cover

cover next page >

Cover

title: China, Xinjiang and Central Asia : History, Transition

and Crossborder Interaction Into the 21st Century
Routledge Contemporary China Series ; 38.38
author: Mackerras, Colin.; Clarke, Michael.
publisher: Taylor & Francis Routledge
isbn10 | asin: 0415453178
print isbn13: 9780415453172
ebook isbn13: 9780203881705
language: English
subject  Uighur (Turkic people)--Asia, Central, Uighur (Turkic
people)--China--Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu, Xinjiang Uygur
Zizhiqu (China)--Relations--Asia, Central, Asia, Central--
Relations--China--Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu, Asia, Central-
-History, China--Politics and go
publication date: 2009
lcc: DS793.S62C5273 2009eb
ddc: 951/.6
subject: Uighur (Turkic people)--Asia, Central, Uighur (Turkic
people)--China--Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu, Xinjiang Uygur
Zizhiqu (China)--Relations--Asia, Central, Asia, Central--
Relations--China--Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu, Asia, Central-
-History, China--Politics and go

cover next page >

file:///C:/...%20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/cover.html[27.08.2009 12:58:17]
page_i

< previous page page_i next page >

Page i
China, Xinjiang and Central Asia
Central Asia and Xinjiang – the far north-western province of China – are of increasing international
importance. The United States, having established military bases in Central Asia after September
2001, has now become a force in what was previously predominantly a Russian sphere of influence,
while China, Russia and Iran all continue to exert strong influence. These external, international
influences have had a significant impact on local politics, with the overthrow of a long-standing
regime in Kyrgyzstan, continued unrest and opposition to the current regime in Uzbekistan and the
intensification of Chinese control in Xinjiang.
This book explores the effect of global and local dynamics across the region: global influences include
the ‘War on Terror’ and international competition for energy resources; local dynamics include Islamic
revival, Central Asian nationalism, drugs trafficking, economic development and integration. The
authors argue that these multiple challenges, in fact, unite Xinjiang and Central Asia in a common
struggle for identities and economic development.
This book provides a comprehensive overview of the region’s historical significance, the contemporary
international forces which affect the region, and of current political, economic and cultural
developments.
Colin Mackerras is Professor Emeritus at Griffith University, Australia. His main works on ethnic
minorities include China’s Minorities: Modernization and Integration in the Twentieth Century and
China’s Ethnic Minorities and Globalisation. He has written a paper on Tibetans in contemporary
China for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2005.
Michael Clarke is a Research Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University, Australia. He
has published numerous articles on the history and contemporary politics of Xinjiang in such journals
as Asian Security, Asian Studies Review, Issues & Studies and Terrorism & Political Violence.

< previous page page_i next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_i.html[27.08.2009 12:58:18]
page_ii

< previous page page_ii next page >

Page ii
Routledge Contemporary China Series
1 Nationalism, Democracy and National Integration in China
Leong Liew and Wang Shaoguang
2 Hong Kong’s Tortuous Democratization
A comparative analysis
Ming Sing
3 China’s Business Reforms
Institutional challenges in a globalised economy
Edited by Russell Smyth and Cherrie Zhu
4 Challenges for China’s Development
An enterprise perspective
Edited by David H. Brown and Alasdair MacBean
5 New Crime in China
Public order and human rights
Ron Keith and Zhiqiu Lin
6 Non-Governmental Organizations in Contemporary China
Paving the way to civil society?
Qiusha Ma
7 Globalization and the Chinese City
Fulong Wu
8 The Politics of China’s Accession to the World Trade Organization
The dragon goes global
Hui Feng
9 Narrating China
Jia Pingwa and his fictional world
Yiyan Wang
10 Sex, Science and Morality in China
Joanne McMillan
11 Politics in China Since 1949
Legitimizing authoritarian rule
Robert Weatherley
12 International Human Resource Management in Chinese Multinationals
Jie Shen and Vincent Edwards
13 Unemployment in China
Economy, human resources and labour markets
Edited by Grace Lee and Malcolm Warner
14 China and Africa
Engagement and compromise
Ian Taylor
15 Gender and Education in China
Gender discourses and women’s schooling in the early twentieth century
Paul J. Bailey
16 SARS
Reception and interpretation in three Chinese cities
Edited by Deborah Davis and Helen Siu

< previous page page_ii next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_ii.html[27.08.2009 12:58:18]
page_iii

< previous page page_iii next page >

Page iii
17 Human Security and the Chinese State
Historical transformations and the modern quest for sovereignty
Robert E. Bedeski
18 Gender and Work in Urban China
Women workers of the unlucky generation
Liu Jieyu
19 China’s State Enterprise Reform
From Marx to the market
John Hassard, Jackie Sheehan, Meixiang Zhou, Jane Terpstra-Tong and Jonathan Morris
20 Cultural Heritage Management in China
Preserving the cities of the Pearl River delta
Edited by Hilary du Cros and Yok-shiu F. Lee
21 Paying for Progress
Public finance, human welfare and inequality in China
Edited by Vivienne Shue and Christine Wong
22 China’s Foreign Trade Policy
The new constituencies
Edited by Ka Zeng
23 Hong Kong, China
Learning to belong to a nation
Gordon Mathews, Tai-lok Lui, and Eric Kit-wai Ma
24 China Turns to Multilateralism
Foreign policy and regional security
Edited by Guoguang Wu and Helen Lansdowne
25 Tourism and Tibetan Culture in Transition
A place called Shangrila
Åshild Kolås
26 China’s Emerging Cities
The making of new urbanism
Edited by Fulong Wu
27 China-US Relations Transformed
Perceptions and strategic interactions
Edited by Suisheng Zhao
28 The Chinese Party-State in the 21stCentury
Adaptation and the reinvention of legitimacy
Edited by André Laliberté and Marc Lanteigne
29 Political Change in Macao
Sonny Shiu-Hing Lo
30 China’s Energy Geopolitics
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Central Asia
Thrassy N. Marketos
31 Regime Legitimacy in Contemporary China
Institutional change and stability
Edited by Thomas Heberer and Gunter Schubert
32 U.S.-China Relations
China policy on Capitol Hill
Tao Xie
33 Chinese Kinship
Contemporary anthropological perspectives
Edited by Susanne Brandtstädter and Gonçalo D. Santos
34 Politics and Government in Hong Kong
Crisis under Chinese sovereignty
Edited by Ming Sing
35 Rethinking Chinese Popular Culture
Cannibalizations of the Canon
Edited by Carlos Rojas and Eileen Cheng-yin Chow

< previous page page_iii next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_iii.html[27.08.2009 12:58:19]
page_iv

< previous page page_iv next page >

Page iv
36 Institutional Balancing in the Asia Pacific
Economic interdependence and China’s rise
Kai He
37 Rent Seeking in China
Edited by Tak-Wing Ngo and Yongping Wu
38 China, Xinjiang and Central Asia
History, transition and crossborder interaction into the 21st century
Edited by Colin Mackerras and Michael Clarke

< previous page page_iv next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_iv.html[27.08.2009 12:58:19]
page_v

< previous page page_v next page >

Page v
China, Xinjiang and Central Asia
History, transition and crossborder interaction into the 21st century
Edited by
Colin Mackerras and Michael Clarke

LONDON AND NEW YORK

< previous page page_v next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_v.html[27.08.2009 12:58:20]
page_vi

< previous page page_vi next page >

Page vi
First published 2009 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009.

To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands
of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.
© 2009 Colin Mackerras and Michael Clarke for selection and editorial
matter; individual contributors for their contribution
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN 0-203-88170-2 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 10:0–415–45317–8 (hbk)
ISBN 10:0–203–88170–2 (ebk)
ISBN 13:978–0–415–45317–2 (hbk)
ISBN 13:978–0–203–88170–5 (ebk)

< previous page page_vi next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_vi.html[27.08.2009 12:58:20]
page_vii

< previous page page_vii next page >

Page vii
Contents
 
 Figures and maps   ix
 List of contributors   x
 Acknowledgements   xiii
 List of abbreviations   xiv
 
1 China, Xinjiang and Central Asia – ‘glocality’ in the year 2008   1
DONALD H. McMILLEN
2 The ‘centrality’ of Central Asia in World History, 1700–2007: From pivot to   21
periphery and back again?
MICHAEL CLARKE
3 Positioning Xinjiang in Eurasian and Chinese History: Differing visions of the ‘Silk   55
Road’
JAMES A. MILLWARD
4 ‘Failed States’ on the ‘Perilous Frontier’: Historical bases of state formation in   75
Afghanistan and Central Asia
GEOFF WATSON
5 Xinjiang and Central Asia: Interdependency – not integration   94
ANN McMILLAN
6 Uyghurs in the Central Asian republics: past and present  115
ABLET KAMALOV
7 Xinjiang and Central Asia since 1990: views from Beijing and Washington and  133
Sino-American Relations
COLIN MACKERRAS

< previous page page_vii next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_vii.html[27.08.2009 12:58:21]
page_viii

< previous page page_viii next page >

Page viii
8 Central Asia’s domestic stability in official Russian security thinking under Yeltsin  151
and Putin: from Hegemony to Multilateral Pragmatism
KIRILL NOURZHANOV
9 ‘Glocality’, ‘Silk Roads’ and new and little ‘great games’ in Xinjiang and Central  173
Asia
MICHAEL CLARKE
 
 Index  190

< previous page page_viii next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_viii.html[27.08.2009 12:58:21]
page_ix

< previous page page_ix next page >

Page ix
Figures and maps
Figures
 
1.1  The ‘glocal continuum’   6
1.2  A different skin   7
Maps
 
1.1  China and Central Asia   11
1.2  Commonwealth of Independent States – Central Asian States   12

< previous page page_ix next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_ix.html[27.08.2009 12:58:22]
page_x

< previous page page_x next page >

Page x
List of contributors
Michael Clarke is currently a Research Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University,
Brisbane, Australia. His doctoral thesis, ‘In the Eye of Power: China and Xinjiang from the Qing
Conquest to the New Great Game for Central Asia, 1759–2004’, examined the expansion of Chinese
state power in the ‘Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region’ since the eighteenth century and the
implications of this complex process for China’s foreign policy in Central Asia. His research expertise
and interests concern Chinese history, politics and foreign policy, ethnic separatism and terrorism in
Xinjiang and Central Asia, and nuclear proliferation in the Asia–Pacific. He has published on these
subjects in journals such as Issues & Studies; Asian Studies Review; Australian Journal of Politics and
History; Asian Security; Terrorism and Political Violence; and the Nonproliferation Review .
Ablet Kamalov is Leading Research Associate at the Institute of Oriental Studies (Center for Uyghur
Studies) and Academic Leader at the Central Asian Resource Center (CARC) of the Educational Center
‘Bilim-Central Asia’ funded by the Open Society Institute, Kazakhstan. He earned his doctorate in
history from the St Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russia (1990). He has
been a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Washington (Seattle, 1997–8), a visiting scholar at the
University of Oxford (2001–2), Georgetown University (2003) and the J.W. Kluge Center at the
Library of Congress (2003–4). He has published numerous articles on the history and culture of
Central Asian peoples, most particularly the Uyghurs.
Colin Mackerras is professor emeritus at Griffith University, Queensland. He has researched in
many areas of Chinese history and contemporary China, especially theatre, minority nationalities and
international relations and has written widely on all those topics. His main works on ethnic minorities
include China’s Minorities: Modernization and Integration in the Twentieth Century, Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press, 1994 and China’s Ethnic Minorities and Globalisation, London:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. He also wrote a web paper on the Tibetans in contemporary China for the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2005.

< previous page page_x next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_x.html[27.08.2009 12:58:22]
page_xi

< previous page page_xi next page >

Page xi
Ann McMillan has a PhD in Political Science from Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. Her
doctoral research assessed the strategic and economic interdependency which has developed in the
Xinjiang–Central Asian region since the demise of the Soviet Union. Ann has travelled extensively
worldwide and since 1996 has led several tours to China. She has been a convenor/lecturer for China
Field Studies and has lectured in Australia–Asia Pacific studies. She is presently working in China
teaching English as part of a cooperation programme between Australia and China.
Donald H. McMillen (PhD, Colorado, 1976) is Professor of Asian and International Studies,
Department of Humanities and International Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Southern
Queensland (USQ), Australia. His previous positions have included Director of Research and Research
Development in the Faculty of Arts and Head of the Department of Asian Studies. He has also been:
Head of the Department of Government and International Studies and Director of the ‘Hong Kong
Transition Project’ at Hong Kong Baptist University; Director of the Centre for the Study of Australia–
Asia Relations at Griffith University; Senior Research Fellow; and Acting Head of the Strategic and
Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. He is also a Member of the Editorial
Board of The China Journal (Canberra), a Consulting Editor for several international publishing
houses, and has delivered scholarly lectures or seminars at many institutions around the world. He is
the author of a number of important works on Xinjiang, including Chinese Communist Power and
Policy in Xinjiang, 1949–1977, Boulder: Westview Press, 1979; ‘The Xinjiang Production and
Construction Corps: A Han Organization in a Non-Han Region’, Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs,
1981, July, no. 6, 65–91; ‘The Urumqi Military Region: Defense and Security in China’s West’, Asian
Survey, 1984, August, 22 (8), 705–29; and ‘Xinjiang and Wang Enmao: New Directions in Power,
Policy, and Integration?’, China Quarterly, 1984, no. 99, 569–93.
James A. Millward (BA Harvard 1982; MA, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London, 1986; PhD, Stanford, 1993) is Associate Professor of Intersocietal History in the Edmund
Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. He specializes in the modern history of
China and Central Asia, including Mongolia, Tibet and especially Xinjiang, where he travels
frequently. He also teaches world history, and his current research combines Central Eurasian and
world perspectives by following the paths of stringed instruments and musical exchanges along the
silk roads and globally, with a particular focus on the globalization of the guitar over the past 500
years. He has delivered papers in China, France, Germany, Sweden, India, Japan and Korea and has
been elected to serve on the councils of major academic associations (the Association for Asian
Studies China and Inner Asia Council; Central Eurasian Studies

< previous page page_xi next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_xi.html[27.08.2009 12:58:22]
page_xii

< previous page page_xii next page >

Page xii
Society Executive Board). His publications include Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang , New
York: Columbia, 2006; New Qing Imperial History: the Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing
Chengde, London; New York: RoutledgeCurzon 2004; and Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity and
Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759–1864, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998; Chinese
translation, 2006.
Kirill Nourzhanov holds a PhD from the Australian National University and a Master of Arts from
the Moscow State University. He is currently a Lecturer at the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies
(the Middle East and Central Asia). Dr Nourzhanov’s areas of expertise include Russian and Eurasian
politics, the strategic and security environment in Central Asia and the Caucasus, and Islamic
radicalism. He teaches courses on the relevant subjects at the ANU, ADFA and CDSS. He comments
regularly on the conflict in Chechnya, the geopolitics of oil, and terrorism in the Australian mass
media. In 2000–2, Dr Nourzhanov acted as an international adviser to the governments of Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan in the field of public administration reform. He has published widely in refereed
academic journals, and contributed chapters to books on Central Asia. His most recent publication
was ‘Caspian Oil: Geopolitical Dreams and Real Issues’, Australian Journal of International Affairs,
2006, March, 60 (1).
Geoff Watson is a lecturer in the history programme in the School of History, Philosophy and
Politics, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. He completed his MA on Central Asian
influences on the Mughal Empire at Canterbury University in Christchurch under the supervision of Dr
S.A.M. Adshead and Dr Ian Catanach in 1992. He then completed his PhD on British images of
Central Asia between 1830 and 1914 at Griffith University under the supervision of Professor Colin
Mackerras and Dr John Butcher in 1998. He has published a number of articles based on his doctoral
research in the Worlds of the Silk Roads series and also contributed an article on representations of
Central Asian ethnicities to Asian Ethnicity in 2002.

