The independent Hong Kong-focused magazine《棱角 The Points》published an interesting article on Aug. 20, 2025, about an invitation-only Hong Kong academics gathering to promote the Chinese Party line on the Xinjiang atrocities.
Here I offer some preliminary comments and also a link to the article in the original Chinese, plus a lightly edited machine translation, below.
It is interesting yet somewhat predictable. Some of the people involved are recognizable as longtime, well-known propagandists and denialists. It is also no surprise that it was invitation-only, not public. These scholars seem to be using their universities’ name recognition not to further discussion, but to further Chinese state propaganda.
The lead poster names include Nury Vittachi, a rather vicious propagandist, whose actions as a journalist and writer are well summarized. Barry Sautman, too: this is a scholar who once wrote decently on Tibet, but then in recent years has turned into a pro-PRC parrot, also well described here. –I did not know the name of the Xinjiang university Chinese scholar Lin Fangfei 林芳菲 but it is no surprise that they mobilize people like that, to join the chorus and parrot the party line on Xinjiang — in her case to deny the amply documented forced labor. One more participant featured on the poster, listed with a cryptic title on Hongkong matters, is anonymous.
What is something of a surprise to me is the Canadian scholar William Schabas, based at Middlesex in Britain. He is a longtime genocide scholar, who has long been regarded by many as respectable, with general books on international law. He is a recipient of the Order of Canada, elected member of academies, and so on. It seems he moved to England after leaving Leiden U, where he taught for years. Something strange happened with Schabas that has not been fully explained and isn’t mentioned by The Points: In 2019, he surprised the world by taking on the task of defending the Burmese military junta at the ICJ in the Hague against accusations that they are committing genocide against the Rohingya, brought by the Gambia on behalf of a long list of Muslim countries. That was a big shocker. At the time, he was asked by a journalist why he would do that, and he gave no explanation other than chuckling and saying that ‘everyone deserves representation’ (so, even blood-soaked generals) — as if he were not a decent scholar but simply a lawyer for hire by whatever criminal can pay him. In my view, given how he is now parroting Chinese state propaganda on Xinjiang, it could well be that he helped the Burmese military junta simply because Western nations (and the Islamic world) were pretty unified against that junta’s atrocities against the Muslim Rohingya.
As The Points goes on to mention, in 2021 Schabas next published a Project Syndicate article, The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified, — what isn’t mentioned is that it was coauthored with Jeffrey D. Sachs, the Columbia professor who has long been defending the Chinese Communist Party over Xinjiang. The article was celebrated and circulated online by the Chinese government, including its foreign ministry on social media, and by other usual suspects.
Personally, I think Schabas and Sachs (and Sautman) may be similar: perhaps this is all about using their pulpit to ‘get back at’ the West. In congruence with Chinese state propaganda, it always focuses on the US, and this is the same in this Hong Kong meeting, despite how criticism of China is widespread around the world. The immense suffering and injustice of the Uyghur and Rohingya genocides (or for that matter, the crushing of Hong Kong), then seem to matter less to these scholars than scoring points against the evil-almighty USA/CIA or whatever the bogeyman enemy is.
This is a preliminary theory. Still, to me it is shocking to see Schabas in this company, since at least until recently, he has had a reputation as a ‘genocide scholar’ among many people who do not necessarily know about how he has sided with the genocide perpetrators of China, and Burma (Myanmar). It is of course similar with Jeffrey Sachs who was recently given a grandiose ‘Tang Prize’ in Taiwan, for his work on ‘global development’, despite his pro-China genocide denialism presented jointly with Schabas. –Obviously, there are people in Taiwan ready to sell out to the PRC regime, and this is also true for now-already-subdued Hong Kong, where genocide denialism along the Beijing party line seems to be the ‘natural’ and safe choice for these disgruntled Westerners.
Magnus Fiskesjö, nf42@cornell.edu
What follows is a lightly edited machine translation in English of the original Chinese article, which you can access here: https://points-media.com/最新/香港-中國-獨家-香港大學-科技大學-清華-新疆-論壇/
Exclusive | HKU, HKUST, and Tsinghua University Co-host Xinjiang Forum; Speakers Criticize Western Smears, Claiming There is Absolutely No Forced Labor or Genocide
August 20, 2025
In recent years, Western academia and governments have criticized the Chinese Communist Party for implementing forced labor in Xinjiang, building concentration camps to detain Muslims, and imposing sanctions on entities such as the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps.
