For Australia, the big news from the United Nations General Assembly last week was not that Donald Trump, the leader of our main strategic ally, was laughed at by his peers but that China continues its mission to divide and conquer Australia by buying its silence.
Despite being the umpteenth government in a row that has failed to map out a credible whole-of-government China policy, the Turnbull government was at least brave enough to speak truth to the regional power — sometimes.
Yes, Australia — via the now-departed Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop, in one of the very scattered highlights of her five-year tenure as foreign minister — was prepared to stand up to China on its encroachment on the East and South China Seas, as well its pernicious rising “sharp power” influence in politics, universities and more.
Yet Australia — as well as the rest of the world — continues to look away from an active campaign of large-scale repression in China’s north-west Xinjiang province, home to at least 10 million Muslim Uyghur people.
Resource-rich and strategically important, Xinjiang borders eight other mainly Muslim countries including Afghanistan and Pakistan, the war-torn Jammu and Kashmir state of India — a country with which China has two longstanding territorial disputes — as well as three Muslim central Asian nations and Russia. The city closest to the border is the Uyghur’s spiritual home, Kashgar, an ancient Silk Road trading hub whose old city was razed on instructions by Beijing.
Xinjiang is critical to China’s ambitious, multi-pronged belt and road initiative (BRI) that aims to build an array of land and sea links. The apogee, so far at least, of the BRI is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor; Xinjiang is the only Chinese province that shares a border with Pakistan.
So far, China has pledged US$57 billion to build power stations, highways, railways and ports in Pakistan, giving it long-desired access to President Xi Jinping’s BRI plan to further tie China to Eurasia.
Since 2009, China’s totalitarian Communist Party has unleashed an ongoing campaign it styles “strike hard”, instituted after ethnic violence resulted in the deaths of almost 200 people. Hundreds more have been injured.
One the features of the Communist Party’s Orwellian doublespeak is that when a region like the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (to give the province its full name) is called “autonomous”, in truth it is quite the opposite.
Since then, there has been a program of systematic cultural destruction that has seen many Muslim dress practices and the growing of beards banned, thousands of mainly working-age men have been disappeared or thrown in jail, sentenced during stadium trials, vivid throwbacks to Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution.
That campaign has further escalated in the past couple of years under the iron fist of Xinjiang Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, who was shifted in 2016 from Tibet.
He has deployed more cadres and security forces across the province’s Uyghur-heavy south, and — according to a growing range of human rights organisations, most recently Amnesty International, and the United Nations — put up to 1 million people into reduction camps, sending children to orphanages and tearing families apart.
Beijing has the world cowed on its human rights record generally. Pretty much every country in the world wants China’s import orders or investment dollars. So they stay mute, Australia included.
China made a point of freezing out Norway, which handed the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo who would later die in prison.
An illustration of how much silence there has been from the international community on Xinjiang in particular, look no further that the incredibly muted response from Muslim nations.
A rare exception was a recent berating from Malaysian prime minister-in-waiting Anwar Ibrahim, who said: “This has gone out into the mainstream media as an issue, and I believe we should use a proper forum to start highlighting these issues and seek this understanding from the Chinese authorities.”
Australia, and indeed most other countries, will not even go that far.
For almost 30 years there has been the unspoken “three Ts” that governments who want to deal with China can’t touch: Taiwan, Tibet and Tiananmen. Unfortunately for China’s 10 million Uyghurs, Xinjiang has now joined that list.
Good article. Mahathir and Ibrahim are setting a fine example of how to call out and respond
to Beijing’s Neo-colonialism. We can only hope that our shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Penny Wong, who was born in Malaysia, takes note and follows their lead when Labor takes
government since we can’t expect anything remotely appropriate from the current mob.
One of my son’s was lucky enough to visit the Xingiang area with a friend of his who had a Uyghur girlfriend at the time. They found the Uyghur people to be incredibly welcoming. Obviously, this was before the 2009 Urumqi riots. They visited Kashgar prior to the 2008 Sichian earthquake and before Kashgar was made into a special economic zone by the Chinese.
