Xinjiang, home to approximately 8 million Turkic-speaking Uyghur Muslims, is a large but sparsely populated area approximately the size of Iran. After a period of independence as “Second East Turkistan Republic” during 1944-1949, the Uyghur republic’s leadership agreed to form a confederation with the People's Republic of China (PRC). Subsequently it became the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region within PRC. Its geopolitical importance derives from very rich mineral resources and strategic location: it borders the Tibet Autonomous Region and India's Leh District to the south, Qinghai and Gansu provinces of China to the southeast, Mongolia to the east, Russia to the north, and Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to the west. The Uyghur are both an ethnic and a religious minority (unlike the Hui, who also practice Islam but who are culturally and physically identical to the Han majority). The Hui comprise the vast majority of Chinese Muslims, so in a sense the Uyghur are a minority within a minority.

The region made headlines when riots broke out in Urumqi on 5 July 2009, a few days after an incident in Guangdong province in which two Uyghur men accused of raping Han women had been killed by Han people. This was followed by violent street protests by Uyghur students, which were brutally suppressed by armed forces. According to Chinese authorities, the riots were masterminded and organised by the "three forces" of terrorism, separatism and extremism at home and abroad.

This approach of laying all blame on evil forces and of treating the whole problem as a conflict between "ourselves and the enemy" (to borrow a phrase from Mao Zedong) stands in sharp contrast to the principles on which socialist China was built up brick by brick.

Deliberating on "the relationship between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities", which he regarded as one of the "The Ten Major Relationships" (also described as "contradictions") concerning socialist construction and transformation, Mao Zedong wrote in 1956: "We put the emphasis on opposing Han chauvinism. Local-nationality chauvinism must be opposed too, but generally that is not where our emphasis lies." He explained why: “All through the ages, the reactionary rulers, chiefly from the Han nationality, sowed feelings of estrangement among our various nationalities and bullied the minority peoples. Even among the working people it is not easy to eliminate the resultant influences in a short time. So we have to make extensive and sustained efforts to educate both the cadres and the masses in our proletarian nationality policy….” He returned to the theme next year: "Both Han chauvinism and local-nationality chauvinism are harmful to the unity of the nationalities; they represent one kind of contradiction among the people which should be resolved." But "The key to this question", he repeated, "lies in overcoming Han chauvinism." (On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People).

A non-antagonistic contradiction among the people that can only be resolved, as Mao repeatedly (for the first time in On the People's Democratic Dictatorship written in 1949) pointed out, by "the method of persuasion, not of compulsion" and a complex relationship intrinsic to the very process of building socialism -- this is how Mao approaches the whole question. And from here he goes on to examine the "question of disturbances created by small numbers of people". Referring to strikes by some workers and students, Mao says "the immediate cause" was "the failure to satisfy some of their demands" but "a more important cause was bureaucracy on the part of the leadership. In some cases, the responsibility for such bureaucratic mistakes fell on the higher authorities, and those at the lower levels were not to blame. Another cause of these disturbances was lack of ideological and political education …." (On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People).

The deep insight (overcome bureaucracy "in order to root out the causes of disturbances") and the self-critical attitude of owning up responsibility (disturbances "a result of our poor work") are now conspicuous by their absence. The standing committee of the CPC Politbureau did talk in Maoist terms when it instructed officials after the recent incidents to "isolate and crack down on the tiny few" and "unify and educate the majority of masses." "Instigators, organizers, culprits and violent criminals in the unrest shall be severely punished in accordance with the law", it added, while "those taking part in the riot due to provocation and deceit by separatists, should be given education."

All this is very fine. But in the absence of the spirit and method of criticism-self-criticism and revolutionary mass line, such talk tend to get reduced to empty phrases and then armed forces have to be called in to perform the tasks that should rest on party committees and local governments.

However, it is not a matter of political approach alone. No less important are questions concerning the method of economic development and proper handling of attendant social changes. Mao laid down the basic approach to these questions when he wrote:

“We need to make a thorough study of what systems of economic management and finance will suit the minority nationality areas.

“We must sincerely and actively help the minority nationalities to develop their economy and culture. In the Soviet Union the relationship between the Russian nationality and the minority nationalities is very abnormal; we should draw lessons from this. The air in the atmosphere, the forests on the earth and the riches under the soil are all important factors needed for the building of socialism, but no material factor can be exploited and utilized without the human factor. We must foster good relations between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities and strengthen the unity of all the nationalities in the common endeavour to build our great socialist motherland.” (On the Ten Major Relationships; our italics)

Here the approach is that the minority nationalities should develop "their economy and culture" the way they think best and the duty of the central government is to help the process. Rather than further developing this primary guideline that is informed by a democratic spirit of inclusiveness, the post-Mao leadership seems to have reversed it. The GDP of Xinjiang has risen from approximately 28 billion USD in 2004 to nearly 60 billion USD in 2008, but the Uyghur feel depressed because this growth has been accompanied by a huge demographic shift resulting from massive influx of Han population into Xinjiang and out-migration of poor Uyghur people to other regions. In 1949 the latter constituted 94% of the population in this autonomous province, now they comprise some 45% (60% with other non-Han ethnicities) with Han people comprising 40%.

Does this signify a calculated move by the Chinese government, as dissidents allege? Or is it a spontaneous process, a corollary of the rapid economic development and urbanization that the region has experienced in recent decades and years, with socially and educationally privileged Han people freely coming in and grabbing the lion’s share of the fruits of development? Or maybe it is a mix of both? Whichever might be true, the growth pattern certainly betrays an abject failure – more correctly, a bureaucratic unconcern – in the matter of helping the religio-ethnic minority develop their region and their culture primarily in their interest.

