By: Khushbu Ahlawat, Consulting Editor, GSDN
Introduction
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), accelerated by the global prominence of tools such as ChatGPT, has transformed governance and state capacity across the world. While AI enhances efficiency and automation, its integration into surveillance infrastructures raises serious concerns about privacy, autonomy, and civil liberties. In authoritarian contexts, AI does not merely support governance—it expands the state’s ability to monitor, predict, and regulate behavior. The deployment of AI-enabled surveillance in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region represents one of the most advanced and controversial examples of this transformation. Home to approximately 11–12 million Uyghurs, a Turkic Muslim minority with deep historical and cultural ties to Central Asia, Xinjiang has long been central to China’s security discourse. Following episodes of unrest, particularly the 2009 Ürümqi riots, Beijing intensified securitization policies in the region, framing them as counter-terrorism and anti-separatism efforts.
What distinguishes Xinjiang is the scale and technological sophistication of its surveillance regime. AI-driven systems—including facial recognition networks, biometric data collection, and predictive policing tools such as the Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP)—have been used to aggregate data from checkpoints, smartphones, and financial records to identify individuals deemed “suspicious.” Surveillance technology firms such as Hikvision have been linked to this expanding infrastructure. In authoritarian systems where legitimacy rests on stability rather than electoral consent, surveillance becomes a preventive instrument aimed at deterring mobilization and regulating minority populations. In Xinjiang, digital monitoring has reportedly intersected with restrictions on religious practices, language use, and transnational communication, fueling international criticism and debates over human rights. This paper argues that AI in Xinjiang functions not merely as a security tool, but as a mechanism of algorithmic governance that reshapes state–society relations and raises critical questions about the future trajectory of digital authoritarianism.
Historical Consolidation and Cultural Reconfiguration: China’s Expanding Control over Xinjiang
The consolidation of Chinese control over the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region must be understood within a long historical arc of imperial expansion, internal colonization, and contemporary technological governance. The Qing dynasty formally incorporated the region in 1884, designating it “Xinjiang,” meaning “newly returned frontier.” This nomenclature itself reflects a state-centric territorial claim and continues to inform official narratives; contemporary government platforms emphasize that Xinjiang has “never been East Turkestan,” directly countering separatist discourse. Following the fall of the Qing and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, Beijing institutionalized administrative control while promoting demographic restructuring. Large-scale migration of Han Chinese—initially through state-led settlement programs and later through economic incentives—gradually altered the ethnic balance of the region. Scholars such as Nicolas Becquelin describe this as a strategy of internal colonization, echoing earlier imperial “divide and rule” practices. While earlier decades relied on physical coercion and ideological campaigns under Mao Zedong, the 1990s onward witnessed indirect migration policies and economic integration efforts that masked deeper assimilationist objectives.
In the twenty-first century, control has expanded from demographic engineering to cultural and digital governance. Uyghur identity—rooted in Islam, Turkic linguistic heritage, Central Asian traditions, and a rich poetic culture—has increasingly come under regulatory scrutiny. Influential literary figures such as Abdurehim Ötkür, often regarded as the father of modern Uyghur poetry, symbolize a tradition where literature and communal memory are central to identity formation. Reports by journalists including Lily Kuo have highlighted restrictions on Uyghur intellectuals, poets, and educators, signaling a broader cultural contraction. Since 2017, state policies have reportedly included re-education campaigns, mosque demolitions or renovations aligned with “Sinicization,” and curriculum reforms privileging Mandarin over Uyghur language instruction. Recent updates (2023–2025) indicate a strategic shift: while mass detention facilities appear reduced in visibility, digital monitoring, data-driven governance, and heritage “repackaging” for tourism continue. Beijing simultaneously promotes Xinjiang as a hub within the Belt and Road Initiative, projecting stability and development. Thus, historical patterns of territorial consolidation have evolved into technologically mediated assimilation, where demographic change, cultural regulation, and algorithmic surveillance operate together to redefine state–society relations in Xinjiang.
From Imperial Censorship to Revolutionary Surveillance
Surveillance and censorship in China long predate the contemporary leadership of Xi Jinping. During the Qin and Han dynasties, political orthodoxy and loyalty to the ruler were central pillars of governance. Criticizing imperial authority was prohibited, and censorship mechanisms were institutionalized through the office of the Censorate. Censor officials monitored bureaucratic conduct, judicial proceedings, and public works, reporting directly to the emperor. Although framed as anti-corruption oversight, these institutions reinforced centralized authority and ideological conformity.
