The Remote Sensing Analysis of The Demolished Mosques in Xinjiang: A Case Study of Kargilik Grand Mosque
Introduction
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) (Cultural Erasure, 2020) and The Guardian (Kuo, 2019) claimed that a large part of mosques in Xinjiang was demolished. Furthermore, most of them were historical and state-protected sites. Kargilik Grand Mosque, built in 1540, is one of the destroyed mosques (Kuo, 2019). However, the local government of Xinjiang denied the allegation and claimed that they are “reconstructing” mosques for the safety of Muslims (Jackson, 2021). Moreover, the Chinese Embassy in the UK and the Chinese Consulate in Marsaille, by using the same example, the Kargilik Grand Mosque, criticized the international media, especially the western media, for slandering the Chinese government’s efforts to respect and protect people’s religious freedom and their religious sites (Marsaille, 2020; Northern, 2020). Under the strict control of the Chinese government, it is almost inaccessible to Xinjiang and gets firsthand material to verify the claim.
The recent development of remote sensing technology provides a new and safe method to investigate and verify human rights violations from a distance. Unlike the classic witness testimony-based evidence gathering, satellite imagery offers relatively more unbiased, scientific, and replicable analytical findings. Moreover, it can look back in time and pinpoint geospatial functions to detect unobservable changes by the human eyes (Farfour, 2020, p. 232).
Considering Xinjiang’s inaccessibility, satellite imagery is the best and safe way to investigate and verify the demolished mosques. In the report, we will choose Kargilik Grand Mosque as a case study and use several satellite imagery applications such as Google Earth Pro, Baidu Map, and EO browser to investigate if the historical mosque- Kargilik Grand Mosque, was demolished.
Concerning preserving cultural sites, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage listed the obligations of state parties and intergovernmental committees; this report only focuses on the state party – China’s obligation.
In the report, we will focus on the following research questions:
- Which remote sensing data is available to monitor the destruction of historical mosques in Xinjiang in general and Kargilik in particular?
- Has China violated the UNESCO Convention and domestic laws by destroying the culturally protected mosque?
Our hypothesis: The Chinese government demolished the historical mosque in Kargilik city. Since China is a state party to the UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, it is obligated to protect instead demolish it.
In the first part, we will discuss the international and domestic legal obligations related to the protection of cultural sites. We will briefly introduce satellite imagery and its role in the next part. In the third part, we will examine the Kargilik Grand Mosque using Google Earth Pro, EO browser, and Baidu Maps. In the last section, we will present the recommendation and conclusion parts.
1. International and Domestic Legal Obligations on The Preservation of Cultural Sites
A cultural site embodies historical, artistic, and economic values as an essential part of cultural heritage. It symbolizes the history and ties the new and old generations through particular identities. Whatever our identity is, there are always various historically and culturally integrated elements in our background. In other words, cultural and historical sites are the commonwealth of all humanity. Therefore, not only state government and local people but also the international community attach importance to preserving cultural sites.
Indeed, most countries have their own unique or similar laws or policies to protect cultural sites. At the international level, UNESCO is the only international organization with a mandate to safeguard cultural and natural sites (Kunst, n.d.). It aims to build peace through international cooperation in education, sciences, and culture (UNESCO, UNESCO in brief, n.d.).
UNESCO has 193 member states. In 1985, China ratified the UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
This part will mainly discuss the obligations of the Chinese government to preserve cultural sites under the UNESCO 1972 Convention and its domestic legal framework.
1.1.Cultural Heritage
Before discussing the obligations of the Chinese government regarding cultural heritage, it is vital to clarify the exact definition of cultural heritage; then identify if the Kargilik Grand Mosque is a cultural heritage.
Article 1 of the UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage describes cultural heritage as follows:
- Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings, and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art, or science;
- Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity, or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art, or science.
- Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites of important universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological, or anthropological point of view.
