Xinjiang

[BeBMan]

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.

Afaik while there is something like "peoples have the right of self-determination" the (nation) state's sovereignty goes usually first. The self-determination bit usually refers to people organised in a nation state, and there is no "normal" option to break away (to execute the said self-determination) in intl law if some just want to get their own state.

In cases were certain people are clearly oppressed within a nation state the 'intl community'/UN might be pro-secession, but this usually is not acknowledged by the 'oppressor' running the nation because they can insist on their own national sovereignty and territorial integrity coming always first and that any such conflicts are internal affairs only. Which side is the legitimate one is usually object to lots of political meddling due to various interests...

[Wezil]

I appreciate there are valid legal arguments to made and that international law is murky in this regard. It is an issue my country has faced and will likely face again in the future.

To my mind this is not a legal argument. It is a moral one.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Afaik while there is something like "peoples have the right of self-determination" the (nation) state's sovereignty goes usually first. The self-determination bit usually refers to people organised in a nation state, and there is no "normal" option to break away (to execute the said self-determination) in intl law if some just want to get their own state.

In cases were certain people are clearly oppressed within a nation state the 'intl community'/UN might be pro-secession, but this usually is not acknowledged by the 'oppressor' running the nation because they can insist on their own national sovereignty and territorial integrity coming always first and that any such conflicts are internal affairs only. Which side is the legitimate one is usually object to lots of political meddling due to various interests...

There was a case (name I don't remember nor the year, I think it was a League of Nations case so it would be roundabout 1920s or so) which largely weakened the self-determination school of thought. IIRC it based on an island off one of the Scandinavian countries that wanted to be part of another neighboring country. The people there all voted on a referendum for the change, and the target country was willing to take them in, but the governing international body considered the request and rejected it.

It was a really weird case, too, because as I recall the island spoke the language of the target country and was in most respects closer to the target country than the host country.

Edit: It's the Aaland (Ã…land) Island, an autonomous island that is administered by Finland but is culturally closer to Sweden, with whom they wanted to reassimilate. The League turned this down, relying in large part on the Finnish administration's promise that Aaland would be allowed its own culture and language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_crisis

One other issue that dealt the self-determination school of thought a serious reputational blow was its use as a justification by Adolf Hitler during his drive to reclaim irredentist territories for Germany and Anschluß with Austria. I'm personally disinclined to condemn a given line of thought merely by the accident that a given person subscribed to it (in much the same way as I don't call all vegetarians Nazis) but it is a trend of the international legal framework that self-determination in the classic sense had its peak around the 1930s and then fell out of vogue.

It's interesting, from a purely academic viewpoint, that the main example of border changes and alterations in territorial control appear to be more heavily geared towards fragmentation than assimilation. East Germany is the primary example I can think of for a reversion of a territory into another administration's control, in recent years. (Although North Korea may well provide a second example if it collapses and the South has to pick up the pieces.) Hong Kong and Macau may or may not count to this - they were territories that merely reverted from one nation's administration to another.

Much more numerous is the breakup of a larger state into several smaller ones. The USSR's disintegration is the obvious candidate here, but Indonesia's separation of East Timor is a much more recent affair - and one largely overseen by measured international supervision, rather than a sudden accidental collapse (as was the case in the Soviet Union).

[BeBMan]

To my mind this is not a legal argument. It is a moral one.

I actually agree, though the thing is that on the intl level the law can't usually be ignored, and respect for those principles in general is the basis to have meaningful intl relations at all. But it certainly leaves a bitter impression when some countries can get away with all kinds of **** simply by referring to stuff like "internal affairs" etc....

[Wezil]

I don't know if you guys are aware of our "Clarity Act". It is where Canada is going with this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act

[Alinestra Covelia]

Interesting! So Canada is implementing a clear legal procedural structure for peaceful secession? That puts it closer to European sensibilities than to American. (Not that that should surprise you )

I remember back in 1999 when they were mooting the text of the EU constitution. One of the proposals suggested by the Economist magazine (and which was actually later incorporated into the document itself) was a "withdrawal clause". That generated a fair buzz in legal minds in Britain at the time, because most such unions did not allow for a right of withdrawal or secession once formed.

