Understanding Chinese (In)Security in Xinjiang

Source: Sojourners 2019

The Chinese state passed the anti-terrorism law in 2015. It aimed to deal with terrorist groups and their activities in China and allowed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to conduct counter-terrorism operations even outside China. This law was passed in the larger context of terrorist attacks happening around the world, which the state-run media house Xinhua defined as “an ever-growing threat of terrorism”(“China Adopts First Counter-terrorism Law” 2015). This act gave the Chinese security authorities overarching powers to ensure the safety of the people and maintain peace in disturbed regions like Xinjiang. Uyghur Muslims living in Xinjiang have been targeted through domestic laws like anti-terrorism laws and have been forcefully detained in ‘Re-education camps’. They are accused of religious extremism and separatist activities. The law itself does not clearly explain what constitutes extremism and remains ambiguous. Uyghur people have been arrested for activities like going to the mosque, using Quranic verses in texts or having more than three children[2].  According to UN reports published based on statements given by people who fled Xinjiang, there have been patterns of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in the camps between 2017 and 2019 (Maizland 2022). This blog aims to analyse the Chinese anti-terrorism law and how it creates security and insecurity in Xinjiang from three different vantage points. First is the securitisation theory, as proposed by Ole Waever. Second, is the feminist critique of securitisation theory made by Lene Hansen. Third, Biopolitics and the PARIS school approach to (in)securitisation.

Securitisation theory

Ole Wæver from the Copenhagen school proposed the Securitisation theory. It focuses on how the issues can be taken out of everyday politics and put into the realm of high politics by subverting democratic procedures. The speech act is a vital part of this process. It puts emphasis on the process through which something becomes a security problem in society. He defined security problems as “developments that threaten the sovereignty or independence of a state in a particularly rapid or dramatic fashion” (Weaver and Lipschutz 1996). The expansion of security beyond the state or military affairs is problematic because securitising our everyday lives leads to the militarization of the everyday. He does not treat security as an independent reality that exists beyond the language discourse. An everyday issue or reality is made into a threat by the elite groups or the state. In this way, discourse has a material impact and larger consequences of securitisation. This process requires the state or the elite actors to convince the majority of the country or society that this threat would require measures above and beyond the usual rules and procedures. This often leads to suspending the normal rules under which the individual and the larger collective function. This is portrayed as the only way the collective survival can be ensured.

In the case of the anti-terrorism law in China, the Chinese state has used not only the domestic discourse but also the international discourse about terrorism to enforce extreme measures and actions implemented in Xinjiang. The Chinese State Council of Information Office published “China's Legal Framework and Measures for Counterterrorism” (中华人民共和国国务院新闻办公室,” n.d.). This document explained how terrorism is a common enemy of humanity and how China, too, is a “victim”  (中华人民共和国国务院新闻办公室,” n.d.) of the global problem. It further presents several justifications for implementing measures that allow security forces to operate unrestrictedly at the cost of individual rights and liberties. Some justifications include safeguarding national and public security and fighting and responding to United Nation’s call to combat terrorism. The Chinese state has further used the larger discourse of the 9/11 attacks in the USA to include the anti-terrorism law under the gambit of the global fight against terrorism. This allows the state to control discourse and implement tough measures under ‘counter-terrorism’ rather than the oppression of an ethnic minority.