Also, the Chinese Protection Law of Cultural Relics, published and enacted in 1982, did not define cultural relics but provided a broad protection scope for cultural relics.
According to article two of this law, the following cultural relics are protected by the state:
- Ancient cultural sites, ancient tombs, ancient buildings, cave temples, stone carvings, and murals with historical, artistic, and scientific value.
- Important historical sites, objects, and representative buildings in modern times related to major historical events, revolutionary movements, or famous figures and have important commemorative significance, educational significance, or historical material value.
- Precious works of art and arts and crafts of various eras in history.
- Important documents and materials of each historical era, manuscripts, and books of historical, artistic, and scientific value.
- Representative objects that reflect history’s social systems, social production, and social life of various eras and ethnic groups.
The Kargilik Grand Mosque, the largest mosque in the region, was built in 1540 and, in 2007, was designated as a historical and cultural site protected at the provincial level (Network, 2014). Furthermore, according to article 1 of UNESCO-the definition of cultural heritage, considering the historical, architectural, and anthropological values, the Kargilik Grand Mosque is a cultural and historical site. Therefore, it should be protected under the UNESCO 1972 Convention and Chinese law.
1.2. International Legal Obligation
The Second Paragraph of the UNESCO 1972 Convention, National Protection and International Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, described the international community and state parties’ obligations.
Each state party has the duty to identify, protect, conserve, present, and transmit the cultural and natural heritage referred to in articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory to future generations (Article 4) and to ensure the duty and each state party shall endeavor, in so far as possible and in the appropriate manner (Article 5). The international community is also obliged to cooperate with the state party to protect the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in 1 and 2. Other state parties are not allowed to take deliberate action to damage these mentioned cultural and natural heritage directly or indirectly in other state territories (Article 6). Moreover, a system of international cooperation and assistance is necessary to achieve this purpose (Article7).
Considering article 4 and article 5, China, as a state party of the convention, should endeavor to identify, protect, conserve, present, and transmit cultural and natural heritage to future generations. In 2007, China recognized the mosque as a cultural and historical heritage. We will discuss whether China did its duty to protect the mosque or not in the following parts.
1.3. Chinese Domestic Laws on Preservation of Cultural Sites
China’s Constitution and the Chinese Protection Law of Cultural Relics are the basis for preserving cultural and historical sites in China.
Additionally, China has five autonomous regions at the province level. The Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law is an essential law implemented in these regions under China’s Constitution. It has several articles about preserving cultural and historical sites in these regions.
Article 4 of China’s Constitution outlined that,
- The state assists areas inhabited by minority nationalities in accelerating their economic and cultural development according to the characteristics and needs of the various minority nationalities.
Article 7 of the Chinese Protection Law of Cultural Relics states that,
- All government departments, public organizations, and individuals shall have an obligation to protect cultural relics.
Article 38 of the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law of China specified that,
- Autonomous agencies in ethnic autonomous areas should support relevant departments and bureaus as they collect, organize, translate, and publish historical and cultural books of the nationalities, protect the scenic spots and historical sites in their areas, their treasured cultural relics, and their other important historical and cultural legacies, and preserve and develop unique ethnic traditional culture.
Chinese domestic law holds relevant authorities responsible for protecting historical and cultural sites. Especially in minorities area, China’s Constitution obliged the state to assist minorities’ cultural and economic development. According to Chinese domestic laws and constitution, all relevant authorities should be accountable if demolishing a designated cultural site.
2. Role of Satellite Data in Human Rights Monitoring
Earth monitoring satellites were initially developed for military purposes to detect enemies in the 1960s. In 1972, after being used for non–military purposes, monitoring earth’s terrain, the commercial market joined the race to lead and innovate high-functioned satellites. Moreover, the burgeoning market and various utility of satellites motivated more countries to join and build their commercial satellites. Currently, at least twenty-three commercial satellites are capturing imagery under 1 m resolution (Farfour, 2020, p. 231). Some satellites even can obtain high-resolution imagery (50 cm resolution or less) within a day (Quinn et al., 2018, p.1). The successful and competitive development of satellite monitoring technology enables smaller groups or individuals more straightforward access to high-resolution satellite imagery at an acceptable price, even for free.
