vox--2020-07-28--Netflix and streaming TV were the biggest winners of the 2020 Emmy nominations

The race for the 2020 Emmy nominations occurred , largely , in a vacuum .
The Television Academy was honoring a TV season that had mostly happened as planned .
The global outbreak of Covid-19 halted production on a handful of presumed Emmy contenders — FX ’ s Fargo season four chief among them — but by March , when the disease began shutting down production throughout the industry , work on almost all programming planned for the 2019-2020 TV season had wrapped .
Yet the vacuum the Emmys have been sucked into has nothing to do with production .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Los Angeles and New York teem with events for members of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences during the spring , each designed to bring in votes for various programs .
Netflix traditionally rents out a giant space to show off props and costumes from its shows , while HBO blankets LA in “ for your consideration ” ads .
And everybody — everybody — holds copious numbers of panels in which actors and showrunners extol the virtues of their programs .
In the Covid-19 world , however , all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save the billboards ; those still popped up ) .
And in the absence of mixers in which TV Academy members could talk with each other ( and journalists ) about what they were watching , it was hard to get a read on just what Emmy voters were actually checking out .
Was The Mandalorian as popular with them as it had seemed to be with viewers ?
Had they checked out The Morning Show after Apple TV+ all but foisted it upon them ?
Was Normal People buzzy with voters or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorites like The Handmaid ’ s Tale and Stranger Things doomed by having aired so long ago that their buzz had all but disappeared ?
The answers to those questions , respectively , turned out to be “ yes , ” “ mostly yes , ” “ not really , ” and “ no.
” The answer more generally to what people were voting for this year seems to be “ stuff they checked out on streaming.
” Netflix led the nominations with a record-shattering 160 nominations .
( The most nominations for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was HBO ’ s 137 nominations in 2019 , when it was bolstered by the final season of Game of Thrones . )
HBO netted just 107 nominations , but it boasted the year ’ s most-nominated program in the 26-times-nominated Watchmen .
Both HBO and Netflix had drama series that received 18 nominations ( the most in the category ) , thanks to Succession and Ozark .
And Amazon Prime Video ’ s Marvelous Mrs. Maisel once again drew 20 nominations to lead the comedy categories .
By and large , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprises — conformed to what people expected .
( Read the full list here and a short list of the top categories here . )
Maybe Emmy campaigning matters less than anybody thinks .
Maybe word of mouth and good buzz are still more important than anything else .
And with “ word of mouth ” as the biggest winner of the morning , let ’ s take a look at six winners and three losers from the 2020 Emmy nominations .
I am sure other networks will spin Netflix ’ s 160 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 160 nominations — in this fashion : Because Netflix is , effectively , an entire studio rather than a TV network , its ability to compete in every single category across the board means that it has a built-in advantage at the Emmys that , say , ABC does not possess .
A better comparison point would be to add up all of the Disney-owned properties with Emmy nominations : ABC and FX Networks and Hulu and ESPN and National Geographic and Disney Channel and Disney+ .
That would allow you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empire to another .
I did just that , and I ended up with 126 nominations across the Disney family .
That ’ s not bad !
It beats Netflix ’ s total of 117 from last year ( which at the time was the most nominations in Netflix ’ s history ) , and it beats WarnerMedia ’ s total of 120 from this year .
( WarnerMedia boasts HBO ’ s 107 nominations , so that company had a substantial head start . )
Great work , everybody !
Except ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within 30 nominations of Netflix ’ s 160 .
And , yeah , I ’ m sure we could still point to categories where Netflix can credibly compete — like variety special , where standup comedy tends to do well — that , say , Disney can ’ t yet .
I ’ m sure if Disney or WarnerMedia were eligible in as many categories as Netflix is , it would be a closer race .
But 160 nominations .
And often for shows you probably haven ’ t thought about in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Method ?
It got three nominations , including Best Comedy Series .
How about Stranger Things ?
Doesn ’ t that feel like it aired its most recent season 17 years ago ?
Well , that season received eight nominations .
That ’ s the fewest the show has ever garnered when eligible , but hey , it still cracked Best Drama Series , and Netflix will gladly add those eight nominations to its pile .
And that ’ s before you even get to something like 18 nominations for Ozark or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , alongside four for Unbelievable .
( Netflix was the home of any limited series starting with “ un , ” apparently . )
It ’ s impossible to look at this nominees list and not be impressed by Netflix ’ s dominance .
As mentioned , this was the year of “ stuff people were watching while stuck at home , ” which meant streaming had a very good year .
Hulu grabbed 26 nominations , compared to 20 in 2019 ( and if you “ count ” FX on Hulu ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — though they ’ re more properly FX nominations — that number goes even higher ) .
What ’ s more , it saw strong support for shows like Ramy and The Great , which just missed the Comedy Series category but got major nominations in acting , writing , and directing .
Prime Video fell substantially to 30 nominations from 47 , but it didn ’ t have Fleabag this year , and Marvelous Mrs. Maisel got another 20 nominations for a season I had all but forgotten existed , so call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were how well new streaming platforms performed .
Apple TV+ grabbed 18 nominations , including eight for The Morning Show ( though no Drama Series nomination ) .
And Disney+ did one better than that with 19 nominations , including a groundbreaking Drama Series nomination for The Mandalorian .
No streaming platform has ever cracked the Drama Series race in its first year eligible .
( Netflix ’ s first year eligible was technically 2012 , but it only really started ramping up its campaign once House of Cards debuted in 2013 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m inclined to give Disney+ the win . )
It ’ s all further evidence of something that ’ s already abundantly clear : Streaming is king .
In a vacuum , none of these networks did all that poorly .
FX Networks actually gained a nomination — 33 in 2020 compared to 32 in 2019 — and it saw terrific nomination hauls from Mrs. America and What We Do in the Shadows .
( Boo to the Academy ’ s continued ignorance of the brilliant Better Things , however .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had gotten Fargo on the air as planned , it would have had closer to 50 nominations .
But the network fell out of the Drama Series running when Pose was snubbed , and all in all , it felt like FX had a bit of an off year at the awards .
AMC fell by only one nomination , to eight from 2019 ’ s nine .
And , yeah , Showtime collapsed to four nominations from 2019 ’ s 18 , but it also didn ’ t have anything as Emmy-friendly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was eligible last year .
But the ways in which these once-and-future Emmy powerhouses struggled a bit in 2020 nods toward how the TV landscape is changing .
The broadcast networks had a soft year as well , but we ’ re not used to thinking of the broadcast networks as Emmy players anymore because cable so thoroughly supplanted them as the Emmy centerpiece .
Now the same thing is happening to cable as streaming takes over .
RIP to cable ’ s Emmy dominance , except ... Yeah , HBO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come close to how many Netflix picked up , but the way HBO got those nominations is instructive .
Rather than spread a whole bunch of nominations across a whole bunch of content , as Netflix did , HBO ’ s nominations were centered on a smaller number of programs .
That will cause headaches when it ’ s 2021 and Watchmen is no longer eligible .
But in 2020 , Watchmen got 26 nominations , the most of any program .
It ’ s good to be HBO !
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more nominations gives you a better shot at winning , especially if those nominations include lots of actors ( actors are the biggest branch in the TV academy and , thus , the biggest voting bloc ) .
For instance , of Watchmen ’ s 26 nominations , six are for acting .
It seems like the strong favorite to win Limited Series and probably the most awards on Emmy night .
Here ’ s an even better comparison : Both Netflix ’ s Ozark and HBO ’ s Succession received 18 nominations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drama Series .
Ozark received three acting nominations , which is great .
Succession received nine .
All of this is to say : Netflix ’ s nomination game is strong , but HBO has better positioned itself for wins , particularly in major categories .
And most importantly : HBO secured a nomination for Zendaya in Euphoria , a fact I note because a ) Zendaya is the best , and b ) my editor loves Zendaya and will appreciate this shoutout .
[ Ed .
note : She does , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , Schitt ’ s Creek ’ s surprise handful of Emmy nominations ( including three in the big-name Comedy Series , Actor in a Comedy , and Actress in a Comedy categories ) seemed like they had come out of nowhere .
Yet in 2020 , for the show ’ s final season , Schitt ’ s Creek garnered 15 total nominations , including nominations for its four main stars , its directing , and its writing ( twice ) .
Its better-than-expected performance suggests it and Maisel will battle for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who would have thought that possible as recently as 18 months ago ?
The Schitt ’ s Creek success is a stealth Netflix success , too , as the streaming platform boosted the show ’ s profile enough that a campaign was even possible .
But Netflix didn ’ t campaign for the show .
That task fell to humble Pop TV , which outdid itself .
Remember Modern Family ?
