Introduction

 Since 2017, the Chinese government has arrested over one million ethnic people, mostly Uyghurs, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (hereinafter Xinjiang), northwest China, into state-run re-education camps (Zenz, 2018). This is the largest mass internment of an ethnic-religious minority group since World War II (Kirby, 2020). Although human rights advocators could not access Xinjiang, testimonies of victims, satellite images, and leaked documents from Chinese police networks and social media uncovered the reality of camps to some extent. According to Human Rights Watch, the detainees in camps are subjected to torture, ill-treatment, political and cultural indoctrination, and forced labor (Watch, 2021). The severe human rights crisis raised international concerns over the years and became must- discussed topic regarding China’s human rights issues.

In addition to the arbitrary detention, experts said that Uyghurs had been subjected to forced sterilization, suppression of religious practice, surveillance system, forced disappearances, restrictions to movement, expression, and other human rights abuses (Commissioner, 2022).

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter “ICERD”) is the core of the international regime prohibiting racial discrimination. With 182 state parties as of 2023, ICERD is one of the most widely ratified human rights treaties (China H. R., 2023). The People’s Republic of China (hereinafter China) ratified ICERD in 1981.

For the first time, the above-mentioned Uyghur crisis was brought up by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter the Committee), the supervisory body of ICERD, within the United Nations system. During the combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of China, which were held at the 2654^th (10 August 2018) and 2655^th (13 August 2018) meetings of the Committee, China was intensively questioned about reeducation

camps and other human rights violations in Xinjiang (CERD, 2018). Moreover, the Uyghur issue was mentioned 16 times in the concluding observations, which was only mentioned once in the previous one in 2009 (CERD, 2009). The change in amount illustrates how serious the issue has become. In this context, this study will try to evaluate the concluding observations by answering the following research questions:

1. What deliberations did the Committee address in its concluding observations regarding the racial discrimination of Uyghurs?
2. What are the considerations of Non-Governmental Organizations (hereinafter NGOs) in their parallel report with respect to racial discrimination of Uyghurs?
3. What responses the Chinese government made in its follow-up reports regarding racial discrimination against Uyghurs?

To answer the research questions, in the second section, we briefly introduce Chinese state party membership in ICERD. In the third section, the parallel reports of NGOs will be presented. In sections IV and V, the concluding observation of the Committee will be examined regarding the racial discrimination against Uyghurs. Section VI illustrates the responses of the state party. Section VII concludes the paper.

Section 1. China and The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)

 The Republic of China (hereinafter Taiwan) signed and ratified ICERD on 31 March 1966 and 10 December 1970 separately. After the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter China) was recognized by United Nations as the sole representation of China in 1971, it declared that the signing and ratification of the ICERD by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China were illegal and null and void. Moreover, on 29 December 1981, China acceded ICERD with one reservation and one declaration mentioned above. Under its reservation, China would not consider itself bound by Article 22 of the ICERD, which states:

Any dispute between two or more State Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the parties to the

dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement.

In addition, China has yet to recognize the authority of ICERD to receive individual complaints (CHINA H. R., 2023).

According to article 9 of ICERD, state parties must submit a report to the Committee in the first year of ratification of the convention, after that, every two years and whenever the Committee requests.

After becoming the state party to ICERD, China has been reviewed six times (CHINA H. R., 2023). The fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports are the latest reports of China, which include the statements by Hong Kong and Macao (both are the special administrative regions of China). According to the previous COs in 2009, China was supposed to submit the mentioned report by 2013. However, it was delayed until 2018. Furthermore, the delay was mentioned in the introduction part of the said COs.

Regarding the Uyghur issue in the COs, most of the deliberations of the Committee are cited from NGO reports; therefore, in the next section, we will examine the NGOs’ parallel reports first.

Section 2. Parallel Report of NGOs on the Uyghur Issue to the Committee

 As a state party’s reports may not be comprehensive or not reflect the real situation, NGO reposts play an essential role in providing the Committee with a comprehensive picture of the state party’s situation and of the way they implement the convention.

Before the Committee reviewed China’s combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports, 21 NGOs submitted 22 reports to the Committee regarding implementing ICERD. Except for

7 Tibetan, one Southern Mongolian, one Hongkong-centered NGO, and two Chinese government-supported NGOs that praised government achievements, the rest of the ten NGOs mentioned Uyghur issues in their report. This section discusses how the 10 NGOs address the Uyghur issue in the context of discrimination and racism.

