Unrest in Chinese province of Xinjiang

[Kralizec]

Nobody seems to have made a thread about this, so here we go.
Those who don't know what this is about: go to bbc, cnn, fox or whatever.

Now:
Why aren't there mobs in Arabic cities firebombing Chinese embassies? (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/07/20097725217198672.html)
The Uighur exile interviewed in this article suggests that it's because due to Chinese propaganda Uighurs are largely regarded as pro-western muslims in name only.

Another explanation would be that previous riots like those about the Danish cartoons were instigated by governments in the middle east, and that they don't have a beef with China. Or that China simply does not have a reputation (as of yet) of being antagonistic towards muslims, since relatively few people have ever heard of the Uighurs.

Also noteworthy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8149379.stm) is that the prime minister of Turkey (of all countries!) has stated that the Chinese treatment of Uighurs amounts to genocide. Turks are ethnically and religiously related to Uighurs, so there you go.

Discuss :whip:

[Pannonian]

Nobody seems to have made a thread about this, so here we go.
Those who don't know what this is about: go to bbc, cnn, fox or whatever.

Now:
Why aren't there mobs in Arabic cities firebombing Chinese embassies? (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/07/20097725217198672.html)
The Uighur exile interviewed in this article suggests that it's because due to Chinese propaganda Uighurs are largely regarded as pro-western muslims in name only.

Another explanation would be that previous riots like those about the Danish cartoons were instigated by governments in the middle east, and that they don't have a beef with China. Or that China simply does not have a reputation (as of yet) of being antagonistic towards muslims, since relatively few people have ever heard of the Uighurs.

Also noteworthy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8149379.stm) is that the prime minister of Turkey (of all countries!) has stated that the Chinese treatment of Uighurs amounts to genocide. Turks are ethnically and religiously related to Uighurs, so there you go.

Discuss :whip:
From what I've heard, the underlying unrest is a mixture of the general issues that the inland areas have, while the spark was an individual reaction to some of the government actions taken to address these issues.

Problems:
- Backward economy
- Non-Han cultures
Actions taken:
- Move in educated workers from metropolitan areas to develop economy
- Move out workers to metropolitan areas to link with seaward economies
- Allow cultural and political autonomy

The autonomy allowed to Xinjiang natives has separated them from the metropolitan Han culture. While the educated workers have helped exploit Xinjiang's resources, the alienness of the Xinjiang culture, drastically furthered by the actions of Xinjiang's provincial government, has made native Xinjiangese less employable than Han imports by metropolitan standards, meaning little of the economy passes through to the locals, resulting in a Han upper strata and a Uighur lower strata. Then you have resentment in metropolitan areas at Uighur workers drafted in by the government.

What seems to have happened is that someone in the southern provinces, disgruntled at being fired from work, made up a story of Uighur workers raping a local girl. Locals, already resentful at the large batch of outsiders in their midst, beat up a bunch of them, IIRC killing one or more. Uighurs in Xinjiang, already resentful of their Han overlords, see this as evidence of systematic oppression of their people, and turn on the Han in their province.

The situation is pretty similar in Tibet, except the conflict there is better publicised. Other inland provinces have similar economic problems too, but since they involve the same Han culture, no-one complains about genocide and mistreatment.

[DemonArchangel]

Unfortunately, I can confirm what Pannonian is saying as the truth. China is a severely unpleasant place to be at this moment, with the global economic downturn and an angry, angry populace.

[CountArach]

While I'm not entirely well-versed in what is going on, here (http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-uighurs-and-china-lost-and-found-nation) is a really good run-down of the historical forces at play, as well as the Uyghur independence movements.

[aimlesswanderer]

I think that in many ways the situation is similar to Tibet. The natives, who aren't Han Chinese, are unhappy that the waves of Chinese migration have made them second class citizens in their own land. Their activities and religion are monitored and curtailed, and many of the young are shipped off to work in factories in the booming coastal provinces. The Chinese get most of the new jobs (mostly government related) from the economic development (often because of discrimination or because the locals aren't qualified enough). The wealth gap is apparently massive, even by Chinese standards.