< previous page page_xii next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_xii.html[27.08.2009 12:58:23]
page_xiii

< previous page page_xiii next page >

Page xiii
Acknowledgements
Colin Mackerras and I would like to express our sincere thanks to the Griffith Asia Institute and its
Director, Professor Michael Wesley, for funding and supporting our research workshop on Xinjiang
and Central Asia held at Robertson Gardens, Brisbane, 26–27 June 2006. Griffith Asia Institute’s
support allowed us to assemble a range of Xinjiang and Central Asia scholars from Australia, New
Zealand, the United States and Kazakhstan to contribute to a wide-ranging discussion of the history,
politics, culture and international relations of Xinjiang and Central Asia.
We would also like to thank our contributors not only for their wholehearted participation during the
workshop itself but also for their willingness to revisit and revise their papers for publication.
Moreover, we also appreciate their meeting of our deadlines to produce what we feel is a collection
of high-quality research papers.
Finally, we would also like to thank Ms Robyn White, Publications Manager for the Griffith Asia
Institute, for preparing the final copy of the manuscript.
Michael Clarke
Griffith Asia Institute
Brisbane, Queensland
8 April 2008

< previous page page_xiii next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_xiii.html[27.08.2009 12:58:23]
page_xiv

< previous page page_xiv next page >

Page xiv
List of abbreviations
CAU Central Asian Union
CCP Chinese Communist Party
CFDP Council on Foreign and Defense Policy
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
CST Collective Security Treaty
ETIM East Turkestan Islamic Movement
ETR East Turkestan Republic
EurAsDec Eurasian Economic Commonwealth
FSU Former Soviet Union
IES Institute of Eurasian Studies
IMU Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
IROU Inter-Republican Organization of Uyghurs
ISAF International Security Assistance Force
HT Hizb ut-Tahrir
MPR Mongolian People’s Republic
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
PDPA People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan
PRC People’s Republic of China
RATS Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure
SCO Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
SES Single Economic Space
TIRET Turkic Islamic Republic of East Turkestan
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Fund
UNDP-HDR-CA United Nations Development Fund
Human Development Report for Central Asia
UNPO Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
UNRFET United National Revolutionary Front of East Turkestan
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
XPCC Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps
XUAR Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

< previous page page_xiv next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_xiv.html[27.08.2009 12:58:24]
page_1

< previous page page_1 next page >

Page 1
1
China, Xinjiang and Central Asia
‘Glocality’ in the year 2008
Donald H. McMillen
University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Introduction
The contributors to this volume are grateful to the Griffith Asia Institute for hosting the June 2006
Workshop on ‘Central Asia and Xinjiang into the twenty-first century’ that has led to the publication
of these timely and thought-provoking essays. The participants, many of whom had travelled far to
be in Australia, offered informed, indeed fascinating, insights focused on the relationship between
developments in Xinjiang and China’s ties with the rest of Central Asia. In a broader sense, the
proceedings touched on a range of significant global and international issues pertinent to that
‘region’, including recent views from Beijing, Moscow, Washington and Australia. In a more particular
sense, and very correctly in my mind, they also critically delved into the more ‘local’ conditions of life,
attitudes, history of events, and states’ policies that have had equally profound effects on the various
peoples and players there. All of these were placed in the context of a number of important
‘transitions’ that are variously underway today.
One of the main points made in my opening address, and one that will be discussed in greater detail
later, was the need for an analytical framework that would assist in the contextualization and
assessment of the issues treated by Workshop contributors – and one that would provide overall
coherence for this volume. I suggested that one such framework could be based on the notion of
‘glocality’. As it happened, just such a framework was consistently embedded in contributors’ essays
and served our aims well. First, however, I believe it is appropriate to briefly discuss the generations
of scholars, and others, who have written about this ‘Eurasian Outback’ as a backdrop to the essays
that follow.
The earlier generations of Xinjiang/Central Asia scholars
To be honest, when the workshop organizers, Professor Colin Mackerras and Dr Michael Clarke,
invited me to present the opening paper, I was a bit anxious. This was because I began my own
research career some 35 years ago by focusing on the efforts of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
to

< previous page page_1 next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_1.html[27.08.2009 12:58:24]
page_2

< previous page page_2 next page >

Page 2
establish its power in Xinjiang and, thereafter, formulate ‘revolutionary re-integrationist’ policies that
would create a post-Liberation Xinjiang that was truly an integral part of the new People’s Republic
of China (PRC). I was fascinated by the fact that after 1949 the CCP had to deal with several
‘historical truths’, including that Xinjiang remained a rather remote, non-Han region along the Sino-
Soviet border in Central Asia where complex ethnicities had become predominantly coloured by
adherence to varieties of the Islamic faith. Indeed, these features were to have continuing impacts
on Beijing’s efforts to exert Chinese rule and establish a communist ethos there. Much the same had
previously been the case in Soviet Central Asia for the leadership in Moscow.
At that time, I also was drawn to the study of Xinjiang by the work of at least two previous
generations of largely Western scholars, many of whom had ventured there to either uncover the
mysteries of ‘Inner Asia’,1 to fathom the ‘Great Games’2 then being played out by a combination of
exogenous and indigenous empires in that ‘Pivot (or Pawn?) of Asia’3 or, more simply, to tell ‘the
story’ of Central Asia and Xinjiang.4 Many of my colleagues in the United States at that time were
quizzical, if not sceptical, about the region’s importance – even when they knew where it was!
In my mind, the first lot of Central Asia and Xinjiang scholars composed the ‘Generation of
Adventurers, Explorers and Romantics’ – even ‘Exoticists’; while the second was basically a
‘Generation of Traditional Geopoliticians’ who assessed the imperial ambitions of extra-regional
powers in those novel Eurasian continental lands beyond the Great Wall where Silk Roads and oasis
cultures were seen to predominate.
In any case, these first two generations of writers brought the distant domains of Central Asia and
Xinjiang to the attention of outsiders. However, in my view, they wrote relatively little about the
particularities of the peoples and places there, and when they did so it was usually from Euro- or
Sino-centric perspectives. More recently, this prompted S. Frederick Starr to lament the fact that
many earlier studies of Xinjiang (and Central Asia) set the precedent of being based on ‘hoary
generalities and self-serving clichés’ in explaining these places and peoples – treatments he claims
were a ‘tableau of exotica’ or works that treated them as ‘a crude geopolitical problem’.5 In his
words concerning such writings on Xinjiang: ‘Bluntly, there is hardly any “fact” concerning Xinjiang
[and, one might add, Central Asia] that is so solid, no source information that is so independent, and
no analysis based on such overwhelming evidence that someone does not hotly contest its validity or
meaning.’6
That aside, but perhaps on account of these reasons, I was attracted to study that region and its
peoples, and my initial research led to the 1979 publication of Chinese Communist Power and Policy
in Xinjiang, 1949–77 , which explored the political integration of that ‘new frontier region’ into the
nascent PRC. That volume was followed by a 1981 article in The Australian Journal of Chinese
Affairs, entitled ‘Xinjiang and the Production and Construction

< previous page page_2 next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_2.html[27.08.2009 12:58:24]
page_3

< previous page page_3 next page >

Page 3
Corps: A Han Organisation in a Non-Han Region’. Admittedly, I published these studies at a time
when my own research, and that of the generation of Western scholars in that period, was largely
framed by the ideological and geostrategic contexts of the then Cold War and, later, the development
of the Sino-Soviet dispute.7 But this is not to say that no attempt was made by me, or others, to
look ‘beyond ideology’ in undertaking such research and writing!
That notwithstanding, I would label that cohort of Western writers as scholars belonging to the
‘Generation of Ideologists and Academic Voyeurs’. As a then young American researcher, and like
most of my contemporaries, I had no direct access to China, and certainly not to Xinjiang or Central
Asia.8 I was therefore compelled to pursue ‘research’ about that region from a distance (largely from
Taiwan and Hong Kong). Thus, my investigations were undertaken in a very ‘second-hand’ manner,
adopting analytical methodologies that were subsequently labelled ‘Pekingology’ for such studies
focused on ‘Red China’ (or ‘Kremlinology’ for those pertaining to the then Soviet Union).
I nonetheless feel very gratified that Gardner Bovingdon would refer to my earlier research in one of
his more recent writings on Xinjiang as follows:
A generation ago, Donald McMillen captured the central dilemma confronting Xinjiang’s rulers [the
CCP]. On the one hand, out of security considerations, the Party had to develop policies that
respected the Uyghurs’ (and others’) cultural and religious differences – though not, McMillen adds
parenthetically, ‘their right of self-determination’ – to avoid provoking popular antagonism. On the
other hand, nation-building concerns led to policies such as forced Han immigration and language
reforms ‘designed to undercut the very ethnic and cultural uniqueness which the Party outwardly
promised to safeguard….’ The ultimate aim was assimilation. According to McMillen, the path chosen
by Wang Enmao, who by 1965 was both military commander and first party secretary of Xinjiang,
was ‘to maintain actively the façade of regional autonomy for [the various minzu ] … while at the
same time adopting measures that would gradually make them, and the territory they inhabited,
unquestionably Chinese’.9
While I shall return to some of these themes later, as do many of the contributors in this volume, my
point is that by the mid-1980s my own research interests shifted away from Xinjiang, and it has
been over 20 years since I last studied or wrote about that place.10 Hence, in making the opening
remarks at the 2006 Workshop, I felt a definite sense of going ‘back to the future’!
The newer generation of Xinjiang/Central Asia scholars
Nonetheless, I have remained fascinated by developments in Central Asia and Xinjiang and often
have read, with much admiration, the more recent,

< previous page page_3 next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_3.html[27.08.2009 12:58:25]
page_4

< previous page page_4 next page >

Page 4
and excellent, scholarship about these places and peoples by the latest generation of scholars. Most
of them have had the good fortune to experience greater direct access to China and Xinjiang and the
peoples there since the 1980s and to the places of ‘ethnic cousins’ in the post-Soviet states of
Central Asia since the early 1990s. As a consequence of their ability to undertake such fieldwork
there, they have obtained greater ‘ground truths’ about the region than I (or ‘my generation’) could
have done earlier. Certainly, my own ‘academic voyeurism’ of the 1970s seems a far cry from today’s
more open and globalized research environment – where ‘travel’ (both real and virtual) across
borders into such places, combined with newer technologies, has nearly removed ‘curtains and walls’
for interested researchers and policy-makers. Moreover, the newer (hence, current) generation of
scholars, both Western (‘exogenous’) and ‘Non-Western’ (‘indigenous’), also is frequently fluent not
only in putonghua (or Russian) but also competent in at least one of the languages of the
nationalities of that region.11
Therefore, this more current scholarship fits into what I call the ‘Generation of Scholarly Visitors’. It is
composed of exogenous micro-specialists who have the capacities to dissect Xinjiang, and Central
Asian, lifestyles and relevant government approaches to political, economic and social management.
Moreover, it also is a generation that now includes scholars indigenous to these places who have, to
a considerable degree, stepped out from behind former ‘barriers and dispositions’ to more freely
interact with their peers both locally and internationally. This has added a valuable degree of what I
call ‘rounded dimensionality’ in terms of the perspectives represented in assessments and discussions
about the region. It also supports the idea that we now have a generation of contemporary Central
Asia and Xinjiang scholarship that is conditioned by processes and events that range through a
‘continuum’ from the local, national and regional to the global. For these reasons, therefore, this is an
era of scholarship when ‘glocality’ already has become an important contextual and analytical
component.
Xinjiang/Central Asia: ‘glocality’ as a framework of analysis
Conceptually, the notion of ‘glocality’ presents us with a context wherein continuing little and great
‘games’ are being played out, frequently as components of contests at all levels in the region of focus
here; where there is an apparent seamlessness between the macro and the micro affairs of actors
within Central Asia and Xinjiang (and of actors from elsewhere , both proximate and distant, including
both nation states and others); and where the immediate lives of ‘everyday peoples’ are variously
deemed to be of consequence. As Smith and Baylis suggest, ‘the processes of increasing
interconnectedness between societies is such that events in one part of the world more and more
have effects on peoples and societies far away’.12 This view holds that ‘the world is increasingly seen
and experienced as a single place’,

< previous page page_4 next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_4.html[27.08.2009 12:58:25]
page_5

< previous page page_5 next page >

Page 5
whereby if ‘someone “sneezes” in, say, Urumqi (or Beijing, and even Kashgar or Tashkent), others
elsewhere could “catch a cold”’.
In a brief, but brilliant, discussion of globalization, Anthony McGrew has noted that [with some
additions by the author]:
The growing extensity, intensity , and velocity of global interactions is associated with a deepening
enmeshment of the local and the global in so far as local events may come to have global [and
regional] consequences and global [and regional] events can have serious local consequences
creating a growing collective awareness or consciousness of the world as a shared social space.
Rather than social, economic and political activities being organized primarily on a local or national
scale, they are also increasingly organized on a trans-national or global [glocal] scale. This is not to
argue that territory and borders are now irrelevant, but rather to acknowledge that under conditions
of globalization their relative significance , as constraints upon social action, and the exercise of
power, is declining. In an era of instantaneous, real-time global communication and organization, the
distinction between the domestic and the international, inside and outside the state, breaks down.13
McGrew goes on to equate this with a form of ‘relative de-nationalization’ of power, in so far as, in
an increasingly interconnected global system, power is organized and exercised on a transregional,
transnational, or transcontinental basis. In a similar fashion, Holton has argued that:
To be ‘glocal’ means the combination of global and local elements within human activities. Examples
include local marketing by global corporations, or the environmentalist practice of thinking globally
but acting locally. Glocalization, meanwhile, is the process whereby ‘glocal fusions’ take place.
The term ‘glocal’, while not widely used in academic or popular debate, nonetheless has a significant
presence in a range of areas from business and management, to city-to-city collaboration and social
movements seeking to empower civil society to combat market-based globalization and the power of
multinational corporations.14
Holton’s words draw on a core insight of Roland Robertson’s seminal discussion of ‘global fields’,
which reasoned that much which might be called global or local may be better regarded as a
syncretic, albeit a complex and shifting mix of both elements which thereby creates glocal rather than
global relationships.15 In other words, the global and the local interpenetrate rather than maintain a
distinct free-standing character.16 The idea of glocal levels of social life is a key example of the more
general trend that Robertson refers to as relativization, which involves the combination, or
interpenetration, of

< previous page page_5 next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_5.html[27.08.2009 12:58:26]
page_6

< previous page page_6 next page >

Page 6
what he sees as universal and particular aspects of social life. In Figure 1.1, this writer attempts to
depict such a ‘glocal continuum’, recognizing that some ‘elements’ (in brackets) are fungible.
Therefore, one could suggest that in this era of ‘contemporary accelerated globalization’ (CAG), it is
appropriate to analytically consider this concept of glocality, including as a reflection of actors’
thoughts and actions.17 Perhaps the recent thoughts of a young Australian schoolgirl, shown in
Figure 1.2, capture similar feelings on a personal level – and ones that are likely held glocally.
Putting aside the fact that globalization processes, including those that pertain to glocalization,
remain uneven and in many cases unfair (what might be termed ‘asymmetrical globalization’), it
seems more than reasonable that, taken together, they can provide an interesting and coherent
analytical framework that draws attention to ‘fusions’ of global and local processes and players –
whether configured by states, cities, business enterprises, social movements, or individuals. One
could suggest that other dimensions, say those of sociocultural identity, human security, economic
and resource development, and the world’s environment, should be included with those elements
which heretofore have tended to focus on the territorial state’s ‘national

Figure 1.1 The ‘Glocal Continuum’.

< previous page page_6 next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_6.html[27.08.2009 12:58:26]
page_7

< previous page page_7 next page >

Page 7
I am a person who was born to live in a skin with a different colour than yours.
I could not choose my parents, nor you yours.
The colour pigments embedded in your skin by the unchangeable hands of nature
Are perchance white, while mine are black, brown or yellow.
But underneath, I am just like you.
My muscles ripple with the same waves of power, and thrill to the same throbs of
Joyous action.
My mind has the same functions as yours.
I reach out, just as you do, in aspirations of the soul.
I love and hate, hope and despair, rejoice and suffer, along with you.
When my children lose fair chances at life, and become aware of the bitter road of prejudice they
must tread,
Then I know what my colour has cost them.
I offer you my hand in rebuilding an unjust world, a world you and I must make better than we
found.
I am a person of a different skin.
Figure 1.2 A different skin.
security’ and policies or other factors associated with it. As Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks recently
noted:
Throughout history and until very recently most people (for most of their lives) were surrounded by
others with whom they shared a faith, a tradition, a way of life, a set of rituals and narratives of
memory and hope. Under such circumstances it was possible to believe that our truth was the only
truth; that our way was the only way. Outsiders were few, dissidents fewer still. That is not our
situation today. We live in the conscious presence of ‘difference’. In the street, at work and on the
television screen we constantly encounter cultures whose ideas and ideals are unlike ours. That can
be experienced as a profound threat to identity…
Religion is one of the great answers to the question of identity. But that, too, is why we face danger.
Identity divides. The very process of creating an ‘Us’ involves creating a ‘Them’ – people not like
ourselves. In the very process of creating community within borders, religion can create conflict
across borders .18
And one could extend this thinking to an assessment of the recent intensification of asymmetrical
conflict as illustrated by the American-led ‘global war on terror’, within which notions of glocality
seem to shape associated actions and policies (such as those based on the doctrine of pre-emption
in what has been termed the ‘paradigm of prevention’). And these seem to be utilized to promote
the affinities of particular nation states’ national interests in the face of threats or challenges by other
state or non-state actors (the ‘Them’ and ‘Us’ equation) in any locality, worldwide.
The nature of this glocality, particularly the interconnectedness of the

< previous page page_7 next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_7.html[27.08.2009 12:58:26]
page_8

< previous page page_8 next page >

Page 8
‘Them’ and ‘Us’ dichotomy, can be clearly seen in the ‘Abstract’ that publicized the 2006 Workshop:
The September 11 incidents have exerted a profound effect on Central Asia as a whole and, due to
the predominantly Islamic confession of the region’s population and proximity to Afghanistan, the
region has been caught up in the war against terrorism. The United States has established bases in
Central Asia, the first time in history that the Americans have been involved in what have up to now
been Russian and to some extent Chinese and British spheres of influence. Since the 11 September
incidents, the region has been assailed by a multiplicity of extreme influences that have impacted
significantly upon the internal development of the Central Asian republics and Xinjiang. Indeed, the
post-11 September period has witnessed the overthrow of a long-standing regime in Kyrgyzstan (the
‘Tulip Revolution’, March 2005), continued unrest in Uzbekistan (Andijan Incident, 2005), and the
intensification of Chinese control in Xinjiang. Meanwhile, the contested nature of the region’s
international politics has been heightened by the July 2005 statement of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation [SCO] that requested the establishment of a timeline for the withdrawal of United
States military forces from bases in Central Asia. Thus, the region’s international relations and the
future development of its constituent states remain in a state of flux.19
Of course, one could ask how such a glocal framework could be specifically relevant to today’s
Central Asia and Xinjiang. According to S. Frederick Starr, and others, Central Asia and Xinjiang are
‘defined by their unique position along multiple cultural fault lines’ – they are ‘zones of cultural
interaction’ and ‘cultural blotters’.20 But, as Starr adds, in reference to Xinjiang:
While it is an exaggeration to say that external influences have defined Xinjiang, it is hard to find
another region on which such diverse external cultural forces have been so consistently exerted.
Together, these act like external gravitational fields, pulling Xinjiang in different directions and away
from whatever inward cultural moorings it may have.21
The view here is that there has been a recent tendency for some comparatively powerful ‘extra-
regional players’ to focus on the more macro dimensions of security in that region out of self-interest
– and, frequently, at the expense of the micro conditions of life at the local levels. Embedded within
the aforementioned glocal continuum are many crucial processes (‘missions’) that remain unfinished,
such as: the establishment and management of global institutions (and regimes) that provide
accepted governance that is just and accountable; the construction (or maintenance) of extant and
new/aspired integrated and more than nominally independent nation states; the challenges

< previous page page_8 next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_8.html[27.08.2009 12:58:27]
page_9

< previous page page_9 next page >

Page 9
of managing the aspirations of evolving ‘imagined communities’ or unfulfilled ethnonationalisms; and
the struggle of individuals to ‘make a fair go of it’ in their lives – both locally and in wider regional
and global (glocal) spheres.
On the one hand, it is contended here that today ‘Xinjiang’, in particular, is variously ‘constructed’ as
an intra -state entity (primarily) by the Han-dominated CCP and PRC nation-state structure from the
east – thus, a ‘Hanjiang’? But, more reluctantly, it is constructed this way by most local minority
nationalities (in the 1990s, Beijing changed the terminology governing its minority policies, moving to
the use of ‘ethnic’ rather than the previous term ‘national’). On the other hand, ‘Xinjiang’ is
imagined/constructed by some locals, and by pan-ethnic/religious forces in the adjacent Central Asian
region and amongst Diaspora elsewhere, as an ‘East Turkestan’ or an ‘Uyghurstan’ – that is, as a
potential ‘nation state’. Undoubtedly, such imaginings have been fuelled not only by recent events in
the adjacent region but also by those at greater distance in places like the Balkans and Palestine. Nor
is it insignificant that the formal names of the post-Soviet nation states of Central Asia bear reference
to the predominant ethnic groups there. To a considerable degree, nonetheless, all actors (including
many extra-regional and/or glocal players) also view ‘place’ in a regional context with Xinjiang being
part of a larger construct called ‘Central Asia’. However, these various imaginings and constructions
of Xinjiang and Central Asia frequently do contend with one another, and sometimes with
considerable volatility. And it is here that any aspirations for real local autonomy, more viable
independence, or profitable interdependence often collide – whether through the application of ‘soft’
or ‘hard’ power by various actors.
There is little doubt, for instance, that in the case of Xinjiang the main stimulus for reactive or
assertive ethnic unrest has been the consequence of Chinese policies, whether intended or not. To
assure Chinese control there, the CCP-dominated PRC centre has concurrently adopted a ‘dual
strategy’. On the one hand, it has tried to calm and entice the locals through policies of rapid
economic reform and the potential benefits that they would likely obtain, as well as through a
diplomacy of ‘separatist containment’ with neighbouring Central Asian states (often under the guise of
combating so-called terrorism). On the other hand, Beijing has also increased Chinese military/police
presence and encouraged continuing Han migration there. This latter dimension of central policy, it
appears, has had the effect of politicizing the more fervent ethnics and/or devout Muslims towards
Xinjiang independence ( Jiangdu ). Most of the latter may be biding their time or operating
underground, waiting for appropriate opportunities to actively and openly challenge the Chinese state
or ‘Han settlers’ (‘Chinese infidels’) who have encroached on their homelands. This theme will be
revisited below.

