IT IS as much a 60 million member social class as it is a political party in the western sense, and whatever self-description it attaches to its ideology, the label ‘communist’ does not strike most observers as a particularly apt or well-deserved.
Yet some kind of residual solidarity with the Communist Party of China somehow deludes a surprising number of British leftists into passive sympathy for whatever policies Beijing chooses to follow.
That much was evident in some of the coverage of the unrest in Tibet last year, and is likely to show itself again in the coming days, as the blogosphere gets to grips with the weekend riots in Urumqi, the worst violence seen in China since the bloody suppression of the pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square 20 years ago.
Beijing’s claim that any tension in the region has been artificially got up by US-based separatist elements is obviously tenuous. Rebiya Kaheer has neither the popular clout nor the religiously-based standing of the Dalai Lama.
Both Tibetan and Uighur opposition to Chinese rule share common roots in cultural and religious persecution and discrimination, evidenced by the inferior treatment of these national minorities in terms of education, health and employment.
Meanwhile, the relative prosperity flowing from China’s turn to capitalism has not extended beyond the coastal provinces of the east; Xinjiang and Tibet are simply seen as useful sources of raw materials.
That point underlines that both countries are classic examples of internal colonies, right up to the point where they are considered suitable destinations for settlement by the surplus Han Chinese population.
Their case for self-determination is as clear as it is in Palestine, Western Sahara, Chechnya, Tamil Nadu or Kashmir.
National oppression on the scale seen in these two regions should be readily recognisable to anyone on the left, even if the national oppressors promote themselves as reds when the occasion demands.
Posted at 13:51, 7 July 2009
Comments (16)
I'm a bit confused, Dave. How does "national self-determination" square with "one-world communism"?
Congratulations, Obo. An entire comment that does not mention the 'leftwing BNP' once.
Obo,
it doesn't, but at least supporters of nationalism should be consistent in their self determination campaigns.
Consistent opponents of nationalism, who prefer to see self determination for people not peoples thus put forward the free association of producers as the alternative to capitalism.
Leave off Dave, Obo is a leading intellectual from that gaggle of rightwing inversions of Rick from the Young Ones known as the "Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom". They think that speed cameras are "totalitarian" and all the other political parties are "fascist" because they're "authoritarian", so clearly they should be engaged with. They are no way an irrelevent and unpleasant clique of overpampered, misogynist weirdos and fucknuts and you should treat their members with more respect. You're very lucky one of their leading lights is prepared to grace your comments boxees with all his insite and charm.
"Their case for self-determination is as clear as it is in Palestine, Western Sahara, Chechnya, Tamil Nadu or Kashmir."
Far from being clear, these are all extremely complex cases where the population seeking self-determination is intermingled with others who reject the demand. The Uighur case is similar, and characterising the Han Chinese as "colonists" doesn't really resolve the problem.
Also, I think that there will be just as many, if not more, on the "left" who will reject the Uighur case on the grounds that they are Muslims, including not a few regulars here.
The Uighurs (and other Turkic minorities of the area, like the Kazakhs) do not attract the attention of the Richard Geres of this world. Perhaps because they are Muslim.
I remember a "Reader's Digest" article in the late 1970s fulminating against China, at a time when it was starting to "come in from the cold" after Mao's death. Among other things it mentioned the Turkic minorities, saying they were oppressed. They often have less pronounced "Asiatic" features than the Han Chinese, and sometimes even have a Caucasian appearance, according to "Reader's Digest", which came close to appealing for racial solidarity with the Turkic peoples against the Han.
"Congratulations, Obo. An entire comment that does not mention the 'leftwing BNP' once."
Not only that, but a reasonable, if easily addressable, question. This is progress!
Neighbouring powers have often manipulated Uyghur nationalist sentiments, seeking to gain a toehold in this strategically important region.
Nevertheless, there is also a history of oppression of the local Turkic peoples by the Chinese Central government, as well as some precedents for an independent Turkic state in recent history.
The first "Turkestan Muslim Republic" (1933-4) derived from a rebellion against the policies of the Chinese Warlord governor.
Heavy taxes were imposed on Uyghurs and they were driven from their land, to be replaced by Han Chinese peasants.
As a result, the kind of intercommunal violence seen over the past few days occurred then too.
The Stalinist USSR then fostered a local warlord, Sheng Shicai, an opportunist who blew with the prevailing political wind.
He was even recruited to the CPSU and given a party card by Molotov.
Then, when the Nazis invaded the USSR in 1941, he expelled his Soviet advisors and killed Chinese Communists, including Mao's brother.
Eventually, he joined up with the retreating Kuomintang.
