Listen to the essay:
I need to write Xinjiang my way
Writing this video took me a long time.
I mean, it’s easier to just be cynical nowadays. And why me? Why go against the grain? Why talk about something so controversial and uncomfortable? Isn’t it easier to leave this to people with more life experience, who don’t mind the chatter and the fight?
The point is, I felt a lot of resistance when it came to the whole topic of Xinjiang. If I am being frank, speaking on controversy involved risks and I have reservations about it. There’s also the fact that I almost never resonated with many of the voices out there that encourage empathy for China.
I just find their voice lacks the kind of boldness and authenticity that inspire confidence. What I desperately want to hear is, what’s happening in Xinjiang (that we can all agree on), and how to make sense of it.
So I made the video anyway, because one, I was curious about what my opinions would be. And two, I thought that if you are not satisfied with the answers you have available, you don’t always have to wait, you can always create it yourself. That’s how I decided to write about Xinjiang.
What Kashgar has taught me
I took a trip to Kashgar. My impressions? I felt like I walked into a moral maze. People underestimated how complicated Xinjiang can be. Journalists think they could capture Xinjiang with one voice and one story. Because maybe that’s the only one story they want to see and write on headlines. The truth is, in Xinjiang you can pretty much find evidence for whatever claim you want to make.
China is suppressing the Uyghurs. Well, the security and the policing are more intense than in the southeast. Children would tell you they can no longer speak Uyghurs at school. Political banners are indeed everywhere. The authority has a system to know who has done what, and when.
On the other hand, you can also say China is doing good things. Taxi drivers and vendors would tell you Kashgar has grown bigger and is a better place to live. You feel safe walking around the city at 2am. In villages, people live in well-tended houses. The sounds of construction were all around the air. The Uyghur language is everywhere, in conversations, text messages, and signs on the street.
Intuitively, I felt that that is what made Xinjiang difficult. There is no single answer. Because there is no single experience.
So, the jury is still out, right?
My thought process
While I was writing, the first thing I decided was to let go of the spat between China and the West. It just always came across to me that their reports on the media are somewhat being gamed for some political purposes. Fair enough, they have every reason to represent the world through their eyes.
But that’s not our business, my friend. My dear China watchers, we don’t need the cliches.
Think about it like this, if cultures are being more authentic and vulnerable with what they are trying to achieve, what would they say? Every country likes to say they have good intentions. But having good intentions doesn’t mean people will always appreciate what you do.
Now, China says the correction facilities, or training camps, whatever you call them, are to prevent terrorism. This is reasonable enough, at least from a Chinese point of view. If you were Chinese, you would probably find international criticisms a bit strange. Because China, unlike the Western bloc, is bordered by Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the larger Middle East, where the influence of Islamic fundamentalism is real. While the West, the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, is surrounded by oceans; the continental Western Europe is also buffered by Eastern Europe. The West just just can’t physically understand China. The perceived threat of terrorism China faces is a lot closer to home.
But to outsiders, this is not enough. Criticisms still pointed at China’s revision of the Uyghur culture, demanding response to news and stories of suffering and grievances. If we can’t solve the problem, at least we can explain how it has come to be.
The furthest I would go is to say China and the pro-independent Uyghur diaspora have different views on Xinjiang’s identity and history. For Uyghurs, the threat is China’s control over their homeland; but for China, the threat is Uyghur’s independence. Even if you are just an observer, you will probably find yourself consciously or unconsciously leaning to one of both.
It’s understandable China claims the threat is terrorism; but it is an understatement to say that’s the only matter. China also wants to make sure Xinjiang is politically loyal. So, the so-called ‘de-radicalisation’, is a political project to reinforce the Chinese identity among Uyghurs.
That’s probably why we can’t move this conversation forward, because there’ll always be a group of people arguing that this is the ‘wrong’ thing to do.
The thing that’s difficult to say
When I explain China, I am also very much aware of the limits of my thinking. First of all, my cultural background has limited the extent to which I criticise China. Me being born a Han Chinese in a wealthy city also interfered with my ability to sympathise with the Muslims, who are indeed vulnerable to China’s societal prejudice against Islam as well as to the Han supremacy.
A part of me also believes that China surely has to resort to some kind of heavy-handedness, since it’s using such a difficult policy to which some people might object. For example, wearing burka or niqab can be a reason you go to these centres. In China, you can wear hijab but just not the other two. But what if you love your burka and you don’t want to comply? I assume you either face charges from the court or there’ll be some government people forcing you to make a decision.
This is a difficult one. China has to get its hands dirty, for what it’s worth. If you are trying to make everyone happy, which you can’t, you end up losing time and resources, eventually unable to achieve your goal of survival or prosperity. Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian political thinker, has already addressed this dilemma:
He mustn’t be concerned about the bad reputation that comes with those negative qualities that are almost essential if he is to hold onto power. There’ll always be something that looks morally right but would actually lead a ruler to disaster and something else that looks wrong but will bring security and success.” (The Prince, chapter 15)
“A ruler mustn’t worry about being labelled cruel when it’s a question of keeping his subjects loyal and united; using a little exemplary severity, he will prove more compassionate than the leader whose excessive compassion leads to public disorder, muggings and murder.” (The Prince, chapter 17)
I value the merit of human rights. But I am also realistic. I believe a state will always prioritise its survival, to ensure its people are loyal and the land is complete, before it can deliver on those rights. Saying this, I am not undermining the pain many have experienced. I am certainly not eluding China from the responsibility of resolving the pain. I am just saying: politics is a difficult and dirty game.
China’s journey of Xinjiang, explained
Let me also say something.
Although Chinese civilization has existed for thousands of years, the building of the Chinese nation-state, in the modern sense, hasn’t yet been completed. China after 1949, is not the China we see today. China then was fragile, it was big but it was a heap of sand. Questions were many; answers were few. How to survive? How to make China stronger, richer, and a better place to live? How to forever protect China from being torn up and bullied?
There were no guiding principles. Everything was an experiment. In many ways, China is still experimenting with self governance, to see what works and what doesn’t. Policies always change fast. Look at covid. Beijing closed China’s borders for three years believing it was the right choice. Yet, under a wave of protests, the lockdown almost disappeared overnight.
