Modern Day Slavery: Uyghur Exploitation and AI

Officially labeled a genocide by the United States, the Chinese government has been systematically oppressing and weeding out the Uyghur Turkic population in East Turkestan, now called Xinjiang, for over 4 years. China placed upwards of 1 million of the total 11.6 million Uyghurs into “re-education” programs to fight extremism. These so-called “terrorist combatant camps” target those who the government has identified as Muslim based on attributes deemed “Islamic” including growing a beard or contacting foreigners. Throughout the country, Artificial Intelligence is employed in the form of facial recognition, video surveillance, and through various machine learning algorithms to push this identification. The programs track Uyghur Muslims and potentially transform them into a source of slave labor, furthering China’s economic development and, by extension, the rest of the globe. To accomplish this, Uyghur Muslims are held in these internment camps and are subject to political indoctrination, sexual harrassment and assault, mandatory sterilization, electrocution, and torture. While it’s evident that continuous Chinese developments in Artificial Intelligence are benefitting the global community, minority populations are suffering as a result. The international community must regulate Artificial Intelligence through the creation of an international committee as China’s usage of AI-supported surveillance clearly demonstrates how AI encourages terror capitalism and enables forced labor.

The widespread utilization of AI opens up a moral quandary over the boundaries of AI not present with other varieties of technology. However, every technological innovation creates certain hindrances and, for AI specifically, ethics is in question. While “ethical use” of AI is important, maybe more important is “ethical design.” The first angle of the debate comes with the acquisition of private information — and data has value. Stanford University’s Müller claims that the purpose of most of the Internet is to “​​gain, maintain, and direct attention — and thus data supply” (Müller, 2021). With the introduction of AI into the playing field, existing issues of the Internet are amplified. Facial recognition and various security patrolling systems enable profiling and identifying persons of interest. Once the data is collected, the manipulation of the target population ensues, allowing machine learning algorithms to target individuals or groups of people based on the input the AI has received.

In China, the subject of this targeting are the Uyghurs. There are Uyghur detection systems in place in Xinjiang, the Uyghur-majority region in China saturated with segregated surveillance, specifically targeting the Uyghur minority population to compel them to submit to monitoring and giving up their private data. The system is wired so seamlessly that “‘it can be clearly discerned that current policies seeking “the cultural eradication of Islam and Islam-associated ethnic identities’” (Finley, 358). This is done through what is known as the Joint Operations Platform, a system of monitoring populations with AI. The platform presents itself in multiple forms such as facial recognition, language identification, and location tracking in order to monitor what the Uyghurs read, write, and say on their devices to detect “Islamic activity.” Fantastical stories about drones and robot surveillance became a reality in the region with armed city checkpoints chock full of security cameras and facial recognition, bird lookalike drones that can be seen flying throughout cities, and apps designed specifically for Uyghur control. Surveillance and monitoring, in this case, specifically refers to the collection of private and personal data to manipulate or manage those whose data was collected. The development of AI technologies and its employment in Xinjiang allows the Chinese government to grow an incredible source of data. With the collection of biological data, China is able to fully identify and keep the Muslims in a chokehold. The amount of information and data available about the lives on the Uyghurs fills in the disconnect between technology and their personal, private lives. Those that are flagged by the surveillance systems are tagged and, if enough information is alarming enough to cause the “Uyghur alarms” to alert, they are transferred to internment camps.
These internment camps are goldmines for the Chinese economy. They are so lucrative because of what is known as “terror capitalism.” As defined by Byler and Sanchez Boe (2020), “Terror capitalism justifies the exploitation of subjugated populations by defining them as potential terrorists or security threats.” Essentially, terror capitalism identifies a population of interest and exploits them as a cheap source of labor. In China, this can be seen in a 3-step process. First, the technology is used to track and keep tabs on the people in question. This is done with the usage of AI-boosted surveillance systems in place through the Joint Operations Platform. Then, the data collected is used to improve and update the technology that was used to collect it. With more information, the dataset becomes more complex and more accurate. These sources of data are sold to institutions that benefit from the information, utilizing them for their own monetary gains. Last, the population is pushed into labor, utilizingg them to further capitalistic initiatives. China’s version of a “War on Terror” justifies the subjugation of the Uyghurs into the internment camps, hiding their forced labor regime on a workforce training initiative to stem extremism. China gains both a valuable, vendable asset in the form of the data and information collected along with a free source of human labor.

