Children in Xinjiang enjoy their summer vacation, Urumqi, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China, July 17, 2019. (Photo/Xinhua)
This helps elaborate further points expressed in the press conference, and in Leibold's paper.
First of all, these schools are not about destroying or diminishing the Uygur ethnic identity, or any other form of malign intention. Instead, he observes the boarding school system is geared towards the maintenance of "ethnic harmony" and stability, something which has increased as a political priority in China due to recent tensions and unrest in the region. Again, these points were raised in answers to questions.
If so, how then can Western media coverage of the issue be explained? Ultimately, a great deal of it broadly ideological and deeply assumptive.
First of all, there is the overwhelming frame of mind that the Chinese government has "no right to be in Xinjiang" and therefore it is presented as a hostile, foreign aggressor with binary evil intent, which would not be pleased save the area was independent.
These build into broader ideological cliches which misleadingly associate China's policies with the legacy of certain regimes in the 20th century Europe, taking the policies out of context. This has coincided with the intentional politicization of Xinjiang – the pursuit of broader Western objectives against China.
Therefore in summary, Xinjiang's boarding schools are not the sinister, malign scheme they are made out to be. While yes they play a role in consolidating national unity, stability and addressing ethnic tensions, nevertheless talk of so called "forced boarding" and "separation from parents" are misleading, and fail to appreciate how this system is actually desirable and very beneficial to the ethnic group in question.
By Tom Fowdy
