During the Cold War, it was relatively easy to look at everything through the perspective of bipolar balance based on socialism and capitalism. But when the Eastern Bloc disappeared, academics and researchers faced many difficulties. At that time, I was one of those who were saying: “If China disintegrates, too, I'm going to resign. Young researchers will have to deal with this on their own.” What's actually going on in China reminds us of the possibility that one day China may face the USSR's destiny. For a very long time, the Uighurs of Xinjiang haven't wanted to be under China's authority. The Chinese government has always labeled this movement as “separatist,” and it has also added the qualification “Islamist” in the wake of the Sept.11 attacks. For China, the Xinjiang region is full of terrorists, supported by foreign powers, who contest the country's territorial integrity and legitimate authority in order to get political and cultural privileges. Chinese authorities have always seen the Uighurs as lower class compared to the Han Chinese population. From their perspective, Xinjiang is no different from the Basque region, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Iraqi Kurdistan and perhaps the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC).
However, from the Uighur perspective, this is all about the right of self-determination. They want to get rid of an authoritarian government, use their natural resources for their own good and to govern themselves. They also probably think that in a time when tiny Kosovo's independence was accepted as legitimate, maybe their demands will be received in the same manner.
But while Kosovo's independence is recognized, the KKTC is not considered an independent state; when the USSR fell, the Baltic republics were not seen as separatist; the world easily accepted the division of the Indian colony to create Pakistan; Israel was founded while Palestinians are still asking for their own state. The world is not fair because it's often third parties who decide which region, people or ethnic group will live under whose sovereignty. The global balance of power is still the main determinant, and when a group has bad timing or when it's not clear on whose side it will be once separated, the issue becomes complicated.
When a central authority ignores or tries to suppress its own citizens' demands for more rights, it reinforces the separatist rhetoric. However, it's natural that many states face a dilemma about China because actors such as the US, the UK and Russia very frequently use double standards when they decide which population's demands are legitimate or not. As an example, if Russia supports the Uighurs, it could face numerous complications about its own Muslim-Turkish populations. If the US supports the Uighurs, it will have to clarify its position on Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, too. These two actors pursue their “fight against terrorism” rhetoric, so they choose to close their eyes to China's policy of violence. This is also a very complicated issue for Turkey. One can expect that this country, which has recognized the KKTC and Kosovo, will unmistakably support the Uighurs. However, that would be contradictory if you think about Turkey's Kurdish policy.
The Xinjiang unrest is another example that in international relations, uncontrollable crises are inevitable when there are too many double standards. There is certainly a need to revise the present parameters.