Feminist Critique of Securitisation Theory

Source: ABP News Bureau 2022

The USA and other Western countries have criticised the treatment of Uyghurs in China. In 2022, the UN’s human rights officials released a report saying the detention of Uighurs and other Muslims in the Xinjiang region could amount to crimes against humanity. While there has been discussion about the treatment of Uyghur women in Xinjiang and the detention camps, it has been primarily done under the ambit of human rights violations in Xinjiang against the Uyghur ethnic minority. There have been reports of Uyghur women being subjected to forced sterilisation (Zenz 2020), mandatory use of IUDs (Jamestown 2021)and sexual violence in detention camps. They are banned from wearing long skirts and burqas (Dearden 2017). There also have been incidents of police cutting off their long skirts in public spaces if they see women violating the ban (Chan 2018). Lene Hansen criticises the Copenhagen school and the securitisation approach by presenting two main arguments. First is ‘security as silence’, which refers to not voicing one’s insecurity because it can further exacerbate the threat. Second is the ‘subsuming security’ problem, which refers to gender identity existing in relation to other identities one has. For instance, national or, in this case, religious. In this sense, the Copenhagen school is focused on “collective survival” and not just “survival”(Hansen 2000). Due to this, there are several disadvantages, like the approach privileging the elite since they only have the ability to influence discourse that can securitise issues. Another analytical blind spot is for those who can't collectivise, and their individual identity is threatened. She highlights how gender concerns individual security and not collective security. The conditions of Uyghur women in the mainstream discourse of international security are a subset of the conditions of the Uyghur community in Xinjiang. When discourse is framed in such a manner, the gender identity exists in relation to other cultural and religious identities, often taking a backseat. For instance, in the human rights report published by the UN, women’s issues are mainly discussed as a subsection of “Other human rights concerns” (OHCHR 2022) in the context of reproduction rights. Since the women are unable to themselves form a collective and voice their insecurity. Therefore, their concerns are presented in the manner deemed fit by those in power. In this case, it is the UN officials and the Western countries who have criticised China for human rights violations. 

Biopolitics and the PARIS school approach to (in)securitization

Since 1949, the larger goal of the Chinese state has been to integrate Xinjiang into the People’s Republic of China. This integration goes beyond territorial integrity and into the realm of absolute cultural and social integration. To achieve this, the Chinese state has inserted itself in all aspects of existence to control the individual’s life completely. Foucault refers to this as Biopolitics, and he further explains this in his work as “the organisation of power over life” (Shaffer 1980). It can also be understood how the state regulates the processes of life through surveillance and technologies, like life expectation, mortality, propagation, etc. The Political Anthropological Research for International Sociology (PARIS) school is based on this Foucauldian conceptualisation. It is a sociological approach to the study of security. It delves into a broader range of aspects when it comes to security: how security is performed, the construction of danger through security practices, the role of securitising actors, etc. Most importantly, it highlights how the creation of security ultimately leads to the creation of insecurity. There have been several parallels drawn between Nazi concentration camps and the Chinese re-education camps by spectators across the world (Forth, n.d.). Giorgio Agamben described the Nazi concentration camps as a “state of exception”. These are places that exist outside the normal operation of law, and life exists in the bare and inhumane form (Mbembé 2003). According to Mbembe, the state of exception has permeated into the rest of society. The general population is under the illusion of being in control of their actions, as individual autonomy is equated to the ability to reason. One does not realise the sovereign’s role in controlling how an individual limits themselves. In Xinjiang, the authorities control their every day, even outside the detention camps. This can be observed through several examples like not allowing men to have long beards (BBC News 2017), banning burqas (BBC News 2017), forced interracial marriages (“China Imposing Forced Inter-Ethnic Marriages on Uyghur Women: Report,” n.d.), imposition of Mandarin language (ANI News 2021), and even forced labour in Chinese factories (Human Rights Watch 2024). This sort of control and imposition has taken another level with the imposition of the Social Security System in China, which includes the installation of thousands of high-definition cameras (Clarke 2023). This system has been implemented across the country and awards or deducts points for the individual depending on their actions. Such an invasive and extensive surveillance system further makes it easier for the state to crack down on Uyghur people and prosecute them under the Anti-terrorism law. At the same time, it creates insecurity for the people, especially the minority communities like the Uyghur, as they are constantly being watched.

To conclude, it is important to understand how an issue becomes a security threat. There can be underlying or causal factors that are not highlighted by a particular theory. Each theory uses a set of prepositions to explain phenomena and can't possibly fit everyone's requirements. Therefore, while analysing security issues, it must be noted that each theory serves a specific purpose for specific actors.

References

1.     ABP Live. 2022. “After Abstaining From Voting Against China at UN, India Bats for Human Rights of Uyghur Muslims.” Https://News.Abplive.Com, October 7, 2022. https://news.abplive.com/news/india/after-abstaining-from-voting-against-china-at-un-india-bats-for-rights-of-uyghur-muslims-in-xinjiang-region-1557095.