Additionally, with the development of high-resolution technology, images from extremely sensitive areas started to emerge. All these availabilities stipulated human rights advocators, especially the American Association of Advancement of Science (AAAS), to explore these possibilities to use the developing and documenting application of satellite technology for human rights investigations (Bromley, 2009, p. 159). Furthermore, finally, they began to take on projects such as natural mining resources in conflict zones, protecting at-risk populations from further violence, monitoring detention facilities for changes in people, and many other situations (Farfour, 2020, p. 232).
In terms of evidence gathering, satellite imagery has tremendous advantages. The traditional evidence-gathering method heavily relies on witness testimonies, and it is difficult for witnesses to escape their biases and resentment for the perpetrator; or even because of the time, the witnesses may not remember the details and narrate inaccurate points. However, satellite imagery can provide unbiased, scientific, and replicable visual data for investigators to verify human rights violations over time. Although the result needs some human involvement interpretations like the traditional one, satellite imagery provides more triangulated overviews of the situation to reduce human biases. Moreover, a machine learning method for analyzing remote sensing data has been developed (Quinn et al., 2018, p.4).
One of the most significant advantages of satellite imagery is that it makes inaccessible and sensitive places accessible to investigators. Satellites like “eyes on the sky” can scan most of the daily events on earth so that advocators can investigate a violation even long after it happens. This advantage enabled human rights advocators to obtain more clear, precise, and efficient information with low risk just by sitting at home. Also, easy-to-use techniques of satellite imagery applications allow everyone to be a human rights advocator. For example, satellite imageries of concentration camps (Chinese authorities called re-education camps) in Xinjiang. A Chinese student in Canada, who was not a human rights advocator, just out of curiosity, initially identified the exact locations of many camps with satellite imagery, which raised wide-ranging international attention on the camps’ issues (Vanderklippe, 2018). Consequently, the satellite data and testimonies forced the Chinese government to change its strategy from “deny” to “tactical concession.”
Also, the mass destruction of mosques in Xinjiang (the Kargilik Grand Mosque is probably one of them) was revealed using remote sensing technology. Xinjiang is a sensitive area in China; usually, it is impossible to access and conduct any kind of human rights investigation. Moreover, after the confiscation of passports in Xinjiang in 2016 (BBC, 2016), getting witnesses’ testimonies to verify human rights violations seems impossible or difficult. Accordingly, ASPI used the only safe and possible method-remote sensing to analyze and confirm mosques’ demolition.
ASPI, for the first time, in September 2020, released a report named “Cultural Erasure” to describe the demolishing mosques. The report states that since 2017, approximately 16,000 mosques in Xinjiang (65% of the total) have been destroyed or damaged due to government policies (Cultural Erasure, 2020, p. 3).
According to the Chinese government’s 2004 Economic Census, there were nearly 24,000 mosques in Xinjiang (Yang et al., 2019); ASPI found that many addresses in the census are not correct; Additionally, they could not get any official data on mosques. Therefore, they used sample-based methodology and remote sensing technology to estimate the region-wide destruction rates (Cultural Erasure, 2020, p. 8). Since they did not evaluate every mosque one by one or visit them personally, there might be some mistakes in the report. However, I think that the mistakes are acceptable mineral mistakes. Because the satellite imagery they displayed strongly supported their statement. Indeed, the satellite imagery showed that so many mosques disappeared after 2017. What is more, although the Chinese government keeps denying ASPI’s allegation of demolishing mosques, it could neither show the satellite imagery of mosques nor allow reporters to visit the demolished mosques in the ASPI report to overthrow the allegation. Furthermore, the 2019 report on International Religious Freedom: China – Xinjiang (State, 2019), Amnesty International (International, 2021), Human Rights Watch (Watch, 2021), and the recently published United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner Report (Commissioner, 2022) on Xinjiang used similar data of demolished mosques or directly cited ASPI.
