Xinjiang

[Kuciwalker]

The domestic/foreign policy distinction is something you've introduced post-facto to the argument - neither my post nor Oerdin's makes any mention of it.

Because it's a meaningful distinction. Obviously you are going to justify your foreign policy based on the actions of others. To blame domestic dissent on the actions of foreign agents provocateurs is different, and a typical indicator that the government is paranoid and/or oppressive.

[Kuciwalker]

There's a huge distinction between "fearmongering about other nations" and "using other nations as a scapegoat for your own problems".

[Kuciwalker]

Incidentally, it's obvious from context that Oerdin was leaning closer to my usage than yours.

[Kuciwalker]

Also, AC: as much as you claim to oppose the PRC's policies (and I believe those claims are in good faith), I know you know that "the US did this too" is always the first argument of apologists.

[MrFun]

I need to post here before Kuci makes a record number of consecutive, uninterrupted posts.

[Sprayber]

Is AC saying that China is over a century behind the West?

Plus Obama has apologized for everything we have ever done so our slate is clean

[Wezil]

Serb had 6-8 uninterrupted yesterday.

It was impressive.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Yet more bad news.

China reimposes curfew on Urumqi

There was also another BBC story about how the Chinese leadership ordered mosques to be closed Friday, but now I can't find it. Maybe it got merged into the curfew story.

Summary: The Chinese authorities tried to close the mosques early Friday, but many mosques defied the curfew and opened anyway. Unsurprisingly, this attempted closure triggered at least one protest rally and sentiments are even worse.

As is usual for the Chinese government, foreign press were kept on tight leashes and basically told they were free to leave the country but not much else. (Although that conflicts with an earlier (Wednesday) BBC news report that suggested the Chinese was trying to co-opt the foreign media to put a more pro-China spin on things... that might have been from before the curfew was re-imposed.)

Further missteps by the Chinese leadership, in my opinion. I honestly don't see how this is going to help. Granted, there might be some vague abstract security gain by shutting down mosques, but the move is sure to cause outraged sentiments among peace-abiding Muslims who just want to observe their religious duties.

And (on paper at least) mosques are supposed to be places of peace and calm and introspection. I can't imagine that angry calls for violent overthrow would be welcome in most of the mosques, anymore than it would be tolerated in any religious place of worship.

Maybe the Chinese have some weird piece of insider intelligence pointing to a specific threat, but I can't imagine that's very likely.




(To Kitschum: I have not forgotten about your post and am still getting round to the facts on it. Stay tuned.)

[DaShi]

Perhaps with this and the Rio Tata incident China finally decided to say, "Screw it!" and move on to phase 2.

[Alinestra Covelia]

My take is the Chinese authorities are running scared. This seems to have caught them completely unawares, given that Urumqi is usually a quiet city. Even President Hu Jintao cancelled his G8 summit participation to go back to deal with this crisis.

I guess it's good news (of a sort) that the Chinese are placing this on such high priority that it overrides the president's overseas social engagements. But it's bad news that their response to date has been so cack-handed.

At times like this, if you want to be sending in police to keep the peace, you don't want to be alienating the same people you're supposedly trying to protect. Even at the height of the most recent Iraq war, the US army exercised care and caution not to hit religious targets, even if there were some indications they might be housing insurgents, because there's a strong likelihood that it would result in little tactical gain versus much heavier reputational losses.

China's hard line stance on separating religion from politics is another issue that has much greater reverberance in Xinjiang and Tibet. Both provinces had ethnic minorities that had a different religion from much of the central provinces, and their ethnic minorities placed considerably greater cultural weight to these religions. So any anti-religious policy, even if applied seemingly evenly across the nation (which is in itself a somewhat questionable hypothetical) would have greater actual adverse effects on Xinjiang and Tibet than elsewhere.

[DaShi]

The problem is that this strategy worked for Tibet, if only temporary. This is exactly like the Tibet riots a year ago, right down to the same "Chinese-Americans" complaining about Western bigotry on the NY Times comments. So the next riot, China will crack down again and then have a year or so of peace until the next riot. Wash, rinse, repeat. They are either very short-sighted or prefer it this way or both.

[Wezil]

The Chinese gov should hold plebiscites in these regions to see if the citiizens want to remain part of China or not.

I won't hold my breath waiting for them to do so.

[Alinestra Covelia]

The Chinese gov should hold plebiscites in these regions to see if the citiizens want to remain part of China or not.

I won't hold my breath waiting for them to do so.

Well, many colonies or border provinces have been held as part of the country's territories by a strong metropolitan centralized government, only to become acclimated through time. America in the start was a fractious band of colonies, and western territories were either populated by hostile native tribes or conquered from Spanish holdings. (Not counting the large Louisiana purchase territories - a vastly weird affair that was a purely economic move.) Britain has some holdings overseas that were obtained through force, and some have been reverted to native control, such as Hong Kong, and others such as the Falklands are still sovereign British territories, whose ties are strong enough that Britain could and would use modern-era military force to protect them.

The current status quo appears to be that most nations, including the nearby Russians and central Asian nations, and also including America and the EU, accept Chinese sovereignty over Xinjiang. As Kitschum mentioned, the area has been under solid Han Chinese control since the Qing dynasty. (Although at this point I should in all fairness point out that Kitschum then concludes that this history is not enough to justify Chinese administration over the area under Communist rule. As I posted above, I do contest this conclusion and am researching the history of that particular question.)

My own (slow) research is suggesting it had even earlier periods of Han Chinese rule, with the Tang monarch Taizong establishing authority during his reign, contrasted with long periods of rule by non-Han administrators (wiki "Dzungaria" for a fascinating article about a Mongol-descended tribal power that the Qing overthrew).

However, the opinions over the equities or effectiveness of that rule are quite hotly contested, and with very good reason. This is more in line with the general tone of news reports I'm seeing. It's not an Arunachal Pradesh or Aksai Chin situation, where other sovereigns have a vigorous claim to the territory China currently administers, nor is it another Taiwan situation, where China lays claim to a territory outside its administration.

I wish I could remember more of my International Law class. A lot of the principles there would be really useful here - not necessarily to prove one side or another wrong, but more just to shed light on what the general international normative legal standards are for this sort of issue.

[Wezil]

Well, many colonies or border provinces have been held as part of the country's territories by a strong metropolitan centralized government, only to become acclimated through time.

Are you not simultaneously arguing China has exercised control of the region for hundred of years (off and on)?

How many centuries do the Chinese need to "acclimate" unwilling citizens?

[Wezil]

I think "assimilate" would be the more honest phrase btw.