Did you know it aired its final season in the 2019-20 TV season ?
It did !
And sometimes a final season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Emmy bump , like when Frasier won a handful of major awards ( including for its stars Kelsey Grammer and David Hyde Pierce ) in its final year .
But Modern Family saw no such luck .
Yeah , its three nominations were an improvement over 2019 ’ s one nomination .
But this is a show that received double-digit nominations and won Comedy Series across its first five seasons .
That it ’ s descended this far suggests just how far it ’ s fallen from the Emmys ’ attention .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning were Bob Odenkirk and Jonathan Banks of Better Call Saul and Elisabeth Moss of The Handmaid ’ s Tale .
Odenkirk and Banks had been nominated numerous times before for their Saul roles ( with Banks receiving a nomination for the same character on Breaking Bad ) , while Moss actually won for the first season of Handmaid ’ s .
You could argue that the buzz for both shows was muted this season — in the case of Handmaid ’ s because season three aired so long ago , and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aired right in the midst of the Covid-19 outbreak — but the snubs are still surprising .
Winner : What We Do in the Shadows Nothing — and I mean nothing — delighted me more in the nominations list than the eight nominations for FX ’ s weirdo vampire comedy What We Do in the Shadows , which seems to have broken into the Comedy Series category thanks to love from writers ( who nominated it three times , the most for any comedy series ) .
The show is glorious , goofy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the sort of thing the Emmys normally stay far , far away from , but it ’ s also one of the funniest shows on TV right now .
It ’ s nice to see it garner the recognition it deserves .
Quibi might be a complete disaster as a platform , but it got 10 Emmy nominations in the otherwise sparsely competitive shortform categories , including eight of the 10 nominations in the two shortform acting categories .
Quibi : Things are looking up !
Every day at Vox , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The race for the 2020 Emmy nominations occurred, largely, in a vacuum.
The Television Academy was honoring a TV season that had mostly happened as planned. The global outbreak of Covid-19 halted production on a handful of presumed Emmy contenders — FX’s Fargo season four chief among them — but by March, when the disease began shutting down production throughout the industry, work on almost all programming planned for the 2019-2020 TV season had wrapped.
Yet the vacuum the Emmys have been sucked into has nothing to do with production. It’s about campaigning.
Typically, Los Angeles and New York teem with events for members of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences during the spring, each designed to bring in votes for various programs. Netflix traditionally rents out a giant space to show off props and costumes from its shows, while HBO blankets LA in “for your consideration” ads. And everybody — everybody — holds copious numbers of panels in which actors and showrunners extol the virtues of their programs.
In the Covid-19 world, however, all of that campaigning had to move online (save the billboards; those still popped up). And in the absence of mixers in which TV Academy members could talk with each other (and journalists) about what they were watching, it was hard to get a read on just what Emmy voters were actually checking out. Was The Mandalorian as popular with them as it had seemed to be with viewers? Had they checked out The Morning Show after Apple TV+ all but foisted it upon them? Was Normal People buzzy with voters or just with audiences? And were old favorites like The Handmaid’s Tale and Stranger Things doomed by having aired so long ago that their buzz had all but disappeared? The answers to those questions, respectively, turned out to be “yes,” “mostly yes,” “not really,” and “no.”
The answer more generally to what people were voting for this year seems to be “stuff they checked out on streaming.” Netflix led the nominations with a record-shattering 160 nominations. (The most nominations for a network in a year before this was HBO’s 137 nominations in 2019, when it was bolstered by the final season of Game of Thrones.) HBO netted just 107 nominations, but it boasted the year’s most-nominated program in the 26-times-nominated Watchmen. Both HBO and Netflix had drama series that received 18 nominations (the most in the category), thanks to Succession and Ozark. And Amazon Prime Video’s Marvelous Mrs. Maisel once again drew 20 nominations to lead the comedy categories.
By and large, these nominations — with a handful of mild surprises — conformed to what people expected. (Read the full list here and a short list of the top categories here.) Maybe Emmy campaigning matters less than anybody thinks. Maybe word of mouth and good buzz are still more important than anything else.
And with “word of mouth” as the biggest winner of the morning, let’s take a look at six winners and three losers from the 2020 Emmy nominations.
Winner: Netflix
I am sure other networks will spin Netflix’s 160 nominations — and again, that’s 160 nominations — in this fashion: Because Netflix is, effectively, an entire studio rather than a TV network, its ability to compete in every single category across the board means that it has a built-in advantage at the Emmys that, say, ABC does not possess. A better comparison point would be to add up all of the Disney-owned properties with Emmy nominations: ABC and FX Networks and Hulu and ESPN and National Geographic and Disney Channel and Disney+. That would allow you to compare apples to apples, one media empire to another.
I did just that, and I ended up with 126 nominations across the Disney family. That’s not bad! It beats Netflix’s total of 117 from last year (which at the time was the most nominations in Netflix’s history), and it beats WarnerMedia’s total of 120 from this year. (WarnerMedia boasts HBO’s 107 nominations, so that company had a substantial head start.) Great work, everybody!
Except ... neither of those giant entertainment conglomerates came within 30 nominations of Netflix’s 160. And, yeah, I’m sure we could still point to categories where Netflix can credibly compete — like variety special, where standup comedy tends to do well — that, say, Disney can’t yet. I’m sure if Disney or WarnerMedia were eligible in as many categories as Netflix is, it would be a closer race.
But 160 nominations. And often for shows you probably haven’t thought about in a while. Like, remember The Kominsky Method? It got three nominations, including Best Comedy Series. How about Stranger Things? Doesn’t that feel like it aired its most recent season 17 years ago? Well, that season received eight nominations. That’s the fewest the show has ever garnered when eligible, but hey, it still cracked Best Drama Series, and Netflix will gladly add those eight nominations to its pile.
And that’s before you even get to something like 18 nominations for Ozark or the out-of-nowhere nine nominations for Limited Series Unorthodox, alongside four for Unbelievable. (Netflix was the home of any limited series starting with “un,” apparently.) It’s impossible to look at this nominees list and not be impressed by Netflix’s dominance.
Winner: All other streaming platforms, honestly
As mentioned, this was the year of “stuff people were watching while stuck at home,” which meant streaming had a very good year. Hulu grabbed 26 nominations, compared to 20 in 2019 (and if you “count” FX on Hulu’s nominations toward Hulu’s total — though they’re more properly FX nominations — that number goes even higher). What’s more, it saw strong support for shows like Ramy and The Great, which just missed the Comedy Series category but got major nominations in acting, writing, and directing.
Prime Video fell substantially to 30 nominations from 47, but it didn’t have Fleabag this year, and Marvelous Mrs. Maisel got another 20 nominations for a season I had all but forgotten existed, so call it a wash.
The real surprises were how well new streaming platforms performed. Apple TV+ grabbed 18 nominations, including eight for The Morning Show (though no Drama Series nomination). And Disney+ did one better than that with 19 nominations, including a groundbreaking Drama Series nomination for The Mandalorian. No streaming platform has ever cracked the Drama Series race in its first year eligible. (Netflix’s first year eligible was technically 2012, but it only really started ramping up its campaign once House of Cards debuted in 2013. So this is a technicality, but I’m inclined to give Disney+ the win.)
It’s all further evidence of something that’s already abundantly clear: Streaming is king.
Loser: AMC, FX, and Showtime
In a vacuum, none of these networks did all that poorly. FX Networks actually gained a nomination — 33 in 2020 compared to 32 in 2019 — and it saw terrific nomination hauls from Mrs. America and What We Do in the Shadows. (Boo to the Academy’s continued ignorance of the brilliant Better Things, however.) You could also argue if FX had gotten Fargo on the air as planned, it would have had closer to 50 nominations. But the network fell out of the Drama Series running when Pose was snubbed, and all in all, it felt like FX had a bit of an off year at the awards.
AMC fell by only one nomination, to eight from 2019’s nine. And, yeah, Showtime collapsed to four nominations from 2019’s 18, but it also didn’t have anything as Emmy-friendly as the limited series Escape at Dannemora, which was eligible last year.
But the ways in which these once-and-future Emmy powerhouses struggled a bit in 2020 nods toward how the TV landscape is changing. The broadcast networks had a soft year as well, but we’re not used to thinking of the broadcast networks as Emmy players anymore because cable so thoroughly supplanted them as the Emmy centerpiece. Now the same thing is happening to cable as streaming takes over. RIP to cable’s Emmy dominance, except ...
Winner: HBO forever!!!
Yeah, HBO’s 107 nominations don’t come close to how many Netflix picked up, but the way HBO got those nominations is instructive. Rather than spread a whole bunch of nominations across a whole bunch of content, as Netflix did, HBO’s nominations were centered on a smaller number of programs. That will cause headaches when it’s 2021 and Watchmen is no longer eligible. But in 2020, Watchmen got 26 nominations, the most of any program. It’s good to be HBO!