3. Case Study- Kargilik Grand Mosque
Kargilik Grand Mosque was built in 1540. In 2000, it was designated as a Xinjiang regionally protected cultural heritage site (新疆文物保护网, 2014). According to the ASPI report, Kargilik Grand Mosque was demolished around September 2018. However, the Chinese government denied the allegation and claimed that the mosque was open to the public after reconstruction in 2019 (Marsaille, 2020). Therefore, in this part, we will pin 2018 and 2019 as important time points to search the mosque.
Figure 1: Kargilik Grand Mosque Gatehouse in 2010
Source: Anon,”Kargilik’ss Jame Mosque”” Mapio Net, nd., online.
This photo was taken in 2010. Furthermore, this was the original gatehouse of the mosque. Also, the address of the mosque is given below in the original image.
Figure 2: The Exact Location of Kargilik Grand Mosque
Source: Anon,”Kargilik’ss Jame Mosque”” Mapio Net, nd., online.
Kargilik Grand Mosque is in the northeast of Jiefangnanlu or near the intersection of Jiefangnanlu and Dongwenhualu. The “9” marked area is the mosque on the map. To be concise, we circulated the area in blue. Google Erath Pro could not clearly show all street names. Therefore, we used the EO browser to confirm the mosque’s location using street names.
Figure 3: The Geolocation of Kargilik Grand Mosque in The EO Browser
Bottom right are the Coordinates from EO browser
According to the address in Figure 2, we circulated the approximate area where the mosque is in the EO browser. And on the right below the corner, the EO browser showed that the coordinates of this area are as follows: Latitude is 37.881175, and Longitude is 77.414239.
Figure 4: The Location of Kargilik Grand Mosque in Google Earth Pro
Top left are the Coordinates of the area
According to the coordinates, the EO browser showed, we circulated the approximate area of the mosque in Google Erath Pro.
Figure 5: The Mosque Picture in The Google Earth Pro
The Google Earth Pro showed several pictures taken in our circulated area, exactly as in Figure 1. Furthermore, there is only one mosque in the area in the Google Earth Pro and EO browser. Therefore, we confirm that the mosque is the mosque that we are trying to find. And the location is correct.
Figure 6: The Satellite Image of The Mosque In 2017.
It has a green dome, as the previous picture showed. And it was there.
Figure 7: The Satellite Image of The Mosque in November 2019
In November 2019, there was no mosque anymore. As we explained in our introduction, ASPI claimed that the Chinese government demolished the mosque in 2019. The time matched the data in Figure 7. And after demolishing the historical mosque, the Chinese government built a new mosque near the old one. As we can see from the figure, in 2019, there was no new mosque yet.
Figure 8: A New Gate of The Mosque in 2020
The NPR journalist Emily Feng took the picture in 2020. And this is the new Kargilik mosque that the government built after demolishing the historical old mosque. The Google Earth Pro showed that there was a new mosque in 2020. Therefore, we estimate that the mosque was built around 2020.
Figure 9: The Location of The Old and New Mosque in 2020 and 2022.
The images show that the Chinese government demolished the historical mosque. And built one smaller mosque near the old mosque.
To further confirm, we used Baidu Map. This free Chinese map can provide satellite imagery to 150 countries with 5 m high-resolution, which is more advanced than the Google Earth Pro and EO browser, and in 2020 became a “World Map” with global popularity and influence (Baidu, 2016). While it shows inner Chinese cities with 5 m high-resolution, it only shows several street names in Kargilik. And except for several big cities in Xinjiang, the Baidu Map is not working in Xinjiang.
