Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
3A — Thursday March 14, 2019

Emma Chang

Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Elias Khoury

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola

 Ashley Zhang

Erin White

FINNTAN STORER

Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN

Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 

AND JOEL DANILEWITZ

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

I

n 1982, Chinese citizens 
who had been forced to 
move to the countryside 

under 
Chairman 
Mao 

Zedong’s Cultural Revolution 
fled back to China’s urban 
centers. However, as this 
mass 
exodus 
occurred, 

one young Chinese official 
requested 
a 
position 
in 

Zhengding, Hebei Province, 
far away from the rapidly 
growing urban power centers: 
Xi Jinping. This seemingly 
strange request from the low-
level government worker was 
the first notable move by Xi, 
who built his career through 
shrewd, power-consolidating 
moves. Thirty years later, Xi 
has become China’s president 
and 
general 
secretary 
of 

the Communist Party, and 
appears 
to 
have 
grand 

ambitions for China on both 
domestic and international 
fronts. However, as China 
becomes a dominant player in 
world affairs, Xi’s oppressive 
government 
promotes 
a 

vision 
that 
disregards 

basic liberties, rights and 
international 
principles, 

making its ambitions a threat 
to its own citizens.

The 
most 
prominent 

example of China’s disregard 
for human rights is the Xi 
government’s 
abhorrent 

treatment of the Uyghurs, a 
primarily-Muslim 
minority 

ethnic group who live in 
the far western province of 
Xinjiang. In Xinjiang, the 
Chinese 
government 
has 

established 
a 
surveillance 

system 
rivaling 
the 
one 

George 
Orwell 
describes 

in 
his 
novel 
“1984”. 
In 

order to keep tabs on the 
Uyghurs, thousands of video 
cameras are in place along 
streets 
in 
Xinjiang, 
and 

policemen are stationed in 
front of nearly every major 
building. China has recently 
even 
begun 
administering 

“physical exams” in order 
to non-consensually gather 
identification 
information 

from Uyghur citizens, such 
as DNA samples, fingerprint 
scans and retinal scans.

However, surveillance is 

only the tip of the iceberg in 
Xinjiang. Under Xi, China 
has also introduced a policy 
called “de-extremification,” 
which 
includes 

“re-education” 
camps, 
to 

which over a million Uyghurs 
have been sent. The camps 
are designed to indoctrinate 
Uyghurs through promoting 
Chinese 
values 
and 

destroying Uyghur culture. 
Treatment 
in 
the 
camps 

ranges from things such as 
forcing Uyghurs to drink beer 
and eat pork (both of which 
are forbidden in Islam) to 
more extreme human rights 
violations, including torture, 
the 
banning 
of 
certain 

Muslim names and extreme 
political 
indoctrination. 

Politically, China has also 
worked 
to 
limit 
Uyghur 

rights through the passage 
of religious regulations and 
counterterrorism laws.

China’s 
dedication 
to 

denying 
its 
own 
citizens 

human 
rights 
is 
perhaps 

matched 
only 
by 
its 

dedication to denying it has 
ever done anything wrong. 
In response to the Uyghur 
controversy, China initially 
denied 
the 
re-education 

camps even existed. Once 
that was proved verifiably 
false, the government shifted 
its position, saying the camps 
were necessary for fighting 
religious 
extremism, 
and 

likened them to boarding 
schools 
(ironically, 
it’s 

already illegal for Uyghurs 
in Xinjiang to not send their 
children 
to 
government-

run schools). The Chinese 
government 
has 
also 

deliberately 
spread 
false 

information about life in the 
camps in order to make it 
more difficult to accurately 
understand conditions there, 
and at one point dismissed 
criticism of the camps as the 
West baselessly criticizing 
China’s human rights record.

Though this may seem 

awful, it is hardly outside 
of the norm for China, a 
country that has consistently 
opposed human rights. In 
addition to cracking down 
on 
dissenting 
journalists, 

lawyers and activists within 
China, Xi has also worked 
tirelessly 
to 
weaken 
the 

United 
Nations’ 
ability 

to investigate and punish 
nations for human rights 
violations. In 2017, Human 
Rights Watch exposed the 
Xi government’s attempts to 
prevent critical actors from 
contributing to reviews of 
China’s human rights record. 
In 2018, China introduced a 
U.N. bill aimed at limiting 
human 
rights 
oversight, 

which suggested replacing 
punishments and sanctions 
with “dialogue.”

