China’s vast Western province of Xinjiang is in the news today:
Two men armed with knives and explosives ambushed a military police unit in China’s majority Muslim northwest Monday morning, killing 16 officers and wounding 16 others before being arrested, according to the state media.
Besides finally giving Beijing some solid evidence to back claims that the 2008 Olympics are under unprecedented threat of terrorist attack (used as a justification for the government to beef up security and crack down on dissidents), the attack raises a revelatory question: Why are the Uyghurs so often ignored by Western media?
Take for example, this quote from the article:
Dilxat Raxit, a spokesman for the World Uyghur Congress, an exile group based in Germany, said China’s Han majority had been systematically repressing the culture and religion of Xinjiang residents, and that such policies were radicalizing a growing number of people.
Doesn’t this sound exactly like the Dalai Lama’s accusations of China commiting “cultural genocide” in the province? When considered on a general level, there seems to be very little separating the Uyghur independence movement from the Tibetan one–both are racially and culturally distinct groups seeking to obtain autonomous, theocratic governance of mineral-rich Chinese provinces. Why, then, is there so much grassroots support for Tibetan independence in the West and so little interest (or knowledge) or for the Uyghur cause?
It certainly isn’t due to size. There are, after all, about 2-4 times as many ethnic Uyghurs as Tibetans in the world. It also isn’t due to a significant difference of tactics: the Uyghurs, for the most part, having been peaceably seeking independence and the Tibetans, the recent riots in Lhasa showed, are just as capable of violence as anybody else.
Western biases play a large role here. Uyghurs, as Muslims, are more directly perceived as rivals to the still-very-Christian West, which has long eyed China as a place for evangelical expansion. Further, the 9-11 terrorist attacks have galvanized the Western world against most Muslim groups, and made Chinese claims that the Uyghurs are terrorists easily digestible. Last, the Uyghurs lack a charismatic spokesperson like the Dalai Lama, who can smile for the all-important photo-ops.
But most important is that the West has long, as Chinese bureaucrats so often whine, held unusual favoritism towards Tibet–the sources of which Westerners are rarely upfront about. All of the most significant reasons for supporting Tibetan independence, after all–human rights, an end to “cultural genocide”, ethnic self-determination–are cross-applicable to the Uyghurs. Regardless, a world-wide college network of chapters of “Free East Turkestan” isn’t forthcoming.
If the Western world really wants to make a difference in Tibetan and get China to pay attention to human rights grievances then the best place to start would be with some self-introspection, not attempts to embarrass Chinese leaders. Some organizations are honest about their interest in Tibet (like Amnesty International, which also covers human rights abuses with Uyghurs) but too many others are not.
Until Westerners can be forthcoming about why they really care so much for Tibet, then, it seems unlikely that outside human rights pressure will be perceived as anything other than bias in China. This means that what has long been the case will continue to be so: non-Chinese support for Tibet will work against the human rights cause, as much as help it.
Not cool enough to merit attention, apparently.
11 users commented in " Xinjiang’s Uyghurs – the unsexy Tibetans "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackFor some people in the West, especially naive young people looking for a social identity, Buddhism has become a “cool thing”, like a fad or the next craze.
“I have a MySpace page” “I hang out at Starbucks” “I go backpacking in Thailand” “I worry about the polar bears” “I’m a Buddhist”
So when they see what they perceive as religious oppression, they are simply speaking up against oppression of something they find cool. And the photogenic Dalai Lama is adored by these lot who have a poster of him on their wall. It’s a “you attack my idol, I attack you” mentality.
Islam isn’t seen as being cool, so they don’t care.
Never mind what they are actually condoning is the establishment of a religious autocracy headed by an unelected ruler with the likes of slavery and forced marriages. If only they actually read a few things about it, rather than what they heard a friend of a friend say while they were high on dope and drinking cucumber tea.
Very true, Dave–Tibet and Tantric Buddhism do provide an easy out-of-the-box identity for young Americans, few of whom ever develop a sophisticated knowledge of the region’s history.
