Note: This post is purposely skewed toward providing the "other" side of
the issue to provoke thought. There are more than enough articles out
on the Internet on what China is doing to the Uighurs to provide the
"orthodox" view on this matter.
When I think about the Uighur issue in China, I like to think about it from two perspectives: humanitarian and political.
Humanitarian-wise, it has to do with the Chinese government suppressing Uighur culture. Having visited Xinjiang in the mid-1990s, I did not observe such suppression first-hand. It could be that I was too young to notice such suppression, but I was introduced to Uighur culture and way of life without noticing any effort to deny their practices or erase their heritage. In fact, it was being promoted because it brought in tourism money.
Politically, there has been an independence movement in the Xinjiang region for centuries. But external support for this independence movement came from the Soviet Union at a time when the Soviet Union was not on good terms with China. I don't think the Soviet Union were humanitarian in their purpose; it was probably more for political revenge against China for not following Soviet leadership in communism/socialism.
Support for this independence movement has since been taken up by the U.S., with greater intensity as China rose to become the world's second largest economy. While the purpose stated by the U.S. is humanitarian, I suspect it is again political.
For a country to become a superpower, there is a need for economic power that is based on geographic depth. While the bulk of China's population (and thus, economic consumers) live in the eastern part of China, the western part, including Xinjiang, forms a bulk of China's geographic depth. An independent Xinjiang and Tibet would take away that depth. A country without such geographic depth can still be an economic power. We see Japan as an example, and the European Union as another. But such a country would not be a superpower: it will lack the geographic depth necessary to become a power with a size that can challenge the U.S.
Another hint at why this may be the case. Given that the Uighur independence is not new, the independence of Xinjiang (and Tibet) would have been major issues raised by Kissinger back in the 1970s if the U.S. really cared for the self-determination of these people. But no, the U.S. was more concerned about geopolitics, about getting China as a partner to balance against the Soviet Union. It is only after China's economic rise that we see stronger U.S. support for the Uighur and Tibetans. I think it is quite obvious that the humanitarian cause is being hijacked for political purposes.
If we dig deeper into the humanitarian issue: could it be that China is taking a stronger stance against separatist Uighurs because they have become more vocal due to external support for their movement? This would form a vicious cycle, since stronger suppression of the Uighurs will only result in stronger external support, leading the separatist Uighurs to be more bold, which will in turn lead to even stronger suppression. In other words: was the humanitarian crisis faced by the Uighurs caused by external support for their independence? Is the humanitarian crisis being created by external powers who want to use humanitarian reasons for intervention in China's internal politics? (For example, we see Russian suppression of Chechnya, but we do not see strong U.S. action against Russia.)
In conclusion, before we go about blindly following the cries of the U.S. and others in calling for humanitarian treatment of the Uighurs, we should better understand the background to the issue, which stretches back centuries. A state's power comes from its people, and a person's power comes from knowledge. Let us strive to be better informed so that we do not let our power be blindly harnessed by our leaders.
When I think about the Uighur issue in China, I like to think about it from two perspectives: humanitarian and political.
Humanitarian-wise, it has to do with the Chinese government suppressing Uighur culture. Having visited Xinjiang in the mid-1990s, I did not observe such suppression first-hand. It could be that I was too young to notice such suppression, but I was introduced to Uighur culture and way of life without noticing any effort to deny their practices or erase their heritage. In fact, it was being promoted because it brought in tourism money.
Politically, there has been an independence movement in the Xinjiang region for centuries. But external support for this independence movement came from the Soviet Union at a time when the Soviet Union was not on good terms with China. I don't think the Soviet Union were humanitarian in their purpose; it was probably more for political revenge against China for not following Soviet leadership in communism/socialism.
Support for this independence movement has since been taken up by the U.S., with greater intensity as China rose to become the world's second largest economy. While the purpose stated by the U.S. is humanitarian, I suspect it is again political.
For a country to become a superpower, there is a need for economic power that is based on geographic depth. While the bulk of China's population (and thus, economic consumers) live in the eastern part of China, the western part, including Xinjiang, forms a bulk of China's geographic depth. An independent Xinjiang and Tibet would take away that depth. A country without such geographic depth can still be an economic power. We see Japan as an example, and the European Union as another. But such a country would not be a superpower: it will lack the geographic depth necessary to become a power with a size that can challenge the U.S.
Another hint at why this may be the case. Given that the Uighur independence is not new, the independence of Xinjiang (and Tibet) would have been major issues raised by Kissinger back in the 1970s if the U.S. really cared for the self-determination of these people. But no, the U.S. was more concerned about geopolitics, about getting China as a partner to balance against the Soviet Union. It is only after China's economic rise that we see stronger U.S. support for the Uighur and Tibetans. I think it is quite obvious that the humanitarian cause is being hijacked for political purposes.
If we dig deeper into the humanitarian issue: could it be that China is taking a stronger stance against separatist Uighurs because they have become more vocal due to external support for their movement? This would form a vicious cycle, since stronger suppression of the Uighurs will only result in stronger external support, leading the separatist Uighurs to be more bold, which will in turn lead to even stronger suppression. In other words: was the humanitarian crisis faced by the Uighurs caused by external support for their independence? Is the humanitarian crisis being created by external powers who want to use humanitarian reasons for intervention in China's internal politics? (For example, we see Russian suppression of Chechnya, but we do not see strong U.S. action against Russia.)
In conclusion, before we go about blindly following the cries of the U.S. and others in calling for humanitarian treatment of the Uighurs, we should better understand the background to the issue, which stretches back centuries. A state's power comes from its people, and a person's power comes from knowledge. Let us strive to be better informed so that we do not let our power be blindly harnessed by our leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment