Xinjiang protests

[Iskandar]

Tensions between ethnic Muslims and China's Han majority in the far western Xinjiang region erupted in riots that killed 140 people and injured 828, an official said Monday, marking the deadliest unrest to hit the volatile area in decades.

A peaceful protest Sunday of about 1,000 to 3,000 people in the regional capital, Urumqi, apparently spun out of control, as rioters went on a rampage and clashed with police.

The official Xinhua News Agency reported hundreds of people were arrested.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/05/china-uighurs.html
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/06/china-protests.html

A repeat of the events in Tibet last year? It's interesting to read a bit about the East Turkestan independence movement and the parallels with the long-running Tibet controversy. Has China overstepped the bounds of its authority in the western provinces? Does China have a right to be there at all?

[Light Flantastic]

i dont understand western support for these things

china sucks but tibet is/was probably worse

free tibet so it can re-instate serfdom, what a noble cause

[1338 h4x0r]

Chai Na Ge Bei Men Te Se Ke A La Te

/thread

/*si le de

[Aaron]

The more and more I read and hear about stuff like this, the less I like the chinese.

[Iskandar]

I don't dislike the Chinese. I dislike the CPC.

[rasputin]

there are almost more han chinese in xinjiang now then uyghurs, so they're ****ed anyway. whether the uyghurs are granted independence or not is irrelevant, they're slowly being assimilated.

[1338 h4x0r]

I generally dislike both

@ Alex

[Iskandar]

there are almost more han chinese in xinjiang now then uyghurs, so they're ****ed anyway. whether the uyghurs are granted independence or not is irrelevant, they're slowly being assimilated.Because of aggressive resettlement techniques. Political control is surely a goal of this.

The point is, do the Chinese have a right to continue incorporating Xinjiang, Tibet and other regions into their territory when their inhabitants expressly don't want them to?

[rasputin]

Of course they don't have the right, that doesn't mean anything though. They have the will to do so and more importantly the power to carry out that will. The West can criticise the CPC all they want and talk about the rights of the Uyghur people and the hostility of the Chinese, but it's ultimately pointless.

[Iskandar]

Okay but saying it's pointless is a dead end. I want to know why you think it's pointless, since I don't think even the Chinese regime is deaf to the protests of the international community.

[Aaron]

It's pointless 'cause the CPC is a group of amoral corrupt people.

[rasputin]

And simply saying that they don't have the right to do it is also a dead end. They have the power to do it, and aren't under any obligation to listen to the West. The Chinese may not be deaf to the protests of the international community, but that does not mean they will be inclined to change their behaviour. I'm very sympathetic towards the Uyghurs, but I'll also be the first to point out that they in a very difficult situation.

[TerranYouApart]

chinese people are ****ing crazy everyone knows this. why do you think any other asian gets mad when you call them chinese?

[Light Flantastic]

probably because they're not chinese

[Iskandar]

It's pointless 'cause the CPC is a group of amoral corrupt people.Welcome to politics.
And simply saying that they don't have the right to do it is also a dead end. They have the power to do it, and aren't under any obligation to listen to the West. The Chinese may not be deaf to the protests of the international community, but that does not mean they will be inclined to change their behaviour. I'm very sympathetic towards the Uyghurs, but I'll also be the first to point out that they in a very difficult situation.The United States has the power to nuke the world's major cities six times over. That doesn't mean they will. Similarly China doesn't have to act in a certain way just because they have the capacity to do so. Like all regimes, they're concerned about survival, and if their actions in Xinjiang and elsewhere bring enough international condemnation they will cease, assuming Beijing acts rationally.

[Light Flantastic]

china cares about international condemnation thats why they stopped all their human rights abuses a long time ago and why everyone stopped trading with them on a massive scale

[Smokey D]

If China was acting rationally, it would know no other state would do anything to stop it from abusing its citizens because a) it has nukes and b) trade is too valuable. There is no threat to China's survival and the suggestion that any state would be willing to risk a confrontation with China for suppressing ethnic minorities while allowing much less powerful states to get away with much more is pretty preposterous.

Also, it has history on its side --> see the response to Tianamen Square.

[Iskandar]

I didn't say a confrontation.

And Tiananmen Square met with a substantial backlash everyone knows that. You can't say it was pointless when you just argued the recent Iran protests represented a paradigm shift in that country's politics.

[Smokey D]

They're completely different regimes so that's perfectly possible that protests are much more significant in Iran than they are in China. Especially when the majority of Chinese people are completely opposed to any sort of Uighur nationalism while there is a very strong liberal streak in Iran and especially in the leadership class.

Also, why were you talking about the regime's concern for survival if you weren't talking about a confrontation?

Also, everyone also knows that the angry response to Tianamen Square lasted about 6 months and then everyone pretended it didn't happen.

[Iskandar]

They're completely different regimes so that's perfectly possible that protests are much more significant in Iran than they are in China. Especially when the majority of Chinese people are completely opposed to any sort of Uighur nationalism while there is a very strong liberal streak in Iran and especially in the leadership class.Fair point, but you can bet lots of Chinese aren't happy with the current political system and the Uyghur are no exception.
Also, why were you talking about the regime's concern for survival if you weren't talking about a confrontation?I meant more in the sense of a popular uprising, not military confrontation. That's just stupid.
Also, everyone also knows that the angry response to Tianamen Square lasted about 6 months and then everyone pretended it didn't happen.No it was hushed up silly. It's called censorship.

[Smokey D]

Fair point, but you can bet lots of Chinese aren't happy with the current political system and the Uyghur are no exception.'

I'm willing to bet most Chinese people hate Uighur nationalism more than they hate the CCP.


I meant more in the sense of a popular uprising, not military confrontation. That's just stupid.

Again, the Uighurs do not have that kind of support in China. Also, why were you talking about international condemnation?


No it was hushed up silly. It's called censorship.

I mean internationally.

[Iskandar]

'

I'm willing to bet most Chinese people hate Uighur nationalism more than they hate the CCP.That's a pretty bold claim. They hate some Turkic group thousands of kilometers away more than their own oppressive government?
Again, the Uighurs do not have that kind of support in China. Also, why were you talking about international condemnation?Cause Westerners care about this sort of thing and it's not just the Uyghurs.
I mean internationally.Are you joking. People still talk about Tiananmen all the time. We are right now.

[Smokey D]

That's a pretty bold claim. They hate some Turkic group thousands of kilometers away more than their own oppressive government?

I don't know if they hate the Uighurs per se but they hate the prospect of dividing China for the sake of a minority's ethnic nationalism. For 60 years the Chinese government has propagated the idea of One China and as far as I know the Chinese public has bought into it completely.

But I'll rephase. They may hate their government (although this isn't particularly evident) but they don't hate it enough to unite with the Uighurs against it. If anything, Han Chinese seem more likely to unite with the government against the Uighurs than the other way around.


Cause Westerners care about this sort of thing and it's not just the Uyghurs.

That's an irrelevant factoid. You were talking about international condemnation like it would some how stop China from doing what it wants. China has never demonstrated any willingness to change internal policy due to international reaction.


Are you joking. People still talk about Tiananmen all the time. We are right now.

The point is that China knows people will only ever talk about it, and thus it acts with impunity.

[Iskandar]

I don't know if they hate the Uighurs per se but they hate the prospect of dividing China for the sake of a minority's ethnic nationalism. For 60 years the Chinese government has propagated the idea of One China and as far as I know the Chinese public has bought into it completely.

But I'll rephase. They may hate their government (although this isn't particularly evident) but they don't hate it enough to unite with the Uighurs against it. If anything, Han Chinese seem more likely to unite with the government against the Uighurs than the other way around.K.

But I think you're placing too much stock in the Chinese public being brainwashed. Remember those strikes last winter?
That's an irrelevant factoid. You were talking about international condemnation like it would some how stop China from doing what it wants. China has never demonstrated any willingness to change internal policy due to international reaction.Because we bend over backwards for them.

Try taking away their trade agreements and see how quickly they acquiesce.
The point is that China knows people will only ever talk about it, and thus it acts with impunity.Because all we ever do is talk about it instead of using the soft power we've built up over decades.

[Smokey D]

But I think you're placing too much stock in the Chinese public being brainwashed. Remember those strikes last winter?