In addition to violating 

human rights, Xi has also 
worked to strengthen his 
personal power as president 
at 
the 
expense 
of 
both 

electoral 
fairness 
and 

previously established rules 
and norms. After the death of 
Mao Zedong, China shifted 
away from focusing on the 
power of individual leaders, 
implementing 
term 
limits 

which shifted the focus to 
party power, a development 
many cite as a factor in 
China’s subsequent economic 
growth. Xi, however, has 
reverted strongly away from 
this policy. In 2017, the 
Communist Party added “Xi 
Jinping Thought” to their 
Constitution, putting him on 
the same level as Mao Zedong. 
In 2018, Xi’s Communist 
Party, which controls most 
of the National Assembly, 
voted 2,958 in favor (three 
abstained and two opposed) 
to 
remove 
presidential 

term limits, allowing him 
to 
serve 
indefinitely. 
Xi 

has 
also 
engaged 
in 
an 

anti-corruption 
campaign, 

which 
has 
largely 
been 

used to ensure important 
party 
positions 
are 
held 

by loyalists. Outwardly, Xi 
also preaches party loyalty 
above all else to citizens and 
had his government issue a 
directive that all Chinese 
citizens 
studying 
abroad 

“always follow the Party.”

While these developments 

may 
seem 
disheartening, 

they reflect a fundamental 
difference in governmental 
and 
geopolitical 
attitudes 

between China and the West, 
something which the West 
has consistently failed to 
fully comprehend. Unlike the 
prevailing Western ideology, 
which prioritizes individual 
liberties and freedoms as the 
essential building blocks of 
society, China believes that 
strengthening the state is 
the highest priority. This 
cultural 
difference 
helps 

explain why the Chinese 
government takes such a 
dim view of human rights — 
the rights of the individual 
are not of crucial concern, 
and they can interfere with 
the processes that help the 
state. For Xi, consolidating 
power is primarily about 
attempting 
to 
run 
the 

country 
as 
efficiently 
as 

possible, something which 
democratic norms interfere 
with. 
Sadly, 
this 
state-

strengthening approach is 
incredibly destructive to the 
rights of Chinese citizens, 
especially ethnic minorities 
like the Uyghurs and those 
who 
disagree 
with 
Xi’s 

policies.

Ultimately, while China’s 

economic and political rise 
has been astonishing, the 
United 
States 
and 
other 

nations 
should 
be 
wary 

about China’s policies. Xi 
is a politically savvy leader 
with lofty goals, but those 
goals must be accomplished 
without sacrificing human 
rights 
or 
disregarding 

international law.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the 

editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 

words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. 

Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation 

to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN

I

’ve 
been 
thinking 
a 

lot lately about what I 
want to be doing when 

I leave college for the real 
world. As a freshman, I’m 
going to have to decide soon 
which undergraduate degree 
to pursue so I can have an 
idea of the classes I will 
need to take in the upcoming 
semesters. Just the other 
day, things started to click. 
I 
finally 
conceptualized 

what 
my 
ultimate 
career 

goals are, but at the cost of 
informing myself about a 
phenomenon that is on its 
way to tear our communities 
apart: 
environmental 

gentrification, which is when 
policies that are intended to 
service the climate drive up 
property costs.

Today, 
the 
lawmakers 

of 
many 
metropolitan 

areas 
are 
seeking 
to 

improve 
the 
quality 
of 

life by urbanizing sectors 
that 
are 
underdeveloped. 

For 
instance, 
Detroit’s 

Planning and Development 
Department 
has 
created 

several 
initiatives 
to 

improve 
infrastructure, 

economic opportunity and 
neighborhood 
relations 

over recent years. Federal 
and 
local 
lawmakers 

have 
also 
demonstrated 

their 
awareness 
for 
the 

need 
to 
execute 
green 

urban development in the 
process, 
making 
strides 

toward 
the 
construction 

of 
more 
greenways 
and 

conservancies 
within 
the 

heart of the downtown area.

