Xinjiang Cultural Heritage Museum: The Appropriation of Stolen
Culture

On the 18th of September 2024, Party Secretary of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region Ma Xingrui;  Deputy Secretary and Chairman of the Autonomous Region Erkin Tuniyaz; Irina Bokova, former UNESCO Director-General and advisor to the board of directors of the EU Asia Center; and Zheng Zhigang, Executive Vice Chairman and CEO of New World Development, attended the completion ceremony of the New World Xinjiang Intangible Cultural Heritage Museum. 

Irina Bokova’s speech at the ceremony, later quoted on Chinese state-run websites, raised concerns among Uyghurs, particularly regarding her use of the phrase “China’s Xinjiang.” This phrase sparked debate over whether she intended to endorse China’s colonial claims over the region.  Because, the term “Xinjiang” itself translates to “new territory” or “colony.”  Regardless of whether her words were meant to suggest that the region unequivocally belongs to China, her choice of language is deeply problematic due to its historical and cultural implications. By explicitly aligning with the term “China’s Xinjiang,” she undermines the legitimate rights of the colonized peoples of East Turkistan. This kind of language dismisses the region’s complex history and reinforces China’s illegitimate claim over the land and its people. Similarly, many international media and academics, international governments use the term “China’s Xinjiang” when they refer to East Turkistan, despite that just colonizing and controlling somebody’s territory not guarantees the colonizer’s rightful sovereignty over the territory. 

  She also used another term “multiculturalism” in her speech. She said, “We hope to take this opportunity to strengthen cooperation with China’s Xinjiang, promote various countries to better understand China’s Xinjiang’s multiculturalism and efforts to protect historical and cultural heritage, and demonstrate Xinjiang’s modern, inclusive, open and confident image.”

 What is multiculturalism? Is China implementing multiculturalism or erasing Uyghur and other Turkic people’s culture in the region to implement genocide?  

In fact, answer is very clear from Ma Xingrui’s speech at the ceremony, he repeatedly used the term Chinese nation (Zhonghua Minzu 中华民族), echoing the Chinese government. When he talked about the importance of Xinjiang Cultural Heritage Museum, he said, “It is necessary to effectively build, manage and use the intangible cultural heritage museum, highlight the characteristics of Chinese culture and the visual image of the Chinese nation.”

  So, what does the term “Chinese nation” mean? In 1902, Chinese intellectuals, inspired by the ideas of figures like Liang Qichao, began using the term “Chinese nation” (Zhonghua Minzu 中华民族) instead of “ethnic Han Chinese” (Hanzu 汉族). This shift reflected an ideology aimed at expanding from a smaller Han identity to a broader Chinese nation by assimilating other ethnic groups. Prominent scholars such as Huang Xingtao, Hu Angang, and Hu Lianhe have written extensively on this, advocating for a vision of the “Chinese nation” that differs from the melting pot model of the United States or the multiculturalism of Canada. Instead, they propose a Han-dominant nation formed by absorbing other ethnic groups.

As another Chinese author, retired PLA officer Liu Mingfu, the author of the book titled “China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post American Era”  also stated that following Sun Yat Sen’s idea of absorbing other nations and Mao Zedong’s Sinification, Deng Xiaoping’s doctrine of Chinese characteristics and Xi Jinping’s China dream all share the same ideology that promotes a Chinese style new world order led by ethnic Han Chinese people. 

It is clear that Uyghur and Turkic cultures are being stolen in the name of the so-called “Chinese nation,” and another  euphemistic term widely used in China and referred by Ma Xingrui as “The pluralistic unity of the Chinese nation” (Zhonghua minzu duoyuan yiti geju). In today’s East Turkistan, many Han Chinese settlers are wearing traditional Uyghur clothing, learning Uyghur dances, and occupying the homes of detained Uyghurs. What is presented as cultural exchange is, in reality, cultural theft—an attempt to rebrand Uyghur heritage as Chinese culture.