The gains seen from terror capitalism are seen twofold: China’s booming natural resource export industries that are produced predominantly in Xinjiang and the growth of the surveillance industry. China hopes, expects, and is working towards a future where “AI will be the driving force behind a new round of industrial transformation” (Roberts, 64). It is evident that the using the guise of abolishing extremism has benefits for China more than just potentially suppressing terror. Rather, it is an excuse to exploit a perceived threat and antagonize the people of an ethnic and racial background, usurping more state power. Terror capitalism “links technological oppression to the global economy” (Byler, 2021), allowing China to benefit financially. In fact, the region has thrived and become an essential income source, leading the country’s oil, natural gas, cotton, and tomato industries. Globally, China exports 20% of the world’s cotton and tomatoes (Byler, 2021), meaning every country that imports from China benefits from Uyghur labor and terror capitalism as well. The growth of the surveillance industry is evident from the growth in Xinjiang region’s number of companies: “Xinjiang security industry mushroomed from a handful of private firms to approximately 1,400 companies” (Byler, 2019). With more companies comes more workers, more jobs, and essentially, more business for the country. In response to this growth, the Chinese government began to incentivize technology firm development, investing billions of dollars into techno-security. In the end, it all comes down to incentives. China has no incentive to stop subjugating the Uyghurs, and the tech companies have every incentive to further their advancements on technology aiming to do just that.

And the rest of the world has the incentive to support China, or at the very least, stay silent because the booming A.I. and surveillance industry is providing many economic advantages for them, too. China’s investment in AI is enough that their global share of research “vaulted from 4.26% (1,086) in 1997 to 27.68% in 2017,” ensuring that the “investments that push the technology pay off quickly” (Li, 2021). The firms involved in technological advancement become more motivated to solve challenges in the field, thus, AI became a lucrative investment and research opportunity for countries around the world. The spread around the globe demonstrates just that. In Zimbabwe, a Chinese tech startup was given over $300 million “to build a national ‘mass facial recognition programme’ in order to address “social security issues” (Byler, 2019). The list of countries benefiting from AI-assisted surveillance, from China or otherwise, does not stop there. Facial recognition is increasingly used with, “asylum seekers from Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and South Asia who enter the United States at the southern border are being released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers with GPS monitors attached to their ankles” (Byler, 2021), alongside various “anti-Muslim” and “anti-terror” initiatives that are occurring across the globe that are aided with AI surveillance. AI is increasingly used to exacerbate social stratification as the technology continues to grow and become normalized across the globe.

The United States did, however, recently pass a bill with significantly higher sanctions than previously on China. Called the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, all imports of goods produced in the Xinjiang region by Uyghur slave labor have been banned. The unanimously passed bill was a costly signal imposed by the United States to coerce China into discontinuing its treatment of the Uyghurs. The effectiveness of such sanctions is another topic of contention, however. China’s involvement with Uyghurs and the exports produced by forced labor are not limited to the United States. In fact, only a very small proportion of Chinese exports are to the United States. Numerically speaking, “Last year, Xinjiang’s exports to the United States accounted for about 4% of the region’s outbound shipments by value” (Crossley, 2021). This illustrates the minimal impact America’s sanctions have in the grand scheme of things. A costly signal, yes, but the cost seems far greater for the U.S. than it is for China. Other countries importing Xinjiang goods makes up 96% of its shipments. Clearly, while current sanctions against China may be all-encompassing and relatively extreme in comparison to prior sanctions and regulations, the tangible results are minimal.

To maximize results, the sanctions placed on China and Chinese tech firms should not remain one sided. Imports of goods should be banned, yes, but so must exports from America to these companies. Currently, America has an upper hand, technologically. The United States still controls vital, advanced microchips essential for China. While “China will still lag behind America in computing hardware in the near term” (Anderson, 2020), there is no guarantee that they will in the coming years. This hardware advantage must be upkept, and it must be used to the United State’s advantage, keeping the literal microchips secure as bargaining chips.