Xinjiang, I say, follows the same pattern.
The problems now confronting China in Xinjiang, more precisely, that confront the Communist Party of China, are unresolved history from the past, the history before and even a few decades after 1949. China was simply too weak and too agreeable to call for a vision that it has called forward today: an assertive, powerful, and unified China.
The nature of the Xinjiang problem is not much different from that of Taiwan and Hong Kong. All went through a period of time when it had lost its sense of belonging, which China regards as ‘bad histories’ when they deviated from their real path.
In this case, in 1933, China was too weak to influence the founding of East Turkestan, as well as the second East Turkestan Republic in the 1940s. Even after 1949, after China took Xinjiang back, it was still very inexperienced. From the 1950s to the 1980s, China used inconsistent ‘minzu’ (ethnic) policies. First, it banned Uyghur literature and scholars during the cultural revolution between the 1960s and the 1970s. But then, there was also a period of complete relaxation in the wake of the reform and opening up in the 1980s; Muslims communities had built mosques in any styles and manners they liked.
What did it all mean? None of us knew. China was unable to fathom the consequence until the 1990s when ethnic riots began to break out and continued to escalate.
Under Xi’s vision, those periods were a time when China lacked clarity and a strong leadership. A fatal mistake. If China continued down this path, without a clear vision, firm policies, and quick execution, it would not achieve the ‘great national rejuvenation’; the hearts and the minds of the Chinese people will remain fractured and divided. There can only be one China. It’s time to repair what hasn’t been repaired, to remove what slowed China down to its path of greatness.
No doubt, to ensure it will rise strong and unified, China risked the happiness and opinions of some. That’s done knowing that if it did go overboard – if it truly caused resentment among Uyghurs – there’ll be a blowback. China won’t be able to escape it. But for now, China seems to be willing to make the bet.
Making controversy workable?
Now some final comments.
‘Xinjiang is a part of China.’ ‘Xinjiang is not a part of China.’ ‘China can’, ‘China can’t’. This is not a worthy philosophical debate. Politically, Xinjiang is China’s.
You see, China is so determined to reinforce its national identity that the only conversation it’s willing to entertain should look somewhat like this:
So you agree that Xinjiang is ours and separation movements are no alternative? Great. Now, if you have a better idea of how to make people in Xinjiang stand firm with us in times of crisis, please, please let us know. Yours sincerely, China.
I wonder if people still want to have this conversation.
Siming Lan 
Hello,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
First, I’m a French Canadian living near Montreal, in the Province of Quebec.
Quebec is similar to Xinjiang in several ways.
French catholic are a majority in Quebec, but a minority in Canada..
We had a moment of chaos in the early 1970s, caused by a separatist terrorist organization. It culminated by the assassination of an elected member of the National Assembly.
Canada’s reaction was to declare marshal law which led to the arrest and emprisonnent of around 1000 people. Illegal search and ceasure.
I really started interesting myself in China when COVID started in early 2020, after I met a woman from China.
I used to believe everything I heard in Canadian and American media about China.
That is until I started to study China closely. I first read the history of China, participated in Quora forums, watch you tube video made by westerners living in China, and finally twitter where I follow you.
My position on Xinjiang is that there is not and never was a genocide.
There were people in camps for a while, which ended in 2019.
There were over 2000 terrorist attack in China cause by ETIM who are now funded by Americans in Syria..
Earlier you said that Uyghur could not speak their language in school. Could it be to help the kids learn Chinese? I mean the Uyghur language is everywhere, so their language is not at risk.
You should know that people in Canada often go to immersion school to help learn French or English.
Except in Quebec where French people cannot go to immersion school by law. Which create an unequal treatment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m really surprised by your statements, e.g. that camps closed in 2019. Do you have any reference for that? Where have you found it? Did you check that it’s a solid source? Something of this magnitude would have definitely been reported heavily in mainstream international news, so I suppose it’s most likely totally false.
You need to be careful with Quora – there are a lot of fake CCP-sponsored accounts on it (like wumaos) which aggressively promote the narrative favourable for it. So Quora’s answers are far from true and honest, especially on politically charged topics. You always need to do fact-checking, otherwise can easily fall prey to manipulations…
LikeLike
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. There was never any Uyghur genocide in XinJiang China.
The idea of a Uyghur genocide is US Propaganda to counter the Belt and Road initiative in mid-Asia.
There are 3 primary sources linked to the Idea of a Uyghur genocide
1- Adrian Zens: who’s report is filled with errors and presumptions. Is report was sponsored in part By the NED (National Endowment for Democracy), the regime change arm of the US government created under Ronald Reagan.
2-ASPI: A think tank based in Australia finance in part by the MIC, NED and US State Department and Australian government,
3-US Media. Mainly, Washinton Post.
These 3 sources reference each other and all other reference comeback to these 3 sources.
Also the goal post has been moved many times since the first claim of a Uyghur genocide. It move to cultural genocide and then to force labor.
A few Fact:
1) the Uyghur population in Xinjiang is growing. From 3,6 million Uyghur in 1953 to 11,6 millions in 2020.
http://zw.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgjj/202112/t20211216_10470540.htm
A genocide should reduce a population not augment it. The 1 child policy in China applied only to Han Chinese and did not include any of the 55 ethnic minorities.
Re-education camp were a reality for a few years. The reasons of their coming in existence were the more than 2000 terrorist attack perpetrated mostly by ETIM (East Turmekistan Islamic Movement) registered as a terrorist group in 2003 by the UN. It was recognized by the US as a terrorist group from 2003 to August 2020. It was remove from the US list by Mike Pompeo so the US could legally provide funding for the group in the fight in Syria.
The main victims of the terrorist attack were non-Salafist Muslim in Xinjiang. The majority of the attack happened in Xinjiang but some happened in other provinces. There was a machetes attack at a train station in Kunming, Yunnan, that killed 34 peoples.
I highly suggest you take the time to look at Daniel Dumbrill You Tube Channel.
For example:
This woman who worked as a translator at Guantanamo Bay for Uyghur interrogation (torture) seance.
