Thursday, 06.19.08
China's Still-Wild West
Guang Niu/Getty Images
It isn't only Tibetans who have risen up against Chinese rule, but also Turkic Muslim Uighurs in China's far western province of Xinjiang. The Chinese have reacted by arresting Uighur activists in the Islamic center of Kashgar, and accusing Uighurs of ties to international terrorism.The Uighurs, in return, demand an independent state: East Turkestan. Even as China prepares to showcase its growing strength and dynamism at this year's Olympics, the situation in Xinjiang, as much as the one in Tibet, demonstrates how it has yet to consolidate its border areas, with profound implications for China, the United States, and the world.
Geographically, Xinjiang, which means "New Dominion," is separated from China by the Gobi Desert. Though the Chinese state has existed for more than 3,500 years, Xinjiang became part of China only in the middle of the 18th century. Even thereafter, Xinjiang traded far more with czarist and Soviet Turkestan than with the rest of China, and a state of sustained rebellion continued right up to the 1940s -- in 1935, for example, the Uighurs slaughtered most of Kashgar's Han Chinese population. When I reported in the 1990s from Xinjiang, I found the hatred between the Uighurs and Han settlers to be of a Balkan intensity.
The Uighurs look to Mecca, not Beijing, for their identity. They use the Arabic script for their Turkic language -- as the Turks did in the days of the Ottoman Empire. In addition to eight million Uighurs in Xinjiang, there are well over a million ethnic-Kazakhs, and lesser numbers of Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, and Persianized Tajiks. Indeed, Xinjiang, China's largest province, in almost every way comprises the easternmost region of Turkic Central Asia. It was fear of Turkic invaders that may have caused the Great Wall to be built in the first place.
China has reacted to this geographical fact-of-life by flooding Xinjiang with Han settlers. Since the 1950s, millions of Hans have been forcibly relocated to Xinjiang, accounting for 42 percent of the province’s population. But their presence is limited mainly to cities like Urumqi and Korla. Consequently, China has sought to build a strategic rear base against Turkic upheaval through much closer diplomatic ties with its Central Asian neighbors. To wit, in 2005, when human rights issues unhinged relations between the United States and Uzbekistan, and U.S. forces vacated the Uzbek air base of Karsi-Khanabad, the former Soviet bloc's most repressive regime moved immediately closer to China, which has shown little interest in the moral improvement of that or any other nation.
China's long-range goal is consolidation of its historically volatile western and southwestern borders through its own particular form of globalization. Roads and pipelines will connect former Soviet Central Asia with the Han Chinese heartland, bringing much needed oil and natural gas to China's energy-hungry population, even as ethnic Hans stream into Xinjiang. Borders will mean less, while living standards rise for Uighurs and Hans alike.
As China's zone of influence expands westward, a network of north-south roads through Pakistan, India, and Burma will one day connect both Xinjiang and Tibet with ports on the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal, economically liberating landlocked inner China. A new Silk Route will form, in which Lhasa will be linked with Calcutta, Kashgar with Karachi, and so on.
But China has hit a snag. The 2008 Beijing Olympics, which were supposed to have been a coming-out party for China, are turning into China's comeuppance. The early 21st century is not like the late 19th, when the United States through repression and isolation of a native American population, and the flooding of its western territories with white settlers, could demographically consolidate a continent with nary an outside protest, allowing it to focus outward and promptly become a world power. China must now contend with the world questioning its internal policies. Not only the Tibetans but the Uighurs and other groups will use the international focus of the Olympics to promote their own human rights agendas.
This is not like the Taiwan dispute, which is political, not ethnic. The inhabitants of Taiwan are fellow Hans, unlike the Uighurs or Tibetans. So the problems in China's west and southwest stir strong communal emotions among China's Han majority that do not exist in the case of Taiwan.
Thus, the United States needs to approach China's ethnic dilemmas with extreme caution. Lesser powers like Great Britain can stand on ceremony and have their leaders snub the opening of the Olympic Games in August. But the United States is the preeminent global power, even as China is the preeminent rising one. Han Chinese will remember a U.S. absence from the opening ceremonies with a lasting bitterness. The United States should use attendance at the opening ceremonies as a lever to get China to act more like a responsible stakeholder in the international system. In this way, bad treatment of the Uighurs and Tibetans can be linked to Chinese support for odious regimes in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, and Uzbekistan. The more powerful China gets, the more reasonable it should be forced to become.