Firstly, all 10 NGOs consistently addressed ‘re-education centers” where nearly one million Muslims, largely Uyghurs in Xinjiang, have been arbitrarily detained for no recognizable criminals or legal proceedings. Furthermore, people in re-education centers were subjected to torture and ill-treatment and could not contact family or lawyers. In addition, according to the reports submitted by Human Rights Watch (Watch, 2018), the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (Defenders, 2018), and World Uyghur Congress (Congress W. U., 2018), many Uyghurs have died in camps.

Shockingly, Human Rights Watch reported that even children were detained there. Furthermore, Happiness Realization Research Institute addressed that after the parents had been sent to the camps, their children were either sent to orphanages or left home on their own, which caused accidents that killed children.

However, the Chinese government has not officially acknowledged the re-education centers’ existence and did not mention them in its periodic report. However, some Chinese officials privately acknowledge detentions are taking place but imply that that is just Chinese learning or vocational training centers and referencing China’s National Security Law to justify their actions (Practice, 2018). The Asian Solidarity Council for Freedom and Democracy (Democracy t. A., 2018) refuted the explanations of Chinese officials and condemned it as racial segregation and forcible brainwashing.

The second point that all 10 NGOs stated is the National Security Law and the Counter- Terrorism Law of China, which came into force in 2015 and 2017. All NGOs questioned the use of both laws. Happiness Realization Research Institute (Institute, 2018) stated that both laws used vague definitions for “terrorism,” “extremism,” and “separatism.”

The Counter Terrorism Law defines terrorist activities as follows (Congress S. C., 2015):

Article 3: “Terrorist Activities,” as used in this law, refers to the following acts of a terrorist nature: 

• Activities that seriously harm society, such as organizing, planning, preparing for, or carrying out any of the following conduct so as to cause injuries to persons, major property damage, damage to public facilities, or havoc in public order;

• Advocating terrorism, inciting others to commit terrorist activities, unlawfully possessing items that advocate terrorism, or compelling others to wear or bear clothes or symbols that advocate terrorism in a public place; 

• Organizing, leading, or participating in a terrorist organization; 

• Providing information, capital, funding, labor, technology, venues or other support, assistance, or facilitation for terrorist organizations, terrorist activity personnel, or the commission of terrorist activities;

 One may realize that the provision above is very open-ended. Due to the absence of objectivity, which activity falls into the category of terrorism is not clear. A norm can only be regarded as law if it is precise enough to enable citizens to regulate their conduct (ECHR, 1979). Hence, the law itself is very arguable. Considering extremism and separatism, the National Security Law and the Counter-Terrorism Law mentioned them several times without giving definitions.

As a result, many Uyghurs have been labeled “terrorist,” “extremist,” and “separatist” merely because of their cultural and religious practice. For example, according to the Xinjiang Police File, the growing beard was regarded as an extremist act, and 27 persons were arrested for the ground (Foundation, 2022).

The third point is torture and ill-treatment, which was mentioned by 9 NGOs. They commonly stated that holding people in re-education camps without trial put them at risk of ill-treatment and torture. Asian Solidarity Council for Freedom and Democracy even stated that Chinese persecution against ethnic groups, including torture and others, indicates a suspicion of genocide (Democracy A. S., 2018).

The other point that most NGOs mentioned is the surveillance system in Xinjiang. Uyghur people have been subjected to a total monitoring system. A face recognition system recorded their face, they were asked to install a GPS in their automobiles, and all their phone communication was monitored (INSTITUTE, 2018). Furthermore, the government has sent employees to Uygur’s family to monitor their daily life (International, 2018).

Lastly, the forced return of Uyghurs, the ban of the Uyghur language in the education system, detention for free speech, organ harvesting, forced labor, the restriction of press freedom, religious freedom, passport confiscation, special checkpoints for Uyghurs, economic inequality, demolishing of historical sites and so on were also stated as human rights violations.

After finishing the parallel reports of NGOs, next, we will explain the said COs.

Section 3. Concluding Observations

  The COs consists of four parts: A. Introduction, B. Positive aspects, and C. Concerns and recommendations, D. Other recommendations.

In the introduction, the Committee appreciated the state party’s large delegation for the open and constructive dialogue while mentioning the delay in the submission. (The report was due by 2013).

