Xinjiang Terrorism: China’s Exaggeration/Fabrication?
Richard Weitz, a scholar for the Hudson Institute, makes the argument that China’s government has either exaggerated or outright fabricated a plot by Uighur separatist to attack the upcoming Olympics. The plot in question was reported by Chinese authorities on April 10, and in their words involved 45 suspects from the Uighur dominated Xinjiang Province, who allegedly planned to use firearms, explosives, and other weapons to disrupt the upcoming Olympic Games. Weitz finds this claim ‘dubious’ because he:
1. Feels that the Chinese authorities have failed to produce evidence to the public verifying their claims
2. Believes China desires the safe transport of energy resources from a land route through Central Asia and into their own Xinjiang Province in order to sidestep the volatile Middle Eastern region and the US-controlled seaways. Therefore China is using this terrorist plot as an excuse to further spread its government’s authority into the Xinjiang Province and beyond into the small Central Asian states.
Both of Weitz’s arguments are sound and the Chinese government’s actions concerning its region’s of unrest, Xinjiang and Tibet, have been unquestionably harsh and repressive in the past, but it cannot be denied that there is a real terrorist threat, from the Uighur dominated regions of China and from sources as far away as Pakistan, where some of the suspects from the March 7 plane incident were trained and hailed from. The Uighur-based East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) has been blamed by the Chinese government for over 200 attacks since 1990 and not all of these could have been fabricated. Here is the Council on Foreign Relations quick synopsis of ETIM and their capabilities and supposed terrorist actions. It is also important to know that the ETIM is also considered a terrorist group by the United States (Here is a good article from Global Terrorism Analysis that sums up reasons for this identification) and the United Nations Security Council.
It goes without saying that any accusations the Chinese government makes regarding the Tibetan and Uighur-based regions and security issues should be looked at suspiciously, but it must be acknowledged that the Chinese state has cause to be concerned about a terrorist threat, specifically regarding its hosting of the upcoming Olympics. Am I being to kind/naïve about the Chinese government’s claims? Should the US government ask for evidence to verify these claims or should it just mind its own business as the Chinese almost assuredly believe it will?
PS: Here is a more in-depth article by Weitz’s discussing Russia, China, and the US’s interests and areas for competition/cooperation in Central Asia: “Averting a New Great Game in Central Asia”
April 19th, 2008 at 1:54 am
[…] Speaking of plots and concealment, via the Foreign Policy Association’s Central Asia Blog we find a brief article by Hudson Institue scholar Richard Weitz on the recent Olympic terrorism plot unveiled and busted by Chinese authorities a few weeks ago. Real or not real? In a weirdly structured article Weitz spends ten paragraphs giving the usual “Xinjiang background” spiel, which is understandable since presumably most of his intended readers are not familiar with Xinjiang, but then he spends a hasty two paragraphs on the terrorist plot, basically saying since Xinjiang is of high strategic value, it is in China’s best interest to fabricate the terrorist plot, ergo, the terrorist plots were probably fabricated. Patrick Frost at the CA Blog argues that while the logic of skepticism is sound, the threat of terrorism in Xinjiang is real especially given the track record of violent terrorism in Xinjiang: with 200+ recorded incidents in the past few decades, surely some were fabricate, but conversely, surely some were real, correct? Between Frost and Weitz, I think the Chinese government’s strategy in withholding proof and evidence becomes a little more clear: by doing so, we’ll never know if it was a legit terrorist crackdown, nor will we know if it was a fabrication. I’m sure some sort of ancient Chinese wisdom (Sun-Tzu probably, if I bother to look) dictates that it is better for the others to not know either way than to know for certain something is real or not real. […]
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
[…] On a more somber note, Richard Weitz, who I have referenced before, attended a briefing by counterinsurgency specialists Bruce Hoffman and Seth Jones titled “America’s Counterinsurgency Conundrum: Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Quest for Stability.” Jones and Hoffman reported their findings from their experiences with the US 82nd Airborne Division in four Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan. The two specialists argue that the US military has improved its counterinsurgency methods of late, but that much more needs to be done to defeat the Taliban and bring stability to the region. Hoffman laments of the lack of resources given to the US effort by its government, arguing that way too much is being spent on Iraq. Both specialists argued for the international community to see this Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan as an ‘integrated whole.’ In other words, one is directly connected to the other and for success to be reached progress needs to occur on both sides of the border. Lastly, Hoffman calls this battle America’s ‘most acute foreign policy challenge.’ […]