The CPC could give up and surrender Xinjiang to ISIS. This option condemns millions of people to living under a fundamentalist Islamic State, including many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims. This option creates a CIA-aligned state on the border, and jeopardises a key part of the Belt and Road initiative, which is designed to connect landlocked countries for development and geopolitical positioning. This option also threatens the CPC’s legitimacy, as keeping China together is a historical signifier of the Mandate of Heaven.
The final option is the Chinese option. Mass surveillance. Use AI to liberally target anyone who may be at risk of radicalisation for re-education. Teach them the lingua franca of China, Mandarin. Pump money into the region for development. When people finish their time in re-education, set them up with state jobs. Keep the surveillance up. Allow and even celebrate local religious customs, but make sure the leaders are on-side with the party.
Let’s take a moment to distinguish that last approach from that of Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the undesirables. Initially it was internment in concentration camps with the outcome up in the air, with a vague hope of shipping them to Madagascar or palestine, but it later morphed into full extermination. All throughout, Nazi Germany was pushing strong rhetoric of antisemitism and stoking ethnic hatred in the public sphere.
Mr. Xi also told officials to not discriminate against Uighurs and to respect their right to worship. He warned against overreacting to natural friction between Uighurs and Han Chinese, the nation’s dominant ethnic group, and rejected proposals to try to eliminate Islam entirely in China.
“In light of separatist and terrorist forces under the banner of Islam, some people have argued that Islam should be restricted or even eradicated,” he said during the Beijing conference. He called that view “biased, even wrong.”
guys imprisoning people who follow a certain religion for “terrorism” is good, now that that’s done away with we can get back to our discussion on how terrible gitmo is
I think it’s also important to note that the majority of people sent through the re-education system just ended up with vocational training and a job that paid significantly more than what they had before. That alone is probably the biggest driver of de-radicalization. Who would think that improving people’s material conditions would lead to them being less inclined to join a radical separatist organization?
Both states say the former though, who are you kidding? You can argue over which one is being more truthful but you’re literally just deciding to think critically only about the US’s justification and not China’s.
Imagine you could go back in time and have an actual state power in Iraq, instead of the hollow shell US contractors left it with, and implement adequate deradicalisation programmes.
I figured ‘use various measures to target people prone to far right extremism, teach them why that’s wrong, then provide employment, while investing in the region to address the material conditions that led to the unrest’ was the nuanced approach.
I’m sure there are ways it can be improved, and I’m sure their approach has its excesses. I’m just so far unconvinced that there’s any better historic approach to draw upon.
The American South is a region filled with religious extremists, some of whom have already radicalized to the point of committing acts of terrorism. Should we make it its own country and fund their schools to boot? Is that likely to improve the situation or make it worse?
What do you think happens to people in western countries spreading terrorist propaganda? Right they sent them to prison.
Also western intelligence seems to be not opposed to the concept of early deradicalisation, here is an interesting take from Richard Barrett, former director of global counter-terrorism at MI6:
We need to get to potential terrorists before radicalisation, not afterwards
Once an individual has fallen for extremist propaganda, it’s hard to change their mind. Better to spot the early signs
Approximately 50% of what you hear is outright propaganda, as we know the CIA’s affiliates churn out. We also see CIA assets pushing narratives on Reddit. The next 25% is poorly researched speculation by an evangelical end-timer, and the final 25% is an accurate description of the PRC’s response to far right, religious terrorism and separatism.
First, let’s just establish using safe, American sources that a bunch of Uyghur people went to fight with ISIS in Syria, then returned. Let’s also establish that there have been consistent terrorist attacks with significant casualties and that the CIA and CIA front-groups have funded and stoked Islamic extremism across the world for geopolitical gain.
Now, we need to consider potential responses.
The CPC could give up and surrender Xinjiang to ISIS. This option condemns millions of people to living under a fundamentalist Islamic State, including many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims. This option creates a CIA-aligned state on the border, and jeopardises a key part of the Belt and Road initiative, which is designed to connect landlocked countries for development and geopolitical positioning. This option also threatens the CPC’s legitimacy, as keeping China together is a historical signifier of the Mandate of Heaven.