< previous page page_9 next page >

file:///C:/...20Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_9.html[27.08.2009 12:58:27]
page_10

< previous page page_10 next page >

Page 10
Xinjiang and Central Asia: ‘remoteness’ and ‘otherness’
The remoteness and the otherness of Central Asia and Xinjiang are factors long emphasized in
scholarly works, and are illustrated in Maps 1.1 and 1.2. One needs to be reminded that in many
societies around the world, including those located in Central Asia and Xinjiang, there remains a deep
economic and cultural – even spiritual-like – attachment to ‘the land’ (even as harsh as nature has so
often made life there). This is no less the case for traditionally more agrarian and/or nomadic
peoples than it is for city/oasis dwellers. Beyond ‘land/place’, ethnicity, and especially its religious
component, has variously shaped identities and notions of ‘difference’ amongst local peoples, and has
also partially oriented their thinking towards other ‘centres’ – including alternatives to any ‘nation-
state centre’, including that of the PRC.
It is understandable, therefore, that when non-ethnic/non-Muslim settlers from ‘Mother Russia’ or
Han migrants from ‘China Proper’ have settled on vast tracts of land in Central Asia or Xinjiang
(‘China Improper’?) and have come to dominate the local economies and strategic resources there,
senses of marginalization, displacement/dispossession and frustration have developed among the
indigenous peoples. This is especially the case in Xinjiang, where such lands and local economies
have come to be administered by the predominantly Han-populated Production and Construction
Corps ( bingtuan). The bingtuan had 2.54 million members in 2001, or 13 per cent of Xinjiang’s total
population and a third of all Han there, and has been constantly augmented by a stream of ‘non-
Muslim settlers or workers from the east’. In 2000, Uyghurs and Han comprised 44 per cent and 41
per cent of the region’s population, respectively.
All of this has had the consequence of pushing some non-Russian/non-Han peoples towards even
greater feelings of ethnic identity and solidarity locally as well as towards an enhanced affinity with
their ethnic cousins (or religious brethren) elsewhere – often despite the historic competition
amongst them or efforts to make them all ‘Russian’ or ‘Chinese’ (the ‘Older Great Games’). Notions of
a religious capital outside of Russia or China (in Mecca, for example), or dreams of a new ‘East
Turkestan’ or ‘Uyghurstan’, have contributed to such local mindsets (and to the clandestine
organization of, and sympathies towards, many politicized groupings). The saying ‘where you sit is
what you see’ thus seems to reflect the perceptions (if not the realities) about how ideas of place
and centrality (whether in narrower or wider contexts) are conceived there politically, socially,
culturally or in economic terms. In one sense, ‘borders’ do count both for those who have recently
created nation-state structures in Central Asia and, in an ‘aspirational’ sense, for those in Xinjiang
who may have similar longings. But, in another sense, there must exist some sentiment that in social,
cultural and economic terms such ‘borders’ have little meaning and actually could be obstacles to ‘a
more comfortable life’.
Moreover, it could be argued that these dimensions of ‘remoteness and

< previous page page_10 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_10.html[27.08.2009 12:58:28]
page_11

< previous page page_11 next page >

Page 11

Map 1.1 China and Central Asia.

Source: Maps of Asia, University of Texas Libraries, University of Texas, USA.

< previous page page_11 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_11.html[27.08.2009 12:58:29]
page_12

< previous page page_12 next page >

Page 12

Map 1.2 Commonwealth of Independent States – Central Asian States.

Source: Maps of Asia, University of Texas Libraries, University of Texas, USA.

< previous page page_12 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_12.html[27.08.2009 12:58:29]
page_13

< previous page page_13 next page >

Page 13
otherness’ are conditioned quite differently in the year 2007. To a significant degree, the revolution
in information and communication technologies (ICT) that continues to shape the current era of CAG
has allowed such peoples to at least begin to ‘overcome geography’. The remoteness and isolation of
Central Asia and Xinjiang, as conceived in the past, have been substantially eroded as distance and
borders at all levels now are, or can be, transcended by freer flows of goods, capital, people,
information and ideas. The latest ICT revolution involving satellite television, laptops, mobile phones
and other ‘smarter innovations’ has especially contributed to this. Even in terms of memory and
identity, the senses of remoteness and otherness long felt by local peoples (or imposed on them by
others) may be slowly shifting towards a mindset of ‘liberation and recovery’ as a consequence of
this revolution in technology – despite the efforts of authorities of some states to prevent or control
it.
This recent networking amongst locals and with others elsewhere has the potential for greater
contest and/or for increased dialogue and cooperation. Importantly, it also enhances the possibilities
for a reshaping of political (and other) communities, and offers a number of vehicles to achieve it –
such as more borderless financial, trade and other transactions, greater access to knowledge,
increased cross-border movements of peoples, more clever organizational skills, and even better
weapons systems.22 John Urry, for instance, has argued that the conceptual tools we use to make
sense of societies, as ‘bounded areas of social life that correspond to the territories of nation-states’,
are less and less adequate to the task of making sense of ‘emerging flows of social life and conflict
that are increasingly global’.23 He suggests that, increasingly, technologies are the ‘media’ through
which social relationships are constructed, and widened. In a similar vein, Manuel Castells has argued
that globalization represents a ‘planetary shift to a network society’:
The fundamental dilemma in the network society is that political institutions are not the site of power
any longer. The real power is the power of instrumental flows, and cultural codes, embedded in the
networks. Therefore, the assault to those immaterial power sites, from outside their logic, requires
either the anchoring in eternal values, or the projection of alternative, communicative codes that
expand through networking of alternative networks. That social change proceeds through one way or
another will make the difference between fragmented communalism and new history making.24
Therefore, the suggestion here is that access to such technologies (and consequent networking) by
peoples in Central Asia and Xinjiang, while now comparatively limited, is nonetheless happening and
it will increase! One need only note how both nation-state and non-state actors (such as terrorist
cells with avowed or assumed connections to groups such as al-Qaeda) have utilized such features
associated with CAG in the service of their agendas, glocally.

< previous page page_13 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_13.html[27.08.2009 12:58:30]
page_14

< previous page page_14 next page >

Page 14
The ‘New Great Games’
In any case, these are some of the factors that now shape the perimeters of the contemporary ‘New
Great Games’ being played in a glocalizing Central Asia and Xinjiang. Even if some of the current
players have changed somewhat, the technological environment is vastly different from that which
existed even two decades ago. And this environment further underscores, and contributes to, the
emerging glocal processes (and glocalities) in these places – where both centripetal and centrifugal
forces actively impact on events, lives and outlooks. However, this raises the question about the
degree to which the phenomenon of glocalization there is being shaped by the greater state players
(including China, Russia and the United States) or by non-state transnational actors such as
multinational enterprises or avowed terrorist organizations. Or, is it evolving a character of its own
based on indigenous ethnicities contoured by religious preferences and coloured by locality that seek
a minimum objective of greater real autonomy (if not real independence)? The future for peace or
volatility there is likely to be shaped by just such ‘tensions’.
One could note some recent examples of such volatility in Xinjiang. In an insightful chapter entitled
‘Xinjiang and the “War against Terror”’, Michael Dillon stated:
One reason for China’s enthusiastic espousal of the campaign against terrorism became clear when
the Foreign Minister of the PRC, Tang Jiaxuan, claimed in a telephone conversation with his Russian
opposite number Igor Ivanov on October 10th [2001] that China was also the victim of terrorism by
Uyghur separatists…
By defining all separatist activity in Xinjiang as terrorist, the government of the PRC is hoping to
obtain carte blanche from the international community to take whatever action it sees fit in the
region.25
According to a web-based assessment authored by You Ji, Jiang Zemin’s July 1999 statement
outlining China’s anti-terrorism policy had two components: a preventative strategy emphasizing
tough measures against insurgents at home and enhanced cooperation with neighbouring Central
Asian states through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO); and a policy of minimizing
contact with Afghanistan (as a base of al-Qaeda).26 This amounted to a further broadening of
‘locality’ towards ‘regionality’. After the events of 11 September 2001 (9/11), this ‘regionality’ was
further broadened to ‘glocality’ as China – for its own purposes – became at least nominally linked to
the American-led ‘coalition’ waging a global war against terrorism and ramped up its efforts with the
formation of specialist anti-terrorist fast-response units, anti-terrorist research and intelligence
operations under the Ministry of State Security, as well as a three-month campaign to seek and
destroy avowed terrorist bases and networks. By November 2001, Beijing claimed

< previous page page_14 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_14.html[27.08.2009 12:58:30]
page_15

< previous page page_15 next page >

Page 15
that 20 such bases had been eliminated, with over 250 arrests having been made (including 100
‘insurgents’ trained in Afghanistan).27
An earlier BBC report suggested that Beijing had ‘come out of the closet’ in terms of its earlier
secretiveness about separatist problems in Xinjiang that were deemed to be embarrassing, but
private, matters.28 There then began a steady flow of such reports in the international media – as
well in official PRC releases (a document on ‘East Turkestan terrorism’, a white paper on Xinjiang,
and a list of avowed terrorist groups) signifying Beijing’s concerns.29 China claimed that as many as
500 Xinjiang separatists (classified now as ‘terrorists’) had been trained in Afghanistan by al-Qaeda,
which also provided them with funding, weapons, indoctrination and sanctuary. As You Ji then
argued, ‘ Jiangdu activists have built base networks both at home and abroad, with extensive foreign
connections revolving around three centres of activity, each of them interconnected.’30 These
‘centres of activity’ were said to include anti-China campaigns launched in the West under the banner
of human rights and ethnic equality, dozens of Islamic organizations comprised of PRC exiles legally
registered in Central Asia, and training and indoctrination centred in Afghanistan.
On 9 January 2007, Al Jazeera reported that China had announced that police from the Xinjiang
Public Security Department had raided a remote south-western ‘terrorist training camp’ in the Pamir
Mountains the previous Friday. Eighteen people described as terrorists were killed, while 17 more
were captured and several others were being pursued. One policeman was killed and another
wounded. The police claimed to have seized guns, 22 hand grenades and materials to produce 1,500
more. The authorities said that the camp was run by the ‘East Turkestan Islamic Movement’, listed
after 9/11 as a terrorist organization in Xinjiang now having links with al-Qaeda (even though by
China’s own accounts the restiveness by separatists there pre-dates those tragic events).31
Whatever the nature of such incidents or the source and veracity of claims made about them, the
common characterization in all of this is one of ‘glocal networking’. Furthermore, all of this must leave
the Beijing leadership feeling no little discomfort, as just under the surface of its Xinjiang (and
Central Asian) policies there remains a constant worry about that region’s vulnerability to any ‘forces’
– whether domestic or foreign – that could impede China’s ambitions. Hence, this largely explains the
CCP’s earlier implementation of a ‘Strike Hard, Maximum Pressure’ campaign against separatism in
the 1990s, the ‘Western Development Strategy’, or ‘Develop the West’ ( xibu da kaifa ), campaign from
2001, and its very active agenda of Central Asian diplomacy in recent years based on anti-separatism
and securing access to vital energy resources.32
Several points can be made about China’s more public face concerning separatism-cum-terrorism in
Xinjiang (and in the adjacent region). First, China’s projection of a higher public profile against such
so-called terrorist (or other dissident activities) may have assuaged fears held by some in the

< previous page page_15 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_15.html[27.08.2009 12:58:31]
page_16

< previous page page_16 next page >

Page 16
lead-up to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing that the central authorities could prevent or manage
possible incidents. While not diminishing human rights concerns here, the centre’s harsh quelling of
disturbances in Tibet prior to the Games reflected its attempts to ‘handle such fears’. Second, and in
a related sense, it may be a signal to all potentially disruptive elements, and possible supporters
elsewhere, that the PRC authorities will not tolerate any display of opposition to CCP (read Chinese)
rule or excessive ethnic/religious preferences, and that they are actively ‘on the hunt’ on both fronts.
Third, it may be Beijing’s way of allaying worries amongst potential investors or contractors wishing
to be involved in the larger region’s booming resource sector, implying that ‘it is business as usual’.
Fourth, in more strategic terms, China may be playing a subtle ‘anti-terrorism card’ to counter recent
US moves into the adjacent region. Finally, if Beijing is incautious in its recognition of the newer
states in adjacent Central Asia, and in its attempts to tap those nationalisms for its own grander
purposes, it risks establishing counterproductive precedents that might have the rebound effect of
stirring latent nationalist ( Jiangdu ) inclinations within Xinjiang that could have spillover effects more
widely.
Despite the examples of volatility mentioned above, which did increase as the 2008 Olympic Games
approached (at least in the case of Tibet), and as a ‘global theatre’ presented itself to dissidents,
there has been considerable recent evidence pointing to the fact that for the majority of non-Han
peoples in Xinjiang a ‘begrudging accommodationism’ to (Han) Chinese rule has evolved. And, so
long as the local economy under central guidance continues to deliver positive results in terms of
local livelihoods and other life opportunities there, such accommodationism will likely continue
(obviously abetted by strict military/police conditions). Some dissatisfaction there may be, and not
surprisingly so given the history of ethnic and other tensions there. But the turmoil of the 1980s and
1990s seems to have largely abated for the moment as, on balance, for local peoples the ‘pastures
seem greener’ within the Chinese state. This assessment is similar to that made by James Millward,
which is worth quoting at some length:
Although the catalogue of incidents [in Xinjiang] seems to indicate the existence of an organized,
unified, and violent Uyghur movement, careful scrutiny reveals problems with the evidence presented
in both media and official sources. In fact, both the frequency and severity of violent incidents in
Xinjiang have declined since 1997–98, possibly because of Chinese efforts at interdiction. While it is
not negligible, the current threat of organized Uyghur separatism and particularly of terrorist attacks
on civilian targets seems less serious than claimed in official and media reports.
Episodes of resistance to rule from Beijing, while relatively common, have been discontinuous and
characterized by a variety of ideologies, Islam being only one of them. The period since 1990 is the
main concern

< previous page page_16 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_16.html[27.08.2009 12:58:31]
page_17

< previous page page_17 next page >

Page 17
of [this] study and presents two main theses. First, from the analysis of Chinese official documents
and international press accounts of violent activity attributed to Uyghurs, the record contains much
inaccurate, questionable, or contradictory reporting and slanted conclusions reflecting ulterior
agendas. Second, contrary to the implication conveyed by these materials and commonly voiced by
journalists and analysts alike, both the frequency and severity of violent activity associated with
Uyghur separatism have in fact declined since the late 1990s.33
In sum
So, where has, or where might, all of this take us in terms of serious and appropriately framed
discussions about this ‘Eurasian Outback’-cum-‘Chinese Continental Frontline’? First, any overall
assessment of the record of Chinese rule in Xinjiang and, hence, its relations with other actors
involved in the larger region of Central Asia, must be mixed. On balance, there is little evidence to
suggest that the CCP’s long-term strategies of dealing with that restive region based on the ruthless
suppression of separatism in Xinjiang, coupled with economic development and investment to
improve the living conditions of the locals, has had all the effects desired by Beijing. Indeed, some
have rightly argued that the strategies of the CCP in its ‘ethnic borderlands’ (such as Xinjiang) are
akin to a process of ‘internal colonization’ whereby the non-Han peoples are placed in a position of
considerable ‘marginalization’.34 This is demonstrated by assimilationist policies that produce social
and cultural exclusion for the ‘ethnics’, integrationist (and Han-dominated) economic policies,
extractionist resource development that benefits ‘China to the east’, and increased regional
militarization against ‘dissent and separatism’ under the cover of anti-terrorism.
Second, and associated with this, is the probability of emerging and possibly contending glocalities
that are conditioned by alternative loyalties or agendas that compete with those of China, or other
‘great state players’. Therefore, what happens in Xinjiang today may somewhere, some time or
somehow have an effect on other glocalities in the larger ‘region’ of Central Asia (or vice versa).
Indeed, the early twenty-first century has become a time in human history when the search for
strategic resources (especially fossil fuels) coupled with the maintenance of state regimes has
become imperative for all players – and Central Asia and Xinjiang loom large in this quest. This hunt
for strategic resources is especially crucial for the PRC if it is to fuel continued dynamic economic
development and solidify its great power status – which, in turn, are essential factors in maintaining
the CCP’s legitimacy as the sole arbiter of politics in China. Thus, the issues attached to both ethnic
nationalisms as well as to the importance of their lands, and particularly what lies beneath such
lands, take on a significantly different meaning. The view here is that, unfortunately, it well could be
that neither the peoples nor the lands they treasure in Xinjiang or Central Asia will be allowed to
count much