As in Tibet I think, the CCP has little idea about what to do with the whole 'religion thing', especially since they are officially Communist and therefore non religious.

I find it interesting that of the dead in Urumqi, supposedly the large majority are Chinese, since about 75% of the population of the city is Chinese and only about 13% Uighur, and the Uighurs are closely monitored. Given that the rioters were armed with only blunt instruments and knives I find it difficult to imagine that they were so deadly. There is already a heavy security presence as well.

It is interesting that the official line for the cause is a near copy and paste job of that for the unrest in Tibet last year:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KG08Ad01.html

The state's version of what transpired is almost a facsimile of its rendering of the Tibetan revolt of last year: foreign-based diaspora provocateurs plotting to disrupt China's social harmony, violent rioting by minorities against innocent Han businesses and civilians and restoration of law and order through rapid deployment of army and police reinforcements. What is glaringly missing in this pro forma version is any mention of the role of the Chinese security forces in the violence.


Unless the CCP considers and implements different policies, there will be continuing low level discontent which will intermittently break out into violence.

[Pannonian]

I think that in many ways the situation is similar to Tibet. The natives, who aren't Han Chinese, are unhappy that the waves of Chinese migration have made them second class citizens in their own land. Their activities and religion are monitored and curtailed, and many of the young are shipped off to work in factories in the booming coastal provinces. The Chinese get most of the new jobs (mostly government related) from the economic development (often because of discrimination or because the locals aren't qualified enough). The wealth gap is apparently massive, even by Chinese standards.

As in Tibet I think, the CCP has little idea about what to do with the whole 'religion thing', especially since they are officially Communist and therefore non religious.

I find it interesting that of the dead in Urumqi, supposedly the large majority are Chinese, since about 75% of the population of the city is Chinese and only about 13% Uighur, and the Uighurs are closely monitored. Given that the rioters were armed with only blunt instruments and knives I find it difficult to imagine that they were so deadly. There is already a heavy security presence as well.

The problem is a mixture of too much central government and too little.

Young workers are being shipped off to work in the factories in the coastal provinces because this is proven to be an effective way of getting money from the booming metropolitan areas to the backward provinces - people move to where there is better paid work, and they channel much of that money back to their homes and families, who can invest it in local businesses. Taiwanese, Hong Kongese, overseas expats invest billions in the mainland, much of it in their ancestral hometowns from which their forebears fled 60 years ago. This is an attempt to get the same thing going for inland provinces, but with central government helping them to find jobs.

In the other direction, there has been efforts to exploit Xinjiang's resources, so an economy can develop that doesn't entirely depend on money sent from their exiled workers. The first step will necessarily require educated specialists, hence Han imports from more developed areas. However, because the autonomous government has been moving steadily towards a traditional Islamic society, it has resulted in workers who don't have standard qualifications (since there has been a move away from standard schooling and towards home schooling), and a culture that the Han upper strata is uncomfortable with (since there has been a move towards Afghan-style tribal customs, eg. armed individuals, Islamic law). Perhaps Beijing should have stamped on these aspects of local culture that don't fit with its aim of modernisation.

What seems to be happening is that the Chinese government is imploring non-Xinjiangese to avoid inflaming the situation further, while it tries to deal with the issues in Xinjiang itself. What's pretty clear is that Xinjiang's autonomy has been distancing the province from Beijing, so there may be a crackdown on certain aspects which fundamentally affect the core aims of modernisation and securing the borders. Economically, I think the two-way effort to attract and distribute investment and jobs will continue, but with more attention from central government.

[Fragony]

Should we help them yes or no, I say yes. China is a pretty ruthless. Must have to do with everything happening in Iran, I'd tag that along.

[Prodigal]

I questioned mself about China's record on human rights & why I didn't care as much about China as I did about Iran. The answer, to me at any rate, is that China does not pretend to be anything other than what it is. If you go around killing people enmasse, the powers that be will unleash an unholy mother of all, biblically sized can of kick-bootyTM on you. They don't behave or act in a goup huggy manner to their citizens, not ideal, but it is at least honest.

So, the answer is don't go round beating & killing your fellow Chinese, & the state won't knock you into next week.