The USSR then fostered a second "East Turkestan Republic".
This was based on exploiting Kazakh discontent with Chinese rule and directing it against the Kuomintang.
With the eventual victory of the Communists in the Chinese Civil War, the area was handed back to China.
The Chinese government claimed this was done by peaceful negotiation.
However, the fact that almost the entire leadership team of the ETR were killed in a plane crash on the way to negotiations seems just a little bit fishy.
It also seems undeniable that the Chinese government has pursued a deliberate policy of Han settlement since 1949.
Figures show that at that time 95% of the population were Uyghur, whereas now it is under 50%.
Many Uyghurs have become migrant labourers in China, as did those at the Toy factory, which provided the spark for the recent events.
Whereas many of the businesses in big towns like Urumchi are owned by Han.
So it's unlikely that the sense of discrimination is without any foundation.
Neither the Stalinist USSR, nor their protégés in Maoist China have a good record in handling the national question. Economic Development by itself does not alter that fact.
The answer isn’t self-determination in the abstract though.
The most effective policy would be to form an alliance between Chinese socialists and reform-minded Uyghur and Tibetan nationalists, not under the influence of outside powers, or religious traditionalists. A good historical precedent being Faizullah Khojaev, leader of the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic.
The Uighurs (and other Turkic minorities of the area, like the Kazakhs) do not attract the attention of the Richard Geres of this world. Perhaps because they are Muslim.
perhaps the oppression of Tibetans attract his attention because they are Buddhists? Would you object to Muslims showing solidarity with the Uighurs, or should they support only non-Muslim oppressed groups?
Your second point appears to be that because Reader's Digest ran an article thirty years ago suggesting that the Turkic minorities in China were more ethnically similar to Caucasians than the Han, any opposition to Chinese rule in Xinjiang by white people is racist. Would that be a reasonable assessment?
Instead of questioning the motives of others, maybe parts of British Left should decide what it thinks about State repression from the Beijing dictatorship?
These revolts are not a surprise, and it is just the massive State security apparatus and the virtual news blackout that keeps them from our view.
So forget the bad faith and such rubbish, decide do you support, excuse or apologise for the Chinese State? or do you side with the people?
Your choice really.
A very good piece I thought Dave and prianikoff added lots of useful info as he/they always do.
"or do you side with the people"
but what if these "people", as you call them, modernity, are in fact Islamist fundamentalists who think bad things about Israel and perhaps believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and so forth? Is it not then the duty of leftists to denounce them, and say "hmmm..." about their leftist defenders? Or if nobody has defended them, to denounce the shameful silence of the left in failing to condemn them? In short, to do what you normally seem to spend morning, noon and night doing on your favourite Decent websites?
There is a more than a thousand years of history of Han Chinese expansion forcing other ethnic groups to the edge or even out of China. The Tais of Thailand and the Shans of Burma are examples. The rapid growth in transmigration of Han Chinese to the present edges of Chinese controlled territory, mainly for economic migration reasons, holds nothing but trouble for the future.
It looks like the answer might be devolution similar to what is happening in Britain, but whether the Chinese communist party could ever give up that sort of power is unlikely at the moment.
BTW Indonesia is also building up a problem with the transmigration of Javanese from an overpopulated Java to the other islands.
Signs are that the last trouble started off as rivalry for scarce jobs in the capitalist downturn.So the answer seems pretty obvious.
Just an observation. Uighurs are not "fashionable". I am not the only one to notice that the sandal-wearers like Gere who trek to Lhasa, in a manner of speaking, ignore Muslim speakers of languages related to Turkish. I believe Uighurs have even been held in places like Guantanamo, so perhaps that is why.
One Western entertainer has noticed the Kazakhs, after a fashion. But "Borat" is a travesty.
I have found "Reader's Digest" over the years to be a sometimes amusing source of hard-shell anti-communism. Somewhat before the Xinjiang article, RD was praising Somoza's regime in Nicaragua for its response to a devastating earthquake. It became clear later, after the Sandinistas won, that Somoza and cronies had stolen a huge amount of the earthquake aid. I doubt whether RD flagged this up...
On old Goriot's point, "Western" powers even armed and funded Islamic fundamentalists when it could use them against the USSR. Many world events, especially since 9/11, illustrate that they have had trouble putting such barbaric genies back in the bottle, after summoning them in the Cold War.
Even some who verge on "decency" now, like the AWL, were in favour of Afghan mujahedin when they were fighting Soviet troops and pro-USSR Afghans. The mujahedin hostility to the USSR was in part hostility to modernity itself, but this was forgotten by their "socialist" defenders amid the passions of the Cold War. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.