In the B. positive aspects, the Committee listed several positive aspects that the state made since the previous concluding observation in 2009, including the efforts to amend its legislation, policies, programmes, and administrative measures to ensure the further protection of human rights and implementation of the Convention, as well as the achievement in significantly reducing poverty both overall and in ethnic minority regions. The Committee also appreciated the state party’s efforts in Hong Kong to help ethnic minorities and the implementation of the Chinese language curriculum in primary and high school. Besides, the Committee welcomed the adoption of the law in Macao regarding legal aid for non-resident workers and the effort to strengthen the protection against human trafficking.

In the “Concerns and Recommendations” part, first and foremost, the COs reiterated their concern that the Chinese government did not adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, which was required for all the state parties to adopt in Article 1 of the convention. In addition, the absence of formal national human rights institutions in China makes it unavailable to get specific comprehensive information about its human rights situation. In other words, the whole judicial system is open to discrimination, and the victims cannot protect themselves by the current law. Also, the Committee stated various issues, including the lack of racial discrimination concerns in domestic legislation, the absence of formal national human rights

institutions, the lack of public awareness of the rights under the Convention, poverty-related inequalities, the problems of unrecognized ethnic groups, unequal access to quality education, resettlement and land expropriation, the human rights abuses in Tibet, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and Inner Mongolia, and the refugee issues, etc.

In the last part, other recommendations, the committee urged China to ratify several international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention for the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and others. Furthermore, the committee recommended that the state party follow up on the Durban Declaration and asked it to give information about the African people in the following periodic report. Besides, the Committee also requests the State party to submit the follow-up report of the COs within one year. Finally, the Committee recommended that the party submit its combined eighteenth to twentieth periodic reports as a single document by 28 January 2023.

Next, we will examine the said concluding observations in the context of the Uyghur issue.

Section 4. Uyghur Issue on Concluding Observations

 In previous COs, the Uyghurs were mentioned once or twice with Tibetan and Mongolian under religious issues or ethnic issues; in this COs, the Uyghurs were mentioned 16 times under different headings as well as were discussed as an independent topic with eight recommendations.

In the COs, the first issue mentioned concerning Uyghur is torture and ill-treatment; Uyghurs were mentioned twice under the heading. The Committee cited reports according to which certain Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities were subjected to torture or ill-treatment. After that, the Committee underlined again the Uygur detainees who have been held incommunicado for prolonged periods, which constitute potential torture and other ill-treatment. As mentioned in the previous section, 9 NGOs raised the issue in their parallel reports, and the Committee covers all their concerns in its COs. Furthermore, the committee recommended that the state party takes all measures to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment and fully implement the recommendations of the Committee against Torture.

In addition, the COs also addressed the broad definition of terrorism and separatism, which put ethnic groups, including Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Mongolian, at risk of being detained simply because of their peaceful cultural and religious practice. The committee recommended that the state party review its existing laws, regulations, and practice and amend them in a manner that does not constitute discrimination based on race, color, descent, nationality, ethnicity, or ethnoreligious identity. Also, the Committee required the state party to provide in its following periodic report on prosecution, convictions, sentences, and other sanctions related to separatism, terrorism, and extremism. This is also a common concern and recommendation of all NGOs about China.

Besides, the Committee stated the Uyghur issue under an independent heading and gave eight recommendations, more than any recommendations given to other COs. In the section, the committee tried to cover all the other Uyghur-related concerns mentioned in NGOs’ parallel reports. The concerns are as follows: Re-education camps, mass surveillance targeting Uyghurs, mandatory collection of extensive biometric data of Uyghurs, confiscation of Uyghurs’ passports, forcible returns of Uyghurs, the ban of Uyghur language.

However, the committee did not mention two critical points in its COs. First, forced labor, which was reported by Asian Solidarity Council for Freedom and Democracy and World Uyghur Congress.

Second, organ harvesting, which was reported by the Japan Network to Monitor Violations of the Universal Human Rights and World Uyghur Congress.

Asian Solidarity Council for Freedom and Democracy (Democracy A. S., 2018) stated that in Xinjiang, particularly in the rural areas, the Chinese government forced people to work for four to eleven hours a day for free in a strict penalty manner. The program excludes Uyghurs from paid jobs and hinders them from their own farming or doing other work. It also mentions the young Uyghur women transferred by the government to the east part of the country for lower wages. The World Uyghur Congress (Congress W. U., 2018) addressed the same issue in its report.

