The plight of asylum-seekers deported by the United States is often discussed from a place of speculation. Received this from a friend? SUBSCRIBE [[link removed]] CRITICAL STATE Your weekly foreign policy fix. If you read just one thing…

… read about the real consequences of deportation.

When we discuss the plight of asylum-seekers deported by the United States, it is often from a place of speculation. It is difficult for journalists and researchers to keep track of people for long periods of time as they move across borders, so when the US government decides that someone is not in as much danger in their home country, as they claim, it can be difficult to evaluate the reality of the situation. Human Rights Watch confronted that problem directly in a new report [[link removed]], conducting extended research in El Salvador to understand the fates of Salvadorans who had their American asylum requests denied. They found 138 cases in which deported Salvadoran asylum-seekers had been murdered, mostly by the same gangs they named in their asylum applications. Human Rights Watch is famously conservative in their reporting, and the organization acknowledges that the true number is likely far higher, but each case is a massive failure of the American asylum system.

Distinctly uncharismatic megafauna

Longtime Critical State readers will remember allegations [[link removed]] from last year that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) had been funding ecoguards who were committing frequent human rights abuses. Last week, the United Nations concluded their investigation [[link removed]] on a particular case of WWF malfeasance in a proposed national park in northern Congo. Guards that the WWF paid to protect the area frequently threatened and beat Indigenous people living close to the park, the investigation confirmed.

One woman reported that guards took her husband to prison in a WWF-branded vehicle and tortured him there so badly that he died shortly after he was released. Locals complained to the WWF about the guards’ behavior, but no sufficient action was taken.

The guards were technically employed by the Congolese government, but WWF paid a portion of their salary and their training costs.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] On law and Native sovereignty

Law professor Maggie Blackhawk last week scored one of the rarest achievements in academic writing: She published an article [[link removed]] in a law review that’s actually legible to non-lawyers. Her essay is a reflection on law and security in Indian Country, where law is often both the means of and the only protection from colonization and predation by the US government.

Many stories of oppressed people are told as questions of human rights denied, but Blackhawk urges readers to focus instead on questions of sovereignty in the Native American experience. “Rather than the language of rights,” she writes, “it is the language of sovereignty that empowers Native people.”

Understanding the Native legal experience is also crucial to understanding the United States’ approach to international law in general. Most of the precedent-setting early treaties the US concluded were with Native Nations, and those treaties helped shape American practices around war, immigration and diplomacy itself.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] DEEP DIVE Why do states choose camps?

The 2010s were a big decade for the concentration camp. The practice was out of vogue in major powers for a time, but by last year the US, China, and India were all choosing to hold people together in detention for indefinite periods without trial. The particulars of each case are different, but there are overarching questions that connect each: Why do states choose to put people in camps? What do they hope to accomplish by thrusting civilians into indefinite limbo under often brutal conditions? And if the cruelty of the camps is itself the purpose, how do states manage the public opprobrium that we might assume would follow such actions? In the next two editions of Deep Dive, we’ll dig into the latest research on mass detention and state decision-making to better understand the concentration camp’s return to prominence.

Of the three cases mentioned above, China’s camps are by far the largest and most developed. In an effort to repress Muslim ethnic minorities — especially Uighurs — in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of China, Chinese authorities have detained between 1 and 3 million people in nearly 1,200 camps since 2017. In a recent article [[link removed]] in International Security, political scientists Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Myunghee Lee, and Emir Yazici tried to figure out why China turned to concentration camps when it did, rather than continuing with the time-honored state approach of simply disproportionately policing ethnic minorities.

Most media coverage of the Chinese camps depict them as the result of domestic pressures within China. Uighurs became more politically active in the late 2000s, and in turn, the early 2010s saw China demand greater assimilation from ethnic minorities across the country. As those competing interests came further into conflict, the narrative goes, the Chinese government escalated its political repression dramatically under the guise of national security concerns.

In their review of Chinese policies, public statements, and leaked internal documents, Greitens et al. found a fair amount of evidence for the dominant narrative. They also, however, found evidence of a change in the government’s understanding of the security situation in Xinjiang that, they argue, helps explain why the camps arose when they did and have not been reproduced in other parts of the country. Between 2014 to 2016, Chinese officials came to believe that Uighur populations posed not only the threat of internal division they had long feared, but also an external threat stemming from potential connections between aggrieved Uighurs and violent international jihadi organizations.