< previous page page_17 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_17.html[27.08.2009 12:58:32]
page_18

< previous page page_18 next page >

Page 18
or obtain what is felt to be a ‘fair share’ in the intensifying competition for strategic resources and all
that is associated with it.
Third, there are other geopolitical factors that conceivably could have a telling influence on events in
Central Asia and Xinjiang. On the one hand, there is the distinct possibility of a wind-down of
American-led forces in an Iraq that seems to be sliding further into the bloody chaos of a civil war
marked by Islamic sectarianism. If this eventuates, based on a policy shift following the next United
States presidential elections and abetted by increasing American public opinion against the Iraqi
imbroglio, it might bring Beijing some joy in terms of the loss of face felt by its rival superpower, as
well as a further erosion of American presence in the broader region. On the other hand, the same
events could give succour to ethnonationalist and religious elements in terms of their abilities to ‘take
on and cast out’ the forces of any great state actor. In the future, this could mean that a ‘Rising
China’ might face similar challenges in consolidating its broader security interests in its own
backyard. So far as Xinjiang and Central Asia are concerned, such a scenario also might entail a set
of policies from the Chinese capital that are either ‘more relaxed’ or ‘even tougher’, or some
combination of both. In any case, the situation there could have significant implications for the CCP
in terms of ‘added costs’ that could impede its management of the economy and, hence, its
continued political predominance in the Chinese political arena.
Finally, even though I personally have not been closely engaged in research about Central Asia and
Xinjiang for some years now, in perhaps a somewhat idealistic vein I hope that the various
dimensions of glocality will be objectively considered in future scholarly and official assessments.
Moreover, I also would like to think that our attention to issues of broadly based security would
include concerns about the more human conditions of those peoples situated in such glocal realms.
Issues that ought to be factored into any assessment concerning the future of that region and its
peoples include accountable governance, human rights and human dignity, environmental
sustainability, poverty, ‘grey area phenomena’ related to well-being and health (including the scourge
of HIV/AIDS), and reasonable aspirations that are universal to peoples no matter their locality or
ethnicity.
To be honest, though, one could be somewhat anxious that those in variously located policy-making
circles might think this is ‘just all too academic, theoretical or utopian’ – that we do not need to be
concerned about the largely faceless individuals in faraway places within any so-called glocal
continuum who are deemed to have little impact on the realpolitik of any New Great Games that
others play on their fields of dreams. One only need remember, too, that one person’s ‘terrorist’ is
another person’s ‘liberation fighter’ – although this is not to forgive anyone who commits crimes
against humanity, let alone against the very basic tenets of their avowed values or beliefs.

< previous page page_18 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_18.html[27.08.2009 12:58:33]
page_19

< previous page page_19 next page >

Page 19
Notes
1 This is reflected in the works of: Owen Lattimore, Inner Asian Frontiers of China , New York: Capitol
Publishing Company, 1950; Colin Mackerras, The Uighur Empire According to the T’ang Dynasty
Histories: A Study in Sino-Uighur Relations, 744–840 , Canberra: Australian National University Press,
1972; Martin Nornis, Gateway to Asia, New York: John Day, 1944; Andrew Forbes, Warlords and
Muslims in Chinese Central Asia: A Political History of Republican Xinjiang, 1911–1949 , Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986; and Aurel Stein, On Ancient Central Asian Tracks – a brief
narrative of three expeditions in innermost Asia and north-western China , London: Macmillan, 1933.
2 O. Edmund Clubb, China and Russia: The ‘Great Game’ , New York: Columbia University Press,
1971.
3 A.S. Whiting and Sheng Shih-ts’ai, Sinkiang: Pawn or Pivot?, East Lansing: Michigan State
University Press, 1954.
4 Jack Chen, Sinkiang Story, London: Macmillan, 1977.
5 S. Frederick Starr, ‘Introduction’, (ed.) Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Borderland, Armonk, New York:
M.E. Sharpe, 2004, p. 16.
6 Starr, ‘Introduction’, p. 6.
7 For example, Immanuel C.Y. Hsu, The Ili Crisis: A Study of Sino-Russian Diplomacy, New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1972; George Moseley, A Sino-Soviet Cultural Frontier: The Ili Kazakh
Autonomous Chou , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962; Morris Rossabi, China and Inner
Asia, From 1368 to the Present Day , London: Thames and Hudson, 1975; and David Wang, Under
the Soviet Shadow: The Yining Incident – ethnic conflicts and international rivalry in Xinjiang, 1944–
1949, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1999.
8 My first visit to Xinjiang was in early 1982, and in August of that year I authored an article in Asian
Survey entitled ‘The Urumqi Military Region: defense and security in China’s west’.
9 Gardner Bovingdon, ‘Heteronomy and its discontents: “Minzu regional autonomy” in Xinjiang’, in M.
Rossabi (ed.) Governing China’s Multiethnic Frontiers , Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004,
p. 122.
10 My last substantive publication about Xinjiang appeared in The China Quarterly, no. 99,
September 1984, under the title ‘Xinjiang and Wang Enmao: new directions in power, policy and
integration?’.
11 There are a significant number of very talented scholars and experts in this newer generation of
Xinjiang researchers (including a few ‘old hands’). Only a few can be mentioned here, such as: Dru
Gladney, Gardner Bovingdon, Morris Rossabi, Michael Dillon, David Bachman, A. Doak Barnett, James
Seymour, Thomas Heberer, William Clark, Sean Roberts, Jay Dautcher, Justin Rudelson, Graham
Fuller, Jonathan Lipman, Linda Benson, Yitzhak Shicor, S. Frederick Starr, Stanley Troops, Calla
Wiemer, Michael Clarke, Nabijan Tursun, Colin Mackerras, June Dreyer, Nicolas Becquelin, James
Millward, Ahmed Rashid, Marika Vicziany, Harry Hongda Wu, Geoff Watson, and even Amnesty
International.
12 S. Smith and J. Baylis, ‘Introduction’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds) The Globalization of World
Politics: An Introduction to International Relations , 3rd edn, London: Oxford University Press, 2005,
p. 8.
13 A. McGrew, ‘Globalization and Global Politics’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds) The Globalization of
World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations , 3rd edn, London: Oxford University Press,
2005, pp. 19–40.
14 R.J. Holton, Making Globalization, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, p. 22.
15 Holton, Making Globalization, pp. 25–44.
16 R. Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, London: Sage, 1992, p. 64.

< previous page page_19 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_19.html[27.08.2009 12:58:33]
page_20

< previous page page_20 next page >

Page 20
17 See Smith and Baylis, ‘Introduction’, pp. 1–14 and J.A. Scholte, Globalization: A Critical
Introduction , 2nd edn, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
18 Chief Rabbi J. Sacks, quoted in Hon. Andrew Robb (Federal Member for Goldstein and
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Australia), ‘In
Support of a Formal Citizenship Test: address to the Jewish National Fund Gold Patron’s Lunch’,
Melbourne, 25 October 2006, p. 4. My emphasis.
19 Email to the author from Pearl Lee, Griffith Asia Institute, on 20 December 2005.
20 Starr, ‘Introduction’, p. 7 and one also might note Samuel S. Huntington’s interesting, but
controversial, 1993 article, ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs, 1993, vol. 72, no. 3, 22–49.
21 Starr, ‘Introduction’, p. 7.
22 See Andrew Linklater, ‘Globalization and the transformation of political community’, in J. Baylis
and S. Smith (eds) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations , 3rd
edn, London: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 709–26.
23 John Ury, Global Complexity , New York: Polity Press, 2003, pp. 255–74. Also, Arjun Appadurai, in
Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1996, pointed to the changing nature of contemporary experience by attaching primary importance to
the cultural rather than the economic or institutional dimensions as being most critical in shaping
contemporary globalization. He argued that it is the imagination that constitutes the field of social
practices, and underlined the importance of ‘disjunctive experience’ – namely, the sense that
globalization consists of experiencing multiple places and multiple temporalities. His term
‘ethnoscapes’ referred to the shifting terrains of people that constitute the world in which we live:
tourists, immigrants, refugees, exiles, and guest workers.
24 Manuel Castells, The Power of Identity , London: Blackwell, 1997, pp. 5–24.
25 Michael Dillon, Xinjiang – China’s Muslim Far Northwest , London: Routledge Curzon, 2004, pp.
156–62.
26 You Ji, ‘China’s Post-9/11 Terrorism Strategy’, Association for Asian Research, 5 November 2004.
Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.asianresearch.org/ articles/2047.html> (accessed 24 October
2008).
27 Ji, ‘China’s Post-9/11 Terrorism Strategy’.
28 T. Luard, (2003) ‘China’s Changing Views of Terrorism’, BBC News , 15 December. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3320347.stm> (accessed 24 October 2008).
29 See James A. Millward, ‘Violent separatism in Xinjiang: a critical assessment’, Policy Studies 6,
Washington, DC: East-West Center, 2004.
30 Ji, ‘China’s Post-9/11 Terrorism Strategy’.
31 Al Jazeera [in English], (2007) China raids Xinjiang ‘terror camp’ , 9 January. Online. Available
HTTP: <http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2007/01/ 2008525141225209448.html>
(accessed 24 October 2008).
32 Qian Tian, ‘China develops its West: motivation, strategy and prospect’, Journal of Contemporary
China, 2004, vol. 13, no. 41, 611–36.
33 Millward, ‘Violent separatism in Xinjiang: a critical assessment’, pp. vii–viii.
34 See Dru C. Gladney, ‘Whither the Uighur?’, Harvard Asia Pacific Review , 1999, Winter, vol. 3, no.
1, 11–16; Gardner Bovingdon, ‘“Autonomy” in Xinjiang: Han nationalist imperatives and Uyghur
discontent’, Policy Studies , 2005, no. 11, Washington, DC: East-West Center; and Minority Rights
Group International, China: Minority Exclusion, Marginalization and Rising Tensions , London:
Commissioned Report of Human Rights in China, February 2007.

< previous page page_20 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_20.html[27.08.2009 12:58:34]
page_21

< previous page page_21 next page >

Page 21
2
The ‘centrality’ of Central Asia in world history, 1700–2008
From pivot to periphery and back again?
Michael Clarke
Griffith Asia Institute
The term ‘Central Asia’, for most people, conveys a primarily descriptive geographical image of a
specific region on the globe. In contemporary usage this is confined to describing the five post-Soviet
states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. This, however, highlights
an important theme in the context of the region’s role in world history that will be the focus of this
chapter – the expansion and contraction of the limits of ‘Central Asia’. What has determined this
dynamic of expansion and contraction over the centuries has been the very geographic centrality of
the region on the Eurasian continent. The establishment of any geographic, political or cultural limits
to ‘Central Asia’ at any given point in history has been due to its interactions with regions around it.
Thus, it is necessary to present ‘Central Asia’ as primarily a cultural rather than a purely geographic
concept. Importantly, the factor that has aided in geoculturally distinguishing that which lay within
and without ‘Central Asia’ throughout history has been the surrounding civilizations’ agricultural basis.
Central Asia in this paper is therefore understood as constituting the core of the Eurasian continent –
not only the five post-Soviet states noted above but also Xinjiang, Mongolia (the Mongolian Republic
and Inner Mongolia), northern Iran and northern Afghanistan – that is largely coterminous with the
area termed the ‘geographical pivot of history’ by Halford Mackinder.1 Although the interactions of
this ‘geographical pivot of history’ with the surrounding civilizations can be traced across millennia,
this chapter will focus upon the interactions of ‘Central Asia’ with that of the surrounding agricultural
civilizations from 1700 to the present. This period is significant for the reason that from 1700 onward
this Eurasian core contracted under pressure from the expansion of the surrounding civilizations,
most notably Russia and China. This chapter, in addressing the interactions of Central Asia and the
surrounding civilizations between 1700 and the present, will argue three major points:

< previous page page_21 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_21.html[27.08.2009 12:58:34]
page_22

< previous page page_22 next page >

Page 22
1 Central Asia is central to an understanding of ‘world history’;
2 Central Asia was gradually ‘removed’ from world history by the expansion of civilizations on its
periphery;
3 The Soviet collapse has resulted in the re-emergence of Central Asia as a region of contestation in
world history and politics.
These arguments will be placed within a broad conceptual framework that revisits the geopolitical
description of Central Asia as ‘pivot’ and ‘periphery’ in world history and aligns these concepts with
S.A.M. Adshead’s conceptions of Central Asian history as falling into ‘active’ and ‘passive’ phases of
development with associated functions of ‘diffusion’ and ‘convergence’.2 I conceive, in accord with
Adshead, that the period of Central Asian history during the 1700 to 2007 period falls into a ‘passive’
phase of development characterized by the dialectic of geopolitical peripheralness and political,
economic and cultural ‘convergence’. As such the paper takes a broad-brush approach to the
complex processes of the absorption of the major regions of Central Asia into the expanding states of
China and Russia and seeks to highlight commonalities in these developments.
The centrality of Central Asia in World History: the confluence of geography and culture
‘Central Asia’ in its widest possible definition can be considered to be that vast belt of territory on the
Eurasian continent that extends along a west–east axis from the Carpathian Mountains to Korea and
a north–south axis from the Arctic Ocean to the Himalayas. This vast region is given unity through its
distance from the sea, continentality of climate and shortage of rainfall. However, although there is
great diversity within this wide expanse of territory, three distinct features mark Central Asia: (1) a
belt of steppes and deserts which extend in latitudinal direction; (2) several latitudinal mountain
chains that separate the steppe and desert region from South Asia; and (3) the interior drainage of
several rivers that terminate in lakes or ‘seas’ (such as the Caspian and Aral Seas) or evaporate in
the deserts.3 The steppe zone is delimited on the north by the Eurasian forest zone (the taiga of
Siberia) and in the south by the latitudinal mountain chains and deserts. The variables of topography,
orography and climate resulted in the evolution of three major ecological systems or ‘natural zones’
within this conception of ‘Central Asia’ that crucially impacted upon the forms of human habitation
practised within them.4 The steppe zones are characterized by extensive grasslands or prairies.
Within the steppe zones there is a distinction between the northern wooded or forested steppe and
the generally more southern grasslands. This latter region, encompassing a broad belt from the lands
north of the Black Sea in the west to the plains of Manchuria in the east, constitutes a distinct
ecological system distinguished by the almost continuous coverage of grasses. In the west the steppe
zone includes Ukraine, the northern Caucasus and southern Urals, and

< previous page page_22 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_22.html[27.08.2009 12:58:35]
page_23

< previous page page_23 next page >

Page 23
the Kazakh steppe. This latter region flows into the pre-eminent eastern steppe zones of Zungharia
(northern Xinjiang), Mongolia and Manchuria.5
The southern portion of ‘Central Asia’, meanwhile, is dominated by large desert regions from the
Caspian Sea to the eastern marches of the Gobi and Ordos deserts in Mongolia. From west to east,
this southern portion is geographically dominated by the Karakum, Kizilkum, Taklamakan, Gobi and
Ordos deserts. These regions, in contrast to the steppes, are characterized by separate but
interrelated oases. In the west, major oases developed, most importantly in the Ferghana, Tashkent
and Samarkand valleys, between the Syr Darya and Amu Darya which ultimately terminate in the
Aral Sea. This belt of fertile oases is interrupted by the western spurs of the Tien Shan Mountains
and the Pamirs. The Taklamakan Desert of Xinjiang, occupying the Tarim Basin, is enclosed to the
north by the Tien Shan, to the west by the Pamirs and to the south by the Kunlun Shan. On the
fringes of this elliptical area oases were formed, watered by the melting snows of the surrounding
mountain chains forming such rivers as the Khotan, Yarkand, Aksu and Tarim.6 It is these latter two
‘natural zones’ – the steppe and the desert – that historically have been the geographical regions of
concentrated human habitation which form the core of ‘Central Asia’ as understood in this chapter.
This thus encompasses the contemporary states of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, the Republic of Mongolia and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of
China.
The major defining characteristics of Central Asia are in fact ecological, and these ecological
pressures have determined the nature or form of human habitation within them. The primary zones
which are capable of sustaining human habitation – the steppe and the desert oases – resulted in the
evolution of two distinct, but interrelated, cultural realms. The open grasslands, limited rainfall and
dispersed utilizable water of the steppe fostered the development of nomadic pastoralism – the
‘following of the grass and water’ of the Chinese histories – while the limited rainfall and
concentration of utilizable water in the oases of the desert zone fostered the development of settled,
urban and intensive agricultural settlements.7 The one variable was thus the relationship between
the nomadic pastoralist and the sedentary.8 The uniqueness of Central Asia thus lay not only in the
closeness of the contrasting landscapes of the steppe and oasis, and the relative proximity of the
great sedentary civilizations, but primarily in the development of the historical phenomenon of the
horse-breeding, highly mobile nomadic pastoralist.9 It is important to examine the unique political,
economic and military implications of the development of this form of lifestyle, as it generated
Central Asia’s centrality in world history.
The lifestyle of nomadic pastoralism was made possible through the technological advances of the
‘secondary products revolution’ circa 4000 BCE, whereby new techniques were developed to exploit
domestic livestock more intensively.10 Two innovations in particular – the harnessing of the traction
power of livestock (especially the horse) and the extraction of animal products

< previous page page_23 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_23.html[27.08.2009 12:58:35]
page_24