Considering the labor issue, in previous COs (CERD, 2009), the Committee addressed its concerns on the effective judicial control of Chinese legislation regarding administrative

detention and the ‘re-education through labor” policy over detainees. In the COs, the Committee reiterated its previous concerns and emphasized the labor issue of foreign migrant workers (CERD, 2018). However, it did not mention the forced labor issue, particularly the Uyghur forced laborers.

The Chinese government’s policy to integrate prison labor into the state production plans in 1952 resulted in many factories have been set up to force inmates to work and churn out profits for the state (Han, 2019, p. 7). Since 2009, China has been included on the List of Goods Produced by Child Labor of Forced Labor (TVPRA LIST) for using forced labor (Affairs, 2023). Recent reports showed that half a million to 800 000 prisoners in Xinjiang were forced to work in prison enterprises in many industry sectors (Han, 2019, p. 5). Furthermore, many detainees in re-education centers were forced to work under Xinjiang’s apparel expansion plan (Han, 2019, p. 5). the United States banned Xinjiang forced labor production through its Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in 2021 (Protection, 2021). Moreover, in 2022, the U.N. special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery concluded that forced labor has been taking place in Xinjiang and considered the forced labor in re-education centers and labor transfer programs (Obokata, 2022, p. 7).

Regarding organ harvesting, (Rights, 2018)addressed that the Chinese government systematically procures organs from tens of thousands of members of various persecuted groups, including Uyghur activists, and probably 60 000 and 100 000 organ transplants take place using organs from political prisoners. The Uyghur Congress stated the same accusation.

In addition, the European Parliament, in its 2013 resolution (2013/2981 (RSP)) and in its Written Declaration of July 2016 (PE581 440v01-00), asked the member states to inform their inhabitants of the organ harvesting in China and to prosecute those who participated in these unethical practices (CHINA I. C., 2019).

 Shortly speaking, the unmentioned two issues, forced labor and organ harvesting, have been known as the major human rights violations in the Uyghur region. Unfortunately, the committee failed to mention it first, even though the NGOs reported it to the committee.

Section 5. Follow-up Report of China on the Concluding Observations

After the Committee published its COs and recommendations on 19 September 2018, as a response, China submitted its follow-up report to the Committee on 8 October 2019.

The follow-up report consists of three parts, A: non-governmental organizations, B: Issues concerned with the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, and C: Information regarding the use of ethnic minority language.

The A part very shortly explained the non-governmental organization issue with several sentences. The B part accounted for most of the follow-up report and specifically focused on Uyghur-related issues. C part explained the ethnic groups’ language issue, including the Uyghur language.

Similar to its state report, which was full of self-praise, in the follow-up report, the Chinese government tried to justify itself without answering the Committee’s questions and described its policies in Xinjiang as sparkling achievements against terrorism. In other words, the Chinese government denied all allegations and did not accept any recommendations.

Since the Committee has no judicial power to force China to implement its deliberations, the Chinese government continued implementing its criticized policies in Xinjiang. For example, according to The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s report, between July 2019 and July 2020, at least 61 detention sites were constructed and expanded (Ruser, 2020). Clearly, the Committee had few effects on China regarding the Uyghur issues.

However, it is also worth mentioning that this is the first United Nations report regarding the re-education camps in Xinjiang. To some extent, it raised public attention on the Uyghur issues.

Conclusion

 This study aims to examine the latest concluding observations of the committee on the combined periodic report of China in the context of the Uyghur issue. The committee is the first United Nations body to bring up the reeducation camps in Xinjiang to the table. Moreover, it also stated various human rights violations against Uyghurs and asked for China’s responses. However, China refused all the allegations and tried to justify its policies in Xinjiang by giving inadequate responses. For example, All the NGOs were concerned about Chinese counter-

terrorism law and the national security law and stated that both laws are very open-ended, which may result in arbitrary detention. However, China did not respond directly and tried to describe itself as a victim of terrorism. In other words, China refused to implement the committee’s recommendations in the COs.

Although the committee has no judicial power to force the state party to implement its recommendations, it has significantly raised public awareness by gathering experts and NGOs together to discuss human rights violations in Xinjiang. The latest UN Human Rights Office report on Xinjiang, the OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang, also contained the recommendations in the COs.

In the COs, the committee primarily relied on the parallel reports of the NGOs and tried to cover all the reports. However, it neglected two critical points, the Uyghur forced labor and organ harvesting, which were reported by two NGOs and nowadays have been known the severe human rights violations against Uyghurs along with the re-education camps. Any unexpected human rights violation may exist in inaccessible and sensitive places like Xinjiang. Therefore, taking every concern seriously may mitigate or prevent some violence.

