The UN human rights agency said last week that “in the name of combating religious extremism and maintaining social stability, [China] has changed the Uighur autonomous region into something that resembles a massive internment camp.” Over 1 million Uighurs are interred with reports of “disappearing individuals to force them to undergo ideological ‘re-education.’” This is an important matter that should be addressed by media sources. In an effort to critically assess claims, we have to consider and evaluate three different sources: the UN report, the Chinese defense, and American history.
The UN human rights agencies have a history of mangifiying or minimizing supposed crimes based on its ideological agenda. For example, UN war crimes investigators concluded that Syrian President al-Assad used sarin nerve gas over 20 times in the past four years, killing at least 83 civilians. But the same report also attacked the U.S. for its supposedly reckless attacks on civilians, particularly an airstrike in Mosul that killed dozens. This toothless investigation doesn’t do anything about actual war crimes but condemned American efforts to stop genocidal terrorists.
The war crimes commission also failed to properly interpret the rules of war. These explicitly prohibit the use of human shields. Even before ISIS and al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein excelled in placing civilians in and around military targets. They also hid weapons in hospitals, schools, churches, and civilian neighborhoods. The U.S. still has an obligation to use proportionality to try and minimize civilian casualties, but any civilian casualties are counted as a war crime against those using human shields or abusing neutral sites, not against the striking power, and the UN reports failed to make that distinction. Thus readers should be cautious in immediately and uncritically using UN reports to bolster their claims but should first assess the evidence presented.
China has released a statement fighting back against these charges. They say that the province has suffered many violent terrorist attacks by people who were “brainwashed and manipulated” by terrorist organizations. These camps have taken low-level offenders and put them into prisons to un-do the brainwashing and prevent the province from becoming China’s Syria. It is true that proper counter-insurgency techniques include clamping down on the freedom of movement in the province and the use of camps. But China’s abysmal human rights record and the overflowing camps that include over a million people make this seem like a spin from the Chinese government more than a rationale and proper counter-insurgency tactics.
Finally, we must consider this event from the view of American history. During times of crisis America has passed various acts such as the Alien and Sedition and Espionage Acts. In particular, after World War II American passed the McCarran Security Act. This was actually nicknamed the concentration camp bill because it allowed the United States to inter suspected communists. That never happened, but a few short years before this the government did inter Japanese citizens over security concerns. While the United States should be concerned over Chinese activities and take a stance against the treatment of Uighurs in China, they should be prepared to counter Chinese arguments that point out America’s concentration camp bill. In particular, just like conservatives do to leftists, American criticisms of China should point out the differences such as never using the McCarran Security Act to inter communists, the differences in scope and nature of the internment, and the progress and vocal opposition to such practices.
China defending its internment camps has produced headlines around the web and in conservative circles. But it is important not to be hypocritical and uncritically trumpet these headlines while ignoring underlying issues. The UN is not an unimpeachable source when it agrees with our politics. There are counter-insurgency and security measures that call for internment. Americans have a history of concentration camp bills that only two Republicans in the House and none in the Senate voted against. While the argument and outrage remains the same, a critical appraisal of the various arguments and history surrounding this practice suggests a more nuanced approach to the matter.
