Why SOAS Speaks Loudly for Some, and Quietly for Others

Will O’Donnell, BA Politics and International Relations

It’s been an odd year for student expression at SOAS. The shadow of Haya Adam’s expulsion, in combination with the Injunction and various disciplinary mechanisms surrounding student protest, still looms. It is interesting, then, beyond our campus, that repression against the SOAS student voice has become internationalised, through the cases of Tara and Sami.

On July 31st, Zhang Yadi (Tara) was detained in China due to her efforts to increase understanding of Tibetan culture and Tibet’s context within Han-dominated China. She is being investigated for the crime of ‘Inciting Separatism’ (煽动分裂国家罪). Following her undergraduate studies in Paris, Tara had been awarded a scholarship to pursue a Master’s in Anthropology here at SOAS. Sadly, her time amongst us has not materialised yet. Instead, she is believed to be in a detention centre, in her hometown of Changsha, Hunan. On November 11th, the government acknowledged Tara’s situation in response to a written question:

‘The Government is aware of a report concerning the detention of Zhang Yadi…We continue to follow developments closely and regularly raise human rights concerns with the Chinese authorities. The UK remains committed to promoting human rights and the rule of law globally.’

In contrast, SOAS’ public response following her detention read as follows:

‘We are aware of reports that a Chinese citizen who has been offered a place at SOAS is missing and detained. We are following the case very closely and offering support to those impacted via the channels available to us.’

The question remains: why the cautious approach?

In the so-called ‘Free World’, ICE agents abducted SOAS alumni Sami Hamdi. SOAS’ public response read as follows:

‘We are deeply concerned by reports regarding the detention of British journalist and SOAS alumnus Sami Hamdi in the United States.

According to these reports, Mr. Hamdi travelled to the US on a valid visa to participate in a speaking tour. His visa was subsequently revoked, and he is now reportedly being held in detention pending immigration proceedings and possible deportation. There is no indication that Mr. Hamdi has violated any laws.

We urge the US authorities to ensure full transparency and due process in Mr. Hamdi’s case, and to uphold his fundamental right to freedom of expression and movement.’

Thankfully, Sami has since been released. His visa was revoked for ‘national security’ reasons, a vague sentiment which echoes that of Tara’s own detention. These are closely aligned issues, and yet with starkly divergent approaches from SOAS management. Why?

It’s not because SOAS has no role or leverage in Tara’s situation. Chinese political power is heavily fragmented along provincial lines. Policy begins at the core, but is re-interpreted as it moves through political peripheries. Occasionally, this has had the effect of provincial governments arresting activists as a way to curry favour with the central party, and it is likely that Tara finds herself in similar circumstances. In this case, the leveraging of diplomatic channels is imperative to convincing the central authorities to overrule provincial action. SOAS is well suited to this; behind the scenes, Tibetan scholars, Chinese policy experts at SOAS and elsewhere, and many others have coordinated to see Yadi free. Action is being taken, just quietly. China is a boat best unrocked.

Juxtaposed is the boat that will not stop rocking. Since the Trump administration took office, ICE has carried out increasingly aggressive and racially charged enforcement across the USA. Sami’s case fits this trend. SOAS’ approach here could be so comparatively vocal because the case is so simple. Sami is a British national, Sami was there legally, Sami did not violate any laws; his release was a certainty with or without SOAS’s input.

While both Tara and Sami were detained for expressing their views, there is a fundamental difference to the context of their detention. For Sami, his detention was meant to silence and to strike fear, but could only do so at a surface level. In contrast, Tara’s detention is part of a long-standing drive by China to suppress any support of any kind, for Tibetan or other minority rights, by treating any expression of support as a criminal act equivalent to sedition. Under Xi Jinping, this effort has been subsumed within a wider drive to cement the modern Chinese myth of the ‘Zhonghua Minzu’: one unified China without separatist identities, gilded in long institutionalised mechanisms of repression.