Here’s what I mean by this: Having more nominations gives you a better shot at winning, especially if those nominations include lots of actors (actors are the biggest branch in the TV academy and, thus, the biggest voting bloc). For instance, of Watchmen’s 26 nominations, six are for acting. It seems like the strong favorite to win Limited Series and probably the most awards on Emmy night.
Here’s an even better comparison: Both Netflix’s Ozark and HBO’s Succession received 18 nominations, making them the prohibitive favorites in Drama Series. Ozark received three acting nominations, which is great. Succession received nine. All of this is to say: Netflix’s nomination game is strong, but HBO has better positioned itself for wins, particularly in major categories.
And most importantly: HBO secured a nomination for Zendaya in Euphoria, a fact I note because a) Zendaya is the best, and b) my editor loves Zendaya and will appreciate this shoutout. [Ed. note: She does, and she did.]
Winner: Schitt’s Creek
Just a year ago, Schitt’s Creek’s surprise handful of Emmy nominations (including three in the big-name Comedy Series, Actor in a Comedy, and Actress in a Comedy categories) seemed like they had come out of nowhere.
Yet in 2020, for the show’s final season, Schitt’s Creek garnered 15 total nominations, including nominations for its four main stars, its directing, and its writing (twice). Its better-than-expected performance suggests it and Maisel will battle for the Comedy Series crown — and honestly, who would have thought that possible as recently as 18 months ago?
The Schitt’s Creek success is a stealth Netflix success, too, as the streaming platform boosted the show’s profile enough that a campaign was even possible. But Netflix didn’t campaign for the show. That task fell to humble Pop TV, which outdid itself.
Loser: Modern Family
Remember Modern Family? Did you know it aired its final season in the 2019-20 TV season? It did! And sometimes a final season of an Emmy favorite is accompanied by an Emmy bump, like when Frasier won a handful of major awards (including for its stars Kelsey Grammer and David Hyde Pierce) in its final year.
But Modern Family saw no such luck. Yeah, its three nominations were an improvement over 2019’s one nomination. But this is a show that received double-digit nominations and won Comedy Series across its first five seasons. That it’s descended this far suggests just how far it’s fallen from the Emmys’ attention.
Loser: Assorted other Emmy favorites
Among the most surprising snubs of Emmy morning were Bob Odenkirk and Jonathan Banks of Better Call Saul and Elisabeth Moss of The Handmaid’s Tale. Odenkirk and Banks had been nominated numerous times before for their Saul roles (with Banks receiving a nomination for the same character on Breaking Bad), while Moss actually won for the first season of Handmaid’s. You could argue that the buzz for both shows was muted this season — in the case of Handmaid’s because season three aired so long ago, and in the case of Saul because the season aired right in the midst of the Covid-19 outbreak — but the snubs are still surprising.
Winner: What We Do in the Shadows
Nothing — and I mean nothing — delighted me more in the nominations list than the eight nominations for FX’s weirdo vampire comedy What We Do in the Shadows, which seems to have broken into the Comedy Series category thanks to love from writers (who nominated it three times, the most for any comedy series). The show is glorious, goofy, and incredibly bizarre. It’s the sort of thing the Emmys normally stay far, far away from, but it’s also one of the funniest shows on TV right now. It’s nice to see it garner the recognition it deserves.
Winner: Quibi
Quibi might be a complete disaster as a platform, but it got 10 Emmy nominations in the otherwise sparsely competitive shortform categories, including eight of the 10 nominations in the two shortform acting categories. Quibi: Things are looking up!


vox--2020-07-28--5 real steps the US could take to help Uighurs in China

For several years now , China has been systematically repressing its Uighur Muslim minority in the western province of Xinjiang — millions of Uighurs have been detained in “ reeducation ” camps , where they are subjected to grievous human rights abuses including torture , sexual abuse , forced sterilization , family separation , and brainwashing .
Those Uighurs in Xinjiang who manage to avoid the camps still live under oppressive government surveillance and draconian restrictions aimed at erasing their religious and cultural traditions .
As more and more reports emerge of Beijing ’ s atrocities toward Uighurs , US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begun to loudly condemn China and call for a forceful policy response .
“ What has and is happening to the Uighurs in Xinjiang is a human tragedy , ” Rep. Ami Bera ( D-CA ) , the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for Asia , told me on Monday .
“ We can not stand for it.
” “ The Chinese Communist Party ’ s campaign to systematically violate the fundamental human rights of the Uighur Muslim minority is unconscionable , ” Rep. Ann Wagner ( R-MO ) , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also told me .
“ We must continue to not just condemn China ’ s severe repression of ethnic and religious minorities but proactively hold the [ party ] to account.
” That rare consensus in Washington has generated some action , most importantly the Uighur Human Rights Policy Act , which President Donald Trump signed into law last month .
The law imposes sanctions on foreign individuals and entities involved in abuses in Xinjiang and requires the president to periodically “ send Congress a list identifying foreign individuals and entities responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has invoked that and other laws to sanction several Chinese companies and individuals — most prominently Chen Quanguo , who governs Xinjiang and is a top member of the politburo in China .
But many activists and experts say it ’ s not enough , and that the US can and should do more to pressure China .
Of course , there are a number of areas — international trade , for one — where US-China cooperation is critical , so any policy would have to be weighed against other US interests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are several ways the US could pressure China without fully upending the world ’ s most vital bilateral relationship .
“ It ’ s not all or nothing , ” James Millward , a Georgetown University professor who studies China ’ s repression of Uighurs , told me .
I spoke to nine experts , former US officials , and policymakers to ask them what more the US could feasibly do right now to push China on the Uighur issue .
Five clear policy options emerged .
Let ’ s take each of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Build an international coalition to help Uighurs in China The Trump administration has made combating China a cornerstone of its foreign policy .
While most of the struggle centers on the coronavirus and trade , the US in recent months has added Beijing ’ s mistreatment of Uighurs to its list of grievances against China .
But some experts fear this could end up hurting the Uighur cause .
“ I am concerned that once again the Uighurs are not being taken seriously , in and of themselves , rather than being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a larger geopolitical strategy , ” Dru C. Gladney , a professor of anthropology at Pomona College in Claremont , California , who studies the region , told my colleague Jen Kirby .
“ Anything the US does on its own will only be read as yet another tactic in its desire to ‘ contain ’ China , ” Jennifer Teets , a China expert at Middlebury College who edits the Journal of Chinese Political Science , told me .
One solution , then , is for the US to form a coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic pressure on China over the Uighur issue .
Experts say many European and Asian nations — like France , Germany , and Japan — would surely join in , and having the US at the forefront of the coalition would give them the political space and backing they don ’ t yet have to confront China .
“ The US can not solve this ourselves , any more than we could have solved the Holocaust by ourselves , ” said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Chip Gregson , the Pentagon ’ s top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US could also try to coax major Muslim-majority nations , namely Saudi Arabia , to form part of the coalition , too , despite their general silence on the issue to date .
That ’ d be an uphill battle — Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman last year defended China ’ s “ right ” to place Uighurs in concentration camps , likely in an effort to allow multimillion-dollar trade deals to proceed — but one worth fighting nonetheless .
Such a coalition would lend greater legitimacy to the cause while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dwindling the market for Chinese products made by forced Uighur labor .
Such results would be far more impactful than just having the US take on China by itself .
So far , the Trump administration has shown little interest in building such a coalition or working alongside allies in general .
But if it changed course , it ’ s possible the US-led group could force some — though not wholesale — change in China .
“ I doubt that it would be enough to stop the digital surveillance or reeducation camps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these efforts from expanding , ” Teets told me .
Building the coalition , though , would just be the start .
2 ) Cause China economic pain until it reverses course If there ’ s one policy proposal to hit China where it hurts , it ’ s to go after its purse and the suppressive technologies it funds .
Experts I spoke to identified four major ways to do just that .
Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-CA ) , a House Armed Services Committee member and a leader of the progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US could ask Customs and Border Protection to ban imports from regions with known Uighur forced labor .
Multiple reports have documented products made by Uighurs against their will in the supply chains of major companies including Adidas , Calvin Klein , and H & M .
In fact , the New York Times reports that about one in five pieces of cotton clothing contains cotton or other materials , like yarn , from Xinjiang , which produces about 84 percent of China ’ s cotton output .
If the US stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would lower Chinese revenues and perhaps end that practice , especially if other countries followed suit .
This kind of proposal has gained traction , including with Bera , the Asia subcommittee chief .