I am disgusted by so many things the LNP does, and their failure to even mention the plight of the Uyghur’s in passing, is just one more nail in their coffin from my perspective.
Australian government, of either party, won’t stand up to China because they don’t want the financial backlash of doing so. Unfortunately the west covets money first and human rights second when it comes to China. China knows this and even if there was a financial penalty for them, they would happily let their own people suffer so as they can save face. With the current Mao v2.0 it is only getting worse inside China. Now that the 10 year limit had been removed, once Xi Da Da hits his senile years it will probably get really messy. XinJiang is a stepping stone, it’s pretty well known that Xi JinPing wants Taiwan added to his resume.
You don’t seem particularly well qualified to write on this matter Michael. With any luck the following pointers might edify you somewhat.
“the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (to give the province its full name) is called “autonomous”, in truth it is quite the opposite.”
Have you the least clue as to just how governance in China is conducted? There are numerous autonomous regions but the majority of regions and not autonomous. An autonomous region is a privileged region. The region in question must apply what has been directed by Beijing but the
region has discretion as to how the objectives (that have been directed) are achieved.
Please don’t supplant your child-like notions of democracy onto a region that you, clearly, know nothing about. Its a bit like advocating democracy to the majority of the Middle East – or, for that matter, North Africa – or African countries in general. So much for former Colonial influence having gone downhill but I digress.
The Uyghurs are NOT part of the thee T’s. Having made that point religion, per se, is not a big deal in China and religious tolerance very much less so when god is placed above the State. It is at this juncture that heads get broken. I’m not taking a side; merely pointing it out. In the PRC, as in Congress (or Parliament) one gets along by going along. As an aside Xi is very popular among young and old.
As for travel it couldn’t be easier. The rapid trains are amazing and 1st compares to 1st in an A380. Internal air travel is fairly cheap too. Take a look at the place, Michael, for a month or so, and THEN
jot something for the readership.
You seem to enjoy comparisons so do take a look at the development of Singapore through the 60s and 70s. Economic success occurred there at the expense of what you would call human rights. A fair few went to the rope for the good of the country. Even in the 90s the country was knocking over 30ish per year, for criminal activity only (by then), although, of course, instances of capital punishment varied for any given year. Now the prevalence of capital punishment (all for criminal activity) is in single digits.
Kyle, I usually enjoy your responses but I find this one a little puzzling
because it doesn’t seem to relate to the article . Are you perhaps
referring to previous articles by the author on this topic?
Oldie, I think there has been one instances where I misplaced a post for a given topic and, yes, there could have been a second blunder but such is not the case.
For some years I have been living in China. The drivel that is written about the place from the WSJ down is astonishing. Even if I disagreed with the points I could cope it the article is representative.
I’m not one for speculation but it is fairly clear that the policy of divide and rule the Rebels in Syria worked a charm. There well may be deliberate interference and agitation by external parties in Xinjiang – I really would not know. What I do know is that evaluating China appealing “western ideals or criteria” is of no value at all.
The place has got to where it is in 40 years and it aint going to change. My analogy with Singapore is pertinent.
Sainsbury’s article is an embarrassment and its not the first time that he has got the wrong end of the stick. What Sainsbury could have written by way of a theme is that China has more irons in the fire than a 100 employee blacksmiths shop. Take a peek at a map for the Silk and Belt Road – that Sainsbury alluded to. When that is up and running who is going to need (or desire) the USA inspired WTO? A mob of minorities are not going to interfere with one (of any number of) project(s).
Having made that point China has heaps of minorities but only the Uyghurs nominate themselves for a session of batton. Then look about the world. Is it
so pretty elsewhere. Another 1,000 words here, on this matter, at least.
The article by Sainsbury is representative of that written by another bleeding heart on the topic of Yemen perhaps a fortnight or so ago which also added nothing. I think it was AR that pointed out that I should have realised that its about the hand-wringing and the emotive crap that goes with it and not about the history or the context. We have the same problem here.
As an aside I signed up to be informed and not to read journalistic vomit that is scrawled on yahoo news and similar. If Sainsbury is to write on a topic he, or anyone else, needs to spend some time on it (and keep a rein on his western idiosyncrasies)
You’re on a roll Kyle and I have found your responses to be spot on about my knowledge of what’s going on in China.