That's a horribly crass way of looking at the situation admittedly, but there it is.

[Cute Wolf]

Support the Xinjiang separatist or not? I said not!

The Chinesse government never meddles into the other's business and they always keep a "honest" approach... If they kill, they will say they kill... except at Thiananmen maybe... And for more:


Uyghurs migrated from China in waves, usually following deteriorating conditions or, conversely, when the doors were opened. Some left by the mid-1930s after the first - and short-lived - Eastern Turkestan Republic had collapsed, mostly to Turkey and to Saudi Arabia. Several hundred Uyghurs fled China in late 1949, following the Chinese communists' seizure of Xinjiang; among them were Isa Yusuf Alptekin and Mehmet Emin Bughra, former leaders of the (second) Eastern Turkestan Republic.

These former leaders first settled in India and then moved to Turkey where they headed Uyghur diaspora organisations with Ankara's support. In 1962, hardships related to the "great leap forward" led over 60,000 people from the region - some of them Uyghurs - to flee China for Kazakhstan (then part of the Soviet Union). Since the 1980s, the reforms of the post-Mao period and greater freedom of movement have enabled more Uyghurs to leave Xinjiang; several thousands have settled all over the world, some with the help of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Uyghur diaspora communities have formed their own associations (occasionally more than one) in every area they have settled. These have the aims of preserving Uyghur collective identity (i.e. culture and language), and sustaining and promoting shared national aspirations - ultimately, independence for East Turkestan. In trying to overcome the fragmentation and disagreements that have characterised these associations, attempts have been made to set up international Uyghur "umbrella" organisations (such as the Eastern Turkestan National Congress, set up in Turkey in 1992; and the East Turkestan Government-in-Exile, formed in Washington in autumn 2004).

Most such attempts have failed to achieve the unity they sought. A movement that has a chance to survive is the World Uyghur Congress, inaugurated in April 2004 in Munich. Its first president was Erkin Alptekin, son of Isa Yusuf ; its second, elected in November 2006, is Rebiya Kadeer (who had earlier been compelled to leave China, who has established a worldwide reputation as a human-rights advocate for the Uyghurs - and who is explicitly named by Beijing as being responsible for fomenting the latest unrest). The World Uyghur Congress now represents most Uyghur diaspora associations; it promotes a moderate agenda underlain by a quest for human rights, democracy and self-determination, without mentioning independence.

The uyghurs aren't the original natives of this province... much of them are allready crossbred from the Han Chineese and their only difference was religion...

Maybe u will question me... why did u say that? That was because I know what means to had a separatist movement in your own country... they will drop bombs everywhere... harass your life, and sour your international realtionship...

[seireikhaan]

Maybe u will question me... why did u say that? That was because I know what means to had a separatist movement in your own country... they will drop bombs everywhere... harass your life, and sour your international realtionship...
Do not make the mistake of confusing one separatist movement with all of them Further, do not make the mistake of confusing those seeking freedoms with separatists.

I am not well versed in Uigher history, but being the "original natives" of a province is irrelevant. Genetic heritage means very little- ethnic heritage is what is important. I have sincere doubts that the "only difference" is religion between Uighers and Han Chinese. Unless, of course, you have some kind of evidence to substantiate your claim?

[CountArach]

The Chinesse government never meddles into the other's business and they always keep a "honest" approach...
Alright, you've lost me :laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Alright, you've lost me :laugh4:

I think he means they are authoritarian as oppossed to totalitarian, stay quiet and they won't hurt you.

Of course, that's difficult to do when your people are being condemned to poverty and reduced to second-class citizens.

[Pannonian]

I think he means they are authoritarian as oppossed to totalitarian, stay quiet and they won't hurt you.

Of course, that's difficult to do when your people are being condemned to poverty and reduced to second-class citizens.
The thing is, the Chinese government is trying to do something about that, and that's where the trouble comes from. The Uighurs in Xinjiang haven't seen enough of the economic benefits that the Han in coastal regions have, while the Han in coastal regions resent the preferential treatment that imported Uighur workers have, in the government's attempts to spread the wealth. The problem in Xinjiang itself is that Beijing has been trying to develop a modernised (westernised) economy, while the Xinjiang government, which has more autonomy than most provincial governments, has been moving away from modernity and westernisation.