Ma Xingrui also said, “We must strive to create new cultural landmarks in Xinjiang, spread more value symbols and cultural products that carry Chinese culture and Chinese spirit.” These words are completely copying Xi Jinping’s report at the 19th Chinese Communist Party congress. Xi stated in his report that “We should do more to foster a Chinese sprit, Chinese values and Chinese strength, to provide moral guidance to our people.” If those “our people” here include Uyghurs and other Turkic people in East Turkistan, Tibetans in Tibet, Taiwanese in Taiwan and Hongkongers in Hongkong, since China asserts a “one China” policy, those “Chinese things” were imposed to all those people who have nothing to do with Chineeseness.

Erkin Tuniyaz’s statement at the ceremony, that “the cultural heritage museum is an effective carrier and important starting point for further promoting the cultural nourishment of Xinjiang” also stands in stark contrast to the ongoing cultural suppression in the region. The systematic destruction of Uyghur culture, which includes the detention of an entire class of Uyghur intellectuals—musicians, writers, poets, teachers, doctors, and anthropologists—who are crucial to the preservation and advancement of Uyghur heritage, is alarming. The erasure of cultural elements from Uyghur homes, the burning of religious and historical texts, and the demolition of Uyghur cemeteries, sacred sites, and mosques further exemplify this cultural obliteration. To then establish museums under the pretext of promoting “cultural nourishment” is profoundly hypocritical, given that the Chinese government itself is the primary force behind this cultural erasure.

In his article titled “China’s Genocide Tourism Strategy,” Dr. Magnus Fiskesjö of Cornell University provides a compelling analysis, clearly explained how Uyghur culture were erased and survives solely in museums, as an propaganda tool of China’s successful campaign of hide its genocide. Moreover, the Uyghur culture on display is presented as part of the broader Han Chinese ethnic heritage, further erasing its distinct identity. Consequently, even in museums, Uyghur culture does not truly exist in its original form.

Groundlessly, in his speech at the ceremony, Ma Xingrui falsely claimed that “Western countries exploit so-called ‘ethnic,’ ‘religious,’ and ‘human rights’ issues to unjustly slander China’s Xinjiang, which is an outright lie.” This statement disregards the realities faced by Uyghur and other Turkic peoples, as if their cultural, legal, political, and economic rights are genuinely safeguarded within the Chinese state. There has been no official data or response regarding the mental and physical well-being of the 900,000 Uyghur children forcibly separated from their families. Similarly, no reliable statistics have been provided by Chinese authorities on how many Uyghurs have died in re-education camps, how many have been transferred to prisons, or how many have been subjected to forced labor.

China has consistently refused to allow independent third-party investigations into the ongoing operations of these re-education camps, where arbitrary detention, execution, and torture persist. Every Uyghur in the diaspora serves as a living testament to the enforced disappearances and detention of their relatives by the Chinese government. Chinese officials often deploy conspiracy theories, claiming that “Western governments are spreading falsehoods about Uyghur religious freedom and human rights” in order to hide its genocide instead of providing transparency. However, as a Chinese proverb aptly states, “No matter how tall the mountain, it cannot block out the sun” — the truth is not easily concealed.

The 1954 Hague Convention was established to protect cultural property, including architectural, artistic, and historical monuments, archaeological sites, works of art, manuscripts, and scientific collections, regardless of origin or ownership. This convention, adopted under the auspices of UNESCO, aims to prevent the destruction of cultural heritage during conflict. However, UNESCO has failed to protect the cultural heritage of the Uyghur and other Turkic peoples in East Turkistan. Despite clear evidence of China’s cultural genocide against Uyghurs, former UNESCO advisor Irina Bokova has praised the Xinjiang Cultural Heritage Museum, a museum that symbolizes China’s efforts to claim ownership over Uyghur culture after systematically erasing it.

Destroying the cultural heritage of a people and then creating a museum to falsely claim ownership of that culture is not only a violation of the Genocide Convention but also of the Hague Convention. If EU Asia Center follows the misguided advice of figures like Bokova, it risks undermining its very purpose. Not only it cannot provide credible research and information on EU Asia relations, but also creates a dangerous fake cultural bridge between Europe and China, based on fake information.