What particular aspects of the “free Tibet” identity so appeal to today’s youths, though? Is it the desire to rebel against perceived oppression/injustice? The mysticism that hangs around the religion? The aesthetics of the Tibetan culture itself? Or something more sinister that people won’t acknowledge, like a desire to submit to a popular authority for guidance?
Honestly, in the my less level-headed teenage years I was drawn to the idea of the free Tibet movement briefly, until I actually met some of the organizers, who just struck me as extremists. The attraction to the idea of putting a Tibetan flag bumper sticker on my car has never returned, but a curiosity of why it seemed so intriguing in the first place remains. I’ve never been able to pin down exactly why I was drawn to it suddenly.
Any other ideas? Maybe from somebody who has been/is a member of the Tibetan independence movement?
I wonder whether the popularity of movements such as Free Tibet and anti-Burmese junta campaigns have its foundation elsewhere.
As well as being cool as described above, these campaigns are accepted and often promoted by Western establishment. How much strife is there in the western home over Free Tibet as there might be over Central America or Africa. Governments of these countries have traditionally been in the pockets of Neo-colonials – transnational companies and western governments, and pointing this out brings one into conflict with parents and establishment to a certain extent. It is much easier to have a go at the Chinese and Burmese, no conflict there.
Whilst I sympathise with the plights of the oppressed in these countries, so many of the world’s problems have been caused by the expansionism of western interests – government and business. Surely western people should work on solving these problems however hard they may be.
Free Tibet may be cool but it is also easy, and serves those very damaging western interests as well.
“Grassroots support” is never going to be a sensible thing, except in cases where the supporters are supporting something that is obviously in their own self-interest (and then only to the extent that it is sensible to make pursuit of self-interest your goal), because people have a strong tendency to have dumb ideas about stuff.. The question, “Why are foreign activists so much more interested in sexy Tibet than in unsexy Xinjiang?” answers itself. The question of whether they ought to like one or the other more doesn’t lead anywhere. Is there some reason that their fickle favours should be doled out in some particular pattern?
That said, I will defend the position that being more interested in Tibet than in Xinjiang is reasonable. First, Tibet is more culturally unique than Xinjiang. There are a lot of Turkish regions in the world, including several sovereign states. There are an even larger number of predominantly Muslim regions and states. Xinjiang has no special significance to Islam. On the other hand, the Tibetan parts of China constitute 95% of the world’s Tibet regions and the area around Lhasa and Shigatse are the Tibetan heartland. There are Tibetan Buddhist regions outside of Tibet (Mongolia, Bhutan, Kalmykia in Russia, and scattered other Himalayan enclaves — that’s an almost comprehensive list), but Tibet itself is clearly the center of that religion. None of this means that there is anything bad about Xinjiang — that Xinjiang is undeserving — but it means that saving Tibet is more urgent and naturally more interesting.
Secondly (this is a point that I don’t recall being raised before), there are a lot more Chinese people living in Xinjiang already than in Tibet (I’m talking about the TAR now, although the same is true of some other Tibetan regions inside China). That means that Chinese control of Xinjiang is sort of a fait accompli, and fighting over it has an element of spilled-milk-crying. There are two solutions to this problem: the first would be to ethnically cleanse large numbers of Chinese people from Xinjiang. I am obviously not in favour of that. The second would be redraw the borders of Xinjiang to separate most of the Chinese-oriented cities from the predominantly Uighur hinterland. That sounds like a fine idea to me, but it makes the whole situation more complicated and a lot harder to reach an agreement on.
Third, the Uighur separatist movement is linked to international Islamic religious resistance movements, and an independent or autonomous East Turkestan might have a radical Islamic influence, perhaps even a controlling one. An independent or autonomous Tibet might have a similar Tibetan Buddhist influence (although it is worth pointing out that no Tibetan leader says that the goal is theocracy; they avow a taste for democracy. I would assume the same is true for most of the Uighur leaders). However, many people feel that radical Islam is a dangerous trend which threatens world security. A Tibetan Buddhist theocracy might be harmful to its own citizens, but I don’t think anyone has suggested that it is an international threat. The most prestigious Tibetan Buddhist leader is a man who talks about peace constantly.