In America, going back a bit, the only formal declaration of secession was the Confederacy, which history appears to have treated as a movement whose military quashing was a legitimate exercise of a sovereign nation. As to the actual issue of secession itself, the US Constitution is characteristically silent, but the Supreme Court has stated the USC doesn't allow it - although it's potentially possible that with the agreement of all the states, or a military revolution, that secession could be effected in fact.

[Wezil]

Interesting! So Canada is implementing a clear legal procedural structure for peaceful secession? That puts it closer to European sensibilities than to American. (Not that that should surprise you )

We are a civilized people.

It is why I think of this as a moral issue. I think a majority of Canadians (myself included) would agree to peaceful secession if Quebecers were to clearly demonstrate this is what they desire. It seems pointless to include people in your "tribe" if they don't want to be there. The problem we faced (and the impetus for the SCC references and subsequent Clarity Act) was the prospect of a bare majority on an unclear question. Canadians wanted to see the clear expression of Quebecers will to a clear question (both referendums here were on very vague questions).

As to the international law - It is vague because no two cases are ever identical. Is the region going independent or joining another? Can they be a viable independent unit? Is there dispute over borders? Have the people expressed an opinion through a free vote? Was/is a "free" vote even possible or allowed?

[Wezil]

Walking through the labyrinthine alleys that snake between the mud-and-straw homes and handicraft shops at the heart of this ancient city, it's easy to see that life here has hardly changed for centuries.

Five times a day, holy men climb to the top of their mosques and sing out the Muslim call to prayer the same way they did in the time of Mohammed. The homes in Kashgar's Old City are so close together that there's no need for such newfangled inventions as the loudspeaker.

For more than 1,000 years, this place has resisted the march of modernity, as have the 220,000 ethnic Uyghurs who call the Old City home. But under a Chinese government plan to redevelop the city, massive and irrevocable change is slated to come swiftly to Kashgar, China's westernmost city and the cultural capital of Xinjiang province.

Over the next few years, more than 10,000 families will be moved out of the Old City. There homes will be demolished to make room for a new development of low-rise apartment blocks and streets wide enough to accommodate cars.

In the wake of this week's deadly riots that left 184 people dead in the provincial capital of Urumqi, the future of Kashgar's Old City looms as the next potential flashpoint between the Uyghurs of Xinjiang and their Han Chinese rulers.

The government says the Old City is no longer safe to live in, citing a 6.8 magnitude earthquake in Xinjiang six years ago that killed 266 people was felt in Kashgar, even though its epicentre was 200 kilometres away. In 1902, a massive quake did hit the city, killing 667 residents.

The government says families that are moved out of the Old City will be given money to build new homes and promises the new $440-million (U.S.) development will maintain an Islamic style of architecture that hints at the history here.

But that's little consolation to those who will soon be evicted from homes that their families have lived in for generations.

Opposition to the plan among residents of Kashgar's Old City is quiet but widespread.

“Kashgar has 2,000 years of history. If these homes are removed, we lose this,” said Omar Ali, a 36-year-old pottery maker who sells his wares to the foreign and Chinese tourists who still flock to the famous Silk Road oasis. Other residents sell handmade scarves, prayer hats and copper pots, plying the same trades in the same buildings that their ancestors did.

Some locals see the government's plan as an attack on Uyghur identity. “Beijing has the Great Wall, Kashgar has the Old City. If we don't preserve the architecture, how can we understand the history of the nation?” said a young Uyghur man who works in the Old City as a tour guide. Fearing repercussions, he asked that his name not be printed.

Even without the plan to demolish the Old City, the situation is tense here following the riots in Urumqi. Thousands of soldiers have poured into the city in recent days, patrolling the streets in long convoys of green trucks draped with red banners proclaiming their mission “to maintain the stability of society and the border region.” Military helicopters kept watch from the sky.