Figure10: Kargilik City in Baidu Map
As we mentioned in our second part, according to the UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Each state party has the duty to identify, protect, conserve, present, and transmit the cultural and natural heritage referred to in articles 1and two and situated on its territory to future generations (Article 4), and to ensure the duty. Each state party shall endeavor, in so far as possible and inappropriately (Article 5).
China is a state party to the convention and identified the mosque as a protected site. However, it demolished the historical mosque, referred to in articles 1 and 2, Instead of protecting and transmitting it to the next generation.
Indeed, China built a new mosque after demolishing the old one; whether big or small, “cultural relics are unrenewable cultural resources” (Congress, 2002). Once it is destroyed, it cannot be renewed at the same level as the old historical one.
Under article 42 of the Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972,
- No new buildings should be erected, and no demolition, transformation, modification, or deforestation carried out, on any property situated on or in the vicinity of a protected site if it is likely to affect its appearance.
In light of the article, State parties are not even allowed to change the appearance of the protected site. Therefore, the Chinese government’s action of “demolishing the old and building new” is not justifiable.
Additionally, the Chinese government’s domestic law does not allow demolishing protected sites. Article 4 of the Chinese constitution, article 7 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics, and article 38 of Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law of the People’s Republic of China clearly state that all government departments and individuals have an obligation to protect cultural relics, cultural legacies and state should assist to minorities cultural development.
4. Recommendations
- The Chinese government must abide by article 4 of its constitution, article 7 of the Chinese Protection Law of Cultural Relics, and article 38 of the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law of China to protect cultural and historical sites in Xinjiang and cease further demolishing.
- UNESCO, which is founded on “promoting cultural heritage and the equal dignity of all cultures” (UNESCO, UNESCO, n.d.), should investigate the state of mosques in Xinjiang. In the report, we have just mentioned only one mosque; however, according to many organizations and media, a large part of mosques has been demolished. If the chinses government had violated the UNESCO convention, it should be condemned or even sanctioned.
5. Conclusion
Google Earth Pro and EO browser are available to the whole of Xinjiang, while the Baidu Map is only available for big cities in Xinjiang. And in the Kargilik case, the Baidu map is not working.
This study aimed to find out if the Kargilik Grand Mosque was demolished. Remote sensing data from Google Earth Pro showed that the Kargilik Grand Mosque was demolished in early 2019. And the new mosque near the old one was built probably around 2020. Satellite images complement the other data but do not form the sole evidence to prove the human rights violations; moreover, we only could use Google Earth Pro for the result, and there is no personal access to the region or testimonies. Since the old mosque was one of the most significant constructions in that area, it is easy to identify if it still exists or not. And several reports from other organizations also confirmed and supported the destruction. Therefore, we can assume that China demolished the historical mosque.
Indeed, historical sites cannot be replicable and replaced. Even though the Chinese authority tried to defend itself by showing the new mosque, according to the third part of the UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, China violated its obligations under the convention. At the same time, it also violated its domestic law.
The methods we used to verify the demolition of the Kargilik Grand Mosque can be applied to other big mosques in Xinjiang. Because many cities, especially Muslim majority cities usually built around a big mosque. Therefore, it is relatively easy to find the address of big mosques in satellite images and confirm if it is demolished. Suppose many cases were done to prove Chinese illegal action in destroying religious sites, mainly historical sites; In that case, it could attract more international attention to force China to stop further demolishing. Also, in order for the demolishing to stop, the Chinese government needs to do legal reform to fulfill its obligation to protect cultural and historical sites. However, this seems only to be possible if the international community continues to exert pressure on China.
The demolished mosques are related to many topics, such as freedom of religion, minority rights, indigenous rights, and Chinese domestic policy. Therefore, the same method we used in satellite imagery to find demolished mosques can also be applied to the abovementioned topics.
Reference
Kuo, L. (2019, May 7). Revealed: new evidence of China’s mission to raze the mosques of Xinjiang. From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/07/revealed-new-evidence-of-chinas-mission-to-raze-the-mosques-of-xinjiang.