Fourth, I take a personal interest in Tibet because I like Tibet. I have no particular feelings one way or the other about the Uighurs. Now, it seems to me that part of the reason that I like Tibet is that I have the sense that Tibetans tend to be favourably inclined toward Americans, which is to say that they are likely to be friendly to me. Is there something to be ashamed of in being more concerned with the travails of one’s friends than with those of strangers, or in being partial to those who are expected to be friendly above those who are neutral?
This is not to say that I like one or the other because I want them to harm to someone else — I think that would be dishonorable. Besides, if I regarded China as an enemy and wanted a tool to use against them, I would bet on the Uighurs as more likely than Tibetans to be consistently hostile to China.
You cross-posted your comments to http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-2431-1-1.html
Here is part of my reply, which I also posted there:
You are right that Westerners may not realize they have an irrational emotional attachment to Tibetan independence. But at least they are attached to a harmless, even beneficial, idea, of giving more freedom and rights to someone (Tibetans in this case).
Many Chinese people seem to have a much more worrying emotional attachment: to the power-hungry and repressive policies of the Chinese Communist party, which rationalizes the _denial_ of freedom and rights. They are not any more receptive to Amnesty International (which as you say shows an even handed approach) than to anyone else. It seems to me that that their emotional identification with their government is the major barrier to mutual understanding and to progress on human rights in China.
Alberto,
Interesting comment, but I would contest some points.
First, the idea that the post tries to approach is whether liking Tibetan independence for one reason (a simple feeling of connection to the culture, say) can’t be damaging when it’s masked behind the idea of caring about human rights. Not to say that people that feel a connection to Tibetan culture don’t also care about human rights, I’m sure they do, but just that it isn’t their primary interest, and might not be much of an interest at all if they didn’t already feel a connection to the culture. The question the post wants to raise then, is this: Is this trend damaging to the cause of human rights in general, and in China in particular? There are good points, raised above, that suggest it might be.
Second, I would question whether Chinese people really have an “emotional attachment” to the Chinese Communist Party. You seem to be confusing a deep-seated sense of cultural pride and cohesion (in the Han culture) with love of the Communist Party. This is common among Westerners I’ve met, but problematic. From personal, albeit anecdotal, experience, the majority of people I’ve talked to in China are at best apathetic to the Communist Party’s rule, if not privately very critical of it. Very few Chinese in the mainland, however, seem anything but proud and deeply culturally entrenched in Han thought and history, which the Communist Party often exploits (as it has with the Olympics) to boost its image and power.
Coming back to the original point, the question that remains is whether or not the use of human rights as a front issue by Tibetan independence advocates hasn’t helped the Tibetan cause’s profile, but at the expense of undermining the potency of the human rights dialogue in China. The Chinese people, I hope I don’t need to remind anybody, aren’t stupid. They, perhaps even more clearly than Westerners (because it puts their cultural dominance of the region at stake) can see that the intense focus on human rights in Tibet in the West is driven by more than an interest in human rights, even if they aren’t sure what that “more” is. The result, then, is that the term “human rights”–which is extremely new to the Chinese vocabulary–quickly becomes associated with “political manipulation”. This certainly undermines the human rights cause in China. Of course, the Chinese government further exploits this association for their own purposes, but they can only do so because others leave the door open for them to do so.
Cross-posted from http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-2431-1-1.html
[quote]
You seem to be confusing a deep-seated sense of cultural pride and cohesion (in theHan culture) with love of the Communist Party…
[/quote]
I didn’t mean (or say) that they are attached to the party. I said that many Chinese people have an emotional attachment to the CCP’s policies on Tibet. As you say, this arises from a deep cultural pride and cohesion. Those things can be positive, but what sometimes gets expressed on these forums and elsewhere is something quite disturbing: a refusal to look critically at what the CCP says and does about Tibet, along with angry assertions that what the Han do is always right and for the benefit of minorities.