Many info in that one
His position on Xinjiang
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree that there is no genocide there in a classical sense of the word, i.e. killing – that’s for sure, although occasionally people disappear in China (not just Uyghurs), and there were reports of rape and forced sterilisation in the camps. However it’s probably fair to call what’s going on ‘cultural genocide’. It would really be great if you could give any mainstream sources, not just Youtube videos, like you mention Washington post, but could you give any links?
LikeLike
From this search you will have many WP links.
Note the date of the first one 28/02/2020
ASPI referred to this article in their report published before the article. They after the fact changed the date of their report.
https://www.google.com/search?q=washington+post+aspi+xinjiang&rlz=1C1MSAA_enCA704CA704&oq=washington+post+aspi+xin&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j33i160l2.26329j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Cowestpro wrote several legal paper responding to ASPI’s report and the UNOHCHR.
https://www.cowestpro.co/papers.html
The claim of force sterilization made by Adrian Zens has been debunk.
here:
http://english.scio.gov.cn/xinjiangfocus/2020-09/14/content_77200391.htm
Or from non Chinese government sources:
Inventing statistics, spinning tales to frame the official enemy
Among Zenz’s “major findings” was the claim that “80 percent of all net added IUD placements in China… were performed in Xinjiang, despite the fact that the region only makes up 1.8 percent of the nation’s population.”
“According to the 2019 China Health Statistics Yearbook published by the National Health Commission – the original source of Zenz’s claim – the number of new IUD insertion procedures in Xinjiang in 2018 accounted for only 8.7 percent of China’s total. So Zenz’s “major finding” appeared to be off by a factor of 10, a staggering error that substantially undermined the explosive quality of his argument.”
What is disgusting is that the claim about XinJiang has the effect of costing Uyghur’s their job and reduce their quality of life.
LikeLike
Thanks. I primarily meant do you have any mainstream (or otherwise reliable) news source saying that camps have been closed in 2019. I don’t dispute that there is sensationalism with regard to communication of Xinjiang issue by some sources (as there is pretty much with any other polarising topic), but I don’t think that the fact that forced sterilisation happened in those camps is wrong, even if the extent of it may be portrayed inaccurately.
LikeLike
This link mentions it, but being from NYT, they twisted it.
I found the supposed concentration camp mentioned by the NYT.
Of course it is not a concentration camp. NYT mentions Watchtowers but I would like to know the name of their drug dealer because their stuff causes great hallucinations.
https://map.baidu.com/@8887074.907296993,4447461.809693175,17.2z/maptype%3DB_EARTH_MAP
Their is a wall. many company have walls around their facilities. In China, walls are frequent.
The person in charge of finding concentration camps is named Nathan Ruser. He works for ASPI and uses google map to find such camp.
Most of them turned to be schools or industrial. One even had restaurant.
From this picture I cannot see the street view since coverage is still not as developed as in Canada.
LikeLike
Btw, a great example of how exaggerated news can be used to influence events is here, one of my favourite programs from 90s 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8DQ-Axi1V0 So yeah, the casualty numbers were inflated significantly during the Romanian revolution, and that’s not good, but then who really misses Ceausescu or regrets that he was removed? I think you’d have a hard time in today’s Romania to find a single person who misses him 🙂 (especially among the younger generation). I’ve been there in 1999 and in 2017 and it’s a huge difference, much like my home country 🙂
LikeLike
I went through some of your videos, and although they provide some interesting factual insights (like that some claims are exaggerated, which is probably true), they spend more time demonising America than addressing the essence. I would say if there are indeed no massive human rights violations in Xinjiang, in Xi’s place I would invite inspectors from the Hague, Geneva, etc. and give them access to whatever non-military facilities they would like, and that would clear his name. Yet nothing of this kind happens. Western journalists (except for those who are pro-CCP) find increasingly restrictive conditions in China, so that many choose to leave, if they are not kicked out literally. I’m not saying that Xinjiang-related sanctions in the West are good – you always want to be as accurate and surgical as possible on such matters to reduce collateral damage – but it could be that lack of information on specific targets (i.e. which entities use forced labour and which don’t) make it difficult. Especially that Chinese government and associated institutional actors are probably world’s leading master of obfuscation and confusion 🙂 (you could read “Mr. China” book by a guy who really loved China, and that’s about China in the 90s which was A LOT more friendly to the West than nowadays). Besides, Grayzone is a far left site… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone I generally would suggest avoiding far left or far right media in the West, as they well known being hostile to the countries they live in and ‘convenient idiots’ for (if not actively colluding with) Russia or China. That’s perhaps one reason while in many European countries their parties are excluded from governments even if sometimes become quite popular, e.g. AfD in Germany, https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/german-far-right-party-calls-eu-a-failed-project/ although in other cases, if they are become less radical, they get incorporated in governments, such as True Finns in Finland, Democrats in Sweden or far right parties in Denmark and Austria. In some cases they even lead governments, e.g. SYRIZA in Greece, which I was personally a fan of for a while (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P84tN0z4jqM, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afl9WFGJE0M 🙂 ) or Meloni’s Brothers of Italy who chose an atlanticist perspective despite being fairly radical domestically (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/28/biden-meets-italys-meloni-to-talk-china-ukraine ) But I think the way EU is structured is quite convenient for managing such extremism in individual member states while preserving democracy and overall coherence on key policy matters. Perhaps sth for Xi to learn, instead of putting people to camps…
LikeLike
If you watch this video starting at 1:27min you get much information about ETIM.
All the criticism of the US is fact base when you get a chance to look into it. The world would be at peace if not for the US destabilizing countries or creating chaos.
The Brics currency cannot happen fast enough.
”in Xi’s place I would invite inspectors from the Hague, Geneva, etc. and give them access to whatever non-military facilities they would like, and that would clear his name.”
China did invite all countries to visit XinJiang. All who have gone have came out against the genocide claim including all or almost all the muslims country. Michel Bachelet was force to resign by the US for not condemning China after her visit to Xinjiang early 2022. This is a must read.
Click to access cowestpro_4-2023_-_jul.pdf
LikeLike
I read this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/un-human-rights-commissioner-michelle-bachelet-china-visit-xinjiang and it indeed seems that Michele Bachelet screwed up phenomenally. Do you know a concept ‘Potemkin village’? This is exactly what she was treated like… (and it seems accepted, without challenging the arrangement, showing a huge flaw in judgment). Frankly, looking at your media sources like cowestpro, they’re fringe, conspiracy-driven, sensationalist and short of critical insight, probably run by losers who didn’t find a place in their society and looking for ways to rail against it using the very freedom of speech that is forbidden in the country they defend… Here is a good joke about that 🙂 https://youtu.be/mN3z3eSVG7A?t=123
LikeLike
I have a bigger problem with your sources.