The next option is the American option. Drone strike, black-site, or otherwise liquidate anyone who could be associated with Islamic extremism. Be liberal in doing so. Make children fear blue skies because of drones. When the orphaned young children grow up, do it all again. You can also throw a literal man-made famine in there if you want.
The final option is the Chinese option. Mass surveillance. Use AI to liberally target anyone who may be at risk of radicalisation for re-education. Teach them the lingua franca of China, Mandarin. Pump money into the region for development. When people finish their time in re-education, set them up with state jobs. Keep the surveillance up. Allow and even celebrate local religious customs, but make sure the leaders are on-side with the party.
Let’s take a moment to distinguish that last approach from that of Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the undesirables. Initially it was internment in concentration camps with the outcome up in the air, with a vague hope of shipping them to Madagascar or palestine, but it later morphed into full extermination. All throughout, Nazi Germany was pushing strong rhetoric of antisemitism and stoking ethnic hatred in the public sphere.
There’s no evidence, including from leaked papers, that the goal of the deradicalisation programme is permanent internment or annihilation of Islam. In fact, the leaked papers have Xi explicitly saying Islam should not be annihilated from China:
As for permanent internment, we know from leaks that the minimum duration of detention is one year — though accounts from ex-detainees suggest that some are released sooner.
Unlike Nazi Germany, there’s no stoking of inter-ethnic hatred or elimination of a specific culture; the CPC actively censors footage from terrorist attacks in China to avoid such an outcome. Xi doesn’t go on TV calling any ethnicity rapists or murderers. Uighur culture is actively celebrated in the media and via tourism. Xinjiang has 24,400 mosques, one per 530 Muslims. That’s three mosques per capita more than their western peers.
Could China’s approach be done better? Almost certainly. Is it the most humane response to extremism we’ve seen so far? That’s for you to decide.
(Reposted from here )
guys imprisoning people who follow a certain religion for “terrorism” is good, now that that’s done away with we can get back to our discussion on how terrible gitmo is
that comment was me deciding youre infringing on my freedoms
there’s a very big difference between “imprisoning muslims because they might be terrorists” and “imprisoning muslims because they follow islam”
I think it’s also important to note that the majority of people sent through the re-education system just ended up with vocational training and a job that paid significantly more than what they had before. That alone is probably the biggest driver of de-radicalization. Who would think that improving people’s material conditions would lead to them being less inclined to join a radical separatist organization?
Both states say the former though, who are you kidding? You can argue over which one is being more truthful but you’re literally just deciding to think critically only about the US’s justification and not China’s.
Can’t believe ‘ISIS existed so we have to put all these Muslims in camps’ is an actual take
Imagine you could go back in time and have an actual state power in Iraq, instead of the hollow shell US contractors left it with, and implement adequate deradicalisation programmes.
Would you do so? Or would you wait a few years, then bomb Raqqa to rubble?
I feel like there’s room for nuance between doing whatever the fuck the US did and putting Muslims in camps
I figured ‘use various measures to target people prone to far right extremism, teach them why that’s wrong, then provide employment, while investing in the region to address the material conditions that led to the unrest’ was the nuanced approach.
I’m sure there are ways it can be improved, and I’m sure their approach has its excesses. I’m just so far unconvinced that there’s any better historic approach to draw upon.
If you know of any, please let me know.
leave Xinjiang as an autonomous zone, continue to offer voluntary education and work programs and welcome any refugees to China. Carrot vs stick.
The American South is a region filled with religious extremists, some of whom have already radicalized to the point of committing acts of terrorism. Should we make it its own country and fund their schools to boot? Is that likely to improve the situation or make it worse?
What do you think happens to people in western countries spreading terrorist propaganda? Right they sent them to prison.
Also western intelligence seems to be not opposed to the concept of early deradicalisation, here is an interesting take from Richard Barrett, former director of global counter-terrorism at MI6:
And why should what western countries do make a difference? Are they the epitome of virtue now?
Also, you’re literally engaging in right wing talking points when you describe all the Muslims in the province as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers
I’m not doing that, I don’t know where you get that impression, but okay.