Stability Overcomes Everything?

The People’s Daily has disturbingly reported that officials will be dismissed on the spot if their areas of responsibility became unstable. This creates a system whereby the livelihood of officials and their families depend on their readiness to respond to any public dissent with violence or to engage in covering it all up. As if this wasn’t potentially destabilising enough, announcements were also made that the Bingtuan Armed Police has been elevated to a status equal to the Xinjiang Armed Police! The Bingtuan armed police will now report directly to the Central Military Commission in Beijing and is consolidating its status as a state within a state. This means that in instances of unrest, Xinjiang will have two armed paramilitary organisations which are not accountable to one another and could potentially find themselves in competition over state resources and areas of responsibility. Given that this was coupled with announcements that officials will be fired on the spot in any instances of “instability”, this could lead to rather unstable and unpredictable consequences. Furthermore, officials will have personal vested interests in ensuring that no one ever finds about such problems. So we can expect more secrecy, more rumours, and more instability in a region where the party tells us that “stability overcomes everything”!

"Love the Great Motherland and Create a Better Home"

As we saw in last month’s Xinhua pictorial on the Xinjiang cotton harvest, the party-state treats economic development and ethnic unity as part of the same process in Xinjiang. Prominent Politburo Standing Committee members, Li Changchun and Zhou Yongkang, told us this week that the “love the motherland, create a better home” education/propaganda campaign is essential for development and unity in Xinjiang (see picture above). Chang Chunxian (party secretary for Xinjiang) then made a lengthy speech at a symposium this week on this “education activity”, explaining that the campaign is to “promote ‘leaps and bounds’ development (跨越式发展) and social order”. The Central Government similarly celebrated two years of the campaign by congratulating its own work and the partnership assistance development programmes (对口支援). These are said to have “given Xinjiang an historical opportunity for ‘leaps and bounds’ development and social order” before ending the announcement with repetition of ethnic unity slogans. Despite the party-state’s utter rejection that development leads to democracy this is their version of modernisation theory; development will somehow automatically promote ethnic unity and social order along China’s ‘new frontier’. There is a delicious irony here, given that a real historical-materialist would scoff at the need for propaganda campaigns at the level of the materially determined superstructure. More seriously, how leaders have been able to ignore that regions such as Guangdong enjoy some of the highest rates of development and popular protest in China is curious. Perhaps, this may be based on personal politics and the ongoing need to exclude Bo Xilai and all ‘new left’ politics.  However, this then raises the question of why socialist poster campaigns are good for Xinjiang but for Chongqing this is said to be going back to the days of the Cultural Revolution!

All of the above statements coincided with the opening of an exhibition to commemorate the campaign attended by political and military leaders. Even if you can’t make it to Xinjiang, the authorities provided a web portal to experience the “two historical missions” of the “shared struggle” for unity and development yourself! The picture of Hu Jintao surrounded by uncomfortable looking Uyghurs in traditional dress providing him with fruit against a backdrop of urban development just about sums up the party-state’s paternalist approach to Xinjiang politics. Artists have been mobilised to support these occasions and show that Uyghurs really do love the motherland. The Karimay local government did a fine job of mobilising some young men to point at ethnic minorities in a manner Kim Jung-Il would have been proud of. Even children were mobilised in Kuytun, Ili last year to paint for the motherland in a competition to see which little flower could prove their commitment to Socialist modernity with the greatest vigour. If Mao Zedong was with us, he may think that his ideals expressed in the ‘Yan’an talks on literature and art’ that art must only be used to serve the cause of socialist revolutionary struggle had been fully realised.

Socialist symbolism in a capitalist economy has become a source of mockery in other parts of China led by artists such as Wang Guangyi. It then seems absurd that socialist symbolism to promote nationalism and capitalism is seen as a solution to development and social tensions in Xinjiang. In practical terms, what does all this mean? Well on one level, nothing. Radio Free Asia ran a story this week that homes in Aksu were being destroyed without consent or adequate compensation. This certainly indicates that “creating a better home” is something that will be done for the people and not by them. However, what the campaign does indicate is that the party-state is well aware that it needs popular support for its policies in Xinjiang. Otherwise these campaigns will remain comical poster series which no one takes seriously. The obvious advice here would be to get the development policies right first and then get people to point at propaganda posters later.