The city's main Id Kah mosque has been closed since Sunday, when some 200 Uyghurs gathered for a brief protest that ended when police moved in and began arresting participants.

The few foreign journalists in Kashgar yesterday were taken from their hotel rooms and escorted to the airport just before noon prayers. “You must leave the city, for your own safety, for your own good,” said a man who identified himself as a local government official told The Globe and Mail, before arranging a police escort to the airport. “The situation may look calm now, but it could change at any second.”

Flights out were delayed, however, by a steady stream of incoming military aircraft unloading more soldiers who boarded buses heading into the city. Some of the troop-carrying planes came from as far away as the Pacific Ocean port of Shenzhen.

Even without the recent unrest, the government knows it has a tough sales job on its hands with the Old City redevelopment plan, especially in the charged environment following the Urumqi riots.

“Because many houses were built privately without any approval, the life of residents is not convenient and the capability against earthquakes and fire is weak,” a report in the state-run local media said recently. “Our target is every family has a house, every family has employed members and the economy will be developed.”

Today's Kashgar no longer has the Silk Road traffic of previous eras, but it very much remains a crossroads of cultures with traders and travellers arriving from nearby Pakistan and Central Asia. The city was linked by rail to the rest of China in 1999, preceding an influx of Han Chinese that has escalated tensions with the local Uyghurs.

The Han Chinese community lives outside of the Old City, in apartment blocks that stretch south of the city's main square, which is dominated by a large statue of Mao Zedong.

Local Uyghurs challenge the government's assertion that people must be moved out of the Old City because of the danger of an earthquake, arguing that because the homes there are made of mud and straw, they would be less likely than modern concrete buildings to kill inhabitants in the event of a collapse.

While simple in appearance on the outside, homes in the Old City are often quite elegant on the inside, with rooms grouped around a central courtyard. Some are quite spacious, housing three or more generations of the same family. Astonishingly, the centuries-year old site has never been added to the UNESCO world heritage list because China has never applied to have it certified.

In a 2008 book called Kashgar: Oasis City on China's Old Silk Road , architect and historian George Michell called the Old City “the best-preserved example of a traditional Islamic city to be found anywhere in Central Asia.” Nevertheless, that example has been under attack for decades.

Mr. Michell made his assessment long after Chinese authorities had torn down much of the ancient city wall, a 10-metre-high earth berm, and paved over its moat in the 1980s to create a ring highway. It later tore down homes to build Liberation Street, a wide boulevard that bisects the Old City in two.

“I can't understand why no international organization like UNESCO is doing anything to save this,” said Marica de Goti, a 23-year-old Italian tourist who visited the Old City this week with two friends.

Most residents expected they would have little choice but to leave when the government eventually came knocking.

“We are just ordinary people, and the government is the government,” said an old woman with gold teeth, knitting a traditional Uyghur cap in her living room while at the same time keeping an eye on her rambunctious infant grandson. “If they say move, we will have to move.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/china-plans-massive-change-in-uyghur-cultural-capital/article1214548/

[Kuciwalker]

tldr

[Wezil]

Good. That's what the Chinese are counting on.

Apathy.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Wezil (concerning the Kashgar article, three posts up): This reminds me that the Quebecois issue has been another keystone case for international normative law. IIRC, the significance of Quebec is that secession had been held unreasonable, based on the level of cultural allowances given to the region (not least that the whole nation is largely Anglo-French bilingual) and also that the Quebecois cannot qualify as "politically repressed" by any stretch of the definition (it's had at least one Canadian prime minister represented among its number). Given these metrics, the case I studied concluded that there was no undue hardship to the individual minority, and thus the overriding concern of national integrity was still the prevailing consideration.

I cannot recall which body handed down this opinion. It could have been a domestic Canadian court, or it's possible it made it up into the UN appellate structure. I faintly recall it was a human rights case, which may explain the rather severe level of proof of hardship they had to prove (and could not meet).

