Heartburn
Until the Left takes steps toward this consistent application of moral principle, any ‘victory’—whether rhetorical, political, or otherwise—will remain incomplete.
The Left, while often vocal about certain atrocities—particularly those against Palestinians—frequently exhibits caution or even silence when it comes to critiquing China for human rights violations against the Uyghurs. This perceived inconsistency underscores a troubling gap in leftist discourse and raises the question of whether moral principles are truly universal or selectively applied when politically convenient.
I would like to make one thing very clear: there is more than enough evidence that what is happening to Palestinians can be classified as genocide. Likewise, multiple human rights organizations, including Amnesty International1 and Human Rights Watch2, have reported conditions in Xinjiang—mass internments, cultural suppression, forced labor, and stringent surveillance of Uyghurs—that they argue meet key criteria for genocide under international law. Yet there remains a striking hesitancy among many mainstream leftist voices to address the Xinjiang situation with the same moral urgency applied to Palestine.
To better understand this inconsistency, we can turn to Immanuel Kant. In line with his principle of universal moral law, if a moral judgment—like calling out a genocide—is valid in one context, it must be upheld in every context where the same wrongdoing occurs. Failing to condemn atrocities in both Palestine and Xinjiang, while condemning them in only one, undermines the universality that Kant deemed essential for true ethical consistency. Of course, “the Left” is not a monolith; some journalists and activists have indeed spoken out on China’s treatment of Uyghurs. Still, compared to the widespread condemnation of Israel’s actions, the overall discourse on China remains relatively muted.
The Palestinian crisis has revealed deep moral corruption in the West—serving as a touchstone for the failures of Western democracy and showcasing degenerate politics. Yet for segments of the Left, even this righteous indignation can become a pyrrhic victory: achieving rhetorical gains against Western complicity while losing the moral high ground by ignoring or downplaying other grave issues, notably in Xinjiang.
I recognize that the United States and Western nations are entangled in economic and strategic tensions with China—ranging from tariff conflicts and digitalization challenges, to provocative naval deployments near Taiwan. Some leftists worry that criticizing Beijing’s abuses may bolster hawkish U.S. agendas or lead to sanctions that harm innocent civilians. Nevertheless, the question remains: what is more important—achieving incremental justice in one domain, or ensuring consistent, unwavering moral principles across all domains?
Kant’s insistence that all humans be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means, makes it imperative to speak out whenever people are suppressed to serve political or economic interests. If those who identify as leftist champions of human rights apply this principle for Palestinians but stay quiet about the Uyghurs, they weaken the very moral authority on which their advocacy relies.
To be sure, media narratives and political pressures can overshadow certain issues, complicating how often the public hears about Uyghur oppression. Yet if a movement aspires to universal justice, it must have the courage to confront all forms of systemic violence, whether it aligns with or counters existing Western narratives. Until the Left takes steps toward this consistent application of moral principle, any ‘victory’—whether rhetorical, political, or otherwise—will remain incomplete.
Until that day, I will continue having a strong heartburn.