The annexation of East Turkistan (AKA the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China) by the Qing Dynasty in the 18th century and its subsequent incorporation into the People's Republic of China in 1949 is one of the main precipitating factors for the tension between the Uyghurs and the Chinese government. The Uyghurs desire for independence to secure itself from oppression has long been pejoratively described as “Uyghur Separatist Terrorism.” Uyghurs were labeled a terrorist threat at the start of the 21st century. So called Islamic Terrorism was at the forefront of the minds of global leaders following the 9/11 twin towers attack. The People’s Republic of China seized this opportunity to label Uyghur Exile groups as terrorists. But this did not just affect those exile groups; this classification of “terrorism” had major implications for all Uyghurs.
During the early stages of the Global War on Terror, the PRC started to broaden the scope of their concerns about the Uyghurs. At the UN General Assembly on November 11th 2001, Tang Jiaxuan branded all Uyghurs with the desire for autonomy as “East Turkistan Terrorists” with links to Al-Qaeda and sought to have them placed on the International Terrorists List. They emphasized their supposedly serious concern of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. What is interesting is that no group has ever attributed itself to something called the “East Turkistan Islamic Movement.” There was a party founded in Afghanistan called the “East Turkistan Islamic Party” but that dates all the way back to the 1940s. (1*) Clearly, the PRC knew very little about the group they attempted to accuse. Labeling groups with dissenting views as terrorists is a common tactic used by governments to legitimize harming dissidents and justifying it on the international stage. In his book: The War on the Uyghur, Dr. Sean Roberts, professor of the practice of international affairs, said the following regarding the claim that Al-Qaeda was linked to The East Turkistan Islamic Movement:
“While ETIM’s international designation as a ‘terrorist organization’ and the plethora of literature written about the group by ‘terrorism analysts would suggest that this was a cohesive group that has a long history of carrying out violent attacks inside China and that at least since 1998, was an affiliate of Al-Qaeda, my own analysis of those Uyghurs who are assumed to have been members of ETIM/TIP at this time suggests that none of these assumptions are fully accurate.” (1*)
We can see that, like many scholars, Dr. Roberts challenges the politically motivated narrative of “ETIM” being in bed with Al-Qaeda based on his extensive research and field work on the Makhsum’s community (Uyghur Exiles). He also writes:
“Two years after the recognition of ETIM as a ‘terrorist organization’ by the US and UN, its assumed leader [Hasan Makhsum] was now dead, and his community which was ETIM in the eyes of the ‘counterterrorism-industrial complex,’ had been decimated. Yet, ETIM remained on both lists as this book goes to print, and the Uyghurs are still experiencing the consequences.” (1*)
The problem with pretending that the people of an ethnic group are a bunch of terrorists is that you cannot really continue to support this notion and justify persecution if no terrorist attacks are happening. This is why China started up false flag attacks and misrepresenting events in their state-run media. That was the only way to make their narrative work. One instance of this occurred in 2011, when it was reported that 4 people were killed in an organized act of terror in occupied East Turkistan (Xinjiang). To no surprise, this was attributed to Separatist movements. The World Uyghur Congress uncovered what really happened. Police unloaded on peaceful protestors which led to fighting between them and the police officers. 14 Uyghurs were killed and 70 were arrested in this brutal, merciless attack on these protestors. (2*) The police murdered them and Global Times, their state-run media, covered it up. The sympathies towards Uyghurs by the public started to decrease, and the crackdowns on the Uyghurs by the government exponentially increased. In 2013, one suicidal Uyghur family of a man, his mother, and his wife, gathered in an SUV and drove this SUV into Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, hitting multiple people. Everyone in the car and 2 other tourists were killed. (1*) Of course, the Chinese government labeled this a terrorist attack conducted by the Turkistan Islamic Party and claimed that this had connections with the broader international terrorist organizations. Naturally, international scholars were highly skeptical of this claim. CNN had a piece written by one scholar discussing his doubt about the notion that this had anything to do with Al-Qaeda or any international terrorism. Chinese state media maligned any academic that questioned the event on their news channels. Chinese citizens sent them death threats and started a campaign to shut down CNN in China. (1*) Clearly, an alternative perspective on the event struck a nerve. Why was China so adamant about shutting this perspective down? The answer seemed to lie in the fact that while the Turkistan Islamic Party praised the event, they did not and could not take responsibility for it. Independent reporting of this attack made it obvious that China's bizarre coverage had no bearing in reality. Unfortunately, Chinese citizens were not be privy to this, as China excels at coverup. And with each coverup, and with each distortion of events in the media, Uyghurs continued to be demonized, vilified, and dehumanized. So much so that we have reached a point where Uyghurs, starting in 2015, could be locked up in concentration camps, subjected to torture, sterilization, and rape, and nobody bats an eye.
The agenda is obvious. This state-propagated concern of “Uyghur Separatist Terrorism” traces its roots back to the era of the Global War on Terror. Under the pretext of 'Counter-Terrorism,' China has managed to assert control over Uyghur lives while simultaneously dismissing any concerns about their treatment, citing the imperative of eradicating terrorism. However, as established by international scholars, this is just another manifestation of Sino-colonialism in action.
(1*) Roberts, Sean R. War on the Uyghurs: China’s Internal Campaign against a Muslim Minority. Princeton University Press, 2022.
(2*) Mao, Sabrina, and Sui-Lee Wee. “China Blames ‘Terrorists’ for Attack in Xinjiang: Report.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 19 July 2011, www.reuters.com/article/us-china-xinjiang-attack/china-blames-terrorists-for-attack-in-xinjiang-report-idUSTRE76I0NQ20110719.