[aimlesswanderer]

The thing is, the Chinese government is trying to do something about that, and that's where the trouble comes from. The Uighurs in Xinjiang haven't seen enough of the economic benefits that the Han in coastal regions have, while the Han in coastal regions resent the preferential treatment that imported Uighur workers have, in the government's attempts to spread the wealth. The problem in Xinjiang itself is that Beijing has been trying to develop a modernised (westernised) economy, while the Xinjiang government, which has more autonomy than most provincial governments, has been moving away from modernity and westernisation.

From what I have read the Xinjiang govt is dominated by Han Chinese (like Tibet), who have only a limited idea what the large Uighur population either wants or needs (like Tibet). Their top priority is stability, generally through repression, and exploiting resources. And as for being autonomous, it seems like that is much more in theory than in practice (again, like Tibet). The top people are appointed by Beijing, and they are only appointed to "difficult" areas if they are thought to be able to handle 'disturbances'.

In the opening ceremony for the olympics, the parade of kids in the 56 different ethnic minorities' traditional dresses was actually rather fraudulent, as all said kids were Han Chinese. The govt in theory wants a "Harmonious Society", but in practice that means the minorities are under the thumb of the Han, and any who have other ideas are enemies of the state. There also seems to be a nascent Chinese nationalism, fuelled by historical grievances and China's economic rise, which is less than helpful when dealing with anyone not Han Chinese.

Some interesting articles

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/09/how_china_wins_and_loses_xinjiang?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8141867.stm

And an interesting one suggesting that the top provincial official may have let things get much worse than they should have.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KG16Ad02.html

[Cute Wolf]

I think he means they are authoritarian as oppossed to totalitarian, stay quiet and they won't hurt you.

Of course, that's difficult to do when your people are being condemned to poverty and reduced to second-class citizens.

Ohh... it looks like you never experienced your country was condemned by most of the wolrd... Think the Indonesian's feelings when those [snip] timor lestenese betray their previous pacts and didn't pay their share of duty, when lots of funds have been given by Indonesian govt to build their lands...

Ouw... and ask AP about Chechnya... :thumbsup:

most westerners seems to underestimate the effect of rebellions... for the betrayed countrymen.

[rory_20_uk]

Ohh... it looks like you never experienced your country was condemned by most of the wolrd... Think the Indonesian's feelings when those [snip] timor lestenese betray their previous pacts and didn't pay their share of duty, when lots of funds have been given by Indonesian govt to build their lands...

Is that the other term for invasion? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

Ohh... it looks like you never experienced your country was condemned by most of the wolrd... Think the Indonesian's feelings when those [snip] timor lestenese betray their previous pacts and didn't pay their share of duty, when lots of funds have been given by Indonesian govt to build their lands...
You are not doing yourself any favours.

[econ21]

I find it interesting that of the dead in Urumqi, supposedly the large majority are Chinese, since about 75% of the population of the city is Chinese and only about 13% Uighur, ...

Well, I think the Uighur's are Chinese, but anyway... The figures I heard for Uighur's in the capital were much higher - 30%+. But anyway, the majority group suffering the majority deaths does not seem strange - you'd expect it with with swine flu or crime, for example. I suspect more Protestants died in Northern Ireland's post-war Troubles than Catholics, despite being the majority.


...and the Uighurs are closely monitored.

Not closely enough, it seems. The state seems to have been caught unawares - the New York Times had an article today devoted to the lack of police presence at the start of the unrest.


Given that the rioters were armed with only blunt instruments and knives I find it difficult to imagine that they were so deadly.

Ever heard of the Rwandan genocide? Or the sectarian killings in India/Pakistan in 1948? You can hack an awful lot of people to death with primitive weapons. It's tragic, but on the scale of things 100-200 is nothing compared to what can happen with inter-communal violence.


There is already a heavy security presence as well.