Not one quote from a European philosopher in sight. Phew, what a relief.
Getting serious again, I can’t claim to have ever lived, or even visited China, but I do have a number of both Mainland, Malaysian, Hong Kong and Singapore Chinese friends who have interesting and varied takes about what is currently occurring in China.
“I should have realised it’s all about the hand-wringing and emotive crap that goes with it and not about the history or context”.
Its a case of “wing-flapping” in my case. I do enjoy giving my feathers a good daily rouse.
There are real issues over HK and Taiwan and it is anything but straight forward. A fair appreciation of Confucianism is required (personal & family obligations etc.) just to begin a discussion and that is something that I possesses only at the margin.
A lot of intermarriage has occurred at all sections of society (i.e. rich, middle and poor) across all three regions. To some extent Malaysia is a special case but there are a lot of native-born Malaysians (many female) working in responsible jobs in the PRC – having grown up in Mandarin-speaking/writing households.
Such a topic could occupy and entire Sunday session in Oz.
It’ll take a lot more than one session Kyle. We should be having these sessions every day since we’re all going to be affected by the current and future re configuring of the world order. We’ve wasted far too much time clinging to the obsolete British empire mentality of Howard and Abbot. It’s all the more complicated in that it involves all our East Asian and South East Asian neighbors, not to mention India. We’ve got to come to terms with our white Australia policy heritage to properly engage in the discussion which further complicates matters. We have to acknowledge our racist heritage while not letting it paralyze us when we need to defend our values. We need not avoid expressing our concerns for fear of being called racist just as we shouldn’t avoid criticizing, for example Israel, if necessary, for fear of being called anti-Semitic.
We’ve wasted far too much time clinging to the obsolete British empire mentality of Howard and Abbot
Nothing is perfect Oldie and very little is altogether bad. Howard and Abbott were not the first (or the last) to champion what might be referred to as Anglo-celtic values. Bismark introduced pensions in the 1870s and Germany was a nice spot (a tourist attraction for the Royals and others) at the turn of the 20th century; a zenith of civilisation that imploded upon itself within 30 odd years. The same could happen anywhere!
“It’s all the more complicated in that it involves all our East Asian and South East Asian neighbors, not to mention India.”
An amalgam of culture (to say nothing of religions) here that I would not attempt to summarise in a fit of idiocy. Indeed, they are our neighbours and we ought to be constructive in our relations with them which includes long term planning in the context of the Asia Development Bank and a good deal more besides.
“We have to acknowledge our racist heritage while not letting it paralyze us when we need to defend our values.”
Let’s not use too broad a brush to paint the picture Oldie. Such are faults of Messrs Keane and Rundel. We live in the here and now. I recognise no argument that I am responsible for any deed of any great relative any more than my late great relatives are responsible for me missing the train. To inflict modern mores and ethos on events of history is just plain idiotic and serves no purpose. Any third book by Nietzsche will reconcile the doubts of the unconvinced.
I’m not exactly sure as to what you intend by the reference to the White Oz policy. It is certainly part of the history defended by Labor and the Libs alike until,roughly, Whitlam and the social effects of Vietnam.
The Brits integrated the colonials. Gandhi (among many others) attended Cambridge
and as a student he was just considered an Indian student. The other European colonists had de facto apartheid structures for their colonies.
“We need not avoid expressing our concerns for fear of being called racist just as we shouldn’t avoid criticizing, for example Israel, if necessary, for fear of being called anti-Semitic”
I think I know what you mean. However significant political problems exist. Around the world politics is becoming very much less a Left or Right matter but is being polarised into a neo-lib or populist dichotomy. If we accept this trend then the trend has major implications for future policy.
I received texts from friends at French universities associating Macron with types of pastry or candy-floss type icing on cakes (all a pun on his name) during his campaign. YET he presented a very high-class populist campaign and won! To a fair extent the same could be said of Trump. Hillary and Obama were only too clearly neo-lib pro Wall St. pro free everything but fee speech only up to a point.
