Separatists Stab 29 to Death at Xinjiang Train Station : Xinhua

[folium]

@Folium,

Thanks for the considered response. Some of it may well be true some of the time, though it just about covers all bases without giving much faith that any lessons can be learned or progress made. Looking at the governmental responses listed, all of these have been tried in the past, not only with respect to separatism, but also with respect to problems caused by immigrants failing to assimilate. As I stated in my reply to Simple1, I believe ideology is the key driver in much of the world's terrorism.

So what do we make of the Uighurs and their long list of grievances?

http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/china-attackers-wanted-to-do-jihad-abroad-2014-03-05-1.540591

Qin Guangrong, Communist Party chief of Yunnan province where Kunming is located, said that the eight attackers "originally wanted to participate in 'jihad'," state media, including Xinhua news agency, reported.

"They could not leave from Yunnan, so they looked elsewhere, and went to Guangdong province, but also could not leave, so they returned to Yunnan," Qin was quoted as saying.

They then went to Yunnan's Honghe county, which borders Vietnam, where they planned, if they were unable to leave the country from there, to carry out jihad either in Honghe or at railway or bus stations in Kunming, he added.

So according to the Chinese the group were looking to participate in Jihad overseas (seems the Chinese media dare use the word) but opted for a local target when they were unable to do so. You may call this far fetched, yet hundreds of European nationals with no direct link to Syria turn up there to fight a holy war - you would have thought that the freedom of worship, provision of social welfare and Halal food might have placated them, but no. I don't doubt the Uighurs have some genuine grievances, but I would be prepared to bet that external agitators have a lot to do with the seeming increase in violence from them.

You appear to be conflating separatism with more ideologically driven terrorism.

Almost none of the separatist conflicts I highlighted were primarily or even materially driven by ideology. Obviously any form of group identity (be it religious, political, racial, ethnic etc) can be used to act as a binding agent.

Without wishing to be too controversial it would be interesting to hear your take on zionism, whether it was/is predominantly an ideological or nationalistic phenomenom.

If you look at ideological terrorism such as the RAF (that's the German variety, not the "crabs"), Red Brigades in Italy, AD in France, CCC in Belgium, JRA in Japan, Weathermen & Black Panthers in USA, al Qaida in its various franchises, they have all been spectacularly unsuccessful in achieving their objectives of reshaping the world. Global caliphates and international Marxism are doomed to failure as their demands, steeped in ideology, are non-negotiable and thus unachievable. Nationalist or separatist movements tend to be readier to make concessions and thus make far more progress. Ironically Afghan highlights this dichotomy perfectly. Crushing al Qaida took months and minimal deployment of assets. Trying to crush the Taliban has taken over a decade, vast amounts of blood and capital, and has spectacularly backfired. Ideologically-driven groups can be crushed militarily, nationalist/separatist based groups, long-term, cannot. A lesson the triumphant Sinhalese government in Colombo is yet to grasp.

Similarly the Chinese government cannot hope to crush Uighur separatism by military means or even by colonial plantations (see your favourite example Ulster and the failed attempt via Protestant plantations to crush Irish nationalism). Until Beijing actually engages with the issue politically and goes for one of the avenues highlighted in my previous post, no forward progress will be achieved.

The utter evisceration of Basque separatism has been achieved by granting political autonomy to a large degree to the Basque territories, plus military/security efforts in both Spain and France to put a lid on terrorist activity. A similar pathway has led to the large degree (if not yet complete) success in Ulster.

Defeating al Qaida will be achieved in a similar way to defeating extreme left-wing organizations detailed above in the 1970-80's. Avoid acting as recruiting sergeant, allow security forces to confront the enemy, and ride out the storm. Nihilistic threats. long term are relatively easy to deal with. Separatist/nationalist threats have to be faced up and resolved politically and require compromise, concessions and at times painful decisions, see the OTR drama in Ulster.

Paranoia and rash reactions to global marxism or global caliphates just prolong the problem, when actually both are fundamentally doomed, as long as the players concerned keep their nerve and do not fall into the trap of over-reaction and hysteria which do nothing but perpetuate and magnify the problem.

[squarethecircle]

"You appear to be conflating separatism with more ideologically driven terrorism."

Seems like idealogy shapes the response to perceived ills. Look at the similarities between Tibet and Xinjiang: both ruled by their Chinese scum-lords, Tibet bred the Dalai Lama, together with a continuing stream of self-immolating monks. Xinjiang has bred suicide attackers and jihad. Clearly there is more at play in idealogy, but the idealogy and way-of-thinking of the people involved shapes the response. Also it's strange to see people (and what passes for human rights groups) continuing to sympathize with the Uighur separatists and blame thisbehavior on China's military crackdown on Xinjiang separatism/terrorism. My thoughts: this is a cowardly and murderous response by people unable to face the inevitable problems of life in a 21st century manner, and such people and their supporters deserve no sympathy.

[simple1]

"You appear to be conflating separatism with more ideologically driven terrorism."

Seems like idealogy shapes the response to perceived ills. Look at the similarities between Tibet and Xinjiang: both ruled by their Chinese scum-lords, Tibet bred the Dalai Lama, together with a continuing stream of self-immolating monks. Xinjiang has bred suicide attackers and jihad. Clearly there is more at play in idealogy, but the idealogy and way-of-thinking of the people involved shapes the response. Also it's strange to see people (and what passes for human rights groups) continuing to sympathize with the Uighur separatists and blame thisbehavior on China's military crackdown on Xinjiang separatism/terrorism. My thoughts: this is a cowardly and murderous response by people unable to face the inevitable problems of life in a 21st century manner, and such people and their supporters deserve no sympathy.