Have you ever told a Chinese person that their country should be broken up?

Because we bend over backwards for them.

Try taking away their trade agreements and see how quickly they acquiesce.

We tried that after Tianamen and it didn't work then. Also, China holds the west to ransom at least as much as we hold it.

Because all we ever do is talk about it instead of using the soft power we've built up over decades.

The only soft power that might work is economic sanction, and as I say that's probably not a very good idea.

[Iskandar]

Have you ever told a Chinese person that their country should be broken up?I didn't say broken up. It's called Xinjiang Autonomous Region. It should live up to its name.
We tried that after Tianamen and it didn't work then. Also, China holds the west to ransom at least as much as we hold it.

The only soft power that might work is economic sanction, and as I say that's probably not a very good idea.We don't need to actually impose a trade blockade or anything, just threaten to.

[Smokey D]

I didn't say broken up. It's called Xinjiang Autonomous Region. It should live up to its name.

Okay. But that's not the point. You asked me why I think Han people are brainwashed. I don't know if they're brainwashed, but they do hate any idea of ethnic separatism. If you talk to any Chinese person about dividing China, you'll get a response which vindicates my views.


We don't need to actually impose a trade blockade or anything, just threaten to.

That's not how China works, and especially now when it knows a trade war is the worst thing the west could do to itself.

[Iskandar]

Okay. But that's not the point. You asked me why I think Han people are brainwashed. I don't know if they're brainwashed, but they do hate any idea of ethnic separatism. If you talk to any Chinese person about dividing China, you'll get a response which vindicates my views.I hate to be a bitch about this, but anecdotal evidence logical phallusy blah blah blah.
That's not how China works, and especially now when it knows a trade war is the worst thing the west could do to itself.Even worse for "China's peaceful rise" now isn't it.

[Smokey D]

I hate to be a bitch about this, but anecdotal evidence logical phallusy blah blah blah.

Well, I don't really know how you want me to prove that Chinese people hate ethnic nationalism.

The Communist Party gains its support from two things 1) economic development and 2) being seen as uniting China.

Even worse for "China's peaceful rise" now isn't it.

Except China knows that we already tried to do it and failed miserably so I don't think threats at an embargo are very credible.

[Iskandar]

Well, I don't really know how you want me to prove that Chinese people hate ethnic nationalism.

The Communist Party gains its support from two things 1) economic development and 2) being seen as uniting China.The first moreso than the second because the livelihood of over a billion Han Chinese depends on continued economic growth. Maintaining current rates is far more important than a few rabble-rousing Turkic peoples in the far northwest of the country, and if they were to slow, the results would be catastrophic.
Except China knows that we already tried to do it and failed miserably so I don't think threats at an embargo are very credible.Nothing so drastic would be needed.

I seem to recall they got into a hissy fit a few months ago over import tariffs and prosecuted over it. That alone shows how concerned they are with maintaining the status quo as far as trade goes.

[rasputin]

You mentioned earlier Iskandar that just because the US could nuke the whatever 6 times over doesn't mean they will - that analogy doesn't work because the US do not want to nuke anybody. The Chinese obviously want to keep Xinjiang as theirs, and they know that no one will do anything about their oppressive tactics on its Uyghur inhabitants.

[Iskandar]

You mentioned earlier Iskandar that just because the US could nuke the whatever 6 times over doesn't mean they will - that analogy doesn't work because the US do not want to nuke anybody. The Chinese obviously want to keep Xinjiang as theirs, and they know that no one will do anything about their oppressive tactics on its Uyghur inhabitants.Who says they wouldn't nuke North Korea, Iran and Syria if they thought they could get away with it.

But that's not the point. Read what I said again.

[rasputin]

Yeah but they can't get away with it. China can.

[Smokey D]

The first moreso than the second because the livelihood of over a billion Han Chinese depends on continued economic growth. Maintaining current rates is far more important than a few rabble-rousing Turkic peoples in the far northwest of the country, and if they were to slow, the results would be catastrophic.

Okay but that's irrelevant. Even if the economy is more important to Chinese people than national unity (which is debatable. Imagine how the US would respond if China said it had to give up Texas to Mexico or something), national unity is still more important to most Chinese people than the minority rights of the Uighurs.