You linked a wikipedia article to denounce the Grayzone.
Yet wikipedia is often edited by the CIA and FBI
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/media-channel-cia-and-fbi-computers-used-for-wikipedia-edits
Meanwhile, Max Bluementhal from the Grayzone testified at the UN recently. This is not something that citizens have often the occasion to do.
You say Cowestpro is fringe. Please, by all account point out where is Jaq was erring in her ways.
Your video is a very poor example. No US citizen would be able to get to the presidential office and hit the desk saying that they don’t like the way he runs their country. You can say it in the street.
As for freedom of speech. It does not exist in the USA. YouTube and and other social media are all censoring US citizens that are not falling in line with the US government. Today Scott Ritter was banned for YouTube. He is very well versed in military and CIA tactics.
I have a little challenge for you. Tell me where does the idea of the Uyghur genocide comes from? Who are the people behind those claim? Other than those I mention.
LikeLike
Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including you and me, CIA and FBI, Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus 😀 What is strange to me is that you consider CIA and FBI as enemies. Why so? Most people working there are decent and are engaged in routine tasks, not some grand conspiracies to take over the world or subversion. Again, if you simply hate the West and you try to find evidence to support that everywhere, it’s pointless to discuss further.
The Reagan joke is a metaphor. Of course you can’t enter into the office, the point is about what you’re allowed to say, without repercussions, and what not. E.g. if you see my Facebook and Wechat feeds, they’re VERY different, as I’m well aware that discussing on Wechat what I discuss on FB would bring me in deep trouble if I’m in China. And believe me I criticise all sides and quite nastily (for different things), not just Xi.
If you need references behind the Xinjiang camps, go ahead and read here, there are about 300… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps (again, if you discard Wiki as CIA-run, I would end the discussion here…)
Youtube is probably only censoring channels and sources that propagate conspiracies and fake news. Your suggested person sounds like one of them. In Youtube’s place I’d probably be even more aggressive in rooting out that, as fake news is one of the biggest problems in today’s society, as it reduces public’s trust in journalism and you cannot have vibrant democracy and healthy society without informed citizenry. There are many examples of what can happen, from Trump’s followers ingesting bleach at his suggestion to storming the Capitol…
LikeLike
Couldn’t reply to you for some reason
”Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including you and me, CIA and FBI, Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus”
Yeah everyone can edit Wikipedia but not everyone can do it on the scale that the CIA and FBI does.
The CIA is the most corrupt organization in the worlds. It is totally out of control. They are drug dealers, to finance their illegal operation.
In 1954-6, with the now declassified operation Ajax, they subverted the democratically elected PrimeMinister Mogadesh because he wanted to nationalize Iran oil field and use the money to build road, hospital and school.
Once Mogadesh was removed they installed a dictator, The Shah of Iran to power armed him and created the Savak police and thought them the art of torture.
They did the same in Ukraine in 2014. They tried in Hong Kong 2019-20. they tried in Tianamen Square in China 1989 (under the hospice of the National Endowment for Democracy.
The FBI is not as bad of the CIA. Most agent are decent officer of the law. but the organization is also political from its creation. Do you think spying on American stopped with the passing J.E.Hoover.
The USA are master of propaganda and follow the rule book of Goebble and added to its theories or built on it.
Rule 1: If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.
I offer you your Wiki Xinjiang page with its 300 links referring the same sources. Adrian Zenz and ASPI.
Rule 2: Accuse other of which you are guilty of.
The US have the worst human right record in the world. They killed Muslim civilian by million to avenge 9/11. They started 4 wars. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria.
Try to tell me that anyone of these countries are better today than before the American came.
Tell Ukraine is better now than before they push Russia to attack it.
I use to believe the propaganda until I met a Chinese woman and started to study China. Very few of my source are Chinese, most are American, Canadian, UK, Australian, New Zealander whom have been living in China for years.
China is safe and has a lot of freedom. Most important is the freedom to live which is non existent in the USA.
LikeLike
“Very few of my source are Chinese, most are American, Canadian, UK, Australian, New Zealander whom have been living in China for years.” If you check them, most of them are fringe, far-left or far-right or promoted explicitly by CCP or Russia, some even work for them, e.g. Russia Today. The guy you mentioned who got banned is a sex offender and pedophile. Nobody disputes that there are bad things CIA did in the past (or even doing now), but on the balance they are for the better. Without US and CIA, the world would be dominated by thugs like Putin or Xi, so a lesser and more capable evil is always better than a more extreme and insecure one. As for Ukraine, its people (at least those in Kyiv and Western Ukraine) clearly had intention to oppose Putin, and the only thing that CIA may have helped them is how to organise more effectively and reveal weak points of Yanukovich’s regime, which is completely legitimate. Before 2014, Ukraine was split about 50-50 between pro-Western and anti-Western parties. After Russian annexation of Crimea and Donbas >80% of Ukrainians started supporting the West (surprise, surprise). And after the 2022 invasion, I’m pretty sure >80% would like Putin castrated and quartered 😀 (just kidding, but sent to the Hague at the very least, for sure)
As I said, if you want to build some absurd narrative about how evil the West is, you will always find supporting materials in dark corners of the internet, and should simply leave it and live in China or whichever other place you praise. As a “lapdog”, you may be safe there, but don’t be so sure, as it could happen like to this Putin’s war supporter who got arrested in Moscow 😀 https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220316-video-shows-anti-war-russian-protester-expressing-fear-about-speaking-up-before-arrest
If meeting a Chinese woman transformed you into eager consumer of propaganda and conspiracies, then you may not be a very strong-willed person (and certainly not a lucky one, as there are lots of Chinese people, including women, who have no illusions about China’s government or consume conspiracies about the West.) Frankly I have hard time meeting anyone who would try to push me such propaganda (not that they don’t exist, but they probably know I’m not stupid and don’t want to end up being shamed or ridiculed).