Meeting the UighursSlate's Joshua Kucera documents his travels in Xinjiang, "China's Wild West." |
Tension beyond TibetGordon Fairclough reports on recent ethnic tensions between the Uighur minority and Han Chinese who have "settled" the region in a government-led effort to promote development and security. |
China's war on terror?Nicholas Kristof travels to Xinjiang to investigate reports of terror plots and finds the greatest menace to be the Chinese State Security Ministry. |
Building awarenessIn These Times interviews Rebiya Kadeer, a leading force behind Uighur human-rights activism. |
An island in AsiaA Strange Maps graphic interprets Han China as surprisingly isolated. |
(15)
Wow talk about bias. China is evil for it's Tibet and Xinjiang policies, yet the US is morally righteous for it's past genocidal and imperialist expansion. The Turks whom Mr. Kaplan described slaughtered Han Chinese migrants in the 1930's-40's and and invaded China throughout history are now the victims? Please this is typical Western Eurocentric BS.
Kaplan is inaccurate and comically biased. Most historians acknowledge that China's rulership over Xinjiang waxed and waned for over 1000 years. Kaplan has the neo-conservative agenda of setting up U.S. bases in every corner of the world, so anything he can do to create U.S. imperialism in Central Asia is worthy of his lies.
What a joke. Kaplan, stick to your limited areas of interest. One CAN be objective and decry China's policies against its own people. Being Neo-Con and anti-China will only stir Chinese unity against the United States. Stupid move, Kaplan.
Well, I don't want to waste too much time on Mr. Kaplan's conclusion (a call for use of the opening ceremonies as a "lever")... except to say, I wonder if perhaps the author believes China should also consider using invitations to the Olympics as a "lever" for influencing American and Israeli foreign policy.
I did want to clarify on one point, however.
"Though the Chinese state has existed for more than 3,500 years, Xinjiang became part of China only in the middle of the 18th century."
This sentence is inconsistent. If you agree that the Chinese state has existed for more than 3500 years, then you should recognize that much of what we today call Xinjiang was ruled by the Tang dynasty as far back as 600 AD.
For more discussions on issues from a Chinese perspective, I encourage everyone (especially Chinese) to join in the discussion here: http://blog.speak4china.com
I can see it coming . . . So, before this blog comment section is overrun by the knee-jerk reactions of "bias" that, nowadays, almost always appear in response to any article that doesn't lick the feet of China's governmental policies, I want to say: this article raises some very basic, important, points.
Not many people (Chinese, or American or others) really think too deeply about the underlying problems of the Uighurs. The region Kaplan discusses--heading southward & westward from China, to the Black Sea, Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal & the Persian Gulf, and other points, will become increasingly important, for a variety of reasons.
The author is evenhanded I think, by noting parallels between the "wild west" aspect of Xinjiang & America's 19th century "wild west" area, a period of time--as noted by the author--that was accompanied by shameful treatment of the USA's indigenous population. See "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee" (by Dee Brown).
I agree that this article is very poorly written and that some of the arguments proposed by the author are so incoherent.
There is one particular point that I would like to stress.
"To wit, in 2005, when human rights issues unhinged relations between the United States and Uzbekistan, and U.S. forces vacated the Uzbek air base of Karsi-Khanabad, the former Soviet bloc’s most repressive regime moved immediately closer to China, which has shown little interest in the moral improvement of that or any other nation."
From this sentence, we can at least draw the following conclusions.
1st the US attaches great importance to human rights;
2nd U.S. forces' decision to leave Uzbekistan is a right move based on conscience and justice;
3rd Uzbekistan used to be the most repressive country in the Soviet bloc; (even more repressive than today's USA? what a joke!)
4th. China could not have made friends with Uzbekistan, if the US had not left;
5th. China seldom values human rights and, therefore, China can only appeal to those repressive or autocratic regimes, whereas America always appears as a responsible world power
Dear Mr. Kaplan, what you have written above might be 120% correct. But please don’t forget that the CIA had funded the most ridiculous pseudo-religious leader for years, that the US now has secret prisons all over Europe, that human rights abuses take place on a daily basis in your most secretive prison in Cuba, that innocent Iraqis die every day, that you are going to build radar stations everywhere on the world, that American fleet tends to mess around in Chinese waters …… the list goes on and on.
