Given the magnitude of the Chinese clampdown in the Xinjiang
region, the Uighur people face unimaginable pressure to abandon their culture
and embrace a Han Chinese identity. Beijing's campaign will within a generation
all but eliminate Uighur culture. While they are a Muslim population, from a
Christian perspective the ethics of resistance are worth exploration. This is all
the more true when we apply the same categories to the Church in the People's
Republic and even (to some degree) the events taking place in Hong Kong.
As Christians, how can we analyse such situations and how
would we respond in accord with the ethics of the New Testament?
For the Uighurs there are a few basic choices. They can
fight, kill and be killed and hope that their numbers are sufficient to break
Beijing's grip. Considering that they would be highly outgunned, they would be
forced to resort to paramilitary (or guerilla) methods and they would have to
be prepared to sacrifice great numbers to achieve their goals.
They would also have to decide as to whether or not they
would want a settlement with Beijing or complete autonomy. With the latter, the
larger Han populations in places like Ürümqi would have to be reckoned with.
Would they want them repatriated to the People's Republic or would a Uighur
state allow them to stay?
Additionally this scenario would depend on outside
assistance. Guerilla movements usually depend on support from the local
population as well as outside aid in the form of weapons, logistics and
intelligence. The Uighurs, should they decide to launch a massive campaign,
would certainly receive this help via Washington... with some difficulty in the
logistics. Indeed even now Washington all but harbours key figures associated
with East Turkestan (as opposed to Xinjiang) independence. Washington would
either have to operate 'over the hump' of the Himalayas as they did when aiding
the Tibetans in the 1950's and 1960's, or find some other means. Of course for
this to happen they would have to be granted permission by India (to use their
airspace and airfields) and likewise the timing seems right. The Modi
government would likely entertain such a scenario. As an aside Washington would
also love to pull Modi even further into their camp with the hope of breaking
apart the BRICS banking conglomerate.
Washington would also undoubtedly operate out of Afghanistan
but given the geographic restrictions of the Wakhan Corridor it would be
difficult to move materiel without detection and considerable resistance on the
part of the Chinese. Yet the mountains of Afghanistan have proven difficult for
all armies. Since 2001 the US has failed in holding them but they also utilised
them in the 1980's to bring support to the mujahideen who were fighting the
Soviets. At the time Washington had a friend in Pakistan, a relationship now
severely strained. As things stand today it is unlikely that Islamabad would
support a US campaign in support of a Xinjiang-Uighur uprising.
Staging operations in Central Asia are a possibility but
politically difficult and nations such as Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan
would be wary as they would expect Chinese interference within their own borders.
Another alternative would be the Uighurs could choose to give
up violent resistance. They can rely on their exile community to preserve their
culture and rely on its help to rekindle it at some future time. This has been
the tactic of the Tibetans after the disasters of 1959 and 1972. The former
date is a reference to the Dalai Lama's flight and exile to Northern India and
the second date is of course a reference to Nixon's rapprochement with China
and the end of open US support for Tibetan independence.
However the Uighurs do not have a centralising figure like
the Dalai Lama who more or less embodies their culture and additionally after
60 years of exile, some are beginning to doubt the viability of such a
strategy. A lot will depend on what happens when the present Dalai Lama dies
and is replaced.
Another option, the Christian option (as it were) is the path
of non-resistance. That does not mean total acquiescence. In the case of
persecution or great oppression there is the option of refusal... refuse on a
massive population-wide scale.
Refusal is not the same as resistance. There is a significant
and substantial difference.
I'm not speaking of Gandhi's doctrine and practice of Nonviolence.
That's using nonviolent tactics to confront and force political change...
ultimately it's a move made by a disenfranchised group to gain a foothold
within the political process. Victory will in many cases mean an opportunity to
actually seize control. It's actually a form of manipulation, a literal case of
passive-aggressive behaviour.
But like refusal, Nonviolence uses tactics wherein the
involved persons (refusers or in other cases activists) are willing to suffer
for their principles. They are willing to be beaten, jailed and even killed.
Some have argued that Gandhi's success was due to the fact
that he was up against the British Empire, an empire with a concept of morality
and the rule of law and conscience. Gandhi might have disputed these claims as
the British Empire could in fact be profoundly immoral and duplicitous,
arbitrary and manipulative and at times indifferent to suffering and human
life. Millions died as a result of British policy though the impact of these
crimes is diluted as it was spread out over more than a century. This fact has
allowed imperial powers such as Britain, France and America to escape being
associated with the criminality and murderous practices of regimes such as the
Third Reich or even the USSR... their millions were killed within a relatively
short time.
