Unity through development: Understanding the logic of China's new ethnic unity law

Editor's note: Jessica Durdu, a special commentator for CGTN, is a foreign affairs specialist and PhD graduate in international relations at China Foreign Affairs University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The implementation of China's Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law recently has grabbed international attention over the country's approach to ethnic affairs. Adopted by the National People's Congress in March, the law aims to strengthen ethnic equality, solidarity and common development among China's 56 ethnic groups.

Following its implementation, the United States and the European Union raised concerns over its possible implications for cultural, linguistic and religious rights, as well as provisions concerning certain activities by organizations and individuals outside China. Beijing has rejected these interpretations, stressing that the legislation is intended to protect lawful rights, promote ethnic unity and safeguard national cohesion.

International attention toward major Chinese legislation is hardly surprising. China is home to more than 1.4 billion people and 56 ethnic groups, meaning its domestic policies inevitably attract global interest. Yet laws cannot be fully understood through external political debates alone. They must also be considered within the historical experience, development priorities and governance structure of the society in which they operate.

From this perspective, the new law should primarily be understood as part of China's long-term effort to place ethnic affairs within a clearer legal framework. At its core is a straightforward principle: China's modernization should be a shared process in which all ethnic groups participate and benefit.

The legislation emphasizes ethnic equality, solidarity, common prosperity and national unity, while prohibiting discrimination and protecting the lawful rights and interests of citizens from all ethnic backgrounds. It therefore gives legal expression to a governance objective China has pursued for decades: ensuring that ethnic diversity develops within a broader sense of national community and shared progress.

This objective is particularly important as China enters the final decade of its drive to achieve socialist modernization by 2035. Modernization cannot be measured only by high-speed railways, advanced factories or technological breakthroughs. For a country as geographically and socially diverse as China, it must also involve narrowing regional disparities and expanding access to education, healthcare, infrastructure and economic opportunity to all parts of society.

According to the 2020 national census, China's ethnic minority population exceeds 125 million, accounting for 8.89% of the total population. Many minority communities live in vast western and border regions where difficult geography historically created significant barriers to development and public services. National cohesion, in this context, is closely connected to the practical question of development.

Recent policies have sought to consolidate the development achievements of recent decades. According to Xinhua News Agency, China's official media outlet, since the beginning of the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021–2025), the central government allocated 25.2 billion Chinese yuan ($3.7 billion) to rural revitalization projects in ethnic minority communities in border provinces and regions, supporting agriculture, animal husbandry, traditional handicrafts and other locally adapted industries.

Education offers another important example. Nine-year compulsory education has achieved full coverage in ethnic minority areas, while 15 years of publicly funded education has been realized throughout the Xizang Autonomous Region and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Social cohesion cannot be created through political language alone. It becomes stronger when citizens gain greater access to education, employment and opportunities for upward mobility.

The broader framework also includes ethnic minority languages. Documents for major sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference are provided in seven ethnic minority languages, while dozens of radio and television channels at prefecture level and above broadcast in minority languages.

These examples help explain the logic behind China's approach to ethnic affairs. The Chinese model places considerable emphasis on a shared national community. The concept of "fostering a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation" is central to this thinking.

From a political science perspective, every modern state requires a degree of common identity to sustain social trust, stability and collective purpose. In diverse societies, the challenge is to develop that common identity while advancing equality and development across communities. China's approach has increasingly been to combine law, development and social integration.

The new legislation should therefore not be viewed separately from China's broader modernization strategy. It transforms principles previously reflected across different policy areas into a more systematic legal framework, clarifying institutional responsibilities and connecting ethnic unity with economic and social development.

The debate also raises broader questions about international law and state sovereignty. Western criticism has focused particularly on the law's alleged "extraterritorial application." Yet extraterritorial jurisdiction is not unique to China. The United States and the European Union also apply certain sanctions, anti-corruption, data protection and national security rules to activities beyond their borders when national interests or domestic institutions are affected. The relevant legal question is therefore not simply whether a law refers to overseas conduct, but how and under what jurisdictional basis such provisions are applied.

From this perspective, attempts to interpret China's ethnic governance primarily through external political frameworks risk blurring the line between legitimate international discussion and interference in domestic affairs.

China's approach reflects its own historical experience, constitutional structure and development priorities. Respect for sovereignty does not prevent international debate, but it requires recognizing that China retains primary authority to manage its ethnic affairs within its domestic legal framework.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)