During the Qing dynasty, intelligence practices became more formalized. The spy manual Jianshu, authored by Zhu Fengjia, reflected an awareness of covert operations and counter-rebellion strategies. Surveillance thus evolved from bureaucratic oversight to proactive intelligence gathering. Under Mao Zedong, espionage networks initially used against Japanese forces were retained and repurposed domestically. Maoist campaigns institutionalized mass mobilization and neighborhood monitoring, embedding surveillance within everyday social life. What distinguishes contemporary China is not the existence of surveillance, but its technological scale and sophistication.
Digital Authoritarianism and the Securitization of Xinjiang
Modern surveillance intensified significantly in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, particularly after the 2009 Ürümqi riots. Scholars such as Adrian Zenz and James Leibold describe Xinjiang as one of the most securitized regions globally. The state implemented grid-style policing, recruiting thousands of officers and introducing the “one policeman per village” model. Chen Quanguo’s tenure as regional party secretary after 2016 marked a dramatic escalation in security infrastructure.
Digital surveillance now complements physical policing. Biometric data collection, facial recognition systems, mandatory smartphone applications, and predictive platforms such as the Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP) enable real-time monitoring. Leibold characterizes this system as “ethnic sorting,” where individuals are categorized according to perceived ontological worth. Surveillance is framed as governance or “social management,” shifting its language from coercion to administrative normalcy.
Recent developments (2023–2025) indicate a transition from overt mass detention to normalized digital monitoring. International scrutiny led to sanctions on several Chinese technology firms, yet Beijing continues to promote AI governance domestically and export surveillance technologies abroad. Simultaneously, the state highlights economic development and tourism in Xinjiang, presenting stability as proof of policy success.
Continuities of Ethnic Management and Cultural Regulation
The securitization of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region reflects broader and historically embedded patterns of ethnic management and demographic engineering. Han migration policies—traced by scholars such as Nicolas Becquelin—illustrate long-standing strategies to recalibrate the region’s demographic balance and bind it more closely to the Chinese mainland. State-led development initiatives, expansion of railway networks, and consolidation of cotton and energy industries have strengthened economic integration while reinforcing dependence on central authority. Xinjiang’s cotton sector, for instance, remains central to China’s textile supply chain, yet it has also been the focus of international scrutiny and import restrictions imposed by the United States and parts of Europe over allegations of forced labor—claims Beijing firmly denies.
Cultural governance operates in parallel with these economic and demographic strategies. Policies promoting Mandarin-language instruction in place of Uyghur-medium education, restructuring mosque architecture under “Sinicization” guidelines, and regulating Islamic practices indicate that governance extends beyond security into the domain of identity formation. David Tobin argues that narratives portraying Uyghurs as security risks cultivate mutual insecurities between Han and Uyghur communities, thereby legitimizing expanded state control. Since 2023, China has further formalized AI governance regulations emphasizing “security” and “controllability,” embedding digital monitoring within broader administrative reforms. Although reports suggest that some re-education facilities have become less visible, digital surveillance infrastructures—facial recognition systems, biometric databases, and grid-style management—remain operational. Simultaneously, Beijing has promoted tourism campaigns showcasing Xinjiang’s cultural heritage, signaling a strategic shift from overt coercion to managed representation.
Taken together, current developments reinforce the argument that China’s approach represents continuity rather than rupture. Surveillance has evolved from imperial oversight and Maoist mass campaigns into technologically sophisticated digital governance under Xi Jinping. The integration of AI, economic modernization, and cultural regulation demonstrates a layered strategy: territorial consolidation is pursued not only through security apparatuses, but through demographic restructuring, economic dependency, and symbolic reconfiguration of minority identity. Contemporary policy in Xinjiang thus exemplifies how historical modes of control have been recalibrated for the digital age, blending modernization with centralized authority in ways that redefine state–society relations.
Algorithmic Governance and the Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP)
The Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP) represents the operational core of digital surveillance in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Designed as a data-driven policing system, IJOP aggregates information from CCTV networks, biometric databases, smartphone monitoring applications, and police checkpoints. According to investigations by Human Rights Watch, the platform compiles behavioral data and flags individuals for investigation or detention based on algorithmic risk indicators. Leaked documents—often referred to as the “Karakax List”—revealed that individuals were reportedly detained for non-violent behaviors such as foreign contacts, religious observance, or possession of certain digital materials. Authorities maintain that the system enables “precision” counter-terrorism and prevents extremism; however, critics argue that predictive policing in this context expands suspicion to everyday life.
