Prosecution risks<\/p>\n Another worrying element is the extraterritorial reach of this text. Article 63 allows for the prosecution of individuals or organisations abroad accused of undermining \u201cethnic unity.\u201d This deliberately vague formulation opens the door to transnational repression targeting diasporas, including in Europe. <\/p>\n European citizens of Tibetan origin, several thousand of whom live in Europe, could be exposed to arbitrary arrest and detention, or even to ill-treatment or torture, if they visit China or Tibet. Even we could be prosecuted merely for writing this piece critical of the law.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Above all, the Chinese authorities have used the Tibetan people to test the restrictions incorporated in this new law before applying it to China as a whole this year. Tibetans in present-day Yunnan were the first to see a similar law introduced way back in 2010 while the Tibet Autonomous Region saw a \u201cmodel\u201d law of this nature in 2020.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n On 16 April, eight United Nations special rapporteurs denounced the implications of the law, stating that it could exacerbate restrictions on cultural, linguistic, and religious rights. <\/p>\n The experts also emphasised the systematic nature of the violations it entails with regard to China\u2019s own legal framework, including the Constitution, as well as China\u2019s international obligations.\u00a0<\/p>\n Earlier in April, the European Parliament also adopted a resolution<\/a> expressing its \u201cgrave concern\u201d about a legislation that \u201copenly promotes assimilation policies\u201d and restricts fundamental freedoms and calling for its repeal.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n European history shows that cultural and linguistic marginalisation is a classic tool used by authoritarian regimes to assimilate populations under their control. <\/p>\n Under the Soviet Union, Russification targeted national languages in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine, particularly from the 1930s onward under Joseph Stalin. Similarly, Benito Mussolini\u2019s regime in Italy imposed Italian at the expense of German in South Tyrol, while Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler repressed the use of local languages in annexed territories.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n These experiences are reflected in the European Union\u2019s own foundational principles which recognise cultural and linguistic diversity not as a danger, but as a core strength to be protected. <\/p>\n This long-standing commitment stands in contrast to Beijing\u2019s approach, where diversity is framed as a threat\u00a0to be managed rather than an asset to be preserved.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/f95ba583ec3ee62ceb8c904e3e102f16-600x392.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/7d0a2a16dd95f19ac8fd3906e458af73-600x400.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n