As for the neo-libs in Oz they are first-rate smoke & mirror men. They bait the electorate with gay marriage but control by sleight of hand. Authority is shuffled about by NOT discussing major issues or (amounting to the same thing) keeping major issues out of politics. Everyone understands sodomy but few (indeed few parliamentarians) understand encryption or TPP.
I’ll leave it for later as what the politics will be after the election in March but I think it is fairly predictable that the Libs will bang on about economic globalisation and free trade, in a context of nationalism which means no significant change to policies of immigration.
For Labor the emphasis will probably be a mixture of multiculturalism, the UN and Gonsky2 but little innovation internationally. Trump is going to be there until December 2020 with a 50% chance of another term – if Korea comes good. Apparently Trump likes Morrison but didn’t care for Turnbull. Either way the planning will be short term (unfortunately). Must be your round. I’ll have a VB.
Kyle, it’s hard keeping up with you but having said previously that we need to regularly discuss these issues, I’ll have to give it a go. I guess my main concern in all this is how can we best frame these issues we are facing while minimizing the emotions involved in cultural differences. I have a strong dislike of words like: racist, anti-racist; fascist, anti-fascist; communist, anti-communist etc and would love to see them disappear but they are out there so we have to put up with them and avoid them as much as possible.
However, I strongly believe that before we can engage with other cultures, we need to understand our own and its past and have to acknowledge that during the colonial period the indigenous Australian aboriginal population fell from 750,000 to less than 50,000. We don’t have to beat our breasts every day, that’s up to each individual, but we do need to acknowledge that this is our past and remember it. If we don’t, and ignore it or worse, pretend it didn’t happen, how can we understand ourselves and engage with other countries?
Hope to continue the conversation.
The populations of all indigenous people declined with instances of colonialism (from the Cape to India to Indonesia to Australia to the USA to Latin America. It “goes” with the territory.
As a side point it is unlikely that the indigenous population exceeded 400,000 just on account of what quantity of food would be required for 400,000 – and that is a “top” estimate.
I tend to agree with your inference : the PC – SJW stuff has just got it the way.
All discussions need to be located around some reference point. I nominate Eric Hobsbawm who was a Marxist historian and member of the Communist Party who died, fairly, recently, in 2012 at the age of 95 (I think). He wrote on the recent Middle East stuff to name one contemporary matter.
As with the Rohynga, it wouldn’t be anything at all to do with salafist/wahabist inspired agitators funded and enabled by our great & glorious, freedom loving ally, Saudi.
Sadly, yes. “It has everything to do with salafist/wahabist inspired agitators”
The fig leaf of action against terrorists is used in other places, most notably in Turkey. National chauvinism might also be on the rise as China becomes a great power again. The problem for the rest of the world is that nothing can be done about it. repression in Xinjiang along the lines of America’s repression in the Vietnam war as a way of dealing with terrorists may be deplored but it should not be exploited as a way to line up with the US strategy of confrontation with China. This article does not clearly distinguish itself as legitimate protest against repressive tactics used to suppress Islamists from a wider aim of beating up hostility to China to assist the US strategy of confrontation.
An interesting idea or two here. The breeding ground for terrorism is a combination of severe poverty and smart phones with a fair mixture of agitation. A strategy for correcting terrorism is removing the poverty. This initiative was lost in Afghanistan by the yanks in the early 80s. Among other projects, Xinjiang is to receive attention in this regard.
The events in Xinjiang are relatively recent and occasional. China is a country where, when the economic tide increases, all vessels rise; at least all in practical terms. The issues that exist in Xinjiang will disappear and it is in the Country’s interest to integrate minorities – which is actually done rather well.
As to the USA – yeah. A US destroyer was chased out of the South China Sea a few days ago. Trump’s greatest fear, in the region, is that he is being out-manipulated by Xi over Korea. Indeed, referring to your last sentence, Australia would do well to steer its own course in Asia rather than follow, blindly, US policy; as has been largely the case for 75 years. Neither domestic or international policy for the USA ever has been an example of fair mindedness.