Sorry I will not respond to any more of your comments, unless there is anything substantively new or different in them, rather than just recycling more of the same narrative…
LikeLike
“If you check them, most of them are fringe, far-left or far-right or promoted explicitly by CCP or Russia, some even work for them, e.g. Russia”
1) When judging sources the importance is much less where it come from but if you can verify what they say. Are you able to find flaws in their arguments and fact they presented.
I have watched those videos I did not believe them at first until I followed their sources.
For example that woman who claimed to have been in a camp from January 9, 2019 until June. she testified at Uyghur tribunal. They presented her passport which was renewed in March 2019. Do you know many captive who renew their passport in prison?
Following that CNN still used her story but blurred the date it was emitted.
Learn about the NED.
2) you link the Guardian. you could have link form any western media. They are all the same.
22 countries sent a letter to condemned China at the UN. None of these countries are Muslim majority. None accepted China’s offer to visit.
37 countries most with Muslim majority defended China in a letter to the UN. they visited Xinjiang.
LikeLike
This is one of the independent reports on Xinjiang. Please have a look if you are interested: https://idi-international.org/en/7647-2/
LikeLike
Thanks for providing link to this document that I had not heard of before
LikeLike
I agree these guys are more credible that the links Sylvain put up, but the signatories are still largely left leaning and anti-American , e.g. the founder of populist 5 star movement in Italy who brought Italy into Belt and Road Initiative, which the current prime minister will soon leave https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-italy-withdrawing-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative (it’s funny that Meloni’s party seems far-right but her policies, particularly international ones, are not, and it’s amazing how she managed to tame 2 pro-Russian macho male leaders in her coalition, Salvini and Berlusconi, the latter of whom recently died). I think that the anti-American left-wing intellectuals have views that are well intended but naive and outdated. I presume that with time they will change them, but the question is if it won’t be too late, like here… https://youtu.be/_KyL1pB8gAQ?list=PLSalKnZJwaRx5_MlbUzwmH62BNkUxD1pk&t=120 Here is a good analysis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=017WGzJ5fHA (btw, I’m a big fan of Matt Taibbi, I loved his article on Goldman 🙂 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-195229/ ). But looking back in history it’s very characteristic. If you read Kennan’s Long Telegram (I know Siming loves primary sources :)) https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm Stalin’s thinking was sth like this: “(f) It must be borne in mind that capitalist world is not all bad. In addition to hopelessly reactionary and bourgeois elements, it includes (1) certain wholly enlightened and positive elements united in acceptable communistic parties and (2) certain other elements (now described for tactical reasons as progressive or democratic) whose reactions, aspirations and activities happen to be “objectively” favorable to interests of USSR These last must be encouraged and utilized for Soviet purposes.” So, after 75 years, not much has changed…
Differently from those Western leftists who think that the US corporatists are the ones to blame for everything, I think that them having been in bed with CCP technocrats who were later routed by Xi’s loyalists has created one of the most dangerous, explosive and anti-democratic cliques in the world. Briefly, what happened, is that they personally gained money, at the cost of increasing income inequality in America and gradual erosion of democratic principles, whilst at the same time empowering relative advantage of a country that has been at best ambivalent and recently openly hostile to those principles. So basically those leftists demonise the Western corporatists who created the Frankenstein but are cool with the Frankenstein himself, who if not stopped, is eager to eat up the neighbouring countries, if not the entire international order. It’s actually not just my thinking but also of one of the most famous Chinese dissidents, whose family grew up with that of Xi: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/20/china-wei-jingsheng-xi-covid-00014844
Fundamentally, I think Siming’s view is more accurate than that of these Western leftists. At least Siming has first hand experience, whereas those guys for the most part do not, and her analysis is mostly sound. My only problem with it is not the facts but the assessment (or my reading of it), that “it’s ok” (citing Macchiavelli, etc.) Specifically, we should put ourselves into shoes of Uyghurs, not just of those Uyghurs who agree with Xi (who may indeed be treated well) but those who don’t. I know that well coz my country suffered badly under Stalin with about 5% of people – and not just any people, but the brightest and the most active people – being repressed or even killed… Destroying conquered nation’s or region’s intellectual elite (or part of it that refuses to submit) comes right from the playbook of Genghis Khan, who unfortunately is the godfather of modern Russian and Chinese states… (the only major countries he managed to conquer for a longer time) in early 2000s the same happened in Chechnya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He_mc5VYAl0&t=459s ) So just like I may have been repressed if I was born 60 years earlier, Siming may have been repressed if she was born in Xinjiang… Instead, we should aim for higher political culture, not return to the dark past or try to justify those who try… Especially as China has shown for 35 years before Xi, that it could move forward in a sense of political culture, even if slowly.
LikeLike
Yet they say the exact same thing.
Your problem you look at the origin of the sources more than what they say
LikeLike
“Something of this magnitude would have definitely been reported heavily in mainstream international news…”
My but you put a great deal of faith and trust in mainstream media. How gullible and naive you are!
I don’t trust mainstream media at all. It is frequently used to disseminate government propaganda. It frequently lies. And it won’t always tell the truth if the truth does not fit with the propaganda.
I’m afraid you are the one who’s being fooled and manipulated.
LikeLike
It’s important to understand limitations of mainstream media (e.g. sometimes there is bias, sometimes there is lack of experience outside of areas of their usual expertise), so I’m not saying that all mainstream media is good or that all non-mainstream media is bad, obviously I appreciate Siming’s channel for example 🙂 And a number of others. But you need to do fact checking a lot more rigorously than when reading well established media channels who are well trained on such issues and journalists they employ are experienced professionals able to separate fact from fiction and reduce sensationalism (in many but not all cases, as recently the growth of tabloid media and polarisation has been very worrying). You may want to watch this, https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles (although Eli Pariser’s own site Upworthy may be caught in the progressive and sensationalist bubbles 🙂 ) Btw I’m working on my own news aggregator site that would include a variety of reliable news from various sources from various countries, left and right, but it’s not ready for prime time yet, so I won’t share it at this point (we’re still working on site functionality and the current set of articles is outdated)
LikeLike
I have intimate knowledge of China, so for me, fact checking is unnecessary. Based on my knowledge, I know mainstream media constantly lies about China in order to demonize and vilify China. This is not in dispute.