The US must demand “ transparency for supply chains so that companies are not inadvertently sourcing material generated by Uighur forced labor , ” he told me .
“ Industry needs to play their part , but outside advocates and government have a critical role , too.
” It seems like they ’ re starting to make their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 180 organizations — including more than 70 Uighur rights groups — called on retailers and suppliers to stop carrying or using products made from forced Uighur labor .
“ Now is the time for real action from brands , governments , and international bodies — not empty declarations , ” Jasmine O ’ Connor , the CEO of Anti-Slavery International , said in a statement last Thursday .
“ The only way brands can ensure they are not profiting from the exploitation is by exiting the region and ending relationships with suppliers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cease any assistance to China ’ s mass surveillance and repression capabilities The second major move would be to ensure no US government agencies or American companies directly or indirectly aid China ’ s repressive campaign .
“ It would help make the point that this is an unprecedented system of surveillance and oppression from what we ’ ve seen in recent history , ” said Darren Byler , a region expert at the University of Colorado Boulder .
The Chinese government uses mobile apps , facial recognition software , and other programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times put it last year , “ It is a virtual cage that complements the indoctrination camps.
” Some of these technologies couldn ’ t function without the support of prominent American firms like Hewlett Packard and Intel Corporation .
It ’ s why Wagner , the second-highest-ranking Republican on the House Asia subcommittee , told me she was “ proud ” to sign an amendment for this year ’ s must-pass defense budget bill that will prohibit US companies from exporting equipment to China that could be used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must act to deny the Chinese government access to cutting-edge technologies that can be used to track and persecute Uighurs , ” Wagner told me .
The Trump administration has taken other measures , such as blacklisting nearly 50 Chinese companies solely based on their connections to the mistreatment of Uighurs .
Those firms are no longer allowed to buy any parts from US firms without explicit approval from the US government .
That ’ s a good step , Byler said .
“ We shouldn ’ t be supporting tech firms that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Islamophobia targeting Uighurs ” and other minority groups .
Companies that make voice recognition programs or image recognition technologies that can easily translate Islamic texts should be given particular focus .
Either would help Chinese authorities further keep tabs on Uighurs and others in Xinjiang , so making it harder for the regime to obtain those working systems might delay the persecution — and hurt the country ’ s bottom line , too .
The third major move would be to continue sanctioning Chinese officials and organizations that are involved with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s already underway , but some experts say more could be done on this front .
A top Communist Party official may not have many financial assets or interests in the US , but their children might , or at least may want to visit or study in the US , said Georgetown ’ s Millward .
That would at least impose a cost beyond just a symbolic sanction , he said .
And there ’ s still something to be said for the symbolic nature of sanctions , said David Shear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s top Asia official from 2014 to 2016 .
Lining up an ever-increasing set of penalties may “ achieve some moderation in the Chinese approach , ” even if they don ’ t have a devastating financial impact , he noted .
Use the 2022 Beijing Olympics as “ a key pressure point ” The fourth and final major economic play would be to leverage the upcoming Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022 .
That kind of event provides a massive boost to a nation ’ s image — just like the 2008 games @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corporate sponsorships of the events provide even more international legitimacy .
A company may see paying to have its logo tied to the games as just an endorsement for the competition , but others will see it also as an endorsement of the host country .
With that in mind , the US government and civil society could use the next two years to let companies know that backing the 2022 Olympics would be tantamount to backing China ’ s treatment of Uighurs .
That might lead some multinational firms to back off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , I ’ d be very leery .
We don ’ t want the 1936 Olympics again , ” said Millward , referencing the competition held in Nazi Germany , which featured sponsors like Coca-Cola .
A lack of sponsors — which would also mean a lack of funds — and a large public outcry might then force the Olympic Committee to pick a new country to host the games .
That ’ s a long shot , experts admit , but those who want China to stop interning Uighurs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-profile event to put Beijing on notice .
“ The Olympics are a key pressure point , ” said the University of Colorado ’ s Byler .
China ’ s anti-Uighur campaign has been successful in part because it takes place in a remote part of the world far from public view .
The mounting global pressure on Beijing started only after information about the horrors going on leaked out in 2017 .
The US could keep the spotlight on this issue , experts say , by continually publishing intelligence documents and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the situation in Xinjiang really is .
Gathering such intelligence can be difficult , as American spies and other observers aren ’ t welcome in that region ( or much of China , really ) , but there are ways the US can get around that .
The US could use military assets , like satellites and unmanned intelligence , surveillance , and reconnaissance aircraft operating beyond Chinese territory to take pictures of the concentration camps and gather other bits of information , suggested Gregson , the retired Marine general and former top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could make the gathered data public in an unclassified document with the seal of a federal intelligence agency or even the White House stamped on the front page .
Publishing such documents , maybe in coordination with foreign intelligence agencies , could severely embarrass the Chinese government .
“ Perhaps China ’ s knowledge that we are documenting their crimes will be its own deterrent to continuing those crimes , ” Gregson added .
There ’ s actually a mechanism for these kinds of documents to be released .
The Uighur Human Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress that , among other things , must detail the situation in Xinjiang .
The Trump administration and subsequent American leaders could use this legal requirement as an excuse of sorts to keep publishing what it finds out about continued persecution .
Non-government groups , such as human rights organizations and media outlets , can publish what they learn as well , analysts say .
Such disclosures not only would inform the public but also let China know it ’ s being watched by multiple parties .
But , many told me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an official US government document .
It ups the ante more than a product by any other actor could .
“ Naming and shaming policies from the government are not symbolic because they put real pressure on the target , ” Georgetown ’ s Millward said .
A constant of Trump ’ s foreign policy has been to minimize America ’ s involvement at the United Nations .
But if the US wants to get serious about stopping China from harming more Uighurs , it needs to reverse course .
“ Ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Nations ” to handle the Uighur issue by imposing multilateral sanctions and other measures “ with the US taking the lead , ” Lynette Ong , a China expert at the University of Toronto , told me .
That ’ s easier said than done : China is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council , which means it has veto power over any proposal brought to the body .
And , as of April , a Chinese representative gets to sit on an influential panel of the UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without deep US involvement to counter China ’ s goal to make the UN more Beijing-friendly , then , experts worry there may be no effective way to push back on the country at the global organization .
Take what happened in July 2019 : 22 countries , including Japan and the UK ( but not the US ) , wrote a letter to the UN ’ s top human rights official calling on China to end its “ mass arbitrary detentions and related violations ” of Uighur and other minorities .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led by Saudi Arabia and Russia — released a response defending the Chinese regime ’ s actions in Xinjiang .
“ Nobody can be more concerned about the status of Muslims anywhere in the world than Saudi Arabia , ” the kingdom ’ s UN ambassador , Abdallah Al-Mouallimi , said at the time .
“ What we have said in that letter is that we support the developmental policies of China that have lifted people out of poverty.
” Some analysts believe that if the US called for action at the UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its pro-Uighur stance .
At a minimum , they say , an active push might make it harder for Riyadh and others to so boldly back China ’ s abusive campaign .
Others I spoke to were more skeptical about prioritizing UN action .
It ’ s a slow-moving organization , and the Uighurs ’ need is immediate .
Still , most I spoke to said Washington shouldn ’ t forgo any forum in which to bring up repression of Uighurs with Beijing .
The US must “ raise the issue more in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unacceptable , ” said Khanna , the Democratic lawmaker .
“ It should be a very high priority and a lead point in our bilateral dialogue.
” 5 ) Support Uighurs and their affiliated groups directly wherever possible Instead of just focusing on punishing China , experts say , the US could equally focus on helping Uighurs in need .
One good place to start would be to allow Uighur refugees to start a new life in the United States .
The US could easily be a safe haven for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Byler noted , especially since many who have fled to countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan remain undocumented and , therefore , might soon be deported back to China .
That , however , would require a massive change in Trump ’ s refugee policy .
Last September , his administration announced the US would accept up to 18,000 refugees over the next year , the fewest in history and down from a cap of 110,000 just two years prior .
There ’ s no formal count of how many Uighur refugees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I spoke to place the number at around 60,000 , with 10,000 already in North America and most of the rest living in Turkey .
Another way the US could help is to provide more money to Uighur support groups .
Some focus on human rights issues , providing food , shelter , and more , but the growing repression means they will require more funding in the months and years to come .
That could get tricky , Byler noted , as Beijing already suspects groups that get funding from the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the National Endowment for Democracy — are secretly plotting the regime ’ s overthrow .
No expert I spoke to detailed a way to get around that problem , save for offering covert financial aid .
But one proposal from Byler was that a US government agency not overly politicized in the foreign policy space — like the Department of Education , for instance — should take the funding lead .
Funding through such an agency might help build cultural institutions for Uighurs outside of the political realm , he said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what that would look like.