I seem to recall they got into a hissy fit a few months ago over import tariffs and prosecuted over it. That alone shows how concerned they are with maintaining the status quo as far as trade goes.

A significant embargo could probably modify China's behaviour, but I doubt it would react in a way we might want. I see nothing in China's history of dealing with separatism that suggests it is going to let up on this.

Also, you should remember, these riots aren't as far as we know orchestrated by the Chinese state. They are the spontaneous reaction to Han migration within China. I don't know exactly what we'd be trying to tell China to do.

[Iskandar]

Okay but that's irrelevant. Even if the economy is more important to Chinese people than national unity (which is debatable. Imagine how the US would respond if China said it had to give up Texas to Mexico or something), national unity is still more important to most Chinese people than the minority rights of the Uighurs.The Uyghurs are a not insignificant minority, along with other Turkic peoples and you have to consider the linkage with Tibet (which is the same thing really). China does not want substantial unrest in its frontier provinces or they wouldn't respond so harshly.
A significant embargo could probably modify China's behaviour, but I doubt it would react in a way we might want. I see nothing in China's history of dealing with separatism that suggests it is going to let up on this.

Also, you should remember, these riots aren't as far as we know orchestrated by the Chinese state. They are the spontaneous reaction to Han migration within China. I don't know exactly what we'd be trying to tell China to do.Stop cracking down on peaceful protesters, obviously.

[Smokey D]

The Uyghurs are a not insignificant minority, along with other Turkic peoples and you have to consider the linkage with Tibet (which is the same thing really). China does not want substantial unrest in its frontier provinces or they wouldn't respond so harshly.

There's like 8 million Uighurs and like a billion Han. I'd say that's a pretty small minority.

PS China didn't go in and shoot the protesters or anything. It was violence between two groups of civilians and maybe some paramilitaries acting under the direction of the provincial government.

Stop cracking down on peaceful protesters, obviously.

Well, a) they didn't crack down on anyone this time and b) every piece of evidence we have indicates that China priotises national unity over trade. I suspect that if a trade embargo or whatever was placed on China because of the Uighurs, it would just make the Han more pissed off then ever.

[Iskandar]

There's like 8 million Uighurs and like a billion Han. I'd say that's a pretty small minority.

PS China didn't go in and shoot the protesters or anything. It was violence between two groups of civilians and maybe some paramilitaries acting under the direction of the provincial government.



Well, a) they didn't crack down on anyone this time and b) every piece of evidence we have indicates that China priotises national unity over trade. I suspect that if a trade embargo or whatever was placed on China because of the Uighurs, it would just make the Han more pissed off then ever.Didn't like 140 people get killed.

[Smokey D]

They killed each other. I don't think there were even troops present in the city until a few days later.

[Iskandar]

They killed each other. I don't think there were even troops present in the city until a few days later.The whole event is the CPC's fault due to their aggressive resettlement policies.

[Smokey D]

The whole event is the CPC's fault due to their aggressive resettlement policies.

Perhaps. So you're suggesting that we use embargoes and trade policy to change the internal behaviour of states even when they're not actually violating human rights or whatever? Do you understand the principle of state sovereignty?

Also, I don't know if how China treats the Uighurs is any worse than how Australia for example treats aborigines.

[Iskandar]

Perhaps. So you're suggesting that we use embargoes and trade policy to change the internal behaviour of states even when they're not actually violating human rights or whatever?Dude, it's China.
Do you understand the principle of state sovereignty?"Ew, Westphalian sovereignty."

- Smokey D, 2009.
Also, I don't know if how China treats the Uighurs is any worse than how Australia for example treats aborigines.Don't really see how this is relevant.

[Smokey D]

Dude, it's China.

Whether or not China violates human rights generally, it's another thing entirely to claim that internal migration policies are a violation of human rights.

"Ew, Westphalian sovereignty."

- Smokey D, 2009.

I'm against using sovereignty as a defense against breaches of jus cogens, but it's an incredibly slippery slope when you start using trade policies to control every internal matter of a state you might object to.

Don't really see how this is relevant.