LikeLike
I have intimate knowledge too… spanning over 20 years… (the first time I visited China was for a competition in 1999 and since then I visited quite regularly) I think the situation is more complex. Firstly, with rare exceptions I think Western media is quite ignorant about China, talking about its society, culture, etc. It mostly comments on political events, and only the most major ones, and usually quite superficially. There is no doubt that it comments mainly in a negative fashion, but I don’t think there is any kind of intentional bias, nor do I think that most of the reporting is inaccurate or false. After all, most of news in the West are negative, even about our own countries (because negativity and emotional headlines sell for the most part). But yeah I agree that better knowledge and more in depth insights would benefit China reporting in the West a lot. However, it’s important for that to be independent, not promoted by those sympathetic for CCP or with an agenda (and there are plenty of Westerners in non-mainstream media who do the latter, sometimes unknowingly)
LikeLike
Your argument makes good sense, resonating with me. The light in your eyes and your lovely intelligent facial expressions put a big smile on my face . I could watch and listen to you all day.
LikeLike
Ultimately at the end of the day, the only opinions that matter are the direct stakeholders, i.e. the people on the ground (The Uyghurs), and the people they interact with, which for the sake of simplicity, would primarily be the nation state of China at large. Towards this end, i think the best way forward is for the two parties involved (i.e. representatives from the Uyghur people, and those from the government) to always keep communicating with each other on their needs and concerns, and each try their practical best to adapt to the other. Minimize the opportunity for misunderstandings to fester and demonize the other party. Spend energy and efforts to address real issues, instead of phantom menaces.
LikeLike
Overall a great post! I particularly liked these quotes, with the first one winning the top prize 🙂
“The truth is, in Xinjiang you can pretty much find evidence for whatever claim you want to make.
While I was writing, the first thing I decided was to let go of the spat between China and the West. It just always came across to me that their reports on the media are somewhat being gamed for some political purposes.
Politics is a difficult and dirty game.”
As Jack Torrance (would have) said in Shining, “words of wisdom, Siming, words of wisdom” 😉
Your specific insights are also brilliant. Although taking Machiavelli as a favourite political philosopher is a bit heavy, but I must admit I sometimes bear a bit of similar guilt as well…
Yet, regarding “So you agree that Xinjiang is ours and separation movements are no alternative? Great. Now, if you have a better idea of how to make people in Xinjiang stand firm with us in times of crisis, please, please let us know. Yours sincerely, China.”
which I think is brilliantly phrased, and I totally see your point, the answer is “pretty much everything else than what is being done now”,
e.g. [default China version] further opening up and economic opportunities, perhaps cracking down on the most radical elements or [sweetened version] investing more in Xinjiang than in other richer regions, e.g. following the EU version of economic support for poor member states/regions, which I can attest that eastern EU members, one of which I’m a citizen of, really love, although with one major caveat on which I perhaps shouldn’t expand here now, but bottom line is that with the exception of Hungary, Eastern Europeans’ identity and loyalty towards EU is very high, higher than of many Western Europeans for that matter, perhaps partly because of being ‘a buffer’ (as you said, even if it’s not a very nice term, we rather prefer “frontier states”), we live with an imperialistic monster on our Eastern borders, so identifying with anything that counters that monster socially, politically, culturally or economically sort of comes naturally.
So pretty much anything else would work a lot better in Xinjiang, if you want good for China. And the current policy not only risks but actually guarantees hatred of the local population for many years to come. Of course they don’t rise up or express it openly because they can’t, unless they want to go to the camps (or worse). But you will see it manifest openly at the first signs of liberalisation in China, which will inevitably happen, just like Gorbachev’s perestroika revealed (not caused!) similar long-held feelings in some of the occupied former soviet republics like mine. In fact, if you wanted to bet, I would say that before Xi there was nearly zero (OK, maybe 1%) chance of Xinjiang independence 50 years down the line, whether China was strong or weak – there was simply lacking sufficient emotion and common purpose for sth like that to materialise (aside from fringe groups). Now, after the camps, I would estimate this chance as perhaps 30-50%, which would manifest at the first chance China gets weaker or strong but liberal enough to allow self-determination or autonomy (like Gorbachev did). And you should not blame a future liberal leader of China under which this may happen, but Xi who sew the seeds. The same with Ukraine. Had Putin not annexed Crimea, Eastern regions and started the war, it’s quite possible that by 2019 (i.e. the next election) Ukraine may have had a pro-Russian president (as in new and fragile democracies governments tend to change fast and swing in opposite directions (again my country for the past 30 years is a good example, although all of these have been reasonably pro-EU for understandable perhaps you could say Machiavellian reasons). Now barring some unexpected phenomenal collapse of the West, there is absolutely *no way* Putin or Russia will have any influence in Ukraine for the foreseeable future, except perhaps keeping small parts of occupied regions in its control. Ukraine already removed all remaining signs of Russian influence in culture, education, monuments, even changed the date of Christmas to Western – again absolutely no doubt none of this or very little would have happened without Putin’s overreaction. Like his buddy, Xi is a reactionary leader who acts like he has a lot more power than he actually does, and if he persists with his path (which I have little doubts he will, as that’s his mindset which he acquired in his adolescence during Cultural revolution, particularly his experiences in Shaanxi caves, which very sadly, he took positively as a formative experience rather than as punishment), he may come down as similarly ‘reputable’ leader of China as Empress Dowager Cixi, just like Putin will never be Peter the Great he fantasizes, but the one who wasted Russian lives, prosperity and position in the world for at best very minimal territorial gains at the cost of alienating a huge neighbouring previously friendly nation and unifying NATO – and all that because of his paranoia and personal insecurities.
LikeLike
Thank you Gedi, for this enlightening post! Very interesting angle.
Just to clarify, when you mentioned perestroika that revealed independence sentiments of former USSR republics and Russia’s occupation of Crimea that led to Ukraine’s ultimate detachment from Putin, did you mean to use it as an example to say China shouldn’t resort to heavy-handed policies to bring Xinjiang closer, or to say it shouldn’t have Xinjiang at all?
Because I think we are talking about two different problems here. Mine is about domestic politics – appropriate use of policy to achieve a country’s national goal (unity, in China’s case); Yours seems to be about international relations (IR). They shouldn’t be treated the same way.