” Which led to the final proposal : Increase US-Uighur ties to find out what the community needs when they need it .
Greater interaction between expat Uighurs and US officials could make the American response more comprehensive .
The US government might not be able to assist in every instance , but at least a stronger relationship would form between the two entities .
All of these levers would have to be pulled at once , experts say , not only to show China the world is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Beijing to skirt international action .
Those efforts may ultimately fail , but following through on each of the five steps in a coordinated way might be the only real hope of stopping what some experts have described as “ genocidal ” acts by China .
“ The chances of significant change are low whatever we do , ” said Shear , the Pentagon ’ s former top Asia official , “ but we should still try.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider making a contribution to Vox today .

For several years now, China has been systematically repressing its Uighur Muslim minority in the western province of Xinjiang — millions of Uighurs have been detained in “reeducation” camps, where they are subjected to grievous human rights abuses including torture, sexual abuse, forced sterilization, family separation, and brainwashing.
Those Uighurs in Xinjiang who manage to avoid the camps still live under oppressive government surveillance and draconian restrictions aimed at erasing their religious and cultural traditions.
As more and more reports emerge of Beijing’s atrocities toward Uighurs, US officials and lawmakers from both parties have begun to loudly condemn China and call for a forceful policy response.
“What has and is happening to the Uighurs in Xinjiang is a human tragedy,” Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for Asia, told me on Monday. “We cannot stand for it.”
“The Chinese Communist Party’s campaign to systematically violate the fundamental human rights of the Uighur Muslim minority is unconscionable,” Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), the vice ranking member of that subcommittee, also told me. “We must continue to not just condemn China’s severe repression of ethnic and religious minorities but proactively hold the [party] to account.”
That rare consensus in Washington has generated some action, most importantly the Uighur Human Rights Policy Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last month. The law imposes sanctions on foreign individuals and entities involved in abuses in Xinjiang and requires the president to periodically “send Congress a list identifying foreign individuals and entities responsible for such human rights abuses.”
The US has invoked that and other laws to sanction several Chinese companies and individuals — most prominently Chen Quanguo, who governs Xinjiang and is a top member of the politburo in China.
But many activists and experts say it’s not enough, and that the US can and should do more to pressure China.
Of course, there are a number of areas — international trade, for one — where US-China cooperation is critical, so any policy would have to be weighed against other US interests. Yet experts I spoke to said there are several ways the US could pressure China without fully upending the world’s most vital bilateral relationship. “It’s not all or nothing,” James Millward, a Georgetown University professor who studies China’s repression of Uighurs, told me.
I spoke to nine experts, former US officials, and policymakers to ask them what more the US could feasibly do right now to push China on the Uighur issue. Five clear policy options emerged.
Let’s take each of the five proposals in turn.
1) Build an international coalition to help Uighurs in China
The Trump administration has made combating China a cornerstone of its foreign policy. While most of the struggle centers on the coronavirus and trade, the US in recent months has added Beijing’s mistreatment of Uighurs to its list of grievances against China.
But some experts fear this could end up hurting the Uighur cause. “I am concerned that once again the Uighurs are not being taken seriously, in and of themselves, rather than being used as kind of a pawn in a larger geopolitical strategy,” Dru C. Gladney, a professor of anthropology at Pomona College in Claremont, California, who studies the region, told my colleague Jen Kirby.
“Anything the US does on its own will only be read as yet another tactic in its desire to ‘contain’ China,” Jessica Teets, a China expert at Middlebury College who edits the Journal of Chinese Political Science, told me.
One solution, then, is for the US to form a coalition of like-minded countries to put diplomatic and economic pressure on China over the Uighur issue. Experts say many European and Asian nations — like France, Germany, and Japan — would surely join in, and having the US at the forefront of the coalition would give them the political space and backing they don’t yet have to confront China.
“The US cannot solve this ourselves, any more than we could have solved the Holocaust by ourselves,” said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Chip Gregson, the Pentagon’s top Asia official from 2009 to 2011.
The US could also try to coax major Muslim-majority nations, namely Saudi Arabia, to form part of the coalition, too, despite their general silence on the issue to date. That’d be an uphill battle — Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman last year defended China’s “right” to place Uighurs in concentration camps, likely in an effort to allow multimillion-dollar trade deals to proceed — but one worth fighting nonetheless.
Such a coalition would lend greater legitimacy to the cause while making any economic sanctions more biting and dwindling the market for Chinese products made by forced Uighur labor. Such results would be far more impactful than just having the US take on China by itself.
So far, the Trump administration has shown little interest in building such a coalition or working alongside allies in general. But if it changed course, it’s possible the US-led group could force some — though not wholesale — change in China. “I doubt that it would be enough to stop the digital surveillance or reeducation camps in Xinjiang, but it might stop these efforts from expanding,” Teets told me.
Building the coalition, though, would just be the start.
2) Cause China economic pain until it reverses course
If there’s one policy proposal to hit China where it hurts, it’s to go after its purse and the suppressive technologies it funds. Experts I spoke to identified four major ways to do just that.
Stop supporting forced Uighur labor
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a House Armed Services Committee member and a leader of the progressive foreign policy movement in Congress, believes the US could ask Customs and Border Protection to ban imports from regions with known Uighur forced labor. Multiple reports have documented products made by Uighurs against their will in the supply chains of major companies including Adidas, Calvin Klein, and H&M.
In fact, the New York Times reports that about one in five pieces of cotton clothing contains cotton or other materials, like yarn, from Xinjiang, which produces about 84 percent of China’s cotton output.
If the US stopped importing products made by unwilling Uighurs, it would lower Chinese revenues and perhaps end that practice, especially if other countries followed suit.
This kind of proposal has gained traction, including with Bera, the Asia subcommittee chief. The US must demand “transparency for supply chains so that companies are not inadvertently sourcing material generated by Uighur forced labor,” he told me. “Industry needs to play their part, but outside advocates and government have a critical role, too.”
It seems like they’re starting to make their voices heard. Last week, more than 180 organizations — including more than 70 Uighur rights groups — called on retailers and suppliers to stop carrying or using products made from forced Uighur labor.
“Now is the time for real action from brands, governments, and international bodies — not empty declarations,” Jasmine O’Connor, the CEO of Anti-Slavery International, said in a statement last Thursday. “The only way brands can ensure they are not profiting from the exploitation is by exiting the region and ending relationships with suppliers propping up this Chinese government system.”
Cease any assistance to China’s mass surveillance and repression capabilities
The second major move would be to ensure no US government agencies or American companies directly or indirectly aid China’s repressive campaign. “It would help make the point that this is an unprecedented system of surveillance and oppression from what we’ve seen in recent history,” said Darren Byler, a region expert at the University of Colorado Boulder.
The Chinese government uses mobile apps, facial recognition software, and other programs to track Uighurs in Xinjiang. As the New York Times put it last year, “It is a virtual cage that complements the indoctrination camps.” Some of these technologies couldn’t function without the support of prominent American firms like Hewlett Packard and Intel Corporation.
It’s why Wagner, the second-highest-ranking Republican on the House Asia subcommittee, told me she was “proud” to sign an amendment for this year’s must-pass defense budget bill that will prohibit US companies from exporting equipment to China that could be used to commit human rights abuses. “Congress must act to deny the Chinese government access to cutting-edge technologies that can be used to track and persecute Uighurs,” Wagner told me.
The Trump administration has taken other measures, such as blacklisting nearly 50 Chinese companies solely based on their connections to the mistreatment of Uighurs. Those firms are no longer allowed to buy any parts from US firms without explicit approval from the US government.
That’s a good step, Byler said. “We shouldn’t be supporting tech firms that are automating forms of racialization and forms of Islamophobia targeting Uighurs” and other minority groups. Companies that make voice recognition programs or image recognition technologies that can easily translate Islamic texts should be given particular focus.
Either would help Chinese authorities further keep tabs on Uighurs and others in Xinjiang, so making it harder for the regime to obtain those working systems might delay the persecution — and hurt the country’s bottom line, too.
Keep sanctions going
The third major move would be to continue sanctioning Chinese officials and organizations that are involved with the anti-Uighur campaign. As discussed, that’s already underway, but some experts say more could be done on this front.
A top Communist Party official may not have many financial assets or interests in the US, but their children might, or at least may want to visit or study in the US, said Georgetown’s Millward. That would at least impose a cost beyond just a symbolic sanction, he said.
And there’s still something to be said for the symbolic nature of sanctions, said David Shear, who served as the Pentagon’s top Asia official from 2014 to 2016. Lining up an ever-increasing set of penalties may “achieve some moderation in the Chinese approach,” even if they don’t have a devastating financial impact, he noted.