Why do we need to embargo China but not Australia.

[Iskandar]

Whether or not China violates human rights generally, it's another thing entirely to claim that internal migration policies are a violation of human rights.Naturally.

But one man's "internal migration policy" is another man's ethnic cleansing.
I'm against using sovereignty as a defense against breaches of jus cogens, but it's an incredibly slippery slope when you start using trade policies to control every internal matter of a state you might object to.Xinjiang is just another day behind the Bamboo Curtain, though, which is the point.
Why do we need to embargo China but not Australia.Because China commits far more egregious human rights abuses on a daily basis. Quit it with the softball questions.

[Smokey D]

Naturally.

But one man's "internal migration policy" is another man's ethnic cleansing.

Well now you have to show that the Uighurs are subject to ethnic cleansing.

I don't think there's any evidence of that.


Xinjiang is just another day behind the Bamboo Curtain, though, which is the point.

Xinjiang is not Tibet and and is not Tienanmen Square. Your monolithic treatment of China's internal dynamics is simplistic and unhelpful.

Because China commits far more egregious human rights abuses on a daily basis. Quit it with the softball questions.

I don't know if you're aware of the poverty of indigenous Australia but it's pretty horrific. As I say, it's probably as least as bad as what the Uighurs have to deal with.

You need to stop conflating everything bad China does into one nebulous problem which can be targeted by simplistic policies like trade embargoes.

[Iskandar]

Well now you have to show that the Uighurs are subject to ethnic cleansing.

I don't think there's any evidence of that.Resettlement clearly intended to artifically create a Han Chinese majority in these regions for the purposes of political control. The indigenous populations are suppressed.
Xinjiang is not Tibet and and is not Tienanmen Square. Your monolithic treatment of China's internal dynamics is simplistic and unhelpful.All symptoms of the same disease.
I don't know if you're aware of the poverty of indigenous Australia but it's pretty horrific. As I say, it's probably as least as bad as what the Uighurs have to deal with.I am aware that every Anglo nation has these same problems but I doubt anything Australia does can top China. Wasn't the Stolen Generation like 40 years ago.
You need to stop conflating everything bad China does into one nebulous problem which can be targeted by simplistic policies like trade embargoes.I'm not. I'm proposing a potential solution to the regime's many problems with ethnic minorities and other facets of its abysmal human rights record.

At the risk of making a tu quoque, what would you propose?

[Smokey D]

Resettlement clearly intended to artifically create a Han Chinese majority in these regions for the purposes of political control. The indigenous populations are suppressed.

Perhaps. But unless China is actually depopulating the area of Uighurs then there is no ethnic cleansing going on. Denial of self-determination, which maybe a breach of jus cogens, is not ethnic cleansing and it is ridiculous to try and equate them.

All symptoms of the same disease.

At a very abstract level, maybe.

You must tailor the response to the particular facts. A gut reaction "China bad" isn't going to solve anything.

I am aware that every Anglo nation has these same problems but I doubt anything Australia does can top China. Wasn't the Stolen Generation like 40 years ago.

Even if Australia isn't actively persecuting aborigines, their material condition is still appalling.

Also, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8129820.stm

I'm not. I'm proposing a potential solution to the regime's many problems with ethnic minorities and other facets of its abysmal human rights record.

And I'm disputing a) that you can lump everything China does into one 'an abysmal human rights record' and b) that your proposal will achieve anything.

[Iskandar]

Perhaps. But unless China is actually depopulating the area of Uighurs then there is no ethnic cleansing going on. Denial of self-determination, which maybe a breach of jus cogens, is not ethnic cleansing and it is ridiculous to try and equate them.It certainly is the first and if it's not technically ethnic cleansing, subjugating the native population of an area with an influx of Han Chinese from the east strikes me as too close for comfort.
At a very abstract level, maybe.

You must tailor the response to the particular facts. A gut reaction "China bad" isn't going to solve anything.There are very specific issues in fact. Xinjiang is one.
And I'm disputing a) that you can lump everything China does into one 'an abysmal human rights record' and b) that your proposal will achieve anything.b) I can deal with but not a).

You can't dispute that China does in fact have an abysmal human rights record and all the scare quotes in the world won't change that.