Shaping International Opinion: Holy War or a Dispute over a Seat?

This last week saw a return of many of the usual themes of official public discourse on Xinjiang. This is of course in the lead up to the third anniversary of the violence of July 2009, which saw Uyghurs and Han killing each other in Ürümchi. The authorities blamed an international terrorist plot for the violence committed by Uyghurs and chose not to acknowledge the violence committed against Uyghurs. So this week, China Daily ran with the very brief story of Guo Boxiong, vice chair of the Central Military Commission, announcing that the military and paramilitary forces will maintain stability and stressed the need for a “high level of ideological,political, and action unity”. Meanwhile, two Uyghurs were arrested on Renmin Lu in Ürümchi for giving out leaflets, allegedly on the charge of “incitement to split the country”. Outside of state-media, Radio Free Asia was running the story of Rabigul Yasin. Rabigul is seeking compensation after being “wrongfully shot” by paramilitary forces when hiding in a bin to get away from the July troubles. She was handcuffed and shackled during treatment and then had to bribe the police to release her son. This wouldn’t quite fit with the China Daily’s angle!

The biggest story of the last week was the alleged “attempted hijack” of a place by “terrorists” leaving Hotan for Ürümchi, foiled by SWAT police and passengers. For no real reason, the China Daily made extra effort to mention the anniversary of July 5^th 2009 and not the 7^th when Han residents organised in gangs to kill Uyghurs. The Huffington Post interviewed Dilxat Raxit of the World Uyghur Congress, who claimed the “hijack” was actually just a fight over seat assignments – not an uncommon incident in China! Caixin noted the good fortune of having 20 policeon board at the time with one Chinese blogger claiming 40 SWAT personnel were present. One witness commented on Weibo that this was “good screenwriting, good directing,and great acting”!

As is always the case we should take the party-state’s media organs on this subject as a source of discourse rather than facts: they tell stories which fit ‘facts’ to ideology. The Global Times quoted a “Regional Information Officer” stating that this was “a violent terrorist attack” despite admitting that any links to any terrorist organisation were unclear. The paper, which was once seen as relatively independent in China is now generally mocked by intellectuals. It managed to use the word terrorism 7 times in the brief article making it pretty clear that they want you to think of this as terrorism. They used Li Wei, a security “expert” based in Beijing, to perform mind-bending logical somersaults to state:

Premise: “separatists” want to make noise before 18^th national congress of the Chinese Commmunist Party.

Conclusion: this “hijack” was “motivated by exile groups overseas and their connection is close and underground”!

Convinced? Probably not. Perhaps the saddest part of the story is how international media uncritically regurgitate party-state press releases to a global audience on Xinjiang news. Key codewords, such as “terrorism”, “Islam”, “restive region”, and “ethnic”, which signify “danger”, are disseminated across the world, frightening readers with little or no knowledge of Xinjiang. This suggests people ought to think of Xinjiang as a “dangerous place” and Uyghurs as a “problem” but without any real evidence, background, or discussion. The Guardian, a very well respected broadsheet in the UK, referred to Hotan as “a heavily ethnic Uyghur area”. The article mentioned “holy war” and explained the party-line but without acknowledging that we really have no idea what happened here. Whatever “heavily ethnic” is supposed to mean, it sounds frightening! Internationally respected newspapers would do well to take their responsibilities more seriously in discussing the press releases of governments, particularly when they are used to justify politicised crackdowns on people giving out leaflets or hiding in bins.


EDIT: On the 2nd July, the Global Times confirmed two Uyghurs had been killed in the incident but offered little by the way of explanation, rehashing the "terrorist" narrative before we really know what happened.