Xinjiang is a complex issue with many competing interests. It’s hard to say anything about it that can’t be used for imperialist ends. Like, even if you declare full sympathy to the CPC in its mission to secure its territories and ensure its economic independence, the imperialists can just use you to push for a new Cold War.
This isn’t what Jacobin does, though, so that’s not really relevant. Skimming the article, it felt they wanted to criticize China’s handling of Xinjiang and the Uighur without trying to provide any support to the US right-wing who they called out. I don’t think they succeeded, though.
I’m sorry, but can you honestly read this paragraph and claim they’re attempting nuance to avoid feeding an imperialist line?
In the name of combating Islamic extremism, the party has embarked on a massive campaign of detention and indoctrination of ethnic minorities. Its goal is to eradicate all possibility of opposition here once and for all and turn this huge territory into a stable platform from which to extend its Belt and Road Initiative and dominate Central Asia.
In the name of implies that’s not why they’re doing what Jacobin alleges and have a more sinister reason.
Detention and indoctrination of ethnic minorities makes it sound completely indiscriminate and as though it’s all ethnic minorities as part of some sort of racial supremacy.
Eradicate all possibility of opposition here once and for all is deliberately using the language of total extermination and totalitarianism regimes to the degree that it would be over the top for an 80s movie Nazi.
You simply do not reach that level of hyperbole and incredibly specific language by mistake. Debate the merits of China’s actions by all means but the language used in this article would be extreme even for a neo-con rag.