Despite these strides, I 

fear that Detroit politicians 
are 
conducting 
urban 

development 
in 
a 
way 

that 
prioritizes 
profit 

for corporations over the 
needs of the populations 
who live near these new 
projects. 
Whether 
these 

projects feature impressive 
man-made 
infrastructure 

or 
large-scale 
natural 

attractions, the possibility 
of creating an attraction 
just to draw people into the 
metropolitan area seems to 
promote gentrification. If so, 
the actions of our authorities 
would contribute more to 
the capitalistic side of the 
economy rather than the 
health of the environment 

or 
the 
wellbeing 
of 
the 

people living in that area. 
As a result, I fear that 
perpetual 
gentrification, 

whether 
it 
occurs 
due 

to 
the 
development 
of 

commercial areas or natural 
preservations, 
will 
create 

further economic and social 
turmoil for Detroit.

In New York City, the 

High Line, a former railroad 
line, was renovated to serve 
as 
greenway 
on 
which 

pedestrians can walk for 
miles throughout the city. 
Having completed its final 
renovations 
in 
2014, 
the 

High 
Line 
has 
attracted 

nearly five million residents 
and tourists for its walkway, 
artistic 
commissions 
and 

events. 
As 
a 
result, 
the 

greenway has undoubtedly 
caused 
an 
increase 
in 

economic 
activity, 
profits 

for businesses that surround 
it and thus in the price 
of 
the 
surrounding 
real 

estate. 
Unfortunately, 

this has caused those on 
the disadvantaged side of 
gentrification 
to 
feel 
its 

effects: Many have had to 
leave their home in nearby 
neighborhoods 
or 
been 

forced to give up their small 
businesses due to the growth 
of commercial demand.

In an effort to create 

a piece of infrastructure 
that would make the city 
appear greener both visually 
and 
characteristically, 

authorities 
in 
New 
York 

utilized 
wealthy 
and 

resourceful 
benefactors 

to create a monument to 
receive 
more 
money 
and 

unintentionally 
transform 

the socioeconomic character 
of the area. Greenways like 
the High Line that defeat 
the 
purpose 
of 
greener 

metropolitan areas are being 
constructed 
in 
numerous 

locations 
worldwide. 
I 

fear that ours in Detroit, 
the 
Dequindre 
Cut, 
will 

have a similar fate. These 
gestures 
to 
renovate 

current 
infrastructure 

into 
green 
infrastructure 

mean 
well, 
but 
to 
what 

extent should we demand 
that 
they 
also 
help 
the 

surrounding 
environment 

and populations?

For 
one, 
I 
think 
it’s 

absolutely possible for us to 
demand better from project 
developers, lawmakers and 
monetary 
contributors 
to 

create more mindful urban 
developments 
than 
the 

greenways. These projects 
can prioritize success for 
a 
sector 
of 
society 
that 

needs it more. In essence, 
authorities with control of 
metropolitan areas should 
adopt a progressive method 
deemed 
as 
“conscious 

anti-gentrification” 
when 
pursuing 
green 

urban 
development. 
This 

process would consist of 
renovating 
technology 

and 
infrastructure 

incrementally, allowing the 
public to maintain a lifestyle 
they’re 
comfortable 
with 

while making small changes 
to mitigate the consequences 
of peoples’ typical impact on 
the environment. As a result, 
our neighborhoods should 
benefit from improvements 
made to the quality of the 
environment as well as to 
the well-being of the general 
public 
without 
making 

drastic changes to its own 
socioeconomic character.

In 
hearing 
about 
the 

downfalls of green urban 
development, I felt within 
myself a burning passion to 
prevent this type of economic 
flourishing that occurs at the 
degradation of the lives of 
people in my community and 
that occurs with ignorance 
towards 
our 
environment. 

In essence, I found meaning 
in a type of career directed 
towards the development of 
disadvantaged communities 
by 
way 
of 
incremental 

change. Therefore, I believe 
authorities 
should 
fulfill 

their 
intentions 
of 
urban 

growth by designing methods 
of change that specifically 
address the needs and utilize 
the advantages of that area 
rather 
than 
diminishing 

it by some overwhelming 
economic feat. In doing so, 
I foresee these authorities 
achieving a society balanced 
by the rise of all of the people 
it encompasses.

Kianna Marquez can be reached at 

kmarquez@umich.edu.

Zack Blumberg can be reached at 

zblumber@umich.edu.

As China grows, so does their list of human rights abuses

ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN

How seeking a meaningul life starts with incremental change

China believes that 
strengthening the 
state is the highest 

priority

EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD

Our open Editorial Board meets Wednesdays 7:00-
8:30 PM at our newsroom at 420 Maynard St. All 
are welcome to come discuss national, state and 

campus affairs.