< previous page page_24 next page >

Page 24
(e.g. milk, hair/wool and blood) without slaughtering the animals – resulted in the production, for the
first time, of most of the food, clothing, shelter and traction power required for survival from
domesticated livestock. This in turn permitted the exploitation of the steppe regions, characterized by
large areas of grasslands that were unsuitable for early forms of agriculture.11 Moreover, the
ecological conditions of pastoralism also encouraged the development of nomadism. The constants of
nomadic pastoralism were thus grass, animals and mobility.12
The full significance of these conditions, however, was not felt until the later centuries of the first
millennium CE with the emergence of a series of Turkic peoples from Mongolia and their gradual
displacement of the extant Indo-European populations. Indeed, the core regions of present-day
Central Asia, historical Transoxiana – the lands between the Syr Dayra and Amu Dayra – were from
antiquity to around the ninth and tenth centuries CE populated by primarily sedentary Iranian-
speaking peoples (e.g. Sogdians).13 From this point onward successive waves of Turco-Mongolian
peoples from the steppe dominated the political history of Central Asia.14 The question that arises
here is what was the force generating the predominance of the nomadic pastoralist over the
sedentary? The most obvious feature shared by the nomadic peoples that inhabited the steppes of
Central Asia from the Scythians of antiquity to the Huns and Mongols was their acquisition and
refinement of a complex of individual military skills generated by their specific lifestyle on the steppe
regions of Central Asia.15 The combination of extensive animal husbandry and migration encouraged
the development of martial qualities such as leadership, constant vigilance against external threats,
intimate knowledge of the animals (especially the horse), coordination of men and resources,
specialization in mounted archery, pragmatism and stamina.16 The nomadic pastoralist’s utilization of
the steppe horse/pony was also of central importance in converting such martial qualities into a
superior advantage over sedentary states/societies. The impact and utility of the nomadic military
technique/method of the mounted archer is evidenced by its dominance from the time of the
Scythians (c. fifth century BCE) until the eighteenth century.17 As such, Sinor has argued that ‘Inner
Asia’ exerted its influence in human history ‘through the excellence of its armed forces’.18
The main theories of nomadic pastoralist political, economic and social activity focus on ‘greed’ or
‘need’ and hinge upon the economic shortcomings of nomadic pastoralism.19 The notion of the
nomadic pastoralist’s greed was common throughout much of the historiography of the classical eras
of the sedentary world, with both the ancient Greek and Chinese perceiving in the nomad an
aggressive, acquisitive and ferocious nature, likening them to ravenous ‘wolves’ and ‘tigers’.20 In this
view interaction between the sedentary and nomadic pastoral worlds was determined by the nomad’s
insatiable desire for the goods of the former – such as grain, metals and luxury goods – and
achieved through the exercise of their military capabilities. This view has developed, particularly in
the twentieth century, into a perspective

< previous page page_24 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_24.html[27.08.2009 12:58:36]
page_25

< previous page page_25 next page >

Page 25
based upon the supposed perennial economic deficiencies of the steppe. The emphasis is placed not
upon the nomadic pastoralist’s desire for the fruits of the sedentary world but on the relationship of
dependency of the nomadic pastoral world upon the sedentary engendered by the unstable nature of
the steppe economy.21 The undiversified economic basis of steppe society – the stock-raising of
horses, camels etc. – could not directly improve the individual’s or group’s living standards as
producer and consumer were one and the same.22 The goal of the steppe economy was not the
accumulation of wealth ‘but the acquisition of goods which, for one reason or another, it was
impossible to produce’.23 According to this model, the nomadic pastoralist could either acquire such
externally produced resources through trade/ exchange with sedentary populations, or take what was
not given by force.24
Scholars such as Fletcher, Barfield and Christian have suggested that the dynamic generated by this
cycle of ‘trade or raid’ had important implications for the internal social and political development of
nomadic pastoral societies. In particular they argue that the ecologically derived symbiosis between
the steppe and agrarian regions of Central Asia, and between Central Asia and the sedentary
civilizations of the Eurasian periphery, created the stimulus for the development of forms of political
and social organization above that of the tribe.25 From this perspective the creation of a ‘steppe
empire’ (such as that of the Xiongnu or the Mongols) was the result of a conscious effort to construct
more efficient and effective methods of extracting resources exogenous to the steppe
environment.26 Di Cosmo and Christian, however, go further by suggesting that although the
stimulus could be external, it was also often generated through political, economic and social
processes endogenous to the steppe environment.27 As such the formation and consolidation of
tribal and supratribal associations are seen as a response to the instability of the pastoralist world.
This instability generally took the form of conflict over resources that could, in the pastoral
environment, result in intense periods of mobility and mobilization of tribal groupings. The chief
resource – herds of animals – could multiply rapidly in the course of a few years or vanish almost
overnight due to adverse climatic conditions, disease or theft. This variability resulted in the nomad
having to manage the amounts of human labour and pasture required, and this could lead to the
abandonment of traditional territories and migration routes, potentially bringing different groups into
conflict. This internal instability could also bring nomadic pastoral societies into conflict with the
sedentary:
In this way, the inherent instability of pastoralist lifeways leads to a constant jostling which
encourages skirmishing and raiding. In Inner Eurasia, raiding often escalated into warfare which
could spread over vast areas of steppeland, eventually spilling over into neighbouring agrarian
regions. The exceptional mobility of horse pastoralism, and the ability to fight from horseback,
explain why in Inner Eurasia these conflicts could embrace very large areas indeed.28

< previous page page_25 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_25.html[27.08.2009 12:58:37]
page_26

< previous page page_26 next page >

Page 26
Such a state of crisis could, along with external non-steppe originating pressures, generate the re-
ordering of nomadic groups into tribal or supratribal associations.29 Central to both notions of state
formation in the steppe environment is that the ecological imperatives of nomadic pastoralism
typically resulted in the organization of nomadic pastoralists into small groups of related parental
groups (known as aul in Turkic languages) that only formed higher levels of social and political
organization under stress or threat from within or without the steppe.30
This dynamic defined Central Asia’s relations to its sedentary peripheries and thus its centrality in
world history. As noted above, a number of scholars have identified a need to establish more
sophisticated means of accessing external resources as a constant in the development of nomadic
polities.31 Indeed, Di Cosmo bases a periodization of Central Asian history upon the evolution of
various methods employed by nomadic polities, in particular tribute empires (209 BCE–551 CE),
tribute-trade empires (551–907), dual-administration empires (907–1259) and direct-taxation
empires (1260–1796).32 This evolution of nomadic polities, and their direct involvement in trans-
Eurasian political, military, cultural and economic flows, highlights the centrality of the region in world
history. In the phase of the ‘tribute empires’ (209 BCE–551 CE), such as the Xiongnu (209 BCE–60
BCE), the health of the nomadic polity rested upon its ability to continue to extract resources through
tribute from sedentary states, such as China, and other nomadic groups. The singularity of this
mechanism, however, resulted in fragile polities as resistance from tributary states and groups could
result in the collapse of the political structure of the empire.33 However, as Di Cosmo and others
have shown, the Xiongnu also had intimate contact with other nomadic polities in Central Asia and
actively facilitated trans-Central Asian trade.34 The following period of the ‘trade-tribute empires’
was characterized by nomadic polities’ augmentation of the tribute mechanism by intense
involvement in both long-distance and regional trade. The major polities of this period were the first
and second Türk empires (552–630 and 680–745), the Uyghur empire (744–840) and the Khazars
(630–965) in the west.35 That trade was equally important as tribute as a source of externally
derived revenue for these polities, particularly in the case of the Türk and Uyghur empires, is
suggested by the development of close relations with Central Asian merchants.36 Such linkages also
facilitated the diffusion of religions, as evidenced by the practice of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and
Nestorian Christianity in the Türk empires and the conversion of the Uyghur to Manichaeism.37 The
bases of these polities, however, were also fragile as they depended upon the ability to extract
tribute and maintain control over trade.
The phase of the ‘dual-administration empires’, whereby nomadic polities acquired knowledge and
administrative skills to directly rule sedentary regions, witnessed the decreasing importance of
exacting tribute and a greater tendency toward direct conquest and administration. Such patterns
were

< previous page page_26 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_26.html[27.08.2009 12:58:37]
page_27

< previous page page_27 next page >

Page 27
evident in the reigns of the Khitan Liao (907–1125) and the Jurchen Jin (1115–1234) dynasties in
north China, and were repeated on a vaster scale under the Mongols. As such the Khitan and
Jurchen states’ government was largely based upon the separate administration of the realm’s
sedentary and nomadic populations. The Mongols under Genghis, however, initially established a
pattern reminiscent of the ‘trade-tribute’ variety and it was not until the rule of Ögödei that it was
overturned in favour of conquest and direct administration, with Uyghurs and other Central Asian
peoples taking a prominent role in the latter.38 The transition to the phase of the ‘direct-taxation
empires’ (1260–1796) resulted in nomadic empires no longer relying for survival upon tribute but
rather on the extraction of resources from conquered territories (mainly sedentary). The final step in
the Mongols’ transition to such a mode of governance can be identified as beginning with Khubilai’s
conquest of China (1260) and the simultaneous conquest of Persia and establishment of the Mongol
Il-khanate. The control and manipulation of trade also assumed major importance under Genghis’s
successors in China, Iran and Central Asia.39 The tendency of nomadic polities to rely increasingly
upon direct rule and exploitation of sedentary regions was further evidenced by the expansion of
Timur and his successors from 1370 onward. The Timurids, although combining the pastoral and
agricultural economies, focused their military and administrative energies upon the sedentary regions
of their realm, in particular Transoxiana.40 Such patterns were also present in the establishment and
development of the Ottoman empire in the west, but also in the evolution of the Manchu Qing empire
in the East.41 In the latter instance, however, as Barfield has demonstrated, the Qing combined
elements of ‘Inner Asian’ rulership that were significantly tempered by the precedent of the
‘Manchurian’ conquest dynasties of the Khitan and Jin.42
It can thus be argued that Central Asia was given a cultural unity through the existence and
development of nomadic societies and polities. This is not to say, however, that the nomad always
dominated the region that we have defined as Central Asia. Rather, what served to distinguish
Central Asia, including the various desert, agrarian oases, from the agrarian civilizations on Central
Asia’s peripheries was the existence of the nomad. This factor played a central role in defining the
dynamic relationship between Central Asia and the major agricultural civilizations. The differences
between the two divisions of Eurasia – the agricultural civilizations of the periphery and the central
lands – were thus rooted in the peculiar ecologically determined economic and social forms of
nomadic pastoralism. As Sinor notes, the definition of Central Asia rests upon the relative economic
and cultural standard of the area, not its absolute content.43 The importance of the region lay in the
basic distinction between sedentary and nomadic pastoral life-ways as captured in the Scythian
leader Idanthyrus’s reply to Darius concerning the Persian charge that he was evading battle during
the latter’s invasion of the Pontic steppes circa 513 BCE:

< previous page page_27 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_27.html[27.08.2009 12:58:38]
page_28

< previous page page_28 next page >

Page 28
I have never run from any man in fear; and I am not doing so now from you. There is, for me,
nothing unusual in what I have been doing: it is precisely the sort of life I always lead, even in time
of peace.44
Central Asia, 1700–2008: from pivot to periphery and back again?
These factors are also important in generating conceptions of Central Asia’s function throughout
history. Common throughout much of the discourse on Central Asian history is the question of how to
perceive Central Asia: as the pivotal, ‘living heart’ of the globe or the peripheral, ‘dead centre’ of the
world. In this regard it is a well-established paradigm to view the development of Central Asian
history since the early centuries of the first millennium CE as falling into two major phases. Halford
Mackinder, who famously termed Central Asia the ‘geographical pivot of history’, temporally delimited
this pivotalness as falling between the fifth and fifteenth centuries.45 For Mackinder, the ‘pivotal’
nature of Central Asia during this period was determined by the strategic advantage accruing to the
highly mobile, horse-riding nomad through the geographic conditions of Central Asia.46 This ‘pivotal’
nature, however, was overturned in the early sixteenth century through the circumnavigation of the
globe and expansion of the sedentary states beyond their ‘homelands’ on the periphery or ‘Marginal
Crescent’ of the Eurasian continent.47 S.A.M. Adshead also develops a similar periodization of Central
Asian history, although going beyond a geopolitical description through the ascription of a specific
function or role for the region. Thus, the period from 1200 to 1650 is asserted to be the climax of
Central Asia’s ‘active’ phase in world history, whereby it became a point of diffusion to the sedentary
‘homelands’ of Europe, Iran, India and China for political, military, economic, technological and
cultural developments.48 Adshead’s second period, from 1650 onward, that corresponds to our
period of focus here, is deemed to encapsulate Central Asia’s decline into a ‘passive’ role in world
history whereby it gradually became a point of convergence, and a recipient, for political, military,
economic, technological and cultural developments generated from the surrounding ‘homelands’.49
A combination of Mackinder and Adshead’s conceptual framework can be usefully adapted to describe
the development of Central Asian history since the eighteenth century. The following discussion will
suggest that the 1700 to 2007 period in Central Asian history has been one of ‘passivity’
characterized by the dialectic of geopolitical peripheralness and political, economic and cultural
‘convergence’. In terms of the question alluded to in the title of this section, Adshead’s analysis
appears to point toward an uncertain conclusion as to whether Central Asia may return to an ‘active’
and diffusionist phase in history due to the transformation of the region during this passive and
convergent phase. The overarching argument that frames my elucidation of the three points outlined
in the introduction is that it

< previous page page_28 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_28.html[27.08.2009 12:58:38]
page_29

< previous page page_29 next page >

Page 29
was the geographically and ecologically determined ‘life-way’, in Christian’s terminology, of nomadic
pastoralism that generated Central Asia’s ‘centrality’ and importance in world history from antiquity to
the latter centuries of the second millennium CE.50 Once the basis of the dynamism was weakened
and ultimately controlled by the expansion of the centralized sedentary states of Russia and China in
particular, the peoples and societies of Central Asia were effectively inhibited from continuing the
processes of interaction, conflict and cooperation between Central Asia and the major sedentary
areas of the Eurasian periphery that had been in operation since antiquity. This broad process in
Central Asia can be characterized as one of the convergence of geopolitical, political, economic, and
cultural pressures and structures from China and Russia.
A tentative periodization of the three centuries of history addressed here (i.e. 1700 to 2007) can thus
be outlined in light of the considerations addressed above. Three major periods can be identified and
correlated to the gradual process in the transformation of Central Asia’s political, economic and
cultural environment and role in world history. The 1700 to 1900 period can be seen as constituting
an era of the gradual apportionment of the region between the imperial states of Russia and China,
whereby the political and military power of these external societies overcame that of Central Asia.
The overriding theme throughout this period was one the convergence or parallelism of geopolitical,
economic and cultural developments through the agency of the Qing and Russian imperial states.
The following period, 1900 to 1991, was one characterized by themes of both continuity with and
change from the preceding imperial order. Of particular importance were the political and ideological
dynamics emerging from the near simultaneous collapse of the imperial orders in Russia and China,
and the consequent disarray of the former imperial centres. Significantly, the expansion of these
sedentary states was renewed and reinvigorated by the mid-twentieth century in new forms and
resulted in the insulation of the region from the major external areas of the Eurasian periphery that it
historically had interacted with in favour of exclusive orientations toward Russia and China. Once
more Central Asia became ‘pivotal’ during the first half of this period, as external states competed
with each other and Central Asian forces for pre-eminence. Finally, the re-establishment of part of
Central Asia’s political independence with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has resulted in the
return of the region to a situation similar in a number of important respects to that which
characterized the region during the 1700 to 1900 period. Once more the region has entered a period
of transition that may redefine its role in world history, and the final section of this chapter will
explore the potentialities of contemporary Central Asia to resume its ‘centrality’ in world history.

< previous page page_29 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_29.html[27.08.2009 12:58:38]
page_30

< previous page page_30 next page >

Page 30
The ‘removal’ of Central Asia from world history, 1700–1900: from pivot to periphery
As we have noted, Central Asia prior to the eighteenth century was generally characterized by
fluidity, or in Toynbee’s phrase ‘conductivity’, whereby the dynamic relationship between the steppe
and the agrarian regions encouraged/permitted the relatively free transmission of ideas, commodities
and technologies.51 This situation was changed irrevocably, however, from the mid-1700s onward
through the near contemporaneous expansion of the imperial states of the Qing and Russia into
Central Asia. The factors behind the expansion of both of these states into Central Asia were
multifaceted and encompassed historically generated strategic, political and economic concerns. Qing
and Russian expansion were also aided by the division, from the seventeenth century onward, of the
major nomadic pastoral peoples they encountered, in particular the Mongols and the Kazakhs.
Significantly, the exertion of Qing and Russian pressure on their respective Central Asian frontiers did
not induce the forging of ‘supratribal’ polities amongst these nomadic pastoral peoples. Rather, the
conflict and competition between Mongol and Kazakh tribes resulted in the weaker or more
threatened groups seeking the aid or protection of the pressing external sedentary power.
The linkage between these processes at either end of the steppe belt was the rise and expansion of
the last great nomadic pastoral polity of the Zunghar Mongols, which from the mid-seventeenth to
the mid-eighteenth century dominated Xinjiang, parts of Kazakhstan, and western Mongolia.52 The
pressures placed by the Zunghar expansion on the Mongolian tribes to the east in the present-day
Republic of Mongolia and upon the Kazakh Hordes to the west resulted in these nomadic pastoralists
seeking the succour of external powers – the Qing and the Russians. In the case of the Qing
expansion into Mongolia and Xinjiang, it can be said that this coincided with the contemporaneous
initiation of a military, diplomatic and cultural strategy to persuade the remaining Mongol tribes of
the benefits of voluntarily submitting to an imperial state that shared their ‘Inner Asian’ heritage.53
This strategy only succeeded in the face of continued Zunghar threat to the lands of the other
Mongolian tribes, with the Zunghar invasion of Mongolia in 1690 prompting a prolonged military
struggle over the subsequent five decades between the Qing and the Zunghars that brought Qing
dominion over not only Mongolia but also Xinjiang.54 The final destruction of the Zunghars in 1756
brought the Qing control over northern Xinjiang, and facilitated their absorption of the Tarim Basin
oases with the expulsion of the ruling elites of these cities – the Makhdumzada Khojas – from
Xinjiang.55
Simultaneously, the Kazakh Hordes sought Russian assistance against Zunghar expansion into their
territories, with a loose Russian protectorate enveloping the lands of the Little Horde in 1731, the
Middle Horde in 1740 and the Great Horde in 1742.56 The conversion of this nominal control over
the Kazakh steppe into true, direct Russian rule, however, was not completed

< previous page page_30 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_30.html[27.08.2009 12:58:39]
page_31