Take a look at the responses on this forum thread: http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-7-1-1.html
Here’s a typical example:
[quote]
BadASS: Actually, i don’t care what those stupid westerners say, coz I know their ingrained bias cannot be removed even if they know the truth in Tibet, in their eyes, everything helping to ruin China, Chinese’s reputation should be warmly welcome,and yes, that’s just they always do. So some of you enchanted Chinese people, wake up, don’t care what those westerners say.
After all, they hate communism, afraid of a powerful and prosperous China. Although we have made so many achievements in almost every respects in constructing our nation, we still get reproof, abuse, disparaged in those so called “DEMOCRATICc” nations
[/quote]
You see this person is unable to engage with the idea that Tibetans might want different things from what the Han have decided to let them have. He immediately jumps to an angry nationalism that thinks that any criticism of Chinese govt policy is some sort of attack on his beloved motherland.
So for me the question is: how can we have a debate involving critical analysis of Chinese govt policies, if you get a reaction like this when you make any critical comments on the policies?
[quote]
The Chinese people… can see that the intense focus on human rights in Tibet in the West is driven by more than an interest in human rights, even if they aren’t sure whatthat “more” is. The result, then, is that the term “human rights” – whichis extremely new to the Chinese vocabulary–quickly becomes associated with political manipulation. This certainly undermines the human rights cause in China. Of course, the Chinese government further exploits this association for their own purposes, but they can only do so because others leave the door open for them to do so.
[/quote]
You and I agree that something is blocking the debate: emotions are clouding reason. We both want to break through that blockade. But what you are saying doesn’t seem very plausible. If Tibet supporters confessed that they are in love with Buddhism and a romantic idea of Tibet, would people like “BadASS” suddenly open up and be willing to admit that Tibet has a more complex history that “always part of China”, or that Tibetans deserve greater freedom of expression? I find that hard to believe.
I have also noticed that Chinese nationalists are not any more receptive to Amnesty International (which criticises U.S. and European countries when they violate human rights) than to anyone else.
I wish I knew the answer to this problem.
Oops, the link to the forum thread with “BadASS” et al should have been
http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-37-1-1.html
THere are 4-6 millions Tibetans on this planet. Tibetans wanted their situation heard whether through western media, human rights lover or Buddhist related issues. As a Tibetan, I do not hate Chinese, I simply do not agree their assertion that Tibet has been always been their territory, so what, we don’t want China now in Tibet. The Chinese coming to Tibet 1951 may have done well for Tibetans, breaking a system that was repressive/feudalistic but we Tibetans don’t want Chinese now in Tibet. The Chinese on webs always tells that westerners do not know about Tibet, but I have not seen any Chinese who knows about Tibet either. When I leave from my home in Ngawa for Chengdu, do they know that I tell my neighbors that I am leaving for Gyanak, which in my language means China. Good people of China, please listen to Tibetan voices inside Tibet, Sichuan Yunanm, no western media, human righters or overseas Tibetans
Editor’s note: This comment was submitted from an IP address located in San Jose, CA.
China fails to remember they do not have the ability or the power to pick the next Dali Lama. If China doesn’t believe in religion then they do not have the insight to locate the next Dali Lama, nor can they kill off that which is destined to reincarnate.
Perhaps the fact that Native Americans know who they are heart and soul is the very key to the location of the next Dali Lama.
Native Americans are basicly a nomadic people, and nomads do have the ability to move freely among spirit. I think Tibet is linked to a power higher then that of China.
Off the top of my head, I’d say: because the Uighurs do not have an internationally known, charismatic, articulate spiritual leader like the Dalai Lama (not that I know of anyway), and 2- because the Uighurs are not ambassadors of a religion advocating universal compassion, and 3-because we’ve only just heard of the Uighurs. Every American I know who IS aware of the Uighurs is extremely interested in their situation.
Leave A Reply