Use the 2022 Beijing Olympics as “a key pressure point”
The fourth and final major economic play would be to leverage the upcoming Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022. That kind of event provides a massive boost to a nation’s image — just like the 2008 games in China’s capital did. Corporate sponsorships of the events provide even more international legitimacy. A company may see paying to have its logo tied to the games as just an endorsement for the competition, but others will see it also as an endorsement of the host country.
With that in mind, the US government and civil society could use the next two years to let companies know that backing the 2022 Olympics would be tantamount to backing China’s treatment of Uighurs. That might lead some multinational firms to back off. “If I were a corporation right now, I’d be very leery. We don’t want the 1936 Olympics again,” said Millward, referencing the competition held in Nazi Germany, which featured sponsors like Coca-Cola.
A lack of sponsors — which would also mean a lack of funds — and a large public outcry might then force the Olympic Committee to pick a new country to host the games. That’s a long shot, experts admit, but those who want China to stop interning Uighurs and other minorities should take advantage of the high-profile event to put Beijing on notice.
“The Olympics are a key pressure point,” said the University of Colorado’s Byler.
3) “Name and shame” China with US-gathered intelligence
China’s anti-Uighur campaign has been successful in part because it takes place in a remote part of the world far from public view. The mounting global pressure on Beijing started only after information about the horrors going on leaked out in 2017.
The US could keep the spotlight on this issue, experts say, by continually publishing intelligence documents and other reports that show just how morally appalling the situation in Xinjiang really is. Gathering such intelligence can be difficult, as American spies and other observers aren’t welcome in that region (or much of China, really), but there are ways the US can get around that.
The US could use military assets, like satellites and unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft operating beyond Chinese territory to take pictures of the concentration camps and gather other bits of information, suggested Gregson, the retired Marine general and former top Pentagon official. Then, the US could make the gathered data public in an unclassified document with the seal of a federal intelligence agency or even the White House stamped on the front page.
Publishing such documents, maybe in coordination with foreign intelligence agencies, could severely embarrass the Chinese government. “Perhaps China’s knowledge that we are documenting their crimes will be its own deterrent to continuing those crimes,” Gregson added.
There’s actually a mechanism for these kinds of documents to be released. The Uighur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020 mandates reports to Congress that, among other things, must detail the situation in Xinjiang. The Trump administration and subsequent American leaders could use this legal requirement as an excuse of sorts to keep publishing what it finds out about continued persecution.
Non-government groups, such as human rights organizations and media outlets, can publish what they learn as well, analysts say. Such disclosures not only would inform the public but also let China know it’s being watched by multiple parties.
But, many told me, nothing would have quite the same impact as an official US government document. It ups the ante more than a product by any other actor could.
“Naming and shaming policies from the government are not symbolic because they put real pressure on the target,” Georgetown’s Millward said.
4) Counter China at the UN
A constant of Trump’s foreign policy has been to minimize America’s involvement at the United Nations. But if the US wants to get serious about stopping China from harming more Uighurs, it needs to reverse course.
“Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the United Nations” to handle the Uighur issue by imposing multilateral sanctions and other measures “with the US taking the lead,” Lynette Ong, a China expert at the University of Toronto, told me.
That’s easier said than done: China is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which means it has veto power over any proposal brought to the body. And, as of April, a Chinese representative gets to sit on an influential panel of the UN Human Rights Council which oversees personnel.
Without deep US involvement to counter China’s goal to make the UN more Beijing-friendly, then, experts worry there may be no effective way to push back on the country at the global organization.
Take what happened in July 2019: 22 countries, including Japan and the UK (but not the US), wrote a letter to the UN’s top human rights official calling on China to end its “mass arbitrary detentions and related violations” of Uighur and other minorities. Just a week later, 36 countries — led by Saudi Arabia and Russia — released a response defending the Chinese regime’s actions in Xinjiang.
“Nobody can be more concerned about the status of Muslims anywhere in the world than Saudi Arabia,” the kingdom’s UN ambassador, Abdallah Al-Mouallimi, said at the time. “What we have said in that letter is that we support the developmental policies of China that have lifted people out of poverty.”
Some analysts believe that if the US called for action at the UN, perhaps more countries would openly support its pro-Uighur stance. At a minimum, they say, an active push might make it harder for Riyadh and others to so boldly back China’s abusive campaign.
Others I spoke to were more skeptical about prioritizing UN action. It’s a slow-moving organization, and the Uighurs’ need is immediate.
Still, most I spoke to said Washington shouldn’t forgo any forum in which to bring up repression of Uighurs with Beijing. The US must “raise the issue more in meetings with [China] that it’s unacceptable,” said Khanna, the Democratic lawmaker. “It should be a very high priority and a lead point in our bilateral dialogue.”
5) Support Uighurs and their affiliated groups directly wherever possible
Instead of just focusing on punishing China, experts say, the US could equally focus on helping Uighurs in need.
One good place to start would be to allow Uighur refugees to start a new life in the United States. The US could easily be a safe haven for the growing diaspora, the University of Colorado’s Byler noted, especially since many who have fled to countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan remain undocumented and, therefore, might soon be deported back to China.
That, however, would require a massive change in Trump’s refugee policy. Last September, his administration announced the US would accept up to 18,000 refugees over the next year, the fewest in history and down from a cap of 110,000 just two years prior. There’s no formal count of how many Uighur refugees there are worldwide, but some experts I spoke to place the number at around 60,000, with 10,000 already in North America and most of the rest living in Turkey.
Another way the US could help is to provide more money to Uighur support groups. Some focus on human rights issues, providing food, shelter, and more, but the growing repression means they will require more funding in the months and years to come. That could get tricky, Byler noted, as Beijing already suspects groups that get funding from the US government to help Uighurs in China — like the National Endowment for Democracy — are secretly plotting the regime’s overthrow.
No expert I spoke to detailed a way to get around that problem, save for offering covert financial aid. But one proposal from Byler was that a US government agency not overly politicized in the foreign policy space — like the Department of Education, for instance — should take the funding lead. Funding through such an agency might help build cultural institutions for Uighurs outside of the political realm, he said, “though I’m not sure what that would look like.”
Which led to the final proposal: Increase US-Uighur ties to find out what the community needs when they need it. Greater interaction between expat Uighurs and US officials could make the American response more comprehensive. The US government might not be able to assist in every instance, but at least a stronger relationship would form between the two entities.
All of these levers would have to be pulled at once, experts say, not only to show China the world is serious but also to make it harder for Beijing to skirt international action. Those efforts may ultimately fail, but following through on each of the five steps in a coordinated way might be the only real hope of stopping what some experts have described as “genocidal” acts by China.
“The chances of significant change are low whatever we do,” said Shear, the Pentagon’s former top Asia official, “but we should still try.”


vox--2020-07-28--Pandemic learning “pods” don’t have to be just for the rich

It ’ s almost August .
School starts in many parts of the country in less than a month .
And the coronavirus pandemic is still raging , with Florida hospitals full and 18 states setting single-day records last week .
The result is that many schools can ’ t open safely , and many districts have announced that they will be continuing remote learning into the fall .
That ’ s left parents — many of whom are worried about their kids ’ ability to learn online , not to mention their own ability to keep their jobs with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One that ’ s gotten a lot of attention in recent days is the idea of “ pods , ” in which families bring their kids together in small groups to get some of the socialization and other benefits of in-person instruction .
The idea is appealing to a lot of parents , who have been signing up for neighborhood pods on Facebook and elsewhere , but it also raises concerns about equity , especially as some parents with disposable income are hiring private tutors to lead their pods and even considering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In ordinary times , at least , “ every child has an equal opportunity to go to school , ” Ty Lewis , CEO of the Educationally Speaking Center for Learning , an Atlanta nonprofit , told Vox .
But now not every child has an equal opportunity to be in a pod — low-income parents can ’ t afford to pay a tutor or rent a space , and if pods form mostly among neighbors , they risk further amplifying the kinds of residential segregation that already exist in the American school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to extend the benefits of small-group , in-person instruction beyond those families with the money to pay for a private pod .
At least one public school , for example , the Rooftop School in San Francisco , is organizing its own pods in an effort to ensure equity .
“ We want our kids spending their time in cohorts that reflect Rooftop ’ s whole student body , ” Rooftop principal Nancy Bui told Vox in an email .
Some school districts , including San Francisco , are planning ways to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And some nonprofits are stepping in with resources to help low-income kids get more individualized attention — and help parents get child care .
But many say that to succeed on a broader scale , these efforts will need government money behind them .
“ In order to do a lot of the practices that are going to most help our vulnerable students , schools and states and districts are gon na need more funding , ” Terra Wallin , associate director for P-12 accountability and special projects at the Education Trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Congress hasn ’ t been willing to provide it — leaving many families , as so often during this pandemic , to figure things out on their own .