If China had worked on acceptance and addressing grievances that have been outstanding for many years, just may be there would not now be a simmering separatist conflict. Why do you and others nearly always come from the position, crudely stated, the aggrieved having to 'eat shit'; whats wrong for the State to make compromises?

The Tibetan armed resistance movement went on for around 15 years until it was crushed and at its peak comprised of an estimated 35,000 personnel. During the conflict thousands of Tibetan resistance fighters were killed by Chinese forces. Interesting to note that there does not seem to be any reports on the number of Chinese killed (military/civilians) during the war of resistance. There has been some speculation that another armed resistance will come into being in the medium term.

[Steely Dan]

At risk of going round in ever decreasing circles, states do make compromises, which may have some positive effect in the case of purely separatist groups, however if ideology (often externally driven) is a factor then the situation is already beyond the scope of diplomacy alone. You can blame the Chinese for being heavy handed, just as you could blame the Russian actions in Chechnya for Beslan, but then you have the likes of the Boston Marathon bombing or countless such atrocities where all but the most self apologetic liberal would struggle to pin the blame on the victim. Separatism, as squarethecircle so wisely observed is distinct from ideologically inspired violence. What might once have been a separatist issue with the Uyghurs has now become an ideological one, as was the case in Mali. I guess global communications has had the unfortunate side effect of allowing ideologically driven violence to spread.

Here is an article from Asian Americans, who have no hesitation on calling things as they see it, and they don't see this as an isolated separatist issue.

http://www.asianweek.com/2014/03/07/uyghur-jihad-for-freedom-or-chinas-911/

Edited March 9, 2014 by Steely Dan

[7by7]

At risk of going round in ever decreasing circles...................

Why do you continue with your circle of "Some Muslims bad, therefore all Muslims bad"?

Those of us who don't adhere to your belief you label as 'apologist liberals' no matter how many times we say deplore the violence of terrorists and extremists, no matter their cause, ideology or religion.

If you and those who agree with you ever, God forbid, have the power then I wonder how long it would be before all Muslims were rounded up and shipped off to camps to 'protect' the rest of society pending their deportation; and how long before the gas chambers and crematoria appeared to solve the Muslim question!

As a Jew, you will probably find that offensive; but the sort of rhetoric you employ and quote in any topic with the slightest connection to Islam, and even some that have none, is very familiar to those of us who have studied 20th century history. Just a different target this time.

Your linked to article is written by one Asian American and published in one magazine. I doubt very much his view is shared by all; or even the majority.

The tone of his first paragraph where he tries to blame any attack on an Asian American on Islamists, even a road traffic accident, clearly shows where he is coming from!

[folium]

At risk of going round in ever decreasing circles, states do make compromises, which may have some positive effect in the case of purely separatist groups, however if ideology (often externally driven) is a factor then the situation is already beyond the scope of diplomacy alone. You can blame the Chinese for being heavy handed, just as you could blame the Russian actions in Chechnya for Beslan, but then you have the likes of the Boston Marathon bombing or countless such atrocities where all but the most self apologetic liberal would struggle to pin the blame on the victim. Separatism, as squarethecircle so wisely observed is distinct from ideologically inspired violence. What might once have been a separatist issue with the Uyghurs has now become an ideological one, as was the case in Mali. I guess global communications has had the unfortunate side effect of allowing ideologically driven violence to spread.

Here is an article from Asian Americans, who have no hesitation on calling things as they see it, and they don't see this as an isolated separatist issue.

http://www.asianweek.com/2014/03/07/uyghur-jihad-for-freedom-or-chinas-911/

There's no circular motion required....

Separatism can succeed (eg S.Sudan, E.Timor, Kosovo, Czech Rep/Slovakia, Singapore), but often ends up with governments offering extended powers of autonomy or other political measures to lance the boil of conflict (eg Basques, Ulster, Aceh). Ideologically driven conflict has a less successful track record. Depending on whether you regard Zionism as ideological or nationalistic, you could argue the creation of Israel within Palestine was a rare ideological success story. The creation of Pakistan (West and East, latterly Bangladesh) were on the surface ideological creations but were also highly nationalistic in concept, plus were enabled by the vanity of Mountbatten to allow a poor solution to occur.

Not sure why the "blame game" needs to be played out. Somewhat random acts of violence perpetrated by messed up individuals does not need entire groups to be demonised. The brothers who committed the outrages in Boston are about as representative as Timothy McVeigh or Baruch Goldstein of their respective groups.

Your choice of Mali as an example is actually highly illustrative of this point. Tuareg separatism has been a long running issue in many West African nations. The collapse of the central government in Mali, following a military coup in Bamako, enabled these separatists to gain a major advantage. However this power vacuum also opened the door to jihadists, manned and armed as a byproduct of the Libyan collapse. Initial cooperation between the Tuaregs and jihadists soon collapsed as they had very different agendas. Also the jihadist presence led to a full scale French intervention (partly driven by the need to secure uranium supplies from neighbouring Niger), which brought the separatists to the negotiating table and drove the jihadists into the mountains of northern Mali. Long term it is likely that the Tuaregs will gain some measure of autonomy in northern Mali, while the jihadists will be a "sought-after" nuisance.

If China wants to end the conflict with the Uighurs this will similarly require a political deal and ideological concerns will soon become a minor concern.

If you can point me towards ideologically-driven success stories in recent history I would be fascinated to hear of them.

[Steely Dan]

@Folium, Will consider the rest of your post when time permits. You are bang on with Mali, good luck to the Tuaregs by the way. External agents pouring petrol on the flames may be all that is needed to turn a separatist conflict into an ideological feud, where everyone loses. I can't prove this has happened with the Uighurs in the manner it has in Iraq or Syria, time will tell.