< previous page page_31 next page >

Page 31
for another century when direct Russian military intervention suppressed the khans of the three
hordes between 1822 and 1848.57 Russian dominance of the Kazakh steppe was then used as a
launching pad for the southward thrust of expansion toward the Khanates of Khiva, Koqand and the
Emirate of Bukhara that were extinguished in a series of military campaigns between 1865 and
1875.58 The final Russian absorption of all the territory of the contemporary Central Asian republics
was completed with the subjugation of the Turkmen between 1881 and 1884.59 Thus within the
space of roughly 150 years the steppe and oasis regions of Central Asia had been apportioned
between the Qing in the east and the Russians in the west, a division that was to remain in effect for
over a century.
How did the advent of external sedentary state rule impact upon the ‘centrality’ of Central Asia? Both
Qing and Russian rule were demonstrably colonial, with both states first weakening existing political
orders/structures, and then subsuming them within their own administrative and political
frameworks.60 Moreover, the objectifying aspect of imperial policies also contributed to the
solidification of ethnic, political and territorial boundaries between the peoples of Central Asia. The
methods and techniques of Qing and Russian rule within their respective Central Asian territories
actively weakened and managed the key factors that had generated the region’s ‘centrality’ from
antiquity onward – the distinctive ‘life-way’ of nomadic pastoralism and its free interaction with the
sedentary world. Important in this regard was the deployment of ‘the hegemony of inscription’ by
both the Qing and Russia through the delimitation of not only the territorial boundaries of their
imperial possessions but also through the classification of who lived within those bounds and where,
which limited the ‘dangerous’ mobility of the nomadic pastoralist.61 Thus both imperial endeavours
undertook major cartographic and ethnographic surveys of their Central Asian lands immediately
after their conquest.62 Perhaps the most complete example of this process was the absorption of the
Mongolian tribes into the Qing ‘banner system’, which comprised ‘territorial divisions, with definite
boundaries subject to regular survey and mapping’.63
In Russian Central Asia meanwhile, after the Kazakh steppe had been subsumed but prior to the
conquest of the states of Khiva, Koqand and Bukhara, the military governors under the auspices of
the Tsar’s ‘Steppe Commission’ began to conduct a census of the Central Asian population in order to
establish administrative units and begin the collection of taxes.64 The mobility and martial life-way of
such nomadic pastoralists as the Mongols and Kazakhs was also further weakened by state action in
Mongolia and the steppe regions of Russian Central Asia. Both the Qing and Russia sought to de-
nomadize these peoples through the encouragement of religion – Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia and
Islam in the Kazakh steppe – and the conversion of the steppe into agricultural land. Moreover, both
the Qing and Russia encouraged the colonization of the steppe regions of Mongolia, Xinjiang and the
Kazakh steppe by Han Chinese peasants and Russian and Ukrainian

< previous page page_31 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_31.html[27.08.2009 12:58:39]
page_32

< previous page page_32 next page >

Page 32
peasants respectively, a process that accelerated by the second half of the nineteenth century.65
In the context of the oasis regions of Central Asia, Qing and Russian control displayed a parallel
indirect mode of imperial rule during the initial phase of dominion. Both displayed caution in
establishing imperial control over the concentrated, sedentary populations of the oasis regions of
Central Asia, who had an entrenched political and social order based on Islamic civilization. Thus, the
Qing ruled southern Xinjiang through the co-option of the existing Turkic–Muslim elites ( begs ) in the
major oases of the region. The Qing construed the usage of the title beg to erode the prestige and
leadership of the traditional aristocracy and religious establishment of Altishahr, and establish the
Qing as the sole legitimate source of secular political authority.66 Moreover, in contrast to its policy
in the steppe regions of Zungharia and Mongolia, the Qing between 1760 and the 1830s actively
prohibited the colonization of southern Xinjiang by Han Chinese peasants due to the scarcity of
agricultural land and a desire not to generate cultural tensions in this staunchly Muslim region.67
The oasis regions of Russian Central Asia, although ruled directly by a military governor general and
a civilian bureaucracy directly responsible to the Tsar, also experienced indirect colonial rule. Thus,
for example, the legal system based upon Islamic law was preserved and local administration left in
‘native’ hands under Russian supervision.68 Moreover, the Russians did not encourage colonization of
these lands due to the scarcity of agricultural land, although a significant number of Russians
employed by the colonial administration did reside in urban centres, such as Tashkent.69
Economically, the establishment of imperial control imposed a stable political environment over
Central Asia that was generally beneficial to trade.70 The pax Manjurica and the relatively low Qing
taxation within its Central Asian lands resulted in the generation of economic growth and commercial
development, with trans-Central Asian trade unhindered by overzealous imperial control.71 The
exception to this was the case of Mongolia, whereby the conversion of pasture to agricultural land,
Han colonization and the growth of monastic centres had a deleterious impact on the economic well-
being of the Mongols.72 Russian Central Asia, however, experienced economic and commercial
exploitation along the lines of the classical colonial model, whereby the region became a supplier of
raw materials and a consumer of Russian products.73 Thus the Russians actively encouraged cotton
cultivation in their Central Asian lands in order to supply their emerging textile industry, which
resulted in the increasing dependence of the region on other parts of the empire for its main food
staple of wheat.74 The region also became a lucrative market for Russia’s growing industrial base,
with Russia developing a trade monopoly in its Central Asian territories by the later decades of the
nineteenth century, facilitated by the completion of the Trans-Caspian, Trans-Siberian and Orenburg–
Tashkent railroads.75
In summary the 1700 to 1900 period witnessed the initial reorientation of

< previous page page_32 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_32.html[27.08.2009 12:58:40]
page_33

< previous page page_33 next page >

Page 33
the Russian and Chinese spheres of Central Asia toward exclusive relations with the imperial centre.
The most significant alteration induced by the advent of external sedentary state rule was the
weakening of Central Asia’s nomadic pastoral peoples through the imposition of more rigid forms of
territorial and political organization, and the encouragement of sedentary colonization of steppe
regions. The oasis regions of Central Asia also experienced, for the first time, the direct rule of an
external non-steppe-based state. Central Asia’s passivity and peripheralness to the processes of
expansion/ conquest and imperial administration, noted above, can be seen in the development of
Central Asian revolt and ‘great power’ politics in the latter stages of the nineteenth century. For
example, although Qing Central Asia, most notably Xinjiang, was racked by Turkic–Muslim revolts
from the 1820s until the 1870s, it was largely a response to externally generated political and
economic impetuses from the imperial centres of China and Russia.76 Moreover, the often
romanticized ‘Great Game’ between Russia, Britain and the Qing for supremacy in Central Asia during
this same period was played upon a strategic chessboard not of Central Asia’s making. Once the
boundaries of the respective empires were consolidated and agreed upon in the 1890s, Central Asia
became of peripheral importance for the respective imperial centres.
Central Asia, 1900–91: imperial collapse and reassertion
The collapse of the Qing and Tsarist states in the first decades of the twentieth century did not
ultimately result in the re-emergence of Central Asia as an independent region in world history.
Instructively, the events that precipitated the temporary release of the respective imperial grips were
generated from the core, rather than from the direct actions of the Qing and Russia’s Central Asian
subjects. The collapse and subsequent political weakness at the core generated a process somewhat
analogous to that which encompassed Central Asia in the mid-eighteenth century, whereby internal
crisis within the region induced the expansion of external sedentary states into the region. Thus,
common to all three major parts of Central Asia across this period were the interaction of internal
political developments with those emanating from their previous imperial centres of China and
Russia. Ultimately, this resulted in the reassertion of Chinese and Russian power to the exclusion of
other external influences and the re-absorption of Central Asia into reformed and restructured
imperial endeavours. As such this period was characterized by the continued convergence of
geopolitical, economic and cultural dynamics from outside of Central Asia.
That the three major regions of Central Asia did not achieve independence following the collapse of
the Qing and Russian imperial orders is suggestive of the transformations of the region’s broad
political, economic and cultural situation initiated by the elements of imperial rule noted above. The
imperial administrative divisions of Central Asia that distinguished between

< previous page page_33 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_33.html[27.08.2009 12:58:40]
page_34

< previous page page_34 next page >

Page 34
the steppe and the oasis regions were importantly mirrored in the development of local or
‘indigenous’ political movements after the fall of the imperial orders. Moreover, these divisions were
also exploited by external powers in the case of Mongolia and Xinjiang, and the previous imperial
centre in the case of the Central Asian republics. Once again this process resulted in Central Asia
becoming a recipient of the emerging political and ideological developments generated within the
former imperial heartlands of China and Russia over the course of the 1900 to 1991 period.
In the case of Mongolia, the division in practice of Inner and Outer Mongolia through the Qing
encouragement of Han Chinese colonization of the former, for example, resulted in the more remote
and more ‘Mongol’ Outer region leading the way toward the establishment of an independent
state.77 Indeed, the pressures placed upon the autonomous Outer Mongolia by China during the
second decade of the twentieth century induced the Mongols to seek the protection of Russia, a
process that was intensified after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.78 Although Russia’s influence
over Mongolia was eclipsed between 1917 and 1921 through the turmoil of revolution, it was soon
reasserted with the Red Army intervening in 1921 to combat the activities of the White Russian
forces of Ungern-Sternberg.79 Soviet intervention led to the rise to power of the Mongolian People’s
Revolutionary Party, and the pre-eminence of the ‘Mongolian Stalin’, Marshal Choibalsan. From 1924
onward, when the country was officially proclaimed a ‘People’s Republic’, Mongolia experienced the
dynamics of radical political, economic and cultural transformation through the implementation of
Marxist–Leninist strategies of development closely resembling those pursued in the Soviet Union.80
The subsequent 1924 to 1991 period thus witnessed the collectivization of the nomadic pastoral
economy, state initiation of industrialization, promotion of agriculture, the suppression of Mongolia’s
Tibetan Buddhist institutions and the elimination of the country’s lay and Lamaistic aristocracy.81 The
Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) also adopted a Cyrillic script for the Mongol language in 1940,
further cementing its ties to the Soviet Union and establishing a further barrier between itself and
the non-Soviet world.82
During the 1930s and 1940s, Mongolia was essentially isolated from the outside world save for its
close relationship with the Soviet Union, a dependency which enabled it to resist Japanese expansion
and remain relatively untouched by World War II. Similar to the Soviet experience, Mongolia
experienced a limited post-war ‘liberalization’ of the one-party state and in the words of one
observer became a ‘semi-modernized state well on the way to possessing a fully socialized economy
and society’.83 Importantly, China did not give up its claims to Mongolia until 1945’ Mao Zedong
reaffirming the renunciation in 1950. Diplomatically, the MPR remained isolated well into the 1980s
with only socialist states such as the Soviet Union, the Eastern bloc, North Korea and China, and
‘neutral’ states such as India, exercising relations with it.84 Even contact with China was postponed
during the Sino-Soviet conflict of the 1960s and 1970s, depriving

< previous page page_34 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_34.html[27.08.2009 12:58:41]
page_35

< previous page page_35 next page >

Page 35
Mongolia of Chinese assistance, which prior to the split contributed significantly to the country’s
development, such as the completion of the Trans-Mongolian railway in 1955.85 Only after 1991 and
the initiation of political reform did Mongolia again become open to external non-Russian/Soviet
influences.
The political fragmentation of China following the overthrow of the Qing in 1911 also presented
Xinjiang with the opportunity to reassert itself. The duality of weak political authority at the centre
and along the frontiers facilitated the development of a dynamic that permitted a Han elite that
retained its position in Xinjiang to have almost total autonomy from the Republic, albeit in the face of
strong Russian and Soviet challenges.86 The successive ‘warlord’ administrations of Yang Zengxin,
Jin Shuren and Sheng Shicai exhibited large measures of continuity with the Qing period regarding
the strategies and methods of rule employed, particularly in the maintenance of divisions between
the Turkic–Muslim populations.87 However they all experienced the vicissitudes of Xinjiang’s
ambiguous position between China and Russia and then the Soviet Union. Important in generating
such external influence was the instability of Xinjiang from 1930 onward. This was largely the result
of major revolts of the Turkic–Muslim population and it compelled the isolated Han Chinese elite,
nominally in control of the region, to turn toward Russia/the Soviet Union for support.88 Indeed,
Soviet support in crushing Turkic–Muslim rebellions in 1933 created a Xinjiang that was essentially a
Soviet satellite.89 There were four key elements to the Soviet Union’s influence in Xinjiang under
Sheng Shicai: direct military intervention, economic exploitation, direct involvement of Soviet
personnel in the administration and ideological domination of the region.90 The advent of Soviet
support also brought with it processes similar to that which encompassed the present Central Asian
republics in the 1920s and 1930s. Thus there occurred a ‘reform’ of the provincial authorities’
approach to the non-Han populations of Xinjiang based upon adoption of a Soviet-inspired
‘nationalities policy’ which included the granting of limited cultural autonomy for the non-Han
population and the co-optation of certain non-Han leaders into Sheng’s government.91
This situation remained until the exigencies of World War II intervened to leave Sheng Shicai bereft
of Soviet support in 1941, and inducing the warlord to seek the aid of the Republic of China the
following year.92 The Republic’s writ, however, was never consolidated, with the outbreak of a major
Turkic– Muslim rebellion in late 1944 and proclamation of the East Turkestan Republic (ETR) in early
1945 in the north-west of Xinjiang, which left the region divided between Chinese- and ETR-
controlled spheres. This rebellion is seen by a number of scholars as having been directly or
indirectly inspired and supported by the Soviet Union in an attempt to re-establish its influence in
Xinjiang and prejudice the ongoing Sino-Soviet negotiations regarding the Yalta agreement.93 The
fate of Xinjiang was only finalized with the victory of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in China in
October 1949. The CCP’s

< previous page page_35 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_35.html[27.08.2009 12:58:41]
page_36

< previous page page_36 next page >

Page 36
policies in Xinjiang over the period from 1949 to 1991 were framed by the twin imperatives of
internally consolidating and accelerating the region’s integration with China and isolating it from
Soviet influence.94 The constants of Chinese policy in Xinjiang over this period were the
establishment of military–agricultural colonies, encouragement of Han colonization, control and
management of religion, and co-optation of ethnic minority elites within the administrative apparatus
and assimilation of the region’s non-Han populations.95 The intensity with which individual
components of this strategy were pursued, however, varied with the ideological fluctuations of the
Maoist era, but the overall intent of Chinese rule did not. The subsequent post-Mao period witnessed
the substantial re-evaluation of the techniques and methods of Chinese rule, which resulted in the
initiation of a more ‘liberal’ approach to the region’s ethnic minorities and the undertaking of
economic reform.96
In contrast to developments in Mongolia and Xinjiang, the former Central Asian territories of the Tsar
experienced the almost simultaneous reassertion of the imperial centre’s power. The rapidity of this
reassertion can perhaps be seen as the result of the combination of the ideological imperatives of the
Bolsheviks, the strategic approach of Lenin, the contours of the civil war and the different responses
of the Russian and Turkic–Muslim populations of Central Asia to the Russian and then Bolshevik
revolutions.97 Indeed, it was clear as early as April 1917 with the establishment of the ‘Council of
Turkestani Muslims’ in Tashkent and the ‘Alash Orda’ movement of the Kazakhs that the Turkic–
Muslim peoples of Russian Central Asia wished to secure their autonomy from whatever political
order was constructed to replace that of the tsars.98 However, the fact that the Russian opponents
of the revolution sought to utilize the rebelliousness of the former subject peoples for their own
counter-revolutionary ends, as illustrated by the activities of ‘White’ generals in Siberia and Mongolia,
compelled Bolshevik action.99
The ideological imperatives of the Bolsheviks also played a role in the reabsorption of Russian Central
Asia. When it became clear that the revolution would not spread to the west as Lenin and others had
hoped, the Leninist analysis of ‘imperialism’ offered the way forward with the ‘Asiatic’ lands of the
Tsar looming as a stepping stone for the export of the revolution, with Stalin remarking in 1919 that:
Turkestan, because of its geographical position, is a bridge connecting socialist Russia with the
oppressed countries of the East, and in view of this the strengthening of the Soviet regime in
Turkestan might have the greatest revolutionary significance for the entire Orient.100
Moreover, regardless of the appeal of the chimera of Bolshevik ‘national self-determination’, the
second Russian absorption was achieved through coercive means. Between 1919 and 1924 the
Soviets gradually established a political and military presence in Russian Central Asia which
successively suppressed the Turkic–Muslim autonomy movements in Koqand, the Kazakh

< previous page page_36 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_36.html[27.08.2009 12:58:42]
page_37

< previous page page_37 next page >

Page 37
steppe, Bukhara and the Basmachi guerrilla movement in the countryside.101 There followed in 1924
the process of ‘national delimitation’ that saw the division of the former Tsarist Central Asian lands
along ethnolinguistic lines that led to the creation of the five ‘national republics’ of Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.102
The delimitation of Soviet Central Asia largely served to strategically weaken the competing
political/ideological movements of pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism of the Central Asian population.
Moreover, the processes and trappings of ‘nation-building’ that accompanied this process – such as
the development of national languages, national communist parties, symbols and national anthems –
served to strengthen the boundaries between the peoples of Central Asia.103 The further erection of
barriers around Soviet Central Asia was also achieved through the reform of the scripts of the Turkic–
Muslim languages. Although the Arabic script, the script shared by all Russian Central Asian peoples
prior to the Bolshevik revolution, had been abolished in favour of a Latin one in 1926, the Soviet
authorities further signalled their desire to integrate the region more effectively with Russia by
imposing the Cyrillic script in 1938.104 It is not coincidental that this was achieved without
generating resistance from the Central Asians, as throughout the 1920s and 1930s, in parallel with
the establishment of ‘national republics’, the intelligentsia of the Central Asian nations had been
systematically suppressed and an ongoing campaign against Islam’s influence implemented.105
This period also witnessed the imposition of the Stalinist economic and political system upon Central
Asia, with perhaps the two most consequential changes being collectivization and the subordination
of the Central Asian economy to central planning. The impact of these measures was to effectively
‘solve’ the nomadic pastoral question and encourage an agricultural monoculture of cotton cultivation
in Soviet Central Asia.106 The forcible collectivization of the nomadic pastoral peoples, such as the
Kazakhs, amounted to forced sedentarization, as the First Secretary of the Kazakh Communist Party
bluntly stated in 1930:
Settlement is collectivization. Settlement is the liquidation of the semifeudal bias. Settlement is the
destruction of tribal attitudes … Settlement is simultaneously the question of Socialist construction
and the approach of socialism…107
Not only was the basis of their life-way, extensive animal pastoralism, effectively destroyed, but up
to 1.5 million Kazakhs died during the 1930s as a result of collectivization.108
The assault on the nomadic pastoralist life-way was also furthered, much as in Xinjiang and Inner
Mongolia, through the reclamation of pasture in the Kazakh steppe for Russian and Ukrainian
agricultural colonists.109 Cotton cultivation, as noted earlier, had also been a concern of the Tsarist
administration, but under Soviet rule cotton cultivation became the major