Nevertheless even Gandhi understood that his overall strategy
would prove very difficult in the face of something like Nazi Germany. Could
the Jews have utilised his tactics? People have been asking this question for
decades. With reason many have argued that the Germans would have killed the
Jews on a massive scale (as indeed they did) and yet the killing would have
taken place in the context of street protests. It would have been public in
front of the German population and not secreted away in concentration and death
camps. Would the German population have reacted? Would they have begun to
resist? It depends on whether you believe the secrecy of the camps and the
Final Solution were critical to the German plan, not just in terms of the wider
world but even with reference to their domestic population. Certainly the high
command wanted to keep the public in a state of ignorance. Did they fear a
reaction? Clearly they feared something.
Such counterfactual questions are hard to answer but there's
a chance that domestic resistance to Hitler might have begun in earnest in the
1930's had that path been taken. Who can say?
The bottom line is this... a lot of people would have to be
willing to die. I think it more likely that Gandhi would have found such
persons in a culture such as India as opposed to bourgeois European Jewry.
While I would argue that the New Testament rejects
politically motivated activism on the part of Christians, including nonviolent
activist tactics (and thus the Hong Kong resistance should be rejected), we are
nevertheless called to refuse at times, refuse in the context of
non-resistance. And so once again if a massive number of people (assuming there
are large numbers of Christians) simply refuse to follow the laws which they
deem sinful and continue to do so in face of punishment and death... will the
offending magistrate cease and desist, and back down? To put it simply, it
depends.
For Christians within China, there's at least a possibility
that the larger public may begin to object to Beijing's iron fist and begin to
sympathise with the persecuted. But then again, maybe not. You can be sure the
Chinese state will do all it can to hide such actions and encourage people to
look the other way.
The situation is even worse in Xinjiang because apart from
places like Ürümqi, the Han populace won't even see the oppression and the
crackdown. If Beijing is willing to endure international criticism, the
scenario suggests the Uighurs cannot attain any kind of settlement through this
means.
Christians are called to take up the cross and flee if need
be. The price may indeed be terrible. It is no child's play to follow the Lamb
and indeed we are encouraged not to fear those who can harm the body but He who
can destroy the soul. The price may be the ultimate one. Christ did so for us,
we can do no less... as terrible as that is to contemplate.
I believe Providence will likely intervene in the case of
Christians and at some point Beijing will relax the policy due to external
pressures. The Christian community should be careful to divorce itself from
external political pressures... otherwise persecution is transformed into
punishment and refusal is transformed into resistance.... bringing down the
condemnation of Romans 13.
The American Church (generally speaking) has not understood
even one iota of this concept and will continue to push the American Empire to
war against the Chinese Empire for the sake of the Christians and liberal
values. This is a tragic mistake which destroys the testimony of the suffering
believers within China. Of course their own community has brought forth leaders
who have also embraced this unfortunate ideology and the heretical theology
which undergirds it.... another gift from the American Church.
In my opinion the Uighurs will fight. A low-key conflict has
been taking place for more than a decade but it has been ineffective and
half-hearted. I expect this to change over the next few years and I'm sure
Washington will be involved. If the US can get a friendly government installed
in Turkey, that nation will also play a key role, as even today it is the chief
haven for the Uighur exile community.
The tangle is this... the most effective way to combat
Beijing in Xinjiang is to root the struggle in Islam and thus in Salafist forms
of political violence as represented by groups such as the al Qaeda affiliated
East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM).*
The US has used Islamic fighters before and likely will again
but this is 2019 in Central Asia.... not 1979 in Afghanistan. It's a little
trickier to work out the logistics and hide one's hand. Washington has 'supported'
groups like al Qaeda in the past and continues to do so at present in select
locations and conflicts. But to do so in Xinjiang at the present and not be
observed by the world is difficult. But I'm confident there are people working
on it. In fact I'm confident there's a grand plan in place, it's just a matter
of putting the pieces together and timing it right.
Sadly I believe the coordinated plan will involve resistance
and disturbance coming from within the Christian community in the People's
Republic and it will forever tarnish their witness and the witness and
testimony of Christians within the United States. It will have repercussions
for Western-connected Christian communities across the globe. They will forever
after be viewed as insurgents, a fifth column to be watched and feared.
------
*As the report linked below indicates, obviously the Pentagon
claims otherwise when it comes to the ETIM. But given the source and the
seeming contradictions in US policy, I'm left wondering just how valid the
report is. It wouldn't be the first time the US has waged a phony war. While
the US doesn't want ETIM fighters disturbing the Kabul government, and they
didn't want them bombing the 2008 Olympics, they do want them to make trouble
in China and they certainly wanted them to operate in Syria as part of the
anti-Assad militias.
See also:
This article contains numerous references to the ETIM.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.