From Mehmet Emin Hazret’s book “Kissinger and China: 50 Years of Devotion and Betrayal”
Henry Kissinger, having witnessed one of the darkest tragedies of the 20th century—the Jewish Holocaust—is a figure from whom we would expect a heightened moral sensitivity and a strong historical consciousness. Yet his silence regarding China’s genocide against the Uyghur people stands as both a tragic irony and a profound disappointment.
A man who personally lived through genocide, and who later became not only America’s but the Western world’s principal architect of diplomacy, remained indifferent to the systematic annihilation of another ethnic group. This indifference raises serious questions for the conscience of humanity.
It must be noted: Henry Kissinger visited China over 100 times in 50 years, and enjoyed extraordinary respect and access among the top leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.
Shadows of Genocide: Kissinger’s Roots and Experiences
Henry Kissinger was born in 1923 in Fürth, Germany, into a Jewish family. As the Nazis rose to power, anti-Jewish persecution intensified, shaping Kissinger’s childhood and adolescence with fear, uncertainty, and trauma.
As Hitler’s regime escalated its genocidal policies, Jewish families like the Kissingers lived through daily terror. In 1938, his family fled to the United States. Yet escape did not erase the horror he had witnessed—the disappearance of Jewish families, the transports to death camps, the systematic destruction of an entire people.
At age 15, Kissinger survived a regime built on hatred and extermination. Such an experience left permanent marks on his worldview.
The Uyghur Genocide and Kissinger’s Silence
By the second decade of the 21st century, systematic repression against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in East Turkestan had become a global concern.
Mass internment camps, forced labor, cultural eradication, and the forced sterilization of Uyghur women were identified by human rights organizations as clear components of genocide.
Just as Jews were stripped of everything in the 20th century, Uyghurs today have been robbed of their identity, dignity, and safety—left only with collective trauma.
During this period, Kissinger repeatedly met with Xi Jinping. Yet he raised no criticism about human rights abuses, nor did he mention the genocide—indeed, he avoided even the phrase human rights in these meetings.
This silence is striking, disturbing, and morally contradictory.
A Historical and Ethical Paradox
Kissinger’s silence starkly contradicts his own life story. As someone who experienced the Holocaust firsthand, one would expect a stronger moral stance against ethnic extermination.
A Moral Failure in the Face of Genocide
One would expect a survivor of genocide to show heightened sensitivity toward new genocides. But Kissinger’s indifference to the Uyghur tragedy undermines this expectation deeply.
Diplomacy vs. Values
Kissinger consistently prioritized diplomatic pragmatism over human rights. While this may be defended as “realism,” it exposes a profound ethical void in international relations.
Consequences of Silence
A figure with Kissinger’s global influence remaining silent weakened international pressure on China, enabling Beijing to pursue its genocidal policies with greater ease.
The Global Dimensions of the Uyghur Genocide
Kissinger’s silence contributed to the international community’s fragmentation on the Uyghur issue.
China’s economic power has already muted many nations. Kissinger’s voice—had he wished to use it—could have shifted the global conversation.
Xi Jinping justifies the persecution of Uyghurs under the pretext of “national security.” The silence of influential Western actors, Kissinger foremost among them, made these policies less scrutinized globally.
A Silent Witness of History
As a living witness to the Holocaust, Kissinger carries the memory of humanity’s darkest chapter. Yet his silence on the Uyghur genocide turns this legacy into a troubling contradiction.
Human rights, justice, and liberty are difficult values to uphold in diplomacy—but Kissinger’s approach represents not difficulty, but neglect.
His silence acts as a mirror, forcing the world to confront its own moral failures.
Remaining silent in the face of China’s crimes does not only allow a tragedy to repeat—it deeply threatens future struggles for global justice.
How the Uyghur Genocide Was Carried Out: Key Components
1. Systematic Repression and Crimes Against Humanity
a. Internment Camps
The so-called “re-education camps” function as sites of forced labor, brainwashing, torture, and psychological abuse.
Investigations by Human Rights Watch and others have documented the inhumanity of these camps.
b. Demographic Engineering
Forced sterilizations and coerced marriages of Uyghur women with Han Chinese men aim to erase the ethnic identity of the Uyghur people.
These practices align directly with the UN’s definition of genocide.
c. Cultural Eradication
Destruction of mosques, bans on religious expression, the suppression of the Uyghur language—these are pillars of cultural genocide.
d. Sexual Violence and Torture
Systematic rape of Uyghur women, reported by survivors and whistleblowers, is used as a tool to shatter the social fabric of an entire community.
2. Why the World Remains Passive
Economic and Strategic Interests
China’s economic leverage discourages many nations from taking strong actions.
Symbolic Condemnations
The U.S. and EU have issued statements, but most responses have remained symbolic.
Ineffectiveness of the United Nations
China’s veto power and diplomatic influence have rendered the UN largely ineffective on the Uyghur issue.
3. Kissinger’s Silence: Ethics and Responsibility
Realpolitik vs. Human Rights
Kissinger’s realist worldview may explain his silence but cannot justify it ethically.
A Failure of Moral Leadership
As a survivor of genocide, Kissinger had both a unique responsibility and the global authority to speak out.
He chose not to.
History has consistently shown that politicians who crush morality in the pursuit of strategic advantage eventually find themselves crushed by the judgment of morality itself.
Be First to Comment