Beyond America, the international community must decide upon rules and guidelines regarding the development of Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things. Countries such as Britain have been implementing laws within their nation to increase accountability for the use of AI, emphasizing national oversight to enforce guidelines. Yes, nationally we must ensure that AI should not be weaponized, have an “off-switch,” be governed under human rules, and follow general ethics mandates, but an overarching board must be responsible for implementing such regulations globally. Creating a commission similar to the 9/11 Commission focusing on public hearings would increase the validity and weight of any international sanctions placed upon China. This commission initiated by the United States entailed collaboration between intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and communication between the public and government findings. China must feel that “the master of surveillance itself is under surveillance or the watcher is also watched globally” (Çaksu, 98–175), allowing the government to understand that the global community does not turn a blind eye to their actions. The joint opposition coming from multiple countries at once would increase the political standing of such a stance against current Uyghur treatment. In line with international relations theory, the guilt and shame directed towards China would encourage cooperation and coordination with the rest of the world.

The advancements in the field of Artificial Intelligence has the potential to change the course of history, but with this potential comes an increased need for responsibility in regulation. It is the international responsibility to prevent AI from causing governmental authoritarianism to rise and the exploitation of minority and target populations. Clearly, Chinese AI developments have benefits for the rest of the world, especially economically, but the terror capitalism that ensues warrants the creation of a commission to decide where to draw the line in AI usage. One thing is for certain: with increased knowledge comes increased responsibility and the need to act morally.

Works Cited:

Andersen, Ross. “The Panopticon Is Already Here.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 30 July 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/china-ai-surveillance/614197/.

Asher-Schapiro, Avi. “Chinese Tech Patents Tools That Can Detect, Track Uighurs.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 13 Jan. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-tech-uighurs/chinese-tech-patents-tools-that-can-detect-track-uighurs-idUSKBN29I300.

Byler, Darren. “How ‘Terror Capitalism’ Links Uyghur Oppression to the Global Economy.” The Nation, 12 Oct. 2021, https://www.thenation.com/article/world/xinjiang-uyghur-terror-capitalism/#:~:text=Terror%20capitalism%20links%20technological%20oppression,and%20policing%20infrastructure%20is%20data.

Byler, Darren. “China’s Hi-Tech War on Its Muslim Minority.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 11 Apr. 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/apr/11/china-hi-tech-war-on-muslim-minority-xinjiang-uighurs-surveillance-face-recognition#:~:text=The%20Xinjiang%20security%20industry%20mushroomed,technicians%20to%20coders%20and%20designers.

Byler, Darren, and Carolina Sanchez Boe. “Tech-Enabled ‘Terror Capitalism’ Is Spreading Worldwide. the Surveillance Regimes Must Be Stopped.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 24 July 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/24/surveillance-tech-facial-recognition-terror-capitalism.

Crossley, Gabriel, et al. “Factbox: U.S. Legislative Clamp-down on Products from China’s Xinjiang.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 10 Dec. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-legislative-clamp-down-products-chinas-xinjiang-2021-12-10/.

Çaksu, Ali. “Islamophobia, Chinese Style: Total Internment of Uyghur Muslims by the People’s Republic of China.” Islamophobia Studies Journal, vol. 5 no. 2, 2020. pp 176–198. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.13169/islastudj.5.2.0175.

Li, Daitian, et al. “Is China Emerging as the Global Leader in AI?” Harvard Business Review, 18 Feb. 2021, https://hbr.org/2021/02/is-china-emerging-as-the-global-leader-in-ai#:~:text=China's%20global%20share%20of%20research,patents%20than%20any%20other%20country.

Müller, Vincent C., “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/ethics-ai/>.

Roberts, Huw, et al. “The Chinese Approach to Artificial Intelligence: An Analysis of Policy, Ethics, and Regulation.” AI & Society, vol. 36, no. 1, Springer London, 2020, pp. 59–77, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2.

Smith Finley, Joanne. “Why Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang.” Journal of Genocide Research, vol. 23, no. 3, Routledge, 2021, pp. 348–70, https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2020.1848109.