< previous page page_37 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_37.html[27.08.2009 12:58:42]
page_38

< previous page page_38 next page >

Page 38
agricultural commodity in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. Moreover, as the
central economic planning agency (Gosplan) set cotton prices artificially low, the colonial exploitation
of the region was taken to an extreme.110 The political, military and economic dominance of
Moscow was also furthered by the completion of numerous infrastructure projects such as the
Turkish–Siberian railway. As such, Soviet policies could be seen as a continuation of the imperatives
of Tsarist rule but implemented with greater ruthlessness and thoroughness.
Thus the major regions of Central Asia – Mongolia, Xinjiang and the present Central Asian republics –
experienced the return of external sedentary state power, and in all three realms the life-way of
nomadic pastoralism was significantly altered. Moreover, the action of the Chinese state in Xinjiang
and the Soviet state in the Central Asian republics continued the processes, initiated under their Qing
and Tsarist predecessors, of the solidification of political, territorial and ethnic boundaries between
the peoples of Central Asia. Throughout the 1900 to 1991 period, Central Asia thus remained the
recipient of political, economic and cultural dynamics rather than the diffuser, and the return to the
division of the region between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China by mid-century
maintained its peripheral role in world history.
Central Asia, 1991–2008: from pivot to periphery?
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent assertion of the independence of the five
former Soviet Central Asian republics and the emergence of the Republic of Mongolia from behind the
Soviet shadow augured a new phase in Central Asian history. Although Xinjiang remained entrenched
in the People’s Republic of China, China’s strategy there was also significantly affected by both
external developments in the form of the collapse of the Soviet Union and internal dilemmas
stemming from the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989. Significantly, due to the processes outlined in the
preceding discussion, two-thirds of Central Asia (re)emerged in the form of six modern, territorially
defined nation states. This in and of itself is a major development in the long-term historical
development of the region, whereby the broad historically and culturally defined realm of Central Asia
has been divided into discreet ‘actors’ in world history. As such a major component of the post-Soviet
experience has been concerned with the re-establishment/ redefinition of relations between these
Central Asian states and the outside world, including the former imperial centre, and the revitalization
of interconnections that had existed prior to the exclusive orientation of Central Asia toward the
imperial centres.111 This complex process, combined with the difficult task of consolidating and
developing the national identity and independence of these new states, has produced a period of flux
in the evolution of Central Asia’s place in world history.
The 1991 to 2007 period has been characterized by the re-emergence of the

< previous page page_38 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_38.html[27.08.2009 12:58:42]
page_39

< previous page page_39 next page >

Page 39
region as a site of geopolitical contention that has been likened to that which took place in Central
Asia during the nineteenth century. This contemporary ‘game’, however, differs substantially from its
predecessor in terms of both the ‘players’ and the object of the game. For the external states such as
China, Russia, and to a lesser degree the US, this ‘game’ impinges upon political, strategic and
economic concerns connected to internal dilemmas. China, for example, has since 1991 attempted to
forge strong relations with the Central Asian states, both individually and collectively, in order to
buttress its ongoing project of development and integration in Xinjiang.112 For the Central Asian
states, the geopolitical competition directly impacts upon domestic political and economic
development. Across this period, the Central Asian states have struggled to strike a balance between
the strategic, political and economic benefits deriving from cooperation and partnerships with such
powerful external states and the possible dependency that this may create.113 Their ability to do so,
however, has been constrained by the development of internal political and economic instability,
including the spread of Islamist organizations, which prior to 11 September 2001 induced external
powers such as Russia and China to seek a broader role in the region. Indeed, between 1991 and
2001 Central Asia was characterized by a confluence of inter-state geopolitical competition, ‘pipeline
politics’ and transnational ethnoreligious movements.114 The most prominent result of this was the
formation and development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), involving China, Russia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (as of 2001) from a multilateral dialogue on
border normalization to a regional political and security organization to combat the ‘three evils’ of
‘separatism, extremism and terrorism’.115
In contrast to the Central Asian republics, Xinjiang remains within its imperial centre – the PRC.
Although thus distinguished from independent Central Asia, Xinjiang is very much connected with it,
and according to some observers, developing a relationship of interdependence with Central Asia.
This is primarily the result of the implementation of a development strategy for Xinjiang aimed at
securing its simultaneous integration with Central Asia and China.116 The economic policies
encompassed in the state’s strategy – such as the promotion of cotton cultivation and infrastructure
development – also played an instrumental role in generating ethnic minority opposition in
Xinjiang.117 Particularly important in this regard were the waves of Han in-migration facilitated and
required by these policies, with population transfer effectively being re-invigorated as a key facet of
the state’s integrationist project in Xinjiang.118 The state’s strategy in Xinjiang was also underpinned
by continued control of the parameters of ethnic minority cultural and religious practices. The
establishment and goals of the ‘Shanghai Five’, and ultimately its transformation into the SCO in
2001, clearly illustrated such a projection of China’s overwhelming concern for the integration and
security of Xinjiang. Moreover, China’s relations with individual Central Asian states, particularly
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, emphasized issues

< previous page page_39 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_39.html[27.08.2009 12:58:43]
page_40

< previous page page_40 next page >

Page 40
intimately connected to China’s integrationist project in Xinjiang, such as control of Uyghur émigré
organizations in Central Asia, energy procurement and security, development of infrastructure links,
and water policy.119 The ‘Great Western Development/Open Up the West’ campaign (2000–10), in
which the government has arguably placed much political and economic capital, aims to make
China’s western provinces into an industrial and agricultural base and a trade and energy corridor for
the national economy.120 Due to two related reasons, Xinjiang is central to this long-term strategy:
its geostrategic position at the crossroads of Central Asia and the logic of Beijing’s political strategy
for Xinjiang. What I mean by this second aspect is that the Chinese government has viewed
economic development and prosperity for Xinjiang’s ethnic minority populations as a cure-all for
‘ethnic separatist’ tendencies. Therefore, the economic development of Xinjiang is perceived to be
central to the state’s ability to secure the region and ensure its integration.
These processes were of course intensified as a result of the events of 11 September 2001 and the
expansion of US military and political power into Central Asia. Thus as in the case of the Qing and
imperial Russia being ‘drawn’ into Central Asia through the development of crisis in the steppe
environment during the mid-seventeenth century, so too have new forms of crisis attracted the
attention of powerful neighbours at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Significantly, the
expansion of the US into Central Asia post-11 September 2001 has generated strategic competition
among the external powers in the region. However, in contrast to the outcomes of the seventeenth-
century process, the contemporary one appears to have been (and may continue to be) beneficial to
the Central Asian states by providing an unprecedented opportunity to maximize the strategic,
political and economic benefits of cooperation with Russia, China or the US.121
The period from 2001 to 2007 has also largely been defined by the implications of the events of 11
September 2001 and the subsequent projection of US military and political influence into Central
Asia. The impact of this process has been somewhat contradictory for Russia and China’s position in
the region. In a regional sense, the projection of US political and military influence into four of the
five Central Asian states is perceived to be a negative consequence of the ‘War on Terror’. This is the
case as US involvement has undermined to a degree Russia and China’s foreign policy efforts in
Central Asia since 1991, whereby they have played a key role in establishing and determining the
function of such regional organizations as the SCO.122 Moreover, US involvement in the region has
impacted on Russia and China’s bilateral relations with the states of Central Asia, as the Central Asian
states were compelled to choose between emphasizing their long-standing relationships with Russia
and China or their new-found one with the US.123 In this regard, during the immediate post-9/11
period the Central Asian states clearly tilted toward the US. Between September 2001 and August
2002 all of the Central Asian states bar Turkmenistan had signed military cooperation

< previous page page_40 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_40.html[27.08.2009 12:58:43]
page_41

< previous page page_41 next page >

Page 41
and base access agreements with the US, as well as receiving significant economic aid packages.
Uzbekistan especially benefited from increased US interests in the region, receiving not only an initial
aid package worth US$150 million but also the conclusion of a US–Uzbek ‘Strategic Partnership’ in
March 2002.124 The level of unease that China in particular felt as a result of these developments
was highlighted in a May 2002 article in the weekly publication Liaowang ( Outlook) entitled ‘The Real
Purpose of the American March into Central Asia’, which asserted that US activities in Central Asia
were a central component of a larger ‘grand strategy for global domination’.125 As such it argued
that the US strategy in Central Asia had four goals: to ‘squeeze and press’ Russia, to ‘encircle’ Iran
and Iraq, to control South Asia and ‘march all the way down to the Indian Ocean’, and to contain the
rise of China.126 The expansion of US power into Central Asia was also perceived as directly aimed
at undermining China’s relations with the Central Asian states and thus not only threatening China’s
sensitive ‘back door’ in Xinjiang but China’s wider foreign policy strategy:
Various countries in Central Asia have been good neighbors of China … China has signed mutual
trust treaties with regard to border regions with these countries. China has constantly strengthened
its political, security, economic and trade relations with Central Asian countries. To this American
officials seem mute, but are perfectly aware of these developments. The American press explains it
this way: China is the ‘potential enemy’ of the United States; and Central Asia is China’s great rear of
extreme importance. The penetration of the United States into Central Asia not only prevents China
from expanding its influence, but also sandwiches China from East to West, thus ‘effectively
containing a rising China’.127
Within Xinjiang, however, the US government’s focus on combating Islamic ‘extremism’ and
‘terrorism’ in Chinese perceptions strengthened their efforts against separatist ethnic minorities in the
province. This has been illustrated by China’s contemporary framing of its struggle against ethnic
separatists by reference to the goals of the US ‘War on Terror’. Such an approach was outlined in the
release of a Chinese government paper that detailed alleged incidents of Uyghur ‘terrorism’ in
Xinjiang since 1990, entitled ‘East Turkestan Terrorist Forces Cannot Get Away with Impunity’.128
In a broad regional sense the projection of US power in Central Asia also posed a challenge to
China’s strategy as it raised questions as to the viability and staying power of China’s pet regional
project, the SCO. Significantly, however, China has re-invigorated its position in Central Asia post-
9/11 by forging new bilateral security agreements and cooperation with the region and bolstering the
role of the SCO. China’s strategy has been to present itself as a real and reliable security partner for
the states of Central Asia and thus to provide them with a viable alternative to closer security and
military

< previous page page_41 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_41.html[27.08.2009 12:58:44]
page_42

< previous page page_42 next page >

Page 42
relations with the United States. Thus since 2002 China has concluded a number of significant
military and security cooperation agreements with the Central Asian states, including joint military
exercises with and extension of military aid to Kyrgyzstan in July 2002 and 2003, the conclusion of a
Sino-Kazakh Mutual Cooperation Agreement in December 2003, and bilateral agreements on
cooperation in combating ‘extremism, terrorism and separatism’ with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in
September 2003.129 Moreover, in 2002 and 2003 China, by virtue of bilateral security agreements
and police cooperation, extradited alleged Uyghur ‘separatists and terrorists’ from neighbouring
Central Asian states, particularly Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and from as far afield as Nepal.130
Such bilateral agreements, however, also developed in parallel to China and Russia’s re-invigoration
of the SCO over the 2001 to 2006 period. These efforts made limited headway in 2002 due to the
wide array of US agreements and cooperation with the Central Asian states.131 The SCO-related
initiatives in the immediate post-9/11 period were focused on establishing the organization’s
operational framework, rather than active, ‘on the ground’ military and security activities. Thus the
heads of SCO states’ border guards met in Almaty (Kazakhstan) to coordinate responses to border
security, illegal migration, and drug trafficking on 24 April 2002.132 Furthermore, the SCO’s official
charter was adopted at its 7 June 2002 meeting in St Petersburg and agreement reached regarding
the establishment of the SCO secretariat in Beijing and the ‘Regional Anti-Terrorism’ (RAT) centre in
the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek.133 The lack of concrete practical action to make good on SCO rhetoric
regarding regional military and security cooperation in 2002 led some observers to consider the SCO
a ‘stillborn’ organization and a regional talkfest made irrelevant by the penetration of US power into
Central Asia.134 Yet China and Russia’s intent to make the SCO an important regional player was
further underlined at a 30 November 2002 summit between presidents Vladimir Putin and Jiang
Zemin in Beijing that focused on promoting the role of the SCO and declared the continuation of the
Sino-Russian ‘strategic partnership’.135 This Sino-Russian commitment was borne out in the
following year. On 6–11 August 2003, the SCO states except Uzbekistan conducted ‘Cooperation-
2003’ joint military exercises on Kazakh and Chinese soil.136 The absence of Uzbekistan illustrated
Tashkent’s half-hearted commitment to the SCO and served to strengthen Russian and Chinese
perceptions that Karimov’s government was yet to be convinced of the benefits that the SCO could
contribute to Uzbek security. The 8 September 2003 SCO meeting in Tashkent (Uzbekistan) thus
assumed great significance for the strategic imperatives of China and Russia in Central Asia. At this
summit it was announced that the SCO secretariat would begin its functions on 1 January 2004 in
Beijing and the executive committee of the RAT centre would open on 1 November 2003 in Tashkent
and not Bishkek as previously announced.137 The transfer of the RAT to Uzbekistan from Kyrgyzstan
was symptomatic of Russia and China’s desire to see Uzbekistan drawn away from the US orbit.

< previous page page_42 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_42.html[27.08.2009 12:58:44]
page_43

< previous page page_43 next page >

Page 43
This pandering to Karimov’s regional leadership pretensions appeared to be accepted by the other
SCO states, particularly Kyrgyzstan, as a necessary concession to actively encourage Tashkent into
wider involvement in the organization.138 Therefore, by the beginning of 2004, Russia and China
through their bilateral relations with the Central Asian republics and the SCO had achieved a measure
of success in re-establishing their pre-September 11 positions in the region. For China this was
particularly accurate with respect to its relations with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
China’s endeavours to re-assert its position in Central Asia after the expansion of US influence in the
region through such bilateral and multilateral channels as those noted above has borne significant
fruit since 2005. Chinese and indeed Russian credibility as viable security and, to a lesser degree,
economic partners for the largely authoritarian Central Asian states was significantly strengthened by
internal political dynamics within key republics in 2005. In March 2005, Kyrgyzstan experienced the
Tulip Revolution that toppled President Askar Akayev, who had been in power since independence. In
May the same year, Uzbekistan also experienced a wave of violent unrest, in particular the Andijan
Incident in which approximately 4,000 people rioted and were subsequently violently suppressed by
the Uzbek military. The significance of these events stemmed from their role in souring Central Asian
perceptions of the US role in the region. Indeed, Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, but also other Central
Asian leaders, severely criticized the US government’s promotion of democracy and human rights as
opposed to ‘stability’. Indeed, China’s emphasis on common interests in economic development,
security, stability and ‘anti-terrorism’ through its bilateral relations with Central Asia and the SCO
combined with China’s emphasis on ‘non-interference’ in other states’ internal affairs to make China
appear as reliable partner from the perspective of the region’s remaining authoritarian leaders.139
This was underlined by President Karimov’s state visit to China barely two weeks after the Andijan
Incident, during which a Sino-Uzbek bilateral security agreement was signed.140
The SCO’s subsequent July 2005 summit in Astana, Kazakhstan, furthered the tilt of the Central Asian
states away from the US, with the organization releasing a heads-of-state declaration requesting that
the members of states of the SCO consider it necessary that the respective members of the
antiterrorist coalition set a final timeline for their temporary use of objects of infrastructure and stay
of their military contingents on the territories of the SCO member states.141
Uzbek President Islam Karimov also used the forum to further criticize US interference in the internal
affairs of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan subsequently cancelled its agreement with the US regarding the
American military’s use of the Karshi–Khanabad air base, with the last US Air Force plane flying out
on 21 November 2005.142 Furthermore, the SCO’s June 2006 summit

< previous page page_43 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_43.html[27.08.2009 12:58:44]
page_44

< previous page page_44 next page >

Page 44
in Shanghai – which also saw the attendance of representatives of four observer states in the form of
Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia – restated its commitment to combating the ‘three evils’ of
terrorism, extremism and separatism while celebrating the organization’s promotion of a ‘new security
architecture’:
The SCO will make a constructive contribution to the establishment of a new global security
architecture of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and mutual respect. Such architecture is based
on the widely recognized principles of international law. It discards ‘double standards’ and seeks to
settle disputes through negotiation on the basis of mutual understanding. It respects the right of all
countries to safeguard national unity and their national interests, pursue particular models of
development and formulate domestic and foreign policies independently and participate in
international affairs on an equal basis.143
Finally, the 16 August 2007 summit of SCO leaders in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek illuminates some key
successes for Russia and China’s diplomacy in Central Asia but also some emergent challenges in the
immediate future. A Chinese commentary a week prior to the summit suggested three emergent
trends in international relations in the Central Asian context that bear on the discussion presented
here. Firstly, the article ‘SCO Reshaping International Strategic Structure’ argues that there is an
emerging balance between the ‘great powers’ in Central Asia, in particular between China and
Russia.144 Second, that ‘as US strategic pressure on Russia mounts’, the SCO’s importance in
Russia’s ‘international strategy’ has consequently risen, making Russia ‘even more dependent on help
from the SCO’ to combat US challenges to Russia’s traditional pre-eminence in the region.145 Finally,
that securing China’s western frontier will play a key role in China’s overall foreign policy, in
particular to act as a ‘safety valve’ for strategic pressures in the East:
Even more importantly, as China embarks on the great enterprise of national resurgence, the biggest
threats to its national security continue to be attempts to damage China’s territorial integrity and
interference of outside forces in its unification process. In this sense, China’s strategic focus will
remain in the southeast in the foreseeable future, with western China continuing to be the ‘rear’ in
China’s master strategy for many years to come. Nevertheless, only if the rear is secured will the
strategic frontline be free from worry … As the squeeze on China’s strategic space intensifies, a
stable western region takes on additional importance as a strategic support for the country. The
strategic significance of western China is self-evident .146
The immediate outcomes of the 2007 SCO summit, however, suggest that these observations,
particularly those regarding Russia, may have been overly