The Points exclusively discovered that the University of Hong Kong’s China, Humanities, and Global Studies Research Hub, along with the Institute for Advanced Study in Humanities and Social Sciences at Tsinghua University and the Division of Social Sciences at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, co-hosted the “Global Comparative Perspective on Xinjiang” forum on Wednesday (the 20th). The forum criticized claims by “Western politicians and media, led by the United States,” of genocide or authoritarian rule in Xinjiang, and offered counter-narratives to Western knowledge production.
It is understood that the entire forum, led by Tsinghua University and open to invitation only, will run from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. “The Points” noted that the scholars and writers attending the conference echoed the tone of Chinese official media. Some had previously criticized the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill movement as a “color revolution.” Others, involved in the Chinese Society for Human Rights Studies, a government-run non-governmental organization led by former Tibetan Party Deputy Secretary Xiangba Puncog, claimed at the UN Human Rights Council that the West and the United States were smearing China.
Sociologists studying China and Hong Kong criticized these scholars, who espouse left-wing Marxism, for increasingly leaning toward Maoism in recent years, even becoming part of the CCP’s external propaganda. “As an academic platform for cultural exchange between China and the West, Hong Kong is a frontier in the study of China… Hong Kong can serve as a ‘white glove’ for the CCP, using Western left-wing theoretical concepts to criticize Western colonial rule as filthy, using them as a cover to disguise, rationalize, or even glorify the CCP’s totalitarian and repressive rule.” They also lamented that Hong Kong academia is no longer able to provide critical voices in the current political environment.
The Angle contacted Professor Daniel Vukovich, Director of the Centre for China, Humanities, and Global Studies at the University of Hong Kong, for inquiries, but received no response by press time.
Scholars Criticize Western Smears on Xinjiang
The centre, established last year, aims to promote interdisciplinary, theory-driven research on the global situation, focusing on the profound impact and potential of China’s rise since the 1970s and the transformation of Hong Kong into a new era of integration with the mainland after its “second handover.”
Scholars attending the forum included experts in social sciences and international law, but their stances were generally pro-China.
Barry Sautman (沙伯力), Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences at HKUST, and his wife, Yan Hairong, Associate Director of the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences at Tsinghua University, who previously taught at the University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, have studied China’s “going global” and Belt and Road economic development participation in Africa. Sautman, who studies China’s ethnic policies, said Western accusations are inciting anti-China sentiment and provoking Western sanctions.
Political scientist Huang Weiguo, a former master’s student of Sautman, noted that Sautman’s discourse has become more pro-China in recent years, culminating in his introduction of a “Belt and Road Initiative” course at HKUST several years ago. Huang noted that the disappearance of scholars critical of university administration and current affairs has been accompanied by the emergence of scholars who have sided with the establishment or regime, such as former CUHK sociology professor Lau Siu-kai, who lobbyed for policy. Furthermore, it has been increasingly seen as “Western foreigners” using academic research and theories to bolster the CCP’s authoritarian rule. “Using academic authority, they deny the reality of China’s repressive rule.”
An unnamed social scientist also criticized Sautman, saying he is now acting like a major Chinese propaganda tool, using his scholarly credentials to analyze China’s strategy. He even appeared on China Global Television Network (CGTN) with Australian sinologist Colin Mackerras, who also studies ethnic minorities, to discuss the positive developments in Xinjiang. Sautman has also given numerous speeches in recent years accusing the US of targeting China, refuting the so-called “neo-colonialism” of China, and pointing out that Africans are engaging in counter-mobilization.
In recent years, Yan Hairong has collaborated with China’s Ministry of Science and Technology and the State Council-funded CITIC Reform and Development Research Foundation on projects in Africa titled “US Sanctions and China’s Promotion of the Belt and Road Initiative: A Case Study of Development in Three Countries” and “A Regional Study of the New Rural Collective Economy.” Huang Weiguo believes that Yan and Sha Boli’s research is essentially “the first generation of extensive publicity for the achievements of China-Africa economic cooperation.”
