Guy Rundle enjoyed himself in Crikey last week by berating the right for its silence over the Honduran coup, as compared to its vocal support for pro-democracy forces in Iran. I think the analogy is a bit overdrawn, but fundamentally his point is correct: freedom and democracy should be defended against all comers, not just our own ideological foes.
But now, even as the imbroglio in Honduras continues, comes another test of people’s consistency: violence erupted yesterday in Xinjiang, with three people reported killed in clashes between local Uighurs and Chinese police.
Xinjiang doesn’t get a lot of coverage here, but it’s not a difficult issue to understand. It’s a classic case of old-fashioned imperialism. Just as in neighboring Tibet, the Chinese keep control by military force over an ethnically distinct and hostile population. No-one seriously disputes that both regions would vote for independence if given the chance, and the Chinese government is correspondingly determined to ensure that doesn’t happen.
No doubt colonialism has brought economic benefits to Xinjiang — just as did, for example, British rule in India. But the desire for freedom is not appeased by affluence. (Wikipedia’s entry on Xinjiang is very useful for those wanting to bring themselves up to speed.)
As well as all the difficulties of facing a wealthy and well-armed imperial power, the Uighurs face an additional drawback: they’re Muslims. So, even though there is no evidence of them being particularly prone to fundamentalism, the media all too often abet the Chinese government’s narrative by portraying them as “Islamists” and “terrorists” — just like their counterparts in Kosovo, Chechnya, Kashmir, southern Thailand, and so on.
Back in 2005, the last time there was serious unrest in Xinjiang, China claimed the Uighurs “receive direct support from Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda group”. (Nearby Uzbekistan went one better, accusing its rebels of “a foreign-assisted coup aimed at forming an Islamic caliphate.”)
So if Honduras was a test for hypocrisy on the right, Xinjiang should spread discomfort more widely. China’s regime is more comprehensively repressive than either Iran or Honduras; if anyone is entitled to self-determination, the Uighurs should be.
But speaking out on their behalf means offending not just some Middle-eastern theocrats or Latin American generals, but one of the world’s economic powerhouses. Let’s see how many are willing to take the risk.
“But speaking out on their behalf means offending not just some Middle-eastern theocrats ” – I am afraid that I don’t understand this remark. Why would speaking out on behalf of muslims offend Middle Eastern theocrats, who are themselves muslim?
Stephen – support for pro-democracy forces in Iran merely offends some Mid-eastern theocrats; drawing attention to the Honduran coup merely irks Latin American generals; China is a different kettle.
Before Obama, I thought the same reasons applied to the silence regarding the (Bush (and therefore Howard) supported) Arroyo regime in the Philippines.
Surely the media, regardless of whether the source is “right” or “left” wing (it’s the same stupid bird to me) doesn’t cherry-pick the most convenient victims of oppression and abuse to support their agendas? Imagine that!
Thanks Charles for adding another name to the map.
Samarnews.com is a good source for the running press-release battle for the hearts and minds of Samaranons. People who (depending on which media outlet you work for) are either harassed and killed or served and protected by their country’s army.
Good point Wayne – Thanks
At least that’s how I read it … ?
“No doubt colonialism has brought economic benefits … just as did, for example, British rule in India.”
Myth.
British taxation policy ruined the autonomous economies of India’s villages and local landownership, making agricultural development dependent entirely on the whim of urban (and foreign) capital — great for tea and opium “planters”, not so good for feeding, clothing and educating India’s hundreds of millions of rural villagers (the population of India was a little under 300 million in 1700 at the dawn of the Raj, and barely over 300 million by 1900).
British opportunists took techniques and tools from India to propel the British Industrial Revolution — and the colonial administration then used unofficial violence and official tarriffs to destroy Indian industry and turn India into a source of cheap raw materials and a captive market for British value-added exports.
http://www.indianscience.org/
When food crop harvests failed in colonial India — thanks in part to the colonists’ conversion of some of its richest agricultural land and labour to non-food cash crops such as tea, jute, cotton and opium — the colonial rulers put a million unemployed labourers in debtors’ prisons on starvation rations, threw grand imperial jubilee parties, pursued costly wars in Afghanistan with Indian troops, and continued exporting rice to Europe. An estimated 19 million Indians died in the 1896-1902 famine thanks not so much to inclement weather as to deliberate colonial policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts
Busted.