Bibliography

 CHINA, H. R. (2023). International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). From https://www.hrichina.org/en/international-convention- elimination-all-forms-racial-discrimination-cerd

CERD. (2017). Fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of States parties due in 2015. CERD. China, H. R. (2023). International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination (CERD). From https://www.hrichina.org/en/international-convention- elimination-all-forms-racial-discrimination-cerd

Zenz, A. (2018). Altmetric Articles ‘Thoroughly reforming them towards a healthy heart attitude’: China’s political re-education campaign in Xinjiang . Central Asian Survey.

Watch, H. R. (2021). “Break Their Lineage, Break Their Roots” China’s Crimes against Humanity Targeting Uyghurs and Other Turkic Muslims. From Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas- crimes-against-humanity-targeting

CERD. (2009). Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: CHINA. COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.

CERD. (2018). Concluding observations on the combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of China. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

CERD. (2009). Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: CHINA. International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Kirby, J. (2020, 8 25). Vox. Retrieved from Concentration camps and forced labor: China’s repression of the Uighurs, explained: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/28/21333345/uighurs-china-internment-camps-forced- labor-xinjiang

China. (2020). Information received from China on follow-up to the concluding observations on its combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports . International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

ASPI. (2020). Exploring Xinjiang’s detention system. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Practice, T. R. (2018). International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination (CERD) 96th Session, August 2018 Consideration of the 14th to 17th periodic reports of China.

INSTITUTE, H. R. (2018). CHINA International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 96th Session (06 Aug 2018 – 30 Aug 2018) .

International, A. (2018). CHINA SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION 96TH SESSION, 6 – 30 AUGUST 2018 .

Democracy, A. S. (2018). Situation of Violation of United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination in People’s Republic of China .

Discrimination, C. o. (2018). List of themes in relation to the combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of China (including Hong Kong, China, and Macao, China).

CERD. (2018). List of themes in relation to the combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of China (including Hong Kong, China, and Macao, China) Note by the Country Rapporteur.

CERD. (2009). Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination CHINA (including Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions).

Affairs, B. o. (2023). List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor.

Han, L. (2019). Cotton: The Fabric Full of Lies. The Citizen Power Institute.

Obokata, T. (2022). Contemporary forms of slavery affecting persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minority communities. Human Rights Council Fifty-first session.

Protection, U. C. (2021). Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. From https://www.cbp.gov/trade/forced-labor/UFLPA

CHINA, I. C. (2019). Bill Unanimously Approved. From https://endtransplantabuse.org/belgium-passes-legislation-reform-to-combat-organ- tourism/

Ruser, N. (2020). The Xinjiang Data Project. From The Australian Strategic Policy Institute: The Australian Strategic Policy Institute

Commissioner, U. R. (2022). Xinjiang report: China must address grave human rights violations and the world must not turn a blind eye, say UN experts. From https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/09/xinjiang-report-china-must-address- grave-human-rights-violations-and-world

Congress, S. C. (2015). Counter-Terrorism Law. From China Law Translate: https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/counter-terrorism-law-2015/

China. (2020). Information received from China on follow-up to the concluding observations on its combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

ECHR. (1979). Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979) 2 EHRR 245. European Court of Human Rights.

Foundation, t. V. (2022). Xinjiang Police File. From https://www.xinjiangpolicefiles.org Watch, H. R. (2018). United Nations Human Rights Treaty Body. From UN Treaty Body

Database: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno

=INT%2FCERD%2FNGO%2FCHN%2F31595&Lang=en

Defenders, t. N. (2018). United Nations Human Rights Treaty Body. From https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno

=INT%2FCERD%2FNGO%2FCHN%2F31915&Lang=en

Congress, W. U. (2018). United Nations Human Rights Treaty Body. From https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno

=INT%2FCERD%2FNGO%2FCHN%2F31745&Lang=en

Democracy, t. A. (2018). From https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno

=INT%2FCERD%2FNGO%2FCHN%2F31733&Lang=en

Institute, H. R. (2018). From https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno

=INT%2FCERD%2FNGO%2FCHN%2F31908&Lang=en

Rights, t. J. (2018). From https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno

=INT%2FCERD%2FNGO%2FCHN%2F31598&Lang=en