Xinjiang University Scholars Deny Forced Labor
Two scholars from Xinjiang University also stated that there is no so-called forced labor in Xinjiang. Lin Fangfei, Associate Professor at the School of Politics and Public Administration (National Security College) of Xinjiang University, while pursuing her doctoral degree in gender studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, noted in her thesis, “Creating Migrant Birds: An Ethnographic Study of Seasonal Flower Pickers in Xinjiang,” that the proportion of cotton picked by machines in Xinjiang is increasing, and that hiring flower pickers only increases costs for cotton farmers without providing any benefits.
In her lecture, she also emphasized that the Western claim of “forced labor” contradicts the development and transformation of cotton cultivation in Xinjiang since the reform and opening up, and is a fabricated narrative of “forced labor” driven by geopolitical and economic factors. For over two years, Lin Fangfei has participated in meetings of the China Association for Human Rights Studies, a government-run non-governmental organization under the State Council Information Office, and has presented opinions to the United Nations Human Rights Council. She argues that Xinjiang effectively protects the rights of people with disabilities and has significantly introduced mechanized cotton picking. The claim of “forced labor” simply “ignores the fundamental human rights of farmers in southern Xinjiang, such as their right to survival and development, thereby undermining world peace and stability… and suppressing China’s cotton textile industry.”
Tuersun Aibai, an associate professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Xinjiang University and a researcher at the CITIC Reform and Development Research Foundation, grew up in Kashgar, Xinjiang. He credits his admission to Tsinghua University with benefiting from ethnic minority policies and has written articles for the Maoist-leaning Observer Network, arguing that Western smears of “forced labor” are being used. He also noted at the forum that Xinjiang has promoted the use of the national common language and vocational skills training in recent years, resulting in a significant decline in illiteracy since 2020, and a continued increase in the proportion of highly educated people, urban residents’ income, and non-agricultural employment.
It is worth noting that Lin Fangfei mentioned in her paper that she participated in Yan Hairong’s “Three Rural Reading Club” at the Polytechnic University. When Hood was pursuing his doctorate at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Yan Hairong was an associate professor there. Hood has also consistently stated on his personal website that he was inspired by nationalist figures such as Gao Mobo, a professor of Chinese studies at the University of Adelaide, Australia, and Wang Hui, director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Humanities and Social Sciences at Tsinghua University.
Legal scholar and author: The United States “abuses” the term genocide for its own ends.
Nury Vittachi, a novelist and columnist who has repeatedly claimed that the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill movement was instigated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), continued his argument on the forum, accusing the US and British MI6 of ignoring violent attacks by Xinjiang separatists and the NED of funding numerous Uyghur organizations. This claim was widely disseminated by Western mainstream media. In his book, “After Autonomy: A Post-Mortem for Hong Kong’s First Handover, 1997–2019,” John Hood, director of the Center for China, Humanities, and Global Studies, repeatedly cites Nury Vittachi’s articles, accusing the movement of being a “color revolution.” In his book, he cites an analysis by Jon D. Solomon, a consultant to the Center and professor emeritus of Chinese at the University of Lyon 3 in France, in his book “A Genealogy of the Left’s Defeat in the Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Movement: Translation, Transformation, and Boundaries,” arguing that the entire Hong Kong social movement represents “a victory for the capitalist right and a defeat for the left.” He argues that the young students fighting for freedom are confusing concepts, saying they are fighting for freedom because Hong Kong has not yet been “decolonized.” In recent months, Solomon’s media rebuttal to the incident in which Hsiao Mei-ching was nearly hit by Chinese armed police during her visit to the Czech Republic has drawn criticism from Taiwanese media for becoming “a frequent outlet for Beijing and its collaborators.”
William Schabas, a professor of international law at Middlesex University in the UK and author of “Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes,” even noted that the United States periodically uses the label “genocide” to both stigmatize specific situations and justify military intervention. As early as 2021, he wrote an article on the political commentary website Project Syndicate, arguing that US President Biden’s accusations of genocide in Xinjiang were difficult to prove. This article was cited by then-Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng.
Huang Weiguo and unnamed social science scholars believe that under the framework of the National Security Law and the National Security Ordinance, some scholars at Hong Kong universities who can be co-opted by the regime and who use left-wing theories to package research on China’s authoritarian governance will be re-employed and given more resources for research. “But as Professor Zhang Canhui pointed out, so-called philosophy conferences are merely political propaganda, with no university involvement at all. Ultimately, scholars will be marginalized by the CCP.”