On March 12, China's National People’s Congress adopted the Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law, which will take effect on July 1, 2026. On April 30, however, the European Parliament (EP) passed a resolution that, disregarding facts and legal principles, seeks to malign China’s legislation and ethnic policies and interfere in its internal affairs. In response, China expressed strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition, lodging solemn representations with the European side. What, then, lies behind this move by the European Parliament? What motivations are at play? To explore these questions, TIBET.CN recently spoke with Liang Junyan, a researcher at the Institute of History, China Tibetology Research Center. 

Distorted Facts: the EP Resolution Holds No Ground 

Reporter: The EP’s resolution, under the pretext of “protecting ethnic minority identities,” criticizes China’s laws and policies. Do they have any factual basis for these claims? 

Liang Junyan: Issuing directives on a sovereign state’s internal affairs—and even demanding the repeal of its laws—is nothing but a blatant act of hegemonic interference. A close reading of the text reveals that the resolution’s core arguments are indefensible in terms of fact, legal principles, and logic. 

The resolution deliberately fabricates a false narrative of “conflicts between two laws.” It claims that there are significant differences between the Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law and the Law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy enacted in 1984, in an attempt to portray the two as contradictory and mutually exclusive. In reality, the new law explicitly states: “The state is to uphold and improve the system of ethnic autonomous regions, preserving national and ethnic unity.” The two laws have different areas of focus and complement each other, together forming the basic legal framework for ethnic affairs in China. The resolution, however, makes no mention of this and forcibly sets the two parallel laws in opposition, with the purpose of undermining the legitimacy of China’s ethnic legal system. 

The resolution deliberately obfuscates the relationship between “promoting the national common language and script” and “guaranteeing the linguistic rights of all ethnic groups.” While calling for the widespread promotion of the national common language and characters, the Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law also explicitly stipulates “respect for and protection of the right of ethnic minorities to learn and use their own languages and scripts.” In a multi-ethnic country, promoting a common language is precisely intended to help people of all ethnic groups enjoy equal rights to education, employment, and public services; it is an act of “empowerment,” not a “restriction.” Yet, the resolution portrays this policy as “forced assimilation,” while disregarding the law’s explicit safeguards for minority languages and scripts, thereby mischaracterizing a policy aimed at empowerment and shared development. 

It crudely interferes in China’s religious affairs, attempting to “de-sovereignize” the Living Buddha reincarnation system. The reincarnation of Living Buddhas is a distinctive succession system within Tibetan Buddhism, which originated in the 13th century and has evolved over centuries into a well-established institutional practice. It follows recognized procedures such as domestic search and identification, the drawing of lots from the Golden Urn, and approval by the central government, all under unified religious rituals and long-standing historical conventions that are closely linked to state sovereignty and central authority. Measures on the Management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas of Tibetan Buddhism, issued in 2007, further placed this practice on a standardized, law-based footing. The European Parliament’s resolution claims that “the succession of the Dalai Lama is a purely religious matter that must be decided entirely in accordance with Tibetan Buddhist tradition,” which is a blatant challenge to China’s sovereignty and the rule of law. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” the resolution acts to interfere in China’s internal affairs, attempting to deny the central government’s final decision-making authority. This attempt to “de-sovereignize” matters of state sovereignty is untenable and will not succeed. 

Double Standards: Europe’s Talk of Protection Masks Systemic Discrimination Against Its Own Minorities 

Reporter: How does Europe treat its own indigenous ethnic minorities, and what is the general situation like? 　　

Liang Junyan: Opening the official reports from European human rights institutions, the raw data paints a far harsher picture than any political slogan could convey. 

Take the Roma, for example. Also known as Gypsies or Bohemians, they are the largest ethnic minority group in Europe, with a total population of approximately 12 million. According to the 2025 Annual Report of the European Court of Human Rights, they continue to face systemic racism, structural discrimination, and hate crimes. The statistics are stark: 70% of Roma and Travelers live in poverty; only 32% complete secondary education; and just 54% hold paid employment—figures well below the EU average. Nearly half of Roma children (46%) attend segregated schools, and their life expectancy is 7 to 8 years shorter than that of the general EU population. Political representation is no better. Among Europe’s roughly 6 million Roma, not a single individual won a seat in the 2024 European Parliament elections. While self-styled “human rights defenders” sit in the halls of Brussels and Strasbourg, criticizing China, 6 million Roma remain excluded from their agenda—systematically marginalized, and largely invisible to the very institutions that claim to protect them. 

Even more ironic, reports from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) point to severe systemic racism within law enforcement agencies—in other words, public officials are enforcing the law through a lens of racial bias. A survey released in May 2025 found that in six countries—Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Poland, Hungary, and Romania—around €1.1 billion in EU funding was, in fact, used for projects that violate the fundamental rights of marginalized groups such as the Roma. These “investments” have perpetuated educational and housing segregation, institutionalized people with disabilities, and forcibly separated Roma children from their families. The irony extends further with the Minority SafePack Initiative, designed to create a systematic framework for protecting ethnic minorities across the EU. Launched in 2012 and championed for 13 years, it culminated in 2025 with a ruling by the EU’s highest court: no legislative proposal would be made based on the initiative. 