Screenshots of IJOP databases reportedly display detailed identity fields including name, ethnicity, gender, ID numbers, and behavioral flags. Scholars such as Adrian Zenz and James Leibold describe this as a shift from reactive law enforcement to algorithmic pre-emption—where risk is inferred rather than proven. This mirrors global debates following the 9/11 surveillance expansions in the United States exposed by Edward Snowden, yet the Xinjiang case differs in scale, ethnic targeting, and integration with mass political campaigns such as “Strike Hard.” Since 2023, although Beijing claims vocational centers have been phased out, reports indicate that digital monitoring remains deeply embedded, supported by AI governance regulations emphasizing national security. International sanctions against firms linked to surveillance supply chains coexist with China’s continued export of “smart city” technologies abroad, suggesting Xinjiang functions both as a domestic security project and a model of digital authoritarian governance.
Global Contestation, Sanctions, and Competing Narratives (2023–2026)
The international response to developments in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region has intensified over the past few years, transforming the issue from a human rights debate into a focal point of geopolitical contestation. In 2022, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released an assessment stating that serious human rights violations in Xinjiang may constitute crimes against humanity. Although Beijing rejected the findings as politically motivated, the report institutionalized global scrutiny within multilateral frameworks. Parallelly, the United States enacted and implemented the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, presuming goods produced in Xinjiang to be linked to forced labor unless proven otherwise. This legislation significantly impacted global supply chains, particularly in textiles and solar panel components, given Xinjiang’s centrality to cotton and polysilicon production. The European Union and several G7 countries have also imposed targeted sanctions on Chinese officials and entities allegedly linked to surveillance and detention systems.
Technology firms associated with surveillance infrastructure—most notably Hikvision and Huawei—have faced export restrictions and blacklisting measures. These actions underscore the growing recognition that Xinjiang is not merely a regional security matter but a test case for the global governance of AI. At the same time, China has deepened partnerships with countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, exporting “smart city” technologies that integrate facial recognition, biometric data systems, and predictive policing software. Critics argue that this diffusion risks normalizing algorithmic authoritarian practices beyond China’s borders, while Beijing frames such exports as neutral tools for modernization and crime prevention.
Domestically, official narratives emphasize stability, economic growth, and poverty alleviation in Xinjiang. State media highlights increased tourism, infrastructure development, and employment statistics as evidence of policy success. Beijing maintains that vocational training centers have been dismantled and that counter-terrorism efforts were necessary responses to violent incidents in the 2000s and early 2010s. However, diaspora testimonies, investigative journalism, and leaked documents such as the “Karakax List” continue to challenge these claims, arguing that digital monitoring, biometric databases, and algorithmic risk scoring remain embedded within everyday governance.
From a critical perspective, the Xinjiang case demonstrates three core dynamics.
First, AI-enabled surveillance transforms suspicion into a predictive category, where algorithmic flagging substitutes individualized judicial process.
Second, ethnic identity becomes datafied—reduced to quantifiable markers within systems such as the Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP).
Third, international fragmentation over human rights norms enables competing narratives: liberal democracies frame Xinjiang as a site of systemic repression, while China presents it as a successful model of stability-oriented governance.
Thus, the contemporary debate is not solely about Xinjiang; it concerns the future of digital governance globally. As AI becomes central to administrative capacity worldwide, the Xinjiang model raises urgent normative questions: Can predictive policing coexist with due process? Does algorithmic efficiency erode minority rights when embedded in securitized frameworks? And will economic interdependence dilute accountability mechanisms? The trajectory of international responses between 2023 and 2026 suggests that Xinjiang has evolved into a defining case in the politics of algorithmic authoritarianism—where technology, sovereignty, and human rights intersect in unprecedented ways.
Conclusion
AI-driven securitization in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region has transformed everyday Uyghur life into a domain of constant monitoring. Through systems like the Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP), routine actions—phone calls abroad, VPN usage, possession of Uyghur-language texts, or visible religious practice—can reportedly trigger investigation or detention. Policies restricting Islamic expression and promoting assimilation reflect a broader objective tied to the “One China” framework: integrating the region through control. In this context, AI does not merely enhance security—it systematizes identity regulation, compresses space for cultural and religious autonomy, and leaves limited scope for dissent or preservation of distinct Uyghur identity.
About the Author
Khushbu Ahlawat is a research analyst with a strong academic background in International Relations and Political Science. She has undertaken research projects at Jawaharlal Nehru University, contributing to analytical work on international and regional security issues. Alongside her research experience, she has professional exposure to Human Resources, with involvement in talent acquisition and organizational operations. She holds a Master’s degree in International Relations from Christ University, Bangalore, and a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of Delhi.