Part of the NYT explanation is that the security focussed at first on the government installations. Also, riot police can't easily cover an entire city. There were reports of serried ranks of police with shields and batons confronting protestors in one street, while a couple of streets away, mobs were running amok unopposed.

[Fragony]

not chinese, they are turkish

[Prodigal]

There was a good BBC From Our Own Correspondent covering this last week, one reporter going through a hospital found 2 Uighur casulaties in the entire place, the rest, think nearly 200 were Han. It would seem they had, for what ever reason, decided to go out & break some Han heads.

[econ21]

There was a good BBC From Our Own Correspondent covering this last week, one reporter going through a hospital found 2 Uighur casulaties in the entire place, the rest, think nearly 200 were Han.

Interesting - I think NYTs Nicholas Kristoff did a similar thing after the Tiananmen Square massacre (checking up on hospitals and coming up with a lower figure for casualties than most). Even outsiders can get a lot more information about China than one might imagine.

[Marshal Murat]

Uyghers have been in China since the Tang Dynasty or something, when the Chinese used them as mercenaries to defeat a rebellious general. They've been Muslim since who knows when, and that conflicts with Chinese philosophy because the Chinese don't really have a serious widespread religion. They have Taoism and Confucianism, but those aren't really religious beliefs (when was the last time you went to a Confucian temple?). The Han Chinese essentially don't understand religion as easily as somewhere that has had a religion (Spain) since the 1400s at least.

If the Chinese weren't so set on creating a Harmonious Nation by forcing everyone to be Han Chinese (when they really aren't), then we wouldn't have problems with Uyghurs or Tibetanese (or the Vietnamese if they were part of China) who distrust the Han Chinese and their need to export their culture when they just don't like it.

[HoreTore]

not chinese, they are turkish

They've lived in China for centuries, how exactly are they not chinese?

[econ21]

In some ways as regard ethnic divisions, I suspect China is rather like pre-breakup Yugoslavia. The Communist ideology and strong state suppresses a lot of tensions that could erupt should the grip of the centre weaken. Things could be much worse for the minorities when/if the Communist regime collapses. Yes, the Han are dominant but then you would expect that whatever the system if they had 95% of the population (and the better parts of the land). The CCP take care to try to be inclusive of ethnic minorities, both in speech and also in some deeds (e.g. lower entrance requirements for universities; a pretty good record on non-discrimination in the labour market). Yes, the movement of Han settlers into minority areas is potentially storing up trouble but on the other hand, it probably does contribute to the economic development and integration of those parts. Were the CCP to fall, I suspect a more populist (i.e. nationalist) politics might lead to a harsher line on ethnic minorities - and no reduction in settlers.

I suppose the only solace is that a 95% majority is so large, a violent separatist movement is unlikely ever to gain traction. It's when ethnic groups are split near 50:50 that you are more likely to see conflict, as both sides think they may win.

[HoreTore]

I suppose the only solace is that a 95% majority is so large, a violent separatist movement is unlikely ever to gain traction. It's when ethnic groups are split near 50:50 that you are more likely to see conflict, as both sides think they may win.

If you're thinking in terms of control over a country, then yes.

If you're thinking about separatist movements(the basque, Chechnya), then no.

EDIT: And welcome back, Econ21! Haven't seen you in a while now... Have a beer on me!

[DemonArchangel]

I'm afraid that when the Jiangsu clique currently sitting in the Great Hall of the People loses its grip on the government, large parts of Southern China will attempt to separate itself from the PRC, or at least demand some form of greater autonomy.

[Meneldil]

They've lived in China for centuries, how exactly are they not chinese?

That's untrue. The region inhabited by Uighours was independant till the 60's. In the early 20th, it was under the rule of various khanates, most of which were independant (though sometimes strongly under influence from Persia, China or Russia).

Furthermore, the Uighours are a turkish people, not a chinese one. There are several kind of chinese people (the han being the vast majority), but the uighours are obviously not chinese, never felt chinese and never will.

What's going on there is not but an ethnocide. China is trying to slowly eliminate non Han-cultures through various ways.

[Prodigal]

I mentioned hearing a BBC From Our Own Correspondent report in my last post, if anyone want to hear it, the link is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8142610.stm)

Worth a listen.