Such cases are far too numerous to recount, but they clearly show that while Europe proclaims, loudly and repeatedly, its commitment to safeguarding the human rights of ethnic minorities, in practice, discrimination often receives far more policy and financial backing than protection. Were European politicians to take an honest look at the structural shortcomings in their own record on minority rights, they would see that their own failings are far graver than the “charges” they so freely level against China. 　　

The Mask Slips: A Layered Web of Political Calculations 

Reporter: Despite its obvious flaws, the European Parliament has pressed this resolution forward. In your view, what drives this persistent push? 

Liang Junyan: The resolution reflects a convergence of multiple political calculations. At its core, it uses the rhetoric of “human rights” and “religious freedom” to support separatist forces and interfere in China’s internal affairs. 

Layer one: the diversion of domestic tensions. Europe is currently grappling with multiple crises, including the rise of the far right, political fragmentation, and economic stagnation. Amid this turbulence, rather than seeking workable solutions, some politicians choose instead to point fingers at China from thousands of miles away. By constructing an external “target,” they seek to deflect public frustration away from pressing domestic challenges such as poverty, unemployment, and immigration. For these actors, it is far easier to stigmatize China and target its Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law than to address the EU’s own structural problems—a familiar tactic repeatedly employed in political practice. 

Layer Two: the projection of a “civilizational superiority” mindset. To certain political forces within the European Parliament, Western systems are treated as universal truth, and they assume a natural prerogative to publicly scrutinize and condemn the sovereignty and institutional frameworks of other countries. At a deeper level, this reflects a fundamental cognitive mismatch: China’s model of “pluralistic unity,” shaped over thousands of years, follows an internal logic entirely different from Europe’s governance tradition, which is rooted in nationalism, the nation-state system, and a history of colonial expansion. To apply Europe’s historical experience of forced assimilation to China’s ethnic policies—policies aimed at enhancing commonality while respecting and accommodating diversity—is a form of “conceptual colonialism.” Unable to grasp the organic, interactive, and integrated nature of the Chinese national community formed through centuries of exchange and integration, they instead interpret it through the lens of their own historical experience, and label it simplistically as “assimilation.” 

Layer Three: the institutionalization of an anti-China agenda. In recent years, the European Parliament has positioned itself as a vanguard on a wide range of China-related issues—from Hong Kong’s National Security Law and electoral reforms to Taiwan question, technological development, and various human rights matters. The resolution pushed through this time is likewise a typical product of behind-the-scenes orchestration by separatist forces. By supplying so-called “evidence” to Western politicians and amplifying alarmist narratives, these actors have enabled politically receptive lawmakers—eager to shift public attention—to take center stage. Such manipulation not only emboldens separatist elements, but also underscores a short-sighted approach that ultimately undermines its own interests. In pursuit of perceived political advantage, it risks eroding the foundations of China–EU relations and increasingly aligns itself with the agendas of anti-China forces. 

Political Pressure: A Projection of Anxiety Over the Success of the Chinese Path 

Reporter: The European Parliament has cited the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (hereinafter referred to as “Declaration”) as the pretext for this resolution. In your view, why is it being introduced at this particular moment, and what are the real concerns driving it? 

Liang Junyan: Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1992, the Declaration clearly affirms that sovereign states “shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious, and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories, and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.” This reflects the international community’s shared commitment to safeguarding minority rights. Crucially, the Declaration does not authorize any external power to intervene in a country’s internal affairs under the pretext of protecting minorities. 

In line with UN practice, 2026 is regarded as a key year for reviewing the long-term implementation and progress of the Declaration. The European Parliament’s decision to adopt this resolution on April 30 appears to be a calculated effort to shape the narrative in advance. By pre-emptively branding China with allegations of “assimilation” and “suppression of ethnic minorities,” it seeks to occupy the moral high ground and influence the framing of the UN’s official discussions on global minority rights later in 2026. At the same time, as relevant legislation in China approaches a critical stage of implementation, the timing of the resolution suggests an attempt to apply pressure through public opinion, undermine domestic and international confidence, and weaken the law’s credibility and effectiveness. It amounts to an effort to politically interfere in China’s law-based governance process. 

Those self-righteous, insular politicians in the European Parliament—who routinely turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses happening right under their own noses—have no standing to cast reckless judgments on China’s ethnic policies or its legally enacted laws. They are not genuinely concerned about the rights of China’s ethnic minorities; in truth, it is a matter of complete indifference to them. What they truly fear is that China has charted an ethnic governance model that is different from, yet demonstrably more effective than, the Western approach—a model now codified and enforced through the rule of law. The steadier and more successful this path becomes, the more the Western discourse loses its authority and relevance. At its core, their criticism is little more than a projection of anxiety over the success of the Chinese path. 

The world is currently undergoing profound changes. As proponents of multilateralism, both China and Europe should act as constructive forces grounded in mutual respect and equal dialogue. Rational voices within Europe continue to advocate managing relations with China through dialogue rather than confrontation. We hope that thoughtful leaders and opinion-makers in Europe will approach China with objectivity and reason, and recognize the flaws and potential consequences of the European Parliament’s resolution. 

The Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law represents a milestone in the development of China’s rule-of-law governance of ethnic affairs. Building the Chinese national community—a community with a shared future—requires no external guidance and will accept none. China is fully confident and capable of advancing its path of ethnic unity and progress within the framework of the rule of law, while contributing Chinese wisdom and solutions to the governance of ethnic affairs worldwide.