In China, clearly the political participation branch cannot be met. Given the Communist party's authoritarian nature, it's hard enough for even ethnic Han to take part in their government. Also, as you point out, the typical socialist government's march towards "progress and development" tends to hold historical sites as low in value. (During the worst of the Red Guard actions in 1966-1976, the Communist Party had to call out the army to stand guard near the Forbidden City and Lingyin Temple in Hangzhou and other UNESCO heritage sites, otherwise the ultra-radicals would have razed them.) You can see much of the same "tear down and rebuild" mentality in Beijing, where the historic city walls and hutongs are either already gone or fast disappearing.

The article you quote is further indication of this. I don't think it crosses the line into racially targeting Uighurs because they're Uighurs - but it definitely shows the CCP's insensitivity to local sentiment. It's a parallel to the dismantling of the historic Qing dynasty Manchu hutongs in Beijing and elsewhere, so in an administrative sense it's an apparently even-handed policy (even if rather heavy-handed uniformly). But looking at the actual on-the-ground effects, it's clearly not good policy and may well have uneven disparate effects. Something similar can be said about arresting the demonstrators: that can very easily be seen as an anti-Uighur measure, even if the CCP's policy is generally to make arrests at each large-scale protest of late (Han or not).

The last paragraph of the story is actually a little amusing, in a sad sort of way. The Chinese government has typically shown little regard for historical buildings, viewing them as something redundant and linked to a backwards past. But the moment that a foreign body recognizes the given site as worthwhile (as happened with several Chinese areas that were slated for redevelopment) the government reassessed it and backpedaled. This has given rise to accusations that the Chinese government either has purely mercenary grounds for deciding the fates of the sites, or they're manifesting some inferiority complex to foreign tastes, depending on who you ask.

[OzzyKP]

There was a group of Uighurs protesting outside the White House yesterday.

[Wezil]

Wezil (concerning the Kashgar article, three posts up): This reminds me that the Quebecois issue has been another keystone case for international normative law. IIRC, the significance of Quebec is that secession had been held unreasonable, based on the level of cultural allowances given to the region (not least that the whole nation is largely Anglo-French bilingual) and also that the Quebecois cannot qualify as "politically repressed" by any stretch of the definition (it's had at least one Canadian prime minister represented among its number). Given these metrics, the case I studied concluded that there was no undue hardship to the individual minority, and thus the overriding concern of national integrity was still the prevailing consideration.

Yes, the level of freedoms enjoyed by the minority is another one of those variables. I'm not sure of the specific example you are referring to but yes, that issue was important. It is why our government and courts went the way they did with the Clarity Act. As the Int Law on this is so murky it is believed a sensible and reasonable approach to the issue would be more likely to be respected by the international community than a position of intransigence.

I cannot recall which body handed down this opinion. It could have been a domestic Canadian court, or it's possible it made it up into the UN appellate structure. I faintly recall it was a human rights case, which may explain the rather severe level of proof of hardship they had to prove (and could not meet).

I think it was UN HRC but I can't be arsed looking for it. Your summary is essentially correct.

In China, clearly the political participation branch cannot be met. Given the Communist party's authoritarian nature, it's hard enough for even ethnic Han to take part in their government. Also, as you point out, the typical socialist government's march towards "progress and development" tends to hold historical sites as low in value. (During the worst of the Red Guard actions in 1966-1976, the Communist Party had to call out the army to stand guard near the Forbidden City and Lingyin Temple in Hangzhou and other UNESCO heritage sites, otherwise the ultra-radicals would have razed them.) You can see much of the same "tear down and rebuild" mentality in Beijing, where the historic city walls and hutongs are either already gone or fast disappearing.

Agreed wrt radicals however I point out ethnic Han pulling down their own history is one thing, destroying the history of others is the problem the article addresses. I have not yet been convinced the Uyghurs are Chinese.

The article you quote is further indication of this. I don't think it crosses the line into racially targeting Uighurs because they're Uighurs - but it definitely shows the CCP's insensitivity to local sentiment. It's a parallel to the dismantling of the historic Qing dynasty Manchu hutongs in Beijing and elsewhere, so in an administrative sense it's an apparently even-handed policy (even if rather heavy-handed uniformly). But looking at the actual on-the-ground effects, it's clearly not good policy and may well have uneven disparate effects. Something similar can be said about arresting the demonstrators: that can very easily be seen as an anti-Uighur measure, even if the CCP's policy is generally to make arrests at each large-scale protest of late (Han or not).