Using the example of Russia/Ukraine is slightly misdirected if we are talking about the former. Shall we agree that there isn’t an ontological (well, since you are a scholar… let’s bring on these academic word monsters) debate about Ukraine or Crimea’s political autonomy. Ukraine is after all an /independent/ country that has the legal power to decide which /foreign policy/ it wants to use with Russia. We can imagine how Russia would better influence Ukraine’s political affinity had it not occupied Crimea in 2014. This is still an IR problem.
I’d like to bring up something which is important for later. Let’s please remember, Russia didn’t invade Crimea out of nowhere, but because of NATO’s eastern expansion; long before, Russia had warned that it will not tolerate Eastern Europe turning into a Western bastion. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 has made that point. Is it only a ‘Russia aggression problem’? Not entirely. The West has meddled in Russia’s core strategic backyard.
Now, the Xinjiang problem is not an IR problem, in my view. What China is trying to do is to reinforce the reality that Xinjiang is a part of China, on a large-scale, intense identity level. We could argue China is not being entirely fair with its people, some of whom probably really don’t harbour any drastic sentiments to separation. I can agree the design of these ethnic policies is debatable, even entertain the prospect of Xi’s political insecurity. But China has made it clear it won’t negotiate on authority over Xinjiang, so this puts limit to the extent to which the conversation becomes productive.
What complicates this is the fact that the West /seems to be/ challenging China’s Xinjiang position by backing up independent Uyghur diaspora. Of course, for the West there are real geopolitical benefits to this, just like the Ukraine cause. This made China nervous, understandably. So, I am suspecting that the West doesn’t have the kind of satisfying moral purity to criticise China on Xinjiang and tell China what to do with its Uyghur muslims.
LikeLike
Hi Siming,
thanks for your reply 🙂 Let me try to reply to your points.
“did you mean to use it as an example to say China shouldn’t resort to heavy-handed policies to bring Xinjiang closer, or to say it shouldn’t have Xinjiang at all”
Actually I meant neither, but perhaps closer to the first – that the problem in Xinjiang was a minor one (i.e. sporadic terrorism & separatism originating there), which has become a major one after millions were put into camps, who even if eventually released will remember it for years if not generations. Imagine it’s like a ‘decade of humiliation’ for Uyghurs (just like China has its ‘century of humiliation’ vs. Western European powers).
An important reason why Russia has such bad reputation in countries around it (including Ukraine, but not only) is because of atrocities Soviet Union committed there, including Stalin deporting millions to gulags (which sort of resembles what’s happening in Xinjiang, at least by the percentage of population implicated), and of course more recently war in Ukraine (which suffered immensely – perhaps more than any other ex-Soviet country/ethnicity in Holomodor – and they surely remember it to this day). Due to Gorbachev and Yeltsin’s good will there was a trend towards more cooperation between Eastern Europe and Russia, but Putin’s rule put a stall to that first, and war in Ukraine completely reversed it. Now North Eastern Europe (not UK or US) is the most anti-Russian region in the world.
You’re right that one is domestic and the other is international but the processes there are similar. There are no other great domestic examples but imagine if Spanish government, eager to quell Catalonia’s independence movement (which is btw a lot more progressed than Xinjiang’s) would put half a million of Catalonians into reeducation camps. How would that work out? 🙂 You could probably imagine that this would actually propel the independence movement in the long term, even if suppress in short term. What UK did with Scotland was the opposite. They gave them a chance of referendum at the time when Cameron & co. were pretty sure SNP would lose it, and in this way they postponed this question for decades. Spain hasn’t found a great solution yet (and it’s actually interesting as the most radical pro-Catalonian party holds balance of power after the latest election), but overall the situation there is stable as well – again because the response to separatism was very measured.
Regarding your interpretation of Ukraine & Georgia – it’s commonly repeated by some in Russia/China and a few in the West like Mearsheimer, but as an Eastern European (although not from Ukraine or Georgia) I can assure that this is a complete BS from our standpoint – again if you consider people in those countries as humans with free will, not merely geopolitical pawns. America didn’t force or push any of these countries to NATO. It is us who basically begged them to accept us to NATO because of the looming Russia threat (and we already knew in early 2000s what Putin is really like, though Western Europeans didn’t believe then), and luckily for us, they agreed (after initial reluctance). Less luckily for Ukraine & Georgia they were late, Putin managed to consolidate power by then, and got them in trouble. We can argue whether providing perspective for them to join but without an immediate plan in 2007 was a good decision – probably it was bad, but they had rights like any other country to seek protection from Russia knowing well from history what could happen when a more militant Russian leader consolidates his power… Perhaps they should have either not provided the perspective or provided with accelerated timeline (frankly I don’t think George W. was a gifted statesman by any measure, with his failed Middle East wars and other blunders, even if we’re grateful to him for taking us into NATO) Anyway, the critical issue here is of agency. It’s not America or Western Europe who pushed Eastern Europe into NATO, it’s Eastern European countries who saw this as the only guarantor of our survival, and as war in Ukraine showed, we were completely right (and what we fear the most in the future is Trump’s election because as you know, Trump can’t be trusted with anything, even if we would hope that the establishment would reign him in, as it sort of did last time).
I’m not really knowledgeable of what the West is/was doing regarding Xinjiang, but my feeling is that its support of Uyghur diaspora came in response to Xi’s suppression and camps, not preceded it, and the purpose was not for promoting independence, but to ensure that Uyghurs survive the ordeal. But if you have any information by reputable sources that there was some incitement of violence and separatism before Xi came to power, I’d be curious to read. To my knowledge, the West (except maybe for rare extreme voices) has never promoted independence of Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong or formal independence of Taiwan. They only supported civil society there and economic relations with them, as they basically support everywhere else. But then Xi came who views civil society of any kind (whether Chinese or foreign) as an enemy, and we have what we have… Jiang and Hu were a lot more ambivalent about it. Heck, even Zhao Ziyang’s book “Prisoner of the State” was unofficially available in China during Hu’s years… 🙂 (btw, a highly recommended read – a primary historical source)
LikeLike
Btw, I’d like to recommend an interesting documentary, in case you haven’t seen it yet 🙂 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ug411U7Nu
(Bili is my favourite site, has a lot of good stuff which is sometimes hard to find on youtube, partly due to copyright issues)
Could contrast with this for example, https://www.zeit.de/feature/vladimir-putin-mother 🙂
It’s often underestimated how much a leader’s personality is important, especially in authoritarian countries. And people who had a loving childhood often end up as empathetic leaders, whereas those who were mistreated not so infrequently end up as monsters (Stalin and Hitler are obvious examples). No wonder that some people say “too bad Trump didn’t receive love from his father”… 😀
LikeLike
China’s unity was hard-won over centuries of difficulty. China was not an easy nation to unify. So it’s understandable that China seeks to protect this unity with whatever it takes.
