China defends ethnic unity law with power to target people abroad

China can pursue people outside its borders under a new ethnic unity law. The Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress takes effect on July 1. Vice Justice Minister Hu Weilie called the overseas provision legal, necessary and consistent with international practice, putting Taiwanese activists, scholars and diaspora communities on alert.

The Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress was adopted by China’s National People’s Congress on March 12 in a vote of 2,756 in favor, three against and three abstentions. The statute covers China’s 55 ethnic minority groups, including Tibetans and Uyghurs, and embeds Xi Jinping’s ethnic-affairs thinking and his vision of fostering a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation into the legal framework.

Its most controversial language says people and organizations outside China can be held legally liable for acts that undermine ethnic unity and progress or promote ethnic separatism. That wording has driven concern in Taiwan, where officials and civil society groups say the law could be used against supporters of Taiwan independence or critics of the Chinese Communist Party. Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council warned in March that the measure could be turned against people Beijing labels separatists, while Taiwan Alliance called it “a tool for transnational repression.”

Human Rights Watch warned in September 2025, when the bill was still in draft form, that it was a blatant effort to control people’s thoughts and expression about China inside and outside the country. On April 16, eight United Nations human rights experts wrote to Beijing warning that the measure risked entrenching forced assimilation.

In mid-June, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called for the law to be repealed, saying it could deepen restrictions on language, education, religion, culture, expression and assembly for minorities. Hu rejected the criticism, calling Western media coverage distorted and insisting the state had a legitimate duty to maintain social solidarity and national security.

He argued enforcement would protect sovereignty, security, development interests and the rights of all ethnic groups, and that it would not interfere with ordinary people-to-people exchanges, academic discussion or trade.