No, it isn't the same (see above).

The last paragraph of the story is actually a little amusing, in a sad sort of way. The Chinese government has typically shown little regard for historical buildings, viewing them as something redundant and linked to a backwards past. But the moment that a foreign body recognizes the given site as worthwhile (as happened with several Chinese areas that were slated for redevelopment) the government reassessed it and backpedaled. This has given rise to accusations that the Chinese government either has purely mercenary grounds for deciding the fates of the sites, or they're manifesting some inferiority complex to foreign tastes, depending on who you ask.

I think it shows how bad this government actually is.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Turkey attacks Chinese genocide

Nothing nobody hasn't already said, but it's odd that it comes from Turkey. Given their own history and the sensitive nature of the genocide of the Armenians, it's clearly very strong language. Chinese response has been muted.

[Wezil]

That is weird. I wonder what inspired it?


Another opinion piece on Kashgar.

Urumqi, the capital of China's northwest province of Xinjiang, for most people in the West could well be on the dark side of the moon.

Yet news has seeped out of that remote region of ethnic unrest and violence as a reminder that beneath the surface of the world's fastest growing economy there is much trouble.

Xinjiang is the largest of China's provinces and the traditional home of Uighurs, a people of Turkic ancestry and Muslim faith. The region was brought under Chinese rule in the mid-18th century, named as a Chinese province in the late 19th century and, after communists took power in October 1949, reorganized as the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region.

Uighurs have chafed under Chinese rule of the majority Han people.

Their ethnic affinities lie with the Turkic people of the Central Asian states bordering China. These states -- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan -- once ruled from Moscow, are now sovereign and they represent together the same longing for independence among Uighurs.

China's official figures for 2007 show Uighurs number over 10 million and comprise nearly half the population of Xinjiang. In terms of percentage, the 2007 figures indicate a sharp drop from a high in 1949 of 95% of Xinjiang's population as Uighurs.

The huge increase of non-Uighurs in Xinjiang -- rich in oil and gas reserves as in neighbouring Tibet -- is a result of Beijing's deliberate policy to secure control over these distant autonomous regions through transfer and resettlement of Han Chinese people.

Colonization

Both Uighurs and Tibetans have been made to bear the oppressive burden of Han Chinese colonization directed by Beijing. Their cultures and religious traditions have been severely constrained and under communist rule any display of cultural autonomy without Beijing's approval has been brusquely dealt with.

Kashgar in Western Xinjiang is the ancient seat of Uighurs of Western Turkestan. Several years ago travelling with a couple of friends over many weeks on the ancient Silk Road through Xinjiang into the Central Asian republics, I spent some time in Kashgar.

In Kashgar's main market and around the central mosque -- the original built in the 10th century and standing -- I witnessed the ethnic tension goaded by the unmistakable signs of Han overlordship.

Kashgar is now threatened by Beijing's plan to tear down and rebuild the ancient city. This is Beijing's way of demonstrating authority and control over the lives of Uighurs, even as their language is restricted and religious tradition mocked under communist dispensation.

To escape communist tyranny the Uighur diaspora has grown in size and now numbers over a fifth of the 10 million in Xinjiang. But neighbouring states are under immense pressure from China not to lend support to Uighur aspirations.

The recent violence in Urumqi suggests, irrespective of the immediate cause, that historic grievances of Uighurs against Beijing's tyranny will keep ethnic tensions going without any satisfactory resolution.

Communist rulers of China displayed their ruthlessness 20 years ago in crushing the aspirations of young Chinese students for democracy gathered in Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

They will do the same repeatedly in Xinjiang, in Tibet, and anywhere else in China where the desire for decency and hopes for freedom threaten their rule. They also know the rest of the world will appease them.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/salim_mansur/2009/07/11/10098201-sun.html