The European Parliament on 29 April 2026 overwhelmingly condemned China's new law on 'ethnic unity and progress', with most MEPs denouncing it as forced assimilation targeting Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, Manchus and Hui. Danuše Nerudová (EPP) called it ethnic erasure through Mandarin imposition and ideological control, while Hannes Heide (S&D) described systematic restrictions on language, culture and religion. Mariusz Kamiński (ECR) likened it to Cultural Revolution practices, and Catarina Vieira (Greens/EFA) warned it would criminalise peaceful advocacy. Dainius Žalimas (Renew) demanded repeal and threatened EU sanctions, and Engin Eroglu (Renew) argued the law violates international law. Commissioner Hadja Lahbib expressed concern over minority rights and extraterritorial implications, reaffirming EU opposition to transnational repression and commitment to seek information on the 11th Panchen Lama. The Commission did not endorse sanctions but pledged continued engagement and monitoring.
Dissenters question selective scrutiny
Marc Botenga (The Left) questioned whether critics had read the text and accused Parliament of selective scrutiny, urging cooperation with China instead of sanctions. Ondřej Dostál (NI) maintained the law preserves minority languages and ethnic autonomy, criticising EU double standards on regional languages. These voices remained isolated, with no other MEPs backing their position.
Tibet and the Dalai Lama succession
Multiple MEPs and Commissioner Lahbib stressed that the Dalai Lama's succession must be a religious matter without state interference. Lahbib reaffirmed EU opposition to transnational repression and commitment to seek information on the 11th Panchen Lama.
Stakeholder impacts
The debate highlighted divergent impacts: ethnic minorities in China face potential cultural and linguistic suppression; diaspora communities in the EU may be affected by extraterritorial enforcement; EU-China relations risk further deterioration if sanctions are pursued; and EU businesses could face retaliatory measures from Beijing. The Commission's cautious stance suggests a preference for diplomatic engagement over punitive action, balancing human rights concerns with economic and geopolitical interests.