For example, Greitens et al. write, “In late 2015, references to ‘infection’ in people’s thinking began to appear in [official government] discussions of Xinjiang. The party secretary of the region’s Justice Department, Zhang Yun, explained that approximately 30 percent of Xinjiang’s population had been infected by religious extremism...” while other official estimates using the same “infection” rhetoric put the number at around 20%. Those numbers roughly reflect the proportion of the population that have been singled out for “reeducation” in the camps.

These connections with foreign jihadis, some real and some imagined, became the main target of Chinese policy in Xinjiang in 2017. In addition to internment and reeducation, newly announced policies sought to break contact between China and the Uighur diaspora and remove the possibility of free international communication in Xinjiang. The growing Chinese concern about terroristic “contagion” explains both the thrust of these policies and the fact that they have not so far been applied to China’s many other ethnic minority groups.

The impulse to isolate an entire ethnic group in response to a perceived threat of terrorism is hardly new among states. However, China’s internal justifications for its actions in Xinjiang under the rubric of a global struggle against international Islamist terrorism offer a sobering reminder of how far the tone set by the United States after 9/11 has reverberated in the world.

LEARN MORE [[link removed]]

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] SHOW US THE RECEIPTS

Paula Dupraz-Dobias checked in [[link removed]] on Juan Guaidó’s stalled campaign to overthrow the government of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Maduro’s hold on power has only grown in recent months, but the Trump administration signaled renewed effort on Guaidó’s behalf by hosting him at the State of the Union address. The US is reportedly now considering sanctions against companies doing business with Venezuela’s national oil company, including Russia’s Rosneft.

Katherine Harvey examined [[link removed]] Saudi Arabia’s contradictory signals to the US about Iran. The Islamic Republic is the kingdom’s greatest rival, and in times of relative calm, Saudi rhetoric about Iran in Washington is often bellicose. When the US escalates its own tensions with Iran, however, it is often the Saudis quietly asking American officials to pull back from the brink. Harvey argued that this pattern is informed by Saudi Arabia’s experience with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who the Saudi government pressured Washington to confront for years. By 2003, that pressure had gotten out of hand and led to an American-led regional war that hurt Saudi Arabia much more than Hussein ever had.

Patrick Winn tracked [[link removed]] the spread of coronavirus into Thailand, where 32 cases have been confirmed. Thailand is a major destination for Chinese tourists, and some Thai tourism workers have already fallen ill. Tour guides, souvenir sellers and others expressed concern about how they could do their jobs in crowded tourist sites while abiding by the World Health Organization’s recommendation to remain 3 feet away from any strangers, but few have stopped showing up for work. For now, at least, economic pressures outweigh viral fears.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] WELL PLAYED

People who consume breathless, sensational, patronizing American media coverage of African politics have taken a great deal [[link removed]] of joy [[link removed]] in speculating [[link removed]] how the current state of American democracy looks through the same lens many American outlets apply to Africa. After the Iowa Caucus debacle last week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Africa Program did one better — they actually asked [[link removed]] a range of leading African journalists for their caucus analysis. The results were fascinating, both as an outside view of American politics and as a source of payback for American mistreatment of African stories. As Ugandan reporter Ronald Kato wrote, “If this had happened in Africa, the Americans would have pointed out ‘African’ inefficiencies as the root cause. But democracy is a destination that we all aspire to.” In other words, bless America’s heart.

An all-time literary street harassment clapback [[link removed]].

Weapons manufacturer trade shows consistently produce some of the wildest, most cringe-inducing live entertainment you’ll find anywhere, but this [[link removed]] may set a new standard.

Department of Justice public affairs officers often struggle with a core tension in their jobs: On one hand, they’re communications professionals who want to use the occasional joke to make their press releases interesting. On the other hand, they’re feds, a group obsessed with literalism and famously standoffish toward the whole concept of humor. Last week, Northern District of Texas public affairs officer Erin Dooley threaded that needle brilliantly, and we salute [[link removed]] her.

Anyone who can provide Critical State with a physical pin or magnet of the goose image here [[link removed]] will receive free, yet-to-be-determined Critical State swag. We need it.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND [[link removed]] Follow The World: DONATE TO THE WORLD [[link removed]] Follow Inkstick: DONATE TO INKSTICK [[link removed]]

Critical State is written by Sam Ratner and is a collaboration between The World and Inkstick Media.

The World is a weekday public radio show and podcast on global issues, news and insights from PRX, BBC, and WGBH.

With an online magazine and podcast featuring a diversity of expert voices, Inkstick Media is “foreign policy for the rest of us.”

Critical State is made possible in part by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Preferences [link removed] | Web Version [link removed] Unsubscribe [link removed]