Muslim
The enactment of the Ethnic Unity Law in early 2026 represents a watershed moment in the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) approach to its 55 recognized ethnic minority groups, formalizing a definitive shift from a model of regional autonomy to one of proactive, state-led assimilation. While the Chinese government frames the legislation as a necessary tool for social stability and national cohesion, legal analysts and human rights observers view it as the codification of an "assimilationist phase" that has been incrementally building for over a decade. The law systematically integrates ethnic and religious governance, establishes broad extraterritorial jurisdiction, and redefines the relationship between individual cultural expression and the collective "Core Socialist Values" of the state.
The Legislative Nexus of Ethnicity and Religion
A primary feature of the Ethnic Unity Law is the deliberate conflation of ethnic identity and religious practice. Within the Chinese legal framework, these two facets of identity are increasingly treated as a singular unit of social management. Articles 12 and 46 of the new law group ethnicity and religion as components of a broader "shared common identity," yet subsequent sections, including Articles 10, 40, and 53, identify them as potentially "divisive forces" that require state oversight.
This linkage is most explicitly stated in Article 62, which categorizes "ethnic division" alongside "religious extremism" and "terrorism." This triad of "three evils" has long been a staple of Chinese security rhetoric, but its inclusion in a fundamental civil law reinforces the state’s view that minority cultural distinctiveness is a potential threat to national security. Furthermore, the law aligns with the ongoing "Sweep Away Black and Evil Forces" (saohai chu’e) campaign, where local implementation rules often categorize ethnic and religious leaders as "underworld forces" if they challenge the centralized authority of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
The ideological foundation for this merger can be traced back to the 2017 Beijing Declaration from the South-South Human Rights Forum. Article 6 of that declaration asserts that while states should respect religious minorities, those minorities have a reciprocal "obligation to adapt to their local environment," which includes the "acceptance and observance of the Constitution and laws" and "integration into the local society." In practice, the Ethnic Unity Law translates this into a requirement for the "Sinification" of all religions, ensuring that Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are practiced in ways that affirm the leadership of the CPC and the values of the Han-majority culture.
Chronology of the Assimilationist Shift
The passage of the 2026 Ethnic Unity Law is the culmination of a twenty-year trajectory in Chinese ethnic policy. To understand the law’s impact, it is essential to view it within the following timeline:
- 2012–2014: Following civil unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang, the central government began moving away from the "Stalinist" model of ethnic autonomy, which had previously allowed for significant linguistic and cultural preservation.
- 2014: At the Second Central Xinjiang Work Forum, President Xi Jinping emphasized the "Intermingling of Ethnic Groups" and the "Construction of a Shared Consciousness of the Chinese Nation."
- 2017: The South-South Human Rights Forum established the "right to development" and "state sovereignty" as the primary human rights, subordinating individual cultural rights to national unity.
- 2018–2022: The State Administration for Religious Affairs launched five-year plans for the "Sinification" of Christianity and Islam, requiring religious groups to incorporate Chinese cultural elements and socialist ideology into their theology.
- 2023–2025: Drafts of the Ethnic Unity Law were circulated among legal scholars, reflecting a growing emphasis on "foreign-related law" and the need to combat perceived external interference in China’s domestic ethnic affairs.
- March 2026: The National People’s Congress formally adopted the Ethnic Unity Law, providing a comprehensive legal basis for assimilationist policies across all provinces.
Legal Mechanisms and Intergenerational Transmission
One of the most profound impacts of the law is its restriction on the intergenerational transmission of minority cultures and religions. By interpreting the "right to choose one’s own beliefs" as a protection of children from religion, the state effectively prohibits the participation of minors in religious activities. The legal rationale is that because children lack the capacity to make an informed choice, the state must protect their "freedom of belief" by keeping them in secular environments until they reach adulthood.
This policy, combined with the mandates for Mandarin-medium education (replacing "bilingual education" in many regions), creates a structural barrier to the survival of minority languages and traditions. Under the law, religious leaders are encouraged—and often required—to de-emphasize aspects of their faith that do not align with Core Socialist Values, effectively reducing religion to a "temporary nuisance" that the state intends to manage until it eventually dissipates through the process of modernization and integration.
Extraterritoriality and Global Jurisdiction
Article 63 of the Ethnic Unity Law has drawn significant international scrutiny due to its explicit claim of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The article states that organizations and individuals outside the mainland territory of the PRC who commit acts aimed at undermining "ethnic unity and progress" or creating "ethnic division" will be pursued for legal responsibility.
While this provision has been described as an aggressive expansion of Chinese law, legal scholars note that it is consistent with Article 6 of China’s Criminal Law, which establishes "territorial jurisdiction" over offenses where the consequences of a crime are felt within China. In a digital age, speech or advocacy occurring in Washington, London, or Tokyo that encourages ethnic distinctiveness or criticizes Chinese ethnic policy is viewed by Beijing as having a direct negative impact on social stability within China.
The implications of Article 63 are three-fold:
- Administrative Penalties: Individuals traveling to China or countries with extradition treaties with China could face detention for speech or activities conducted abroad.
- Public Interest Litigation: A recent draft of the Procuratorate Public Interest Law suggests that "ethnic unity" is now an area for state-initiated mass litigation. This could allow Chinese prosecutors to file civil lawsuits against international NGOs or media organizations that the state deems harmful to ethnic harmony.
- Pressure on the Diaspora: The law provides a legal veneer for the surveillance and harassment of Chinese ethnic minority members living abroad, as their actions are now explicitly subject to Chinese legal "responsibility."
Comparative Context and Official Responses
Chinese officials have defended the Ethnic Unity Law by arguing that China is not alone in its pursuit of a cohesive national identity. State media often points to the historical "boarding school" systems in the United States and Canada, which were designed to assimilate Indigenous populations, as evidence that "stronger national narratives" are a standard goal for sovereign states.
However, the rhetoric of the Ethnic Unity Law differs from the nationalist movements seen in the West. While anti-immigration movements in Europe and the U.S. often focus on distinguishing "true nationals" from "outsiders," the Chinese law uses the language of "unity," "solidarity," and "progress." The goal is not to exclude, but to incorporate and transform. Officials argue that by "optimizing" ethnic cultures to fit the modern socialist framework, the state is actually protecting those cultures from becoming obsolete.
International reactions have been predictably divided. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have condemned the law as a "blueprint for cultural genocide." Conversely, several nations within the Global South have expressed support for China’s "sovereignty-first" approach to human rights, viewing the law as a legitimate tool for counter-terrorism and the prevention of Western-backed "color revolutions."
Implications for the Future of the Chinese State
The Ethnic Unity Law is more than a set of regulations; it is a manifesto for the future of the Chinese nation-state. By codifying assimilation, the state is signaling that the era of "unity in diversity" is being replaced by an era of "unity through uniformity."
The long-term implications for China’s social fabric are significant. While the law may succeed in the short term by suppressing dissent and standardizing education, it risks creating deep-seated resentment among minority populations whose cultural identities are being forcibly remodeled. Furthermore, the extraterritorial application of the law creates a new flashpoint in international relations, as China attempts to project its domestic standards of "ethnic harmony" onto the global stage.
As the state continues to integrate "ethnic unity" into its public interest litigation and criminal enforcement frameworks, the space for independent cultural and religious expression in China will likely continue to shrink. The 2026 law ensures that the "Chinese Dream" is defined by a singular, state-approved identity, leaving little room for the pluralism that once characterized the nation’s ethnic landscape.
Evan Lee Salim
Layla Zulfa