If the Uyghurs in Xinjiang threaten disunity, then what must Beijing do? Beijing has taken measures that we in the West may not like, but who are we to second-guess Beijing?
Integrating the Uyghurs into Chinese society is not evil and malevolent. It’s what all nations do to encourage unity. We do this in Canada with immigrants.
The difference is that China’s central government has more power to push through its policy. We in the West don’t like that.
LikeLike
Just replace ‘Uyghur’ with whatever ethnicity you are, and ‘China’ with a large country near you that threatens to erase your national/ethnic identity (aside from allowing you to wear whichever clothes you like, but even that not including some) and see how you would feel about your own statements… 🙂
Yes, unity always comes at a cost, but costs that perhaps have been acceptable in 16th century are no longer acceptable in the 21st…
LikeLike
Not acceptable in the West but certainly acceptable in China. China is a unique nation with unique circumstances. China is not America. China is not Europe. Western values do not apply to China.
Beware of Western arrogance.
LikeLike
I think it’s not acceptable by any people in the 21st century who call themselves civilised – West, South or East. Nothing to do with arrogance… I’m sure Chinese people by and large would not accept it either if they have access to accurate news and would be allowed to express opinion freely without retributions. Like you could see here the opinion of Asian/Chinese Americans https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2023/07/19/most-asian-americans-view-their-ancestral-homelands-favorably-except-chinese-americans/ 🙂 Freedom to express and accurate reliable news is not a Western invention but a critical basis of any functional society. I’m totally fine if you use reputable sources from Global South as well (e.g. India Times are usually quite informative, and so is Al Jazeera, sometimes even more then Western media that can sometimes be a bit ignorant about issues in other parts of the world) – any media that is independent and without an obvious agenda (so that clearly excludes Global Times, People’s Daily, Russia Today and their associates)
LikeLike
This is typical Western arrogance. You’ve made yourself the unappointed judge of what values are good and what values are bad. You’ve effectively labelled China as uncivilised.
Freedom of expression is a very recent concept, and functional societies have existed for thousands of years.
As I said in another comment, I have intimate knowledge of China. Thus, I can accurately determine the honesty of various mainstream media around the world. It is easy to spot the anti-China agenda.
Chinese-Americans are Americans, and like all Americans, they can and have been manipulated by US media to hate on China.
LikeLike
No, I did not label China uncivilized, only Xi’s government and its media lackeys. I know a lot of Chinese personally and most of them are either neutral or against Xi, sometimes a lot more passionately against him than I am… Freedom of expression has been around, in different degrees for much of history (otherwise how was much of literature written, starting from Ancient Greece, etc…) Tyrannical regimes (btw, many of them in Europe, at least before 1945/1990) have always tried to suppress it, but people always yearned for freedom, including Chinese people – there is no exception with them, as Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia examples show. There is no contradiction between freedom and a functioning society, it’s a myth employed by tyrants to justify their own rule…
LikeLike
Freedom of expression also exists in China to a significant degree. All you have to do is monitor Chinese social media. This is so obvious for anyone who’ve visited China.
Shit, I have less freedom of expression where I live (Canada). I frequently get censored on Twitter, Quora, LinkedIn, and YouTube when I post positive comments about China. The state doesn’t have to censor you when private media willingly does the job for them!
And just for the record, I’m a Chinese-Canadian. Now, you know another Chinese personally.
LikeLike
Not personally 🙂 But OK. I’m surprised that you get censored due to content of supporting China, if there is no hateful or incendiary language in it. Sometimes it can be a false impression, like a moderation delay… But it really sounds strange. Yes I know that social freedoms exist in China (I’ve been traveling 5 times a year until the pandemic and will resume travelling in September). But I also clearly noticed changes in the past 5 years or so and they are very much for the worse. There is still inertia of basic freedom but there is also a very clear effort by Xi to suppress it at many different levels. There are many signs of it everywhere, often not on critical things but symbolic (I could see at our university’s campus – things were very different even if comparing 2017 to 2019 – e.g. the increase of surveillance cameras, facial recognition, propaganda posters, etc. although for the large part it doesn’t seem to be swaying many students in their favour, what is worse is that students are now less encouraged or even discouraged to study abroad, so some students that are very liberal-minded have a hard time to get access to basic facts and information). They also shut down the whole private tutoring industry and now encouraging pupils not to study English at schools… And of course growing nationalism and hostility towards Westerners (which still doesn’t manifest much among the most educated people and in the most major cities but is otherwise increasing and worrying). So for the time being things are still relatively OK but the trend is worrying and if you look into Putin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany it underwent similar transitions towards extremism before the war. Russia was a fairly normal country at the beginning of Putin’s rule (I visited a number of times between 1999 and 2006) but now things are much different. Even in 2006 I saw the first signs, like portraits of Putin added on Transsiberian trains compared to 2004… I’m not saying it’s not reversible or that war would necessarily happen – perhaps Xi would suddenly die one day or maybe there would be a change in power balance in the CCP – but the signs are not good… That’s why foreign businesses leave China rather than invest, as uncertainty is growing. And existing institutions like ours have more difficulty recruiting quality staff than back in 2016 for example.
LikeLike
FDI has been increasing, not declining. Your sources are dubious.
LikeLike
It may depend on the point of reference, from when you measure. If the low point of the pandemic, then of course. E.g. see this, https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/31/china-manufacturing-pmi-july-2023.html
LikeLike
Siming Lan
Could you tell me what liberty you had when you studied abroad that you don’t have in China?
LikeLike