Reference no: EM133699787

Part 1:

In an influential article Jeanne Kirkpatrick argues in support of autocratic rule:

"Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other re- sources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty. But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees."

What do you think she is saying?

Does this square with the American conception of freedom and liberty?

Does it matter?

Part 2:

The Uighur people have been the target of official Chinese discrimination in the Xinjiang Province for years. However, there is no one voice that represents the Uighur. Some advocate for autonomy, some for independence, some want change through non-violence while others feel violence is the best policy. China has suffered through Uighur terrorist attacks. A preferred method was knife attacks in crowded places. In 2013 five people were killed and 38 injured when an SUV rammed through barricades in front of Tiananmen Square's gate tower in Beijing and burst into flames-- an attack linked to Uighur separatists.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the Chinese government claimed (and in some cases strongly implied) that *all* Uighur groups (violent or not) like the The East Turkestan Independence Movement (ETIM) were actively aligned with al Qaeda and other Radical Islamists as a cover story to step up a campaign of repression in the region. Sadly the ETIM welcomed the publicity and were comfortable with the threat inflation. Every act of Uighur violence was carefully linked by Beijing to the American Global War on Terror. The situation in Xinjiang has only deteriorated since-- with large detention and re-education camps set up for hundreds of thousands of people.

I have looked into the American media coverage of Xinjiang and it was almost non-existent before 9/11. When it came to China news in the 1990s was dominated by the three T's: Tibet, Taiwan and Trade.

After 9/11 the American news about the Uighur initially used the Beijing frame (they are terrorists). You would be hard pressed to find any American (on the left or right) who had any sympathy for the Uighur people in the immediate years after September 11. The United States even discovered Uyghurs in Afghan terrorist training camps.

But knowing all this--and taking this course-- we have come back to the major foreign policy issue that I think will still dominate the 2024 election-- China. So specifically, in relation to the Uighur, do you support (possibly covertly) groups who advocate freedom and are willing to engage the Beijing government in violence in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Tibet? Or do we ignore them because that is an internal Chinese matter?

Remember the long history of U.S. misjudgments in picking favored rebel groups (how did those mujahideen work out in Afghanistan; or the Syrian rebels?)

But there is a a natural corollarly to all this-- are you OK supporting other nations crushing their own indigenous separatist movements or committing human rights atrocities as long as they are pro-American and anti-Chinese?