Some well-to-do families are forming “ pods ” and hiring outside teachers Parents have been talking among themselves about pods for weeks , if not months , with some joining Facebook groups specifically devoted to pod formation .
But the idea got more public attention in mid-July when Washington Post reporters Laura Meckler and Hannah Natanson reported on affluent parents ’ efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One Manhattan mother who spoke to the Post said her group of parents was considering renting a studio apartment and hiring a private teacher to instruct their children in the fall .
“ Everything is on the table , ” she said .
Such an approach raises concerns about educational inequality , as Meckler and Natanson note .
The shift to online learning during the pandemic has already taken a disproportionate toll on students living in low-income neighborhoods , and the creation of pods with paid teachers threatens to widen that gap , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to afford to pitch in for a teacher — a cost that some parents expect to run more than $ 1,000 per month .
If some students get the benefit of private tutoring while others are still struggling to even get internet access or a quiet place to study , “ we are going to see a multiplying effect ” on educational inequality , L ’ Heureux Lewis-McCoy , a professor of the sociology of education at New York University , told Vox .
“ Certain sets of families are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for others , “ their ability to learn and grow is going to be dampened more and more.
” Moreover , some parents are reportedly pulling kids out of public school to put them in private pods , which could decrease public school funding since many schools are funded based on enrollment .
That could leave even less money for public schools to educate students whose families can ’ t afford to leave for pods , an especially problematic outcome during a pandemic when local budgets are being slashed and schools are facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing devices and other programs to help with distance learning .
“ Your school may be planning things that are supplemental resources for all kids that they ’ re not able to actually meet because now they have fewer families there , ” Lewis-McCoy said .
But wealthy families aren ’ t the only ones thinking about pods Due to concerns like these , pods have become a subject of national controversy , with many painting them as yet another way for white , wealthy families to segregate themselves from the school system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would quit her job before hiring someone to teach her child , saying , “ It just seems really privileged.
” Hiring an outside teacher is indeed out of reach for most families , even if they pool resources .
But coming together to share child care and education duties isn ’ t a new idea , or one unique to white , privileged families .
Parents who are essential workers have been sharing care among family , friends , and neighbors since the pandemic began so they can work outside the home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ been using communities of care to try to work with their kids to make sure homework got done.
” And even among parents who can work from home , not everyone is thinking of a pod as a substitute for public school .
Prudence Carter , the dean of the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley , began discussing the idea earlier this year with a neighbor whose daughter usually takes the bus with Carter ’ s son .
But she wasn ’ t planning on pulling her child out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ My version was actually parents supporting each other , ” she said .
That ’ s what families did in the working-class and lower-middle-class neighborhoods where she grew up : “ You drew on your network.
” Still , not everyone has access to a network of other parents who have the time and flexibility to share care and schooling .
And if parents get together in pods with their neighbors , “ because of economic and racial segregation , those pods won ’ t be very diverse , ” Carter said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how to make sure the benefits that pods provide , from shared child care to socialization for kids , are accessible to all , and that pods don ’ t end up intensifying the existing inequalities in American education .
The answer , many say , is public support — from schools , districts , and state and local governments .
Some schools are already organizing their own pods or other small-group solutions .
“ When a group of parents approached me , suggesting that the school divide kids into pods rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistant principal and I thought that made a lot more sense from an equity perspective , ” Bui , the Rooftop School principal , told Vox .
“ We want all our kids to benefit from any sort of pod program.
” The school is still working out the logistics , but Bui says that staff are dividing up class lists into groups of three or four students based on a variety of considerations : “ We ’ re looking at the gender that the student identifies , parental involvement level , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create groupings that reflect our whole student body.
” Some cities are setting up programs on a larger scale .
For example , San Francisco , where public schools will start remote-only in the fall , is setting up 40 “ learning hubs ” at libraries and recreation centers where low-income kids , those in foster care , and those learning English as a second language can come to get in-person instruction and support .
New York City , where schools are slated to open on a hybrid model , will open child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 1.1 million students in the fall , Mayor Bill de Blasio announced earlier this month .
Elsewhere , such as in Culver City , California , parents are pressing school districts for assistance in setting up pods in the fairest way possible , Lewis-McCoy said .
“ They ’ re saying , ‘ We know families are going to do pods — how can you actually help us address some of the equity questions we have ?
’ ” Though they are not without risk , pods can make sense from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and some experts are advising schools to use a version of the system even when kids go back to class .
The National Academies of Sciences , Engineering , and Medicine , for example , recently recommended that students at school be kept together in small groups .
“ This helps reduce exposure to large groups of people and allows for better social distancing , ” as well as making it easier for teachers to work with students on hand-washing and mask use , Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist in Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Outside the school system , meanwhile , nonprofits are stepping in to offer in-person instruction and child care .
The YMCA , which has operated emergency child care centers for the kids of essential workers throughout the pandemic , is now expanding its offerings in places where school will be virtual in the fall .
YMCAs in Houston , Charlotte , Kansas City , and elsewhere are setting up learning labs , where students can go during the day while parents work , Heidi Brasher , senior director of innovation for YMCA of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , staff will supervise them and help them with their schoolwork , with some YMCAs hiring additional teachers and other education professionals for the effort .
The cost to parents will likely vary by location , but the YMCA will provide financial aid based on parents ’ income and other family circumstances to make sure that low-income students have access to the programs .
“ Equity is a lens that we use every day , but even more so now because of the disparities that have been really exacerbated during this time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly address those disparities , districts and policymakers will have to look beyond individual choices families are making and at larger structural changes that can help the students most vulnerable to learning loss in the pandemic , Wallin of the Education Trust told Vox .
Larger initiatives districts and localities have tried include a program in Tennessee in which college students provide one-on-one remote tutoring for K-12 students .
Such programs could be offered remotely elsewhere , or in person individually or in small groups , to students in need , Wallin said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more innovatively about how to get supports , but you can ’ t do those if you don ’ t keep in the forefront of your mind that what you ’ re trying to do is get supports to the students who need it the most , ” she explained .
“ If you ’ re planning around those who already have access to resources , you ’ re going to miss a lot of opportunities to actually help close some of the opportunity gaps that we know are getting even larger.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But whether it ’ s one-on-one tutoring , child care at a YMCA or other center , or even just administrative help setting up pods in a more equitable way , all these solutions require one thing : money .
“ There ’ s a great need for federal funding , ” Wallin said .
And that funding needs to target schools and districts with large numbers of low-income students and others who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic .
Many such districts still haven ’ t seen their funding bounce back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and will need proactive attention to make sure they don ’ t see further cuts in the current economic crisis .
The YMCA also receives federal and local funding , and has joined with other child care providers in calls for additional funding to the child care industry .
Child care is “ needed for our parents , it ’ s needed for our kids , and so we ’ re all sharing that message together , ” Brasher said .
But so far , Congress has not responded to the calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more support .
Proposals for a $ 50 billion bailout for the child care industry — the amount experts say is needed to keep child care providers going through the pandemic and into the future — have yet to pass .
And the money schools say they need to reopen safely , let alone close the gaps in learning that have widened as a result of the pandemic , hasn ’ t been forthcoming either .
The result could be that while many schools , districts , and nonprofits are doing what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be left with just as little support in the fall as they had in the spring — while wealthier families have the resources to set up their own private schools in apartments across town .
And leaving families to go it alone is exactly the wrong approach , experts say .
“ We are , as a community , all in a really tough space , ” Brasher said , “ and it ’ s going to take a communal effort really to solve some of these issues.
” Every day at Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

It’s almost August. School starts in many parts of the country in less than a month. And the coronavirus pandemic is still raging, with Florida hospitals full and 18 states setting single-day records last week.
The result is that many schools can’t open safely, and many districts have announced that they will be continuing remote learning into the fall. That’s left parents — many of whom are worried about their kids’ ability to learn online, not to mention their own ability to keep their jobs with no child care — scrambling for solutions.
One that’s gotten a lot of attention in recent days is the idea of “pods,” in which families bring their kids together in small groups to get some of the socialization and other benefits of in-person instruction. The idea is appealing to a lot of parents, who have been signing up for neighborhood pods on Facebook and elsewhere, but it also raises concerns about equity, especially as some parents with disposable income are hiring private tutors to lead their pods and even considering renting out private space for them.
In ordinary times, at least, “every child has an equal opportunity to go to school,” Ty Lewis, CEO of the Educationally Speaking Center for Learning, an Atlanta nonprofit, told Vox. But now not every child has an equal opportunity to be in a pod — low-income parents can’t afford to pay a tutor or rent a space, and if pods form mostly among neighbors, they risk further amplifying the kinds of residential segregation that already exist in the American school system.