[DemonArchangel]

That's untrue. The region inhabited by Uighours was independant till the (17)60's. In the early 20th, it was under the rule of Chinese Warlords, (though sometimes strongly under influence from China or Russia).

Furthermore, the Uighours are a turki(c) people, not a chinese one. There are several kind of chinese people (the han being the vast majority(?)), but the uighours are obviously not chinese, never felt chinese and never will. (I strongly dispute this)

What's going on there is not but an ethnocide (and they're doing it wrong). China is trying to slowly eliminate non Han-cultures through various ways.

Corrected for truth.

[Meneldil]

Righty. Is that official chinese history?

Xinjiang was independant till 1750, after what it became a part of the Qing empire (though nominally still an independant conglomerate of khanates) untill around 1860.
It then became a semi-autonomous kingdom who had much more ties with Russia than with China.
Then again, 20 years later, it became once again part of China. After the collapse of the Qing empire, various chinese warlords tried to take control of the area, with more or less success.
2 East Turkestan Republics were created, the second one more or less decided to join China (ie. local communists helped the PLA to invade the area).

Saying that Uighours have been chinese for centuries is indeed wrong. They have been part of the country commonly refered to as 'China' for a bit more than a century (given that the Chinese rule in the area was quite often inexistant).

Now, you can dispute the fact that Uighours don't feel chinese. I've never been there, never met a Uighour (or even a turk from the area), so meh. All the books I've read seem to imply that Uighours have been considered as second class citizens since the very first time China invaded their land (ie. 1750's).

As for my comment about the Han, it simply means that some minorities in China actually feel Chinese, or part of the great chinese nation. The Uighours obviously don't. I doubt killing them in the street will help.

Overall, I understand the Chinese government. Most European countries went through a similar process during which they eliminated local cultures. France did it at first through war, terrorism and what not, before switching to education. My main grief with the way China handle the situation is that they kind of forgot the 'education' part, and went for the 'send waves of immigrants until the former population disappears or dies during racial riots' way.

[DemonArchangel]

The Uighurs are second class citizens, but so are the ethnic Chinese in Xinjiang. Pretty much everyone not from Beijing or Shanghai is a second class citizen in China. The current conflict in Xinjiang is between migrants from China's interior vs. Uighur peasants.

Meanwhile, the original ethnic Chinese* in the Tarim basin (Old Xinjiangnese) and the urban Uighurs (Urumchiliks) are at peace. They've been living together for way, way too long.

*There has been a Chinese presence in the Tarim since 200 BC

[aimlesswanderer]

The Uighurs are second class citizens, but so are the ethnic Chinese in Xinjiang. Pretty much everyone not from Beijing or Shanghai is a second class citizen in China. The current conflict in Xinjiang is between migrants from China's interior vs. Uighur peasants.

Meanwhile, the original ethnic Chinese* in the Tarim basin (Old Xinjiangnese) and the urban Uighurs (Urumchiliks) are at peace. They've been living together for way, way too long.

*There has been a Chinese presence in the Tarim since 200 BC

I'd say that anyone who isn't both related to/knows any powerful government official and or is rich (the 2 have a tendency to go together) is a somewhat of a second class citizen. The wealth gap is impressively massive.

Just because there has been some sort of "Chinese presence" in the Tarim basin for ages doesn't mean much - there has also been a "Chinese presence" in north Vietnam for millennia. That has varied from full government control for relatively short periods to complete independence from China proper.

[Prodigal]

I'd say that anyone who isn't both related to/knows any powerful government official and or is rich (the 2 have a tendency to go together) is a somewhat of a second class citizen. The wealth gap is impressively massive.

Just because there has been some sort of "Chinese presence" in the Tarim basin for ages doesn't mean much - there has also been a "Chinese presence" in north Vietnam for millennia. That has varied from full government control for relatively short periods to complete independence from China proper.

This, I fear, is a terrible truism. Had the priviledge to work with a really good guy in PRC who was part of a gov. run company, he left & stayed in touch for a time but was always deeply afraid that his ex-bosses, (who were in the party), would find out what he told me about working practises there.