2.     BBC News. 2015. “China Passes Controversial New Anti-terror Laws.” BBC News, December 28, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35188137.

3.     ———. 2017. “China Uighurs: Xinjiang Ban on Long Beards and Veils.” BBC News, March 31, 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39460538.

4.     Chan, Tara Francis. 2018. “Police Are Reportedly Cutting Too-long Dresses off Ethnic Minority Women in the Middle of Streets in China.” Business Insider, July 17, 2018. https://www.businessinsider.in/police-are-reportedly-cutting-too-long-dresses-off-ethnic-minority-women-in-the-middle-of-streets-in-china/articleshow/65021096.cms.

5.     “China Adopts First Counter-terrorism Law.” 2015. The Economic Times. December 27, 2015. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-adopts-first-counter-terrorism-law/articleshow/50341764.cms.

6.     “China Imposing Forced Inter-Ethnic Marriages on Uyghur Women: Report.” n.d. NDTV.Com. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-imposing-forced-inter-ethnic-marriages-on-uyghur-women-report-3531250.

7.     “China Ramping up Efforts to Promote Mandarin in Xinjiang Amid Global Outcry Over Its Policies.” 2021. ANI News. March 31, 2021. https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/china-ramping-up-efforts-to-promote-mandarin-in-xinjiang-amid-global-outcry-over-its-policies20210331035632/.

8.     Clarke, Michael. 2023. “Social Reengineering in the Name of Security in Xinjiang.” The Diplomat, September 6, 2023. https://thediplomat.com/2023/09/social-reengineering-in-the-name-of-security-in-xinjiang/.

9.     Conversation, Kelly Anne Hammond. 2020. “Persecuted Uighur Muslims Have a Long History in China.” Sojourners. March 10, 2020. https://sojo.net/articles/persecuted-uighur-muslims-have-long-history-china.

10.  Dearden, Lizzie. 2017. “China Bans Burqas and ‘abnormal’ Beards in Muslim Province of Xinjiang | the Independent.” The Independent, March 30, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-burqa-abnormal-beards-ban-muslim-province-xinjiang-veils-province-extremism-crackdown-freedom-a7657826.html.

11.  Forth, Aidan. n.d. “The Ominous Metaphors of China’s Uighur Concentration Camps.” The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-ominous-metaphors-of-chinas-uighur-concentration-camps-129665.

12.  “Full text: China’s Legal Framework and Measures for Counterterrorism_中华人民共和国国务院新闻办公室.” n.d. http://www.scio.gov.cn/zfbps/zfbps_2279/202401/t20240123_829679.html.

13.  Hansen, Lene. 2000. “The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School.” Millennium 29 (2): 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298000290020501.

14.  Human Rights Watch. 2024. “China: Carmakers Implicated in Uyghur Forced Labor,” March 11, 2024. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/01/china-carmakers-implicated-uyghur-forced-labor.

15.  Maizland, Lindsay. 2022. “China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.” Council on Foreign Relations, September 22, 2022. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights#chapter-title-0-3.

16.  Mbembé, Achille. 2003. “Necropolitics.” Public Culture 15 (1): 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11.

17.  OHCHR. 2022. “OHCHR Assessment of Human Rights Concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China.” https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf.

18.  Shaffer, Elinor. 1980. “The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1: An Introduction. Michel Foucault , Robert Hurley.” Signs 5 (4): 812–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/493768.

19.  “Sterilizations, IUDs, and Mandatory Birth Control: The CCP’s Campaign to Suppress Uyghur Birthrates in Xinjiang - Jamestown.” 2021. Jamestown. March 24, 2021. https://jamestown.org/product/sterilizations-iuds-and-mandatory-birth-control-the-ccps-campaign-to-suppress-uyghur-birthrates-in-xinjiang/.

20.  Weaver, Ole, and Ronnie D. Lipschutz. 1996. “Securitization and Desecuritization.” In On Security. Vol. 90. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082964.

21.  Zenz, Adrian. 2020. “Uighurs in Xinjiang Targeted by Potentially Genocidal Sterilization Plans, Chinese Documents Show.” Foreign Policy, July 21, 2020. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/.