[Smokey D]

It certainly is the first and if it's not technically ethnic cleansing, subjugating the native population of an area with an influx of Han Chinese from the east strikes me as too close for comfort.

As much as we may dislike denial of self-determination, there would need to be a major change in the international system for it to form the basis of interference in another states sovereignty. Just as China does not tell Canada how to solve its aboriginal issues, we must be careful in telling China how to solve its issues, not least because realistically we don't really know much about them.


There are very specific issues in fact. Xinjiang is one.

Do you understand the historic and demographic processes involved in Chinese sovereignty over Xinjiang?



You can't dispute that China does in fact have an abysmal human rights record and all the scare quotes in the world won't change that.

No, I don't deny it.

I deny that a response tailored to deal with one aspect of China's human rights record is necessarily suitable for dealing with another. We have to be very careful when trying to use a big stick to coerce China, because if we use it too liberally, we run the risk of weakening its effect when it really matters.

[die of starvation]

if the chinese settlers are going to put the land to a better use than the uyghers they should be entitled to it for the general benefit of humanity.
especially since china already has it to begin with that kinda makes it a no brainer.

[Iskandar]

As much as we may dislike denial of self-determination, there would need to be a major change in the international system for it to form the basis of interference in another states sovereignty. Just as China does not tell Canada how to solve its aboriginal issues, we must be careful in telling China how to solve its issues, not least because realistically we don't really know much about them.K.

But I don't think we can deny modern China's many problems and that we have at least a basic understanding of them.
Do you understand the historic and demographic processes involved in Chinese sovereignty over Xinjiang?It's not complicated.
I deny that a response tailored to deal with one aspect of China's human rights record is necessarily suitable for dealing with another. We have to be very careful when trying to use a big stick to coerce China, because if we use it too liberally, we run the risk of weakening its effect when it really matters.That's why we need to use a light hand.

Like "if you want this lucrative contract, you'd better promise to improve your human rights situation." It's a bargaining chip.

[Smokey D]

It's not complicated.

To the contrary, colonialism is extremely complicated. That's why Israel, amongst others, is such an intractable problem.

That's why we need to use a light hand.

Like "if you want this lucrative contract, you'd better promise to improve your human rights situation." It's a bargaining chip.

Well, as I've already pointed out, we tried this after Tiannamen. It didn't work because contracts with China were too lucrative for individual states to pass up.

[Iskandar]

To the contrary, colonialism is extremely complicated. That's why Israel, amongst others, is such an intractable problem.There is no comparison. Israel is the historic homeland of the Jews and possesses religious significance while Xinjiang is a sparsely populated frontier province with (unlike Tibet) no particular strategic value and (like Tibet) no real economic centers outside of Ürümqi. If it weren't for the oil and gas reserves, I doubt China would have any interest in it at all.
Well, as I've already pointed out, we tried this after Tiannamen. It didn't work because contracts with China were too lucrative for individual states to pass up.Tiananmen.

Which was also a) right after a period of political upheaval and b) before China's economic opening really got into full swing. I doubt the situation is precisely the same today. The CPC may very well be amenable to future reforms with the right incentives.

[Smokey D]

I refuse to be drawn on whether Zionism or One China is a more arbitrary motivation for colonialism and resettlement because it's pretty much irrelevant. Xinjiang is problematic in the same way Israel is problematic, namely because there are several million people who have in made lives for themselves in good faith, resettlement of whom will be as much of an injustice as the original act of colonialism.

If it weren't for the oil and gas reserves, I doubt China would have any interest in it at all.

This reflects your ignorance of the PRC's motivations. The credibility of the CCP in China is based on both economic success and national unity. A fractured China recalls the century of shame, on which the CCP has built its reputation repudiating.


Which was also a) right after a period of political upheaval and b) before China's economic opening really got into full swing. I doubt the situation is precisely the same today. The CPC may very well be amenable to future reforms with the right incentives.

I suspect China will gradually reform over the next 50 years. I don't think attempting to coerce it with threats of a trade war is the right way to go about it.

