a report revealing that it was provided by "German scholar" Adrian Zenz, who was suspected to have been hacked and flowed out of Xinjiang. Internal files of the police system, showing details about so-called "re-education camps" in Xinjiang, including over 5,000 suspected police photos of Uyghur registrations, internal secrets of officials including Minister of Public Security Zhao Kezhi and former Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Committee Secretary Chen Quanguo speech file.

The BBC said at least 2,884 people had been detained in the leaked photos, which were taken between January and July 2018. Some of them were involuntarily classified by the police as "re-education camps" and became "trainees". Some people were taken to "re-education camps" for reasons such as traveling to sensitive countries, illegally teaching scriptures, illegally using mobile phones, and not smoking or drinking.

The United States and Britain exaggeratedly expressed "very shocked" about this content, and Western media even reported it one after another. British Foreign Minister Liz Truss also spoke on the same day, saying that more details of human rights in Xinjiang have emerged, "The UK will stand with international partners and call on China to stop the persecution of Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities."

Invisibly, Bachelet's visit has cast a shadow over public opinion, as if if he did not want to condemn China in unison with the Western media, or even suspend the trip, he would have to suffer the unwarranted charges of "being bought by China" and "unwilling to reveal the truth". In response to this conspiracy, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs also responded, criticizing the so-called leakage of Xinjiang-related documents as "the latest example of anti-China forces smearing Xinjiang", and stressed that "Bachelet's visit is a trip to enhance understanding and strengthen cooperation. The trip is also a trip to the original source, with the purpose of enhancing exchanges and cooperation between the two sides and promoting the development of the international human rights cause.”

However, after the BBC and the UK acted, the US followed suit. On May 24, U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price said the U.S. did not expect China to grant Bachelet the access he needed to conduct a complete, unmanipulated assessment of the human rights environment in Xinjiang. It pointed out that the United States believed that it was a mistake for Bachelet to agree to visit China under such circumstances. "Bachelet will not have the full picture of the atrocities, crimes against humanity and genocide that are taking place in Xinjiang."

On May 28, Bachelet concluded a six-day visit to China. In a statement, Bachelet said that the visit was not an investigation, but an opportunity to "directly discuss human rights issues with China's top leaders, raise concerns, and Listen to each other and be prepared to explore and prepare for more regular and meaningful exchanges in the future to support China in fulfilling its obligations under international human rights law.” It further added, “I encourage the Chinese government to review all counterterrorism and deradicalization policies to ensure that they fully comply with international human rights standards, and in particular that they are not applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.”

However, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also issued a statement on the same day, saying that China has set conditions for Bachelet's visit to China to restrict and manipulate the visit, and the U.S. side expresses concern.

The nature of the Xinjiang dispute

To sum up, the various reactions of the United States and the United Kingdom are probably inseparable from two purposes.

First, during the visit, they mobilized public opinion, manipulated and forced Bachelet to cooperate with the performance, and used the "witness" of being in China to endorse various Western accusations, whether it was condemning or suspending the visit. This behavior also exposed the real concerns of the United States and the United Kingdom, that is, they found that Bachelet's "controllability" may not be as high as imagined, and they may tell a Xinjiang narrative that is very different from the Western "concentration camp" version after the visit. To force trouble during the visit, disrupt and dominate the work rhythm of the UN High Commissioner.

Second, if Bachelet does not cooperate with the US and UK's remarks, the latter will continue to belittle the "authenticity" of the visit. Even though the UN Human Rights Office working group had entered China and traveled to Xinjiang as early as April 25 to prepare for Bachelet's visit, Bachelet himself emphasized that he had come into contact with people in Xinjiang under unsupervised conditions. According to the sources arranged by the United Nations, the United States and the United Kingdom are still persevering and attacking together, labeling the United Nations' itinerary as a "red trip", implying that Bachelet succumbed to Beijing's political arrangements, whitewashing Xinjiang's peace, and "going through the motions".

Looking back on the past, the visit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to Xinjiang was originally one of the long-term issues in the Western public opinion war against China. Allegations such as guilty conscience" strengthen the credibility of the above script; of course, when China and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reached a consensus and officially opened their visit, the United Kingdom and the United States criticized them. Has Xi fallen into a "dictatorial accomplice", or has Britain and the United States suffered from a split personality?

In all fairness, the root cause of the Xinjiang dispute is indeed partly cultural. The West has been attacked by liberalism for many years, and its people and public opinion have a negative view of the so-called state, collective, and regulatory elements. Most people still cannot understand the positive meaning of Chinese-style poverty alleviation. , development, and border security are one of the Xinjiang issues. Even Bachelet, who is visiting this time, cannot agree with Beijing's past Xinjiang policy. In this context, Muslim countries in the Middle East that have experienced similar pain and struggle have made fewer negative comments on Xinjiang issues.

However, despite the influence of cultural factors, the key to the demonization of Xinjiang's narrative is the public opinion front that the West continues to build out of the mentality of great power competition. In other words, the reason why the Xinjiang dispute has become an international topic, and has even been raised as a symbol to characterize China's "evil regime", is still a brutal struggle between power and politics. Such a trend will not end because of the visit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Instead, it will be repeatedly hyped as the game between China and the United States intensifies.

Under such circumstances, China must prepare for the Xinjiang issue in two ways.

First, face up to the nature of the political struggle on Xinjiang issues, and be prepared for the short-term and unstoppable Western criticism. In the field of the game of great powers, the war of public opinion should be valued as much as the war of science and technology, and the war of economy and trade. It is necessary not only to make a long-term layout, but also to prepare for the war flexibly. The visit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights this time is an opportunity to turn passive into active. It can not only alleviate the lethality of the past "concentration camp" narrative to a certain extent, but also expose the anxious face of Western political hype and double standards.

In the future, disputes concerning Xinjiang will continue to emerge in the international media with a high probability, and will become one of the means for the West to contain China. In response to this phenomenon, China must take precautions in unifying its internal public opinion fronts, discussing tactics to refute false accusations, and countering Western human rights taint.

Second, it takes its own strength to strike the iron. The global uproar of Xinjiang disputes stems from the real predicament of Xinjiang’s past turmoil. China must make every effort to prevent Xinjiang from going back on its own, so as not to be forced by the situation. After issuing a series of tough measures again, it will continue to Create public opinion wounds that give people a handle.

In the final analysis, the "air warfare" of public opinion has its lethality, but the continuous use of "blank ammunition" will inevitably reduce its intimidation and lethality. Tibet used to be one of the bargaining chips for the West to criticize China's human rights issue, but as the riots subsided and people's livelihood developed smoothly, the West lost interest in this hand, and the Xinjiang dispute took its place. But now Xinjiang is peaceful, and although the West continues to concoct battle lines here for the sake of alienating China and the Muslim world, it is ultimately difficult to match the actual development. From this perspective, as long as Beijing maintains the reality of Xinjiang's stable development and maintains the energy of public opinion struggle, time will ultimately be on China's side.

Original published URL:

2022.6.1

The first visit of the UN Human Rights Commissioner in 17 years prompted China to make two preparations for the Xinjiang issue | Hong Kong 01 https://www.hk01.com/sns/article/776544