Here again, practice diverges sharply from pronouncements. The Chinese government promotes an official policy of “sustainable economic development and harmonious ethnic relations.” According to Chinese law the region is entitled to independence in matters of economic planning, use of local language and other rights. China’s Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law encourages the hiring of Uyghur, but in practice recent decades have witnessed systematic discrimination against Uyghur (and women) in state jobs. Resentment over economic issues has combined with anger at Beijing’s interference in religious and cultural matters.

It is this widespread disgruntlement among the deprived Uyghur that provided the fertile soil for the growth of both democratic protests by the people and disruptive activities by secessionists groups. The recent tragic events were the latest in a long chain of disturbances, the frequency and intensity of which have steadily increased over time in the post-Mao era. Examples include: student demonstrations and street fights against police action in the 1980s; the abortive uprising in Baren Township in April 1990, which resulted in more than 50 deaths; the police roundup of suspected separatists during the holy Ramadan month which led to big and violent demonstrations at Gulja in February 1997 resulting in at least 9 deaths; retaliatory explosions in Urumqi in February 1998 killing 9 and injuring 68 persons. On 5 January 2007 the Chinese Public Security Bureau raided a suspected terrorist training camp in the mountains near the Pamir Plateau in southern Xinjiang. According to Chinese State media reports, 18 "terrorists," were killed and another 17 captured in a gun battle between the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (a militant separatist group reportedly linked to al-Qaeda) and PRC forces. One police officer was killed and "over 1,500 hand grenades... were seized." On 4 August 2008, 4 days before the Beijing Olympics, 16 Chinese police officers were killed and 16 were injured by riots and an explosion during the crackdown on separatist groups.

Naturally the world's staunchest champion of "freedom" and the largest exporter of "democracy" did not waste this opportunity to fish in troubled waters. As F. William Engdahl recently reported in Global Research, the major organization internationally calling for protests in front of Chinese embassies around the world is the Washington D.C.-based World Uyghur Congress (WUC). The president of the WUC, Rebiya Kadeer, is an exiled Uyghur who describes herself as a "laundress turned millionaire," who also serves as president of the Washington D.C.-based Uyghur American Association, another Uyghur human rights organization which receives significant funding from the US Government via the National Endowment for Democracy.

According to reports published by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the World Uyghur Congress receives $215,000.00 annually from the NED for human rights research and advocacy projects. The NED, it may be noted, has been intimately involved in financial support to various organizations behind the Lhasa "Crimson Revolution" in March 2008, as well as the Saffron Revolution in Burma/Myanmar and virtually every regime change destabilization in eastern Europe over the past years from Serbia to Georgia to Ukraine to Kyrgystan to Teheran in the aftermath of the recent elections.

Of course, any external factor can operate only when internal conditions are ripe and home-grown conspirators can multiply only when there is a deep hiatus between the people and the government. So the responsibility for the riots and the crackdown rests primarily with the Chinese leadership. It is really unfortunate that on the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen massacre the CPC leadership, instead of analysing the root causes behind the various protest movements in different parts of China for democracy, autonomy and equitable growth, and instead of undertaking necessary steps to unshackle political democracy in the country, have only managed to add another tragedy, another shame to its not-so-enviable record of governance.

We denounce in no uncertain terms the Chinese government's repressive policies as well as the violent activities indulged in by anti-people forces. We do not view the Xinjiang tragedy through the lens of Western and Indian corporate media, which is bent on utilising it to denigrate socialism and the Left movement. We see these developments not in isolation but as yet another manifestation of the enormous problems of "socialism with Chinese characteristics". What we said in our Eighth Party Congress "Resolution on International Situation" gives a clue to the big picture:

“Spectacular capitalist growth along an essentially neoliberal trajectory – with Chinese characteristics, if you will – has been accompanied by growing social, regional and gender disparities, rampant corruption, cultural degeneration, environmental degradation, and other social evils…

“Rapidly growing capitalist relations in the base is naturally having its impact on the superstructure – on the politics, policies and priorities of the ruling party as well as conduct of its members…The need for a deeper ideological-political rectification and course correction is therefore being felt widely by well-wishers of the Chinese experiment across the world.” 

Box

“We do not approve of disturbances, because contradictions among the people can be resolved through the method of "unity -- criticism -- unity", while disturbances are bound to cause some losses and are not conducive to the advance of socialism. We believe that the masses of the people support socialism, conscientiously observe discipline and are reasonable, and will certainly not take part in disturbances without cause. But this does not mean that the possibility of disturbances by the masses no longer exists in our country. On this question, we should pay attention to the following. (1) In order to root out the causes of disturbances, we must resolutely overcome bureaucracy, greatly improve ideological and political education, and deal with all contradictions properly. If this is done, generally speaking there will be no disturbances. (2) When disturbances do occur as a result of poor work on our part, then we should guide those involved onto the correct path, use the disturbances as a special means for improving our work and educating the cadres and the masses, and find solutions to those problems which were previously left unsolved. … In a large country like ours, there is nothing to get alarmed about if small numbers of people create disturbances; on the contrary, such disturbances will help us get rid of bureaucracy.

“There are also a small number of individuals in our society who, flouting the public interest, wilfully break the law and commit crimes. ….Punishing them is the demand of the masses, and it would run counter to the popular will if they were not punished.”

(Mao Zedong, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People.)