Jackson, J. (2021, 4 19). China Denies Tearing Down Mosques, Claims It is ‘Reconstructing’ Them for Muslims’ Safety. Retrieved 8 2022, from Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/china-denies-destroying-mosques-1584693
Marsaille, C. C. (2020, 7 23). 驻法国使馆发言人就近期西方一些政客和组织抹黑污蔑新疆的回应. From https://www.mfa.gov.cn: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cgms/chn/zmszlgzwzl/t1800223.htm
Northern, A. o. (2020, 7 31). The spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in the UK answers reporters’ questions on Xinjiang-related issues (1). Retrieved 9, 2022 from Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/ceuk//eng/dshdjjh/t1802719.htm
Farfour, M. (2020). The Role and Use of Satellite Imagery for Human Rights Investigations. (A. K. Sum Dubberley, Ed.) Oxford, United Kindom: Oxford University Press.
Kunst, B. S. (n.d.). UNESCO Cultural Heritage. Retrieved 8, 2022 from Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst: https://www.stmwk.bayern.de/art-and-culture/unesco-cultural-heritage.html
UNESCO. (n.d.). UNESCO in brief. Retrieved 8, 2022 from UNESCO Headquarters Website: https://www.unesco.org/en/brief
Network, X. C. (2014, 11 9). List of the sixth batch of district-level cultural relics protection units in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Retrieved 9, 2022 from Xinjiang Cultural Relics Protection Network: https://web.archive.org/web/20161018204146/http://www.xjwwbh.com/quanjiangwenwu/wenbaodanwei/2015/0425/307.html
UNESCO. (n.d.). China. From UNESCO- World Heritage Convention: https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/cn
UNESCO. (n.d.). UNESCO. Retrieved 9, 2020 from UNESCO in Brief: https://www.unesco.org/en/brief
Farfour, M. (2020). The Role of Use of Satellite Imagery For Human Rights Investigations. In A. K. Sam Dubberley, Digital Witness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quinn, J. A., Nyhan, M. M., Navarro, C., Coluccia, D., Bromley, L., & Luengo-Oroz, M. (2018). Humanitarian applications of machine learning with remote-sensing data: review and case study in refugee settlement mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2128), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0363
Bromley, L. (2009). Eyes in The Sky-Monitoring Human Rights Abuses by Using Geospatial Technology. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 10((Winter/Spring 2009)), p. 159–168.
Nathan Ruser, Dr James Leibold, Kelsey Munro, Tilla Hoja. (2020). Cultural Erasure – Tracing the Destruction of Uyghur and Islamic Spaces in Xinjiang. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
BBC. (2016, 11 24). China confiscates the passports of Xinjiang people. From China: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38093370
Fenggang Yang, Zhixin Li, Christopher White, Pettit, J., Chang, C. (2019). Atlas of Religion in China: Social and Geographical Contexts.
新疆文物保护网. (2014, 11 09). 新疆维吾尔自治区第六批区级文物保护单位名单. From 新疆文物保护网: http://www.xjwwbh.com/quanjiangwenwu/wenbaodanwei/2015/0425/307.html
Baidu. (2016, 4 22). 百度地图宣布国际化战略 年底覆盖150个国家. From Baidu-商业中心: https://web.archive.org/web/20160812181813/http://home.baidu.com/2016-05-09/1467556573.html
Congress, N. P. (2002). Law of the People’s Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics. Retrieved from the national people’s congress of the people’s republic of china: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Law/2007-12/13/content_1384015.htm
State, I. R. (2019). 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: China – Xinjiang. Washington: the United States Department of State.
Watch, H. R. (2021). “Break Their Lineage, Break Their Roots.”
International, A. (2021). China: Draconian repression of Muslims in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity.
Commissioner, U. N. (2022). OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China.