How can we trust a country like America? How can we trust your allies (i.e. the UK and France)? How can we be convinced, when hypocritical freedom fighters like Mr. Kaplan tell us we have human rights problems?
I don't expect people to blindly agree with what Robert Kaplan says in this article, but the kneejerk opposition to what he says shown in the above comments, without even making the pretense of an argument, reveal a huge and blinding stupidity and glaring lack of familiarity with anything he has written. "Bruce" - people like you actually help your opponents.
Blather on. Pearls before swine.
Uh, Bruce, by any standard Uzbekistan is far more oppressive than the contemporary US. If you have an axe to grind with American foreign policy, do it elsewhere. This post is about Central Asia.
WestOfCA, the author is trying to mislead people by making comparison between Xinjiang and the America's West. Race/ethnicity is seen differently in China than in the US. Minorities are considered Chinese citizens regardless of their ethnicity and often have more privileges.
Here are a few of my thoughts on China. The US values human rights, but we probably value cheap stuff from China more. I love the work that writers for the Atlantic do on issues in China. I appreciated the Firewall article. I am currently inside the firewall and I clicked on the "An Island in Asia" article 100+ times just to annoy whoever looks at what I do online. Of course it said...
Safari could not open the page “http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/292-china-as-an-island/” because the server is not responding.
I suppose the MSN Hotmail servers also go down whenever there is a Chinese emergency... Hmmm unlikely.
The idea on one harmonious China is myth when you do any real investigation. CCTV sure tries to do its thing and tell us what news events are "good" and "bad". I find that strange for a "news" organization.
There should be an Atlantic story on the last 100 years of Chinese history and how the Chinese government chooses to "inform" people on key events.
Lee, I don't think that "race/ethnicity is seen differently in China than in the US." (yes, I have been to China, and not just Beijing)
One of Robert Kaplan's points of similarity between America's former wild west & Xinjiang is that--in both cases--the flooding of the two geographies of non-indigenous descent (white settlers, mainly, in the US & Han settlers, in Xinjiang) has not been contested or refuted. I think it is a well-known fact.
This last point, too, might to call into question the assertion that "race/ethnicity" is seen differently in China. If all races or ethnic groups are considered the same, why the need to import (forced importation in some cases, according to Kaplan) Chinese citizens of a different ethnicity (non-Uighur) to Xinjiang?
I won't complain if China keeps its western province from becoming like Pakistans northwestern province. The world does not need another rogue tribal terrorist region. Of course the Hans will be told forever how evil and unfair they were. Just like the gratuitous "white settlers" remark in the article. Never mind the diverse setters who flooded into California during the gold rush, or the treatment of California and other southwest indians under 25 years of Mexican rule. Why the 19th century references to a 21st century world in the first place? Looking at middle eastern laws and mores indicates that western sensibilities should not be applied to this region of the world. Western cultural values are not shared. China will be China. Isolating China won't change anything. Continuing trade, travel, and commerce will as it has thoughout history. How else will China be exposed to new ideas and learn about different ways of thinking?
It is admittedly difficult to get balanced and accurate information on history and contemporary issues in the Xinjiang region. I wrote a book that attempts to address this problem. While Mr. Kaplan is to be commended for writing on this important but neglected region, I wish he had looked at my book, for I wrote it with people like him (and the commenters here, and politicians, and travelers) in mind. The book is "Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang," Columbia University Press, 2007.
It's impressive how politically correct people run to bash Mr. Kaplan's writings without considering his arguments. It's so refreshing to read something without the restraints that has washed down current journalism and academic circles. The ability of Mr. Kaplan to draw historic lines that goes beyond the day per day reporting is intellectually stimulating. Please keep writing.
i am vietnamese american. i am proud of my heritage and i like to walk around without my shirt on. i yell often, sometimes at my family or even strangers. my temper is flared always, like my hemmroids.
This has got to be the most poorly written article I have ever seen featured in the Atlantic, online or in print. It's obvious that the author did no research whatsoever. Was there even a thesis? A theme? A single coherent idea? If so, I was unable to pick it out of this drivel. Unreal...
Posted by really? | June 19, 2008 2:36 PM