[Iskandar]

This reflects your ignorance of the PRC's motivations. The credibility of the CCP in China is based on both economic success and national unity. A fractured China recalls the century of shame, on which the CCP has built its reputation repudiating.Respecting the autonomy of Xinjiang is hardly shoring up the East Turkestan independence movement. It appears to me that you are the one incapable of drawing such fine distinctions.
I suspect China will gradually reform over the next 50 years. I don't think attempting to coerce it with threats of a trade war is the right way to go about it.Leaving such an odious regime to its own devices is immoral, dammit.

Nor did I propose a trade war (which is a worst-case scenario) but preconditions for retaining the status quo of several privileged economic relationships with other nations.

[Smokey D]

Respecting the autonomy of Xinjiang is hardly shoring up the East Turkestan independence movement. It appears to me that you are the one incapable of drawing such fine distinctions.

You said that but for oil and gas reserves China would have no interest in Xinjiang. I corrected you


Leaving such an odious regime to its own devices is immoral, dammit.


No action can be assessed in a vacuum. We have to look at the big picture. It is my contention that threatening China over Xinjiang and its internal policies risks backfiring, and undermining some of the achievements we've already made.



Nor did I propose a trade war (which is a worst-case scenario) but preconditions for retaining the status quo of several privileged economic relationships with other nations.

As I have suggested many times, we already tried attaching trade status to human rights. The system broke down because even in 1990 trade with China was too great an incentive for individual states. Given that trade since then has virtually trippled, I don't see China taking any threats seriously. Nor do I see it as particularly helpful since China is pretty much essential to fixing this recession.

Also, good job ignoring my most important point, namely that 'fixing Xinjiang' requires moving 3 million or so people.

[Iskandar]

You said that but for oil and gas reserves China would have no interest in Xinjiang. I corrected youEssentially no, besides paltry territorial claims which I think you're seriously overestimating. Xinjiang isn't Jammu and Kashmir as far as strategic importance or anything. It begs the question of why China incorporated the territory in the first place.
No action can be assessed in a vacuum. We have to look at the big picture. It is my contention that threatening China over Xinjiang and its internal policies risks backfiring, and undermining some of the achievements we've already made.It is my contention that ignoring human rights abuses in the hopes they will resolve themselves at some point in the future is at least as risky in its own way, and certainly more immoral.
As I have suggested many times, we already tried attaching trade status to human rights. The system broke down because even in 1990 trade with China was too great an incentive for individual states. Given that trade since then has virtually trippled, I don't see China taking any threats seriously. Nor do I see it as particularly helpful since China is pretty much essential to fixing this recession.As I have suggested many times, China's dependence on Western trade and investment ensures they have to take us seriously.

But since we don't appear to be making any headway but instead going in circles, I suggest you either acquiesce or drop this point.
Also, good job ignoring my most important point, namely that 'fixing Xinjiang' requires moving 3 million or so people.No it doesn't. It requires preventing the Communist Party from dominating the affairs of 8 million Uyghurs or however many there are.

[Smokey D]

Essentially no, besides paltry territorial claims which I think you're seriously overestimating. Xinjiang isn't Jammu and Kashmir as far as strategic importance or anything. It begs the question of why China incorporated the territory in the first place.

Although I'm not sure I buy that Xinjiang is strategically irrelevant, China's interests in Xinjiang go beyond the strategic and the economic. They go to the raison d'etre of the CCP or at least to the raison as it has been constructed since Deng Xiaoping. Reestablishing and maintaining control over the historic Chinese empire is part of the Chinese national identity as Alaska is part of the US.


It is my contention that ignoring human rights abuses in the hopes they will resolve themselves at some point in the future is at least as risky in its own way, and certainly more immoral.

There is a difference between ignoring them and trying to compel the state to fix them.

Aside from the contentious issue that China has in fact violated anyone's human rights in this particular incident.

As I have suggested many times, China's dependence on Western trade and investment ensures they have to take us seriously.

Well, it didn't last time.



But since we don't appear to be making any headway but instead going in circles, I suggest you either acquiesce or drop this point.

Lol. You're the one claiming that economics can be used to coerce China to change its behaviour.


No it doesn't. It requires preventing the Communist Party from dominating the affairs of 8 million Uyghurs or however many there are.

What does that even mean?