However, there may be ways to extend the benefits of small-group, in-person instruction beyond those families with the money to pay for a private pod. At least one public school, for example, the Rooftop School in San Francisco, is organizing its own pods in an effort to ensure equity. “We want our kids spending their time in cohorts that reflect Rooftop’s whole student body,” Rooftop principal Nancy Bui told Vox in an email.
Some school districts, including San Francisco, are planning ways to implement pod-like instruction on a larger scale. And some nonprofits are stepping in with resources to help low-income kids get more individualized attention — and help parents get child care. But many say that to succeed on a broader scale, these efforts will need government money behind them.
“In order to do a lot of the practices that are going to most help our vulnerable students, schools and states and districts are gonna need more funding,” Terra Wallin, associate director for P-12 accountability and special projects at the Education Trust, told Vox. And so far, Congress hasn’t been willing to provide it — leaving many families, as so often during this pandemic, to figure things out on their own.
Some well-to-do families are forming “pods” and hiring outside teachers
Parents have been talking among themselves about pods for weeks, if not months, with some joining Facebook groups specifically devoted to pod formation. But the idea got more public attention in mid-July when Washington Post reporters Laura Meckler and Hannah Natanson reported on affluent parents’ efforts to “import teachers to their homes.” One Manhattan mother who spoke to the Post said her group of parents was considering renting a studio apartment and hiring a private teacher to instruct their children in the fall. “Everything is on the table,” she said.
Such an approach raises concerns about educational inequality, as Meckler and Natanson note. The shift to online learning during the pandemic has already taken a disproportionate toll on students living in low-income neighborhoods, and the creation of pods with paid teachers threatens to widen that gap, since lower-income families are unlikely to be able to afford to pitch in for a teacher — a cost that some parents expect to run more than $1,000 per month.
If some students get the benefit of private tutoring while others are still struggling to even get internet access or a quiet place to study, “we are going to see a multiplying effect” on educational inequality, L’Heureux Lewis-McCoy, a professor of the sociology of education at New York University, told Vox. “Certain sets of families are going to get a hyper boost,” while for others, “their ability to learn and grow is going to be dampened more and more.”
Moreover, some parents are reportedly pulling kids out of public school to put them in private pods, which could decrease public school funding since many schools are funded based on enrollment. That could leave even less money for public schools to educate students whose families can’t afford to leave for pods, an especially problematic outcome during a pandemic when local budgets are being slashed and schools are facing new costs, from additional cleaning to providing devices and other programs to help with distance learning. “Your school may be planning things that are supplemental resources for all kids that they’re not able to actually meet because now they have fewer families there,” Lewis-McCoy said.
But wealthy families aren’t the only ones thinking about pods
Due to concerns like these, pods have become a subject of national controversy, with many painting them as yet another way for white, wealthy families to segregate themselves from the school system. One mom told the Post she would quit her job before hiring someone to teach her child, saying, “It just seems really privileged.”
Hiring an outside teacher is indeed out of reach for most families, even if they pool resources. But coming together to share child care and education duties isn’t a new idea, or one unique to white, privileged families. Parents who are essential workers have been sharing care among family, friends, and neighbors since the pandemic began so they can work outside the home, Lewis-McCoy said. These workers have “been using communities of care to try to work with their kids to make sure homework got done.”
And even among parents who can work from home, not everyone is thinking of a pod as a substitute for public school. Prudence Carter, the dean of the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley, began discussing the idea earlier this year with a neighbor whose daughter usually takes the bus with Carter’s son. But she wasn’t planning on pulling her child out of school, or hiring a tutor.
“My version was actually parents supporting each other,” she said. That’s what families did in the working-class and lower-middle-class neighborhoods where she grew up: “You drew on your network.”
Still, not everyone has access to a network of other parents who have the time and flexibility to share care and schooling. And if parents get together in pods with their neighbors, “because of economic and racial segregation, those pods won’t be very diverse,” Carter said.
The question, then, becomes about how to make sure the benefits that pods provide, from shared child care to socialization for kids, are accessible to all, and that pods don’t end up intensifying the existing inequalities in American education.
The answer, many say, is public support — from schools, districts, and state and local governments.
Some schools are already organizing their own pods or other small-group solutions. “When a group of parents approached me, suggesting that the school divide kids into pods rather than letting them form haphazardly, my assistant principal and I thought that made a lot more sense from an equity perspective,” Bui, the Rooftop School principal, told Vox. “We want all our kids to benefit from any sort of pod program.”
The school is still working out the logistics, but Bui says that staff are dividing up class lists into groups of three or four students based on a variety of considerations: “We’re looking at the gender that the student identifies, parental involvement level, and a host of other factors necessary to create groupings that reflect our whole student body.”
Some cities are setting up programs on a larger scale. For example, San Francisco, where public schools will start remote-only in the fall, is setting up 40 “learning hubs” at libraries and recreation centers where low-income kids, those in foster care, and those learning English as a second language can come to get in-person instruction and support. New York City, where schools are slated to open on a hybrid model, will open child care centers for 100,000 of the city’s 1.1 million students in the fall, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced earlier this month.
Elsewhere, such as in Culver City, California, parents are pressing school districts for assistance in setting up pods in the fairest way possible, Lewis-McCoy said. “They’re saying, ‘We know families are going to do pods — how can you actually help us address some of the equity questions we have?’”
Though they are not without risk, pods can make sense from a public health perspective, too — and some experts are advising schools to use a version of the system even when kids go back to class. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, for example, recently recommended that students at school be kept together in small groups. “This helps reduce exposure to large groups of people and allows for better social distancing,” as well as making it easier for teachers to work with students on hand-washing and mask use, Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist in Arizona, told Vox in an email.
Outside the school system, meanwhile, nonprofits are stepping in to offer in-person instruction and child care. The YMCA, which has operated emergency child care centers for the kids of essential workers throughout the pandemic, is now expanding its offerings in places where school will be virtual in the fall. YMCAs in Houston, Charlotte, Kansas City, and elsewhere are setting up learning labs, where students can go during the day while parents work, Heidi Brasher, senior director of innovation for YMCA of the USA, told Vox. There, staff will supervise them and help them with their schoolwork, with some YMCAs hiring additional teachers and other education professionals for the effort.
The cost to parents will likely vary by location, but the YMCA will provide financial aid based on parents’ income and other family circumstances to make sure that low-income students have access to the programs. “Equity is a lens that we use every day, but even more so now because of the disparities that have been really exacerbated during this time,” Brasher said.
In order to truly address those disparities, districts and policymakers will have to look beyond individual choices families are making and at larger structural changes that can help the students most vulnerable to learning loss in the pandemic, Wallin of the Education Trust told Vox.
Larger initiatives districts and localities have tried include a program in Tennessee in which college students provide one-on-one remote tutoring for K-12 students. Such programs could be offered remotely elsewhere, or in person individually or in small groups, to students in need, Wallin said.
“There are ways to think more innovatively about how to get supports, but you can’t do those if you don’t keep in the forefront of your mind that what you’re trying to do is get supports to the students who need it the most,” she explained. “If you’re planning around those who already have access to resources, you’re going to miss a lot of opportunities to actually help close some of the opportunity gaps that we know are getting even larger.”
But all these solutions will cost money
But whether it’s one-on-one tutoring, child care at a YMCA or other center, or even just administrative help setting up pods in a more equitable way, all these solutions require one thing: money.
“There’s a great need for federal funding,” Wallin said. And that funding needs to target schools and districts with large numbers of low-income students and others who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. Many such districts still haven’t seen their funding bounce back from the 2008 recession, Wallin said, and will need proactive attention to make sure they don’t see further cuts in the current economic crisis.
The YMCA also receives federal and local funding, and has joined with other child care providers in calls for additional funding to the child care industry. Child care is “needed for our parents, it’s needed for our kids, and so we’re all sharing that message together,” Brasher said.
But so far, Congress has not responded to the calls of schools or child care advocates for more support. Proposals for a $50 billion bailout for the child care industry — the amount experts say is needed to keep child care providers going through the pandemic and into the future — have yet to pass. And the money schools say they need to reopen safely, let alone close the gaps in learning that have widened as a result of the pandemic, hasn’t been forthcoming either.
The result could be that while many schools, districts, and nonprofits are doing what they can, too many low-income families could be left with just as little support in the fall as they had in the spring — while wealthier families have the resources to set up their own private schools in apartments across town.
And leaving families to go it alone is exactly the wrong approach, experts say. “We are, as a community, all in a really tough space,” Brasher said, “and it’s going to take a communal effort really to solve some of these issues.”