< previous page page_44 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_44.html[27.08.2009 12:58:45]
page_45

< previous page page_45 next page >

Page 45
optimistic. This summit, much as the 2006 summit, captured headlines for the anti-US rhetoric of
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but more significant was the further re-emergence of
Russia as a driver of the organization’s agenda.147 Indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin was
publicly enthusiastic about the SCO ‘Peace Mission 2007’ joint military exercises held between 9 and
17 August at Chelyabinsk, arguing that ‘The idea of holding such regular exercises on the territory of
various SCO member-countries deserves consideration.’ Moreover, he also explicitly asserted that
such enhancement of the SCO’s ability to respond to security threats in the region is ‘intended to
help bolster the SCO’s potential in security matters’.148 While the summit itself produced the now
customary declarations of ‘good neighbourliness, friendship and cooperation’, perhaps the most
significant factors were the conspicuous absence of overt Chinese criticism of the US role in Central
Asia, simultaneous with the explicit Russian and Iranian anti-US rhetoric and Sino-Russian hesitancy
to admit new members to the organization.149 In this regard, it would seem that both China and
Russia’s position on SCO expansion is running counter to that of the Central Asian members with
Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev asserting confidently prior to the summit that expansion was
simply ‘a matter of time’.150 This, of course, is unsurprising given that expansion of the SCO to
include such current observers as Iran and India would introduce extra-regional powers and further
strategic complications, while diluting Sino-Russian dominance over the direction of the organization.
In the context of the Russia–China–US triangle in Central Asia, it is increasingly apparent that Russia
has a clear preference for further Chinese rather than US engagement and influence in the region. As
one observer has recently noted of Sino-Russian relations in Central Asia, ‘To put it in simple terms,
although Russia is challenging China in Central Asia and the other way around both prefer this state
of relations to a US presence.’151 Moreover, the notion that the SCO will soon emerge as a NATO-
like security organization to counter the US presence in Central Asia is also undermined by this rather
limited common interest on behalf of the organization’s key players.
As the question mark in the title of this chapter would suggest, I believe that the answer to the
question of whether Central Asia has resumed its ‘centrality’ in world history is an equivocal ‘no’.
Given the preceding definition of Central Asia and identification of the factors which made it ‘central’
and ‘pivotal’ to world history, it is not possible to argue that the region today is characterized by the
same ‘centrality’ that it was prior to 1700. Primarily, this stems from the argument that it was the
unique life-way of nomadic pastoralism, and its associated military, political and economic
implications/ imperatives, that defined the region’s ‘centrality’ and ‘pivotalness’. Moreover, division of
Central Asia into the five post-Soviet states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan, the Republic of Mongolia and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China also
suggests separate future development, particularly in the case of Xinjiang and Mongolia.

< previous page page_45 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_45.html[27.08.2009 12:58:45]
page_46

< previous page page_46 next page >

Page 46
However, as the latter segment of this chapter has noted, post-Soviet Central Asia and Xinjiang are
very much interconnected and experiencing many of the same political and economic pressures. Yet
Central Asia may reconstitute its ‘centrality’ through the development of a new political and economic
basis that combines the potential and resources of its independent regions, perhaps along the lines
of the European Union. Although this may seem a far-fetched contingency, the region has seen the
proliferation of multilateral security and economic bodies,152 although a distinguishing feature of
these has been the refusal of participants to diminish their hard-won sovereignty in order to achieve
effective institution-building. Central Asia moving into the twenty-first century, as we have seen, is
once more a site of contestation for the competing imperatives of external states, in particular two
‘old stagers’ – Russia and China – and the relative newcomer to the ‘geographical pivot of history’ –
the US.
Notes
1 Halford J. Mackinder, ‘The geographical pivot of history’, in Democratic Ideals and Reality , New
York: Norton and Co., 1962.
2 S.A.M. Adshead, Central Asia in World History , London: Macmillan, 1993.
3 See Svat Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 1–2;
Gavin Hambly, ‘Introduction’ in Gavin Hambly (ed.) Central Asia, New York: Delacorte Press, 1969,
pp. 1–3; and Robert N. Taaffe, ‘The geographical setting’ in Denis Sinor (ed.) The Cambridge History
of Early Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 19–20.
4 Taaffe, ‘The geographical setting’, p. 27.
5 Taaffe, ‘The geographical setting’, pp. 34–5.
6 James A. Millward and Peter C. Perdue, ‘Political and cultural history through the late nineteenth
century’, in S. Frederick Starr (ed.) Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Borderland, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
2004, pp. 29–30.
7 Beatrice Manz, ‘Historical background’, in Beatrice Manz (ed.) Central Asia in Historical Perspective ,
Boulder: Westview Press, 1998, p. 5.
8 Adshead, Central Asia in World History , pp. 13–14.
9 Manz, ‘Historical background’, p. 5; and Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, p. 1.
10 David Christian, ‘State formation in the inner Eurasian steppes’, in David Christian and Craig
Benjamin (eds) Worlds of the Silk Roads, Ancient and Modern: Proceedings from the 2nd Conference
of the Australasian Society for Inner Asian Studies , Turnhout: Brepols, 1998, p. 55.
11 Christian, ‘State formation in the inner Eurasian steppes’, pp. 55–7.
12 Adshead, Central Asia in World History , p. 15.
13 A.K. Narain, ‘Indo-Europeans in inner Asia’, in Denis Sinor (ed.) The Cambridge History of Early
Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 151–60; and Maria Eva Subtelny, ‘The
symbiosis of Turk and Tajik’, in Beatrice Manz (ed.) Central Asia in Historical Perspective , Boulder:
Westview Press, 1998, p. 47.
14 Subtelny, ‘The symbiosis of Turk and Tajik’, p. 47.
15 Nicola Di Cosmo, ‘Introduction: inner Asian ways of warfare in historical perspective’, in Nicola Di
Cosmo (ed.) Warfare in Inner Asian History, 500–1800, Leiden: Brill, 2002, p. 3.
16 For example see, Denis Sinor, ‘The inner Asian warriors’, Journal of American

< previous page page_46 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_46.html[27.08.2009 12:58:46]
page_47

< previous page page_47 next page >

Page 47
Oriental Society , 1981, vol. 101, no. 2, 133–44; Joseph F. Fletcher, ‘The Mongols: ecological and
sociological perspectives’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies , 1986, June, vol. 46, no. 1, 12–14; and
Di Cosmo, ‘Introduction: inner Asian ways of warfare in historical perspective’, pp. 3–4.
17 Sinor, ‘The inner Asian warriors’, pp. 133–44; and Di Cosmo, ‘Introduction: inner Asian ways of
warfare in historical perspective’, pp. 3–5.
18 Sinor, ‘The inner Asian warriors’, p. 133.
19 Nicola Di Cosmo, ‘Ancient inner Asian nomads: their economic basis and its significance in
Chinese history’, Journal of Asian Studies , 1994, November, vol. 53, no. 4, 1092.
20 Di Cosmo, ‘Ancient inner Asian nomads’, p. 1092; and Burton Watson, Records of the Grand
Historian of China, II, translated from the Shih-chi of Ssu-ma Ch’ien, New York: Columbia University
Press, 1961, p. 171.
21 For the many variations on this theme see Sechin Jachid and Van Jay Symons, Peace, War and
Trade along the Great Wall , Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989, p. 165; Owen Lattimore,
Inner Asian Frontiers of China , New York: American Geographical Society, 1940, pp. 306–7; and
Denis Sinor, ‘Introduction: the concept of inner Asia’, in Denis Sinor (ed.) The Cambridge History of
Early Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 10–19.
22 Sinor, ‘Introduction: the concept of inner Asia’, pp. 8–9.
23 Sinor, ‘Introduction: the concept of inner Asia’, p. 9.
24 Lattimore, Inner Asian Frontiers of China , p. 484.
25 See for example, Fletcher, ‘The Mongols: ecological and sociological perspectives’, pp. 11–50;
Tomas J. Barfield, ‘The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy: organization and foreign policy’, Journal of
Asian Studies , 1981, November, vol. 41, no. 1, 45–62; and Christian, ‘State formation in the inner
Eurasian steppes’, pp. 61–5.
26 Barfield, ‘The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy’, pp. 49–52.
27 See Nicola Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization in inner Asian history’, World History
Journal , 1999, vol. 10, 12–15; and Christian, ‘State formation in the inner Eurasian steppes’, pp. 62–
3.
28 Christian, ‘State formation in the inner Eurasian steppes’, pp. 62–3.
29 Nicola Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, p. 14.
30 Fletcher, ‘The Mongols: ecological and sociological perspectives’, p. 15; Christian, ‘State formation
in the inner Eurasian steppes’, pp. 58–9; and Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, p. 14.
31 For example, Fletcher, ‘The Mongols’, pp. 11–50; Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization in
inner Asian history’, pp. 27–40; and Barfield, ‘The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy’, pp. 45–62.
32 Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, pp. 29–34.
33 Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, p. 25 and p. 39.
34 Di Cosmo, ‘Ancient inner Asian nomads’, pp. 1094–5; and David Christian, ‘Silk Roads or Steppe
Roads? The Silk Roads in world history’, Journal of World History , 2000, vol. 11, no. 1, 16–17.
Christian argues that the real impact of the Han emperor Wudi’s conquests of the Tarim city-states at
the close of the second century BCE was to create a new branch of the Silk Road that bypassed the
older route through the steppe lands of Xiongnu-controlled territory.
35 Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, p. 30; David Christian, ‘Silk Roads or Steppe Roads?
’, pp. 16–18; Denis Sinor, ‘The establishment and dissolution of the Türk empire’, in Denis Sinor
(ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp
285–316; and Colin Mackerras, ‘The Uighurs’, in Denis Sinor (ed.) The Cambridge History of Early
Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 317–42.
36 Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, p. 31.

< previous page page_47 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_47.html[27.08.2009 12:58:46]
page_48

< previous page page_48 next page >

Page 48
37 For the Türks see Sinor, ‘The establishment and dissolution of the Türk empire’, p. 306 and for
the conversion of the Uighurs to Manichaeism, see Mackerras, ‘The Uighurs’, p. 318.
38 Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, pp. 31–4.
39 Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, p. 35; Adshead, Central Asia in World History , pp.
70–77; and Morris Rossabi, ‘The legacy of the Mongols’, in Beatrice Manz (ed.) Central Asia in
Historical Perspective , Boulder: Westview Press, 1998, p. 29.
40 Manz, ‘Historical background’, p. 7; and Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, p. 35.
41 Di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization’, pp. 35–6.
42 See Thomas J. Barfield, The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China , Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1989.
43 Sinor, ‘Introduction: the concept of inner Asia’, p. 16.
44 Herodotus, The Histories, tr. Aubrey de Sélincourt, London: Penguin, 2003, Book IV, section 127.
45 Mackinder, ‘The geographical pivot of history’, pp. 241–65.
46 Mackinder, ‘The geographical pivot of history’, p. 262.
47 Mackinder, ‘The geographical pivot of history’, p. 257.
48 Adshead, Central Asia in World History , pp. 53, 86–90, 112–19.
49 Adshead, Central Asia in World History , p. 177.
50 Christian, ‘State formation in the inner Eurasian steppes’, pp. 51–76.
51 Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History , 12 vols, New York: Oxford University Press, 1945, pp. 391–
94; and Arnold J. Toynbee, ‘Notes on the history of the Oxus-Jaxartes Basin’, Bulletin of the School
of Oriental Studie s, 1924, vol. 3, no. 2, 241–62.
52 See for example, Peter C. Perdue, ‘Military mobilization in seventeenth and eighteenth century
China, Russia and Mongolia’, Modern Asian Studies , 1996, vol. 30, no. 4, 757–93; and Gavin Hambly,
‘Lamaistic civilization in Tibet and Mongolia’, in Gavin Hambly (ed.) Central Asia, New York: Delacorte
Press, 1969, pp. 243–62.
53 See for example, Elizabeth Endicott, ‘The Mongols and China: cultural contacts and the changing
nature of pastoral nomadism (twelfth to early twentieth centuries)’, in Reuvan Amitai and Michael
Biran (eds) Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World , Leiden: Brill,
2005, p. 473; and Ning Chia, ‘The Lifanyuan rituals and the inner Asian rituals in the early Qing
(1644–795)’, Late Imperial China , 1993, June, vol. 14, no. 1, 60–92.
54 Perdue, ‘Military mobilization’, pp. 763–8.
55 Joseph F. Fletcher, ‘Ch’ing inner Asia c.1800’, in Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank (eds) The
Cambridge History of China, vol. 10, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911, Pt. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1978, pp. 58–60.
56 See Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, ‘The Kazakhs and the Kirghiz’, in Gavin Hambly (ed.) Central
Asia, London: Delacorte Press, 1969, pp. 146–7; and Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, p. 196.
57 Lemercier-Quelquejay, ‘The Kazakhs and the Kirghiz’, p. 148; and Alexandre de Bennigsen, ‘The
Turks under tsarist and Soviet rule’, in Gavin Hambly (ed.) Central Asia, London: Delacorte Press,
1969, pp. 197–8.
58 Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, pp. 196–7; Richard Pierce, Russian Central Asia, 1867–1917: A
Study in Colonial Rule, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960, pp. 29–37; and V.G. Kiernan,
‘Kashgar and the politics of central Asia, 1868–1878’, Cambridge History Journal , 1955, vol. 11, no.
3, 319.
59 Pierce, Russian Central Asia, pp. 37–42.
60 Peter C. Perdue, ‘Comparing empires: Manchu colonialism’, International History Review , 1998,
June, vol. 20, no. 2, 254–61; and Mehrdad Haghayeghi, Islam and Politics in Central Asia, New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1995, pp. 1–2.

< previous page page_48 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_48.html[27.08.2009 12:58:47]
page_49

< previous page page_49 next page >

Page 49
61 Peter C. Perdue, ‘Boundaries, maps and movement: Chinese, Russian and Mongolian empires in
early modern Eurasia’, International History Review , 1998, June, vol. 20, no. 1, 263–5.
62 For the Qing see Perdue, ‘Boundaries, maps and movement’, pp. 263–5; and James A. Millward,
‘“Coming onto the map”: “Western regions” geography and cartographic nomenclature in the making
of the Chinese empire in Xinjiang’, Late Imperial China, 1999, December, vol. 20, no. 2, 61–98; and
for Russia see Pierce, Russian Central Asia, pp. 46–7.
63 C.R. Bawden, ‘Mongolia and the Mongolians: an overview’, in Shirin Akiner (ed.) Mongolia Today ,
London: Kegan Paul, 1991, p. 14.
64 Pierce, Russian Central Asia, p. 49; and Haghayeghi, Islam and Politics in Central Asia, p. 4.
65 For the Mongols see Bawden, ‘Mongolia and the Mongolians’, pp. 14–15; and Joseph F. Fletcher,
‘The Heyday of the Ch’ing Order in Mongolia, Sinkiang and Tibet’, in Denis Twitchett and John K.
Fairbank (eds) The Cambridge History of China, vol. 10, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911, Pt. 1, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 352–8; and for the Kazakh steppe see Haghayeghi, Islam and
Politics in Central Asia, pp. 7–8.
66 Fletcher, ‘Ch’ing Inner Asia ca. 1800’, p. 78; and Hodong Kim, Holy War in China: The Muslim
Rebellion and State in Chinese Central Asia, 1864–1877, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004, p.
11.
67 See Fletcher, ‘Ch’ing Inner Asia ca. 1800’, p. 77; and Dorothy Borei, ‘Ethnic conflict and Qing land
policy in Southern Xinjiang’, in Robert J. Antony and Jane Kate Leonard (eds) Dragons, Tigers and
Dogs: Qing Crisis Management and the Boundaries of State Power in Late Imperial China , Ithaca,
NY: Cornell East Asia Series, Cornell University, 2002, pp. 273–301.
68 Pierce, Russian Central Asia, pp. 75–8.
69 de Bennigsen, ‘The Turks under Tsarist and Soviet rule’, pp. 204–5.
70 See for example, Saguchi Toru, ‘Kashgaria’, Acta Asiatica, 1978, vol. 34, 58.
71 Toru, ‘Kashgaria’, p. 58 and Fletcher, ‘Ch’ing Inner Asia ca. 1800’, pp. 83–6.
72 See Bawden, ‘Mongolia and the Mongolians’, pp. 15–17; and Fletcher, ‘The heyday of the Ch’ing
Order in Mongolia, Sinkiang and Tibet’, pp. 352–8.
73 Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, p. 203.
74 See Pierce, Russian Central Asia, pp. 163–74.
75 Pierce, Russian Central Asia, p. 198; and Haghayeghi, Islam and Politics in Central Asia, p. 5.
76 Hodong Kim, Holy War in China , pp. 15–35.
77 Owen Lattimore, ‘The historical setting of Mongolian nationalism’, in Studies in Frontier History:
Collected Papers, 1928–1958, London: Oxford University Press, 1962, pp. 446–8.
78 Lattimore, ‘The historical setting of Mongolian nationalism’, pp. 446–8; and Gavin Hambly, ‘The
Mongols in the twentieth century’, in Gavin Hambly (ed.) Central Asia, London: Delacorte Press,
1969, p. 277.
79 Alan J.K. Sanders, Mongolia: Politics, Economics and Society , Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1987, pp.
16–17.
80 See Sanders, Mongolia: Politics, Economics and Society , pp. 16–17; Bawden, ‘Mongolia and the
Mongolians’, pp. 18–20; and Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, pp. 298–300.
81 Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, p. 299; Bawden, ‘Mongolia and the Mongolians’, pp. 19–20; and
Hambly, ‘The Mongols in the twentieth century’, p. 290.
82 Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, p. 298.
83 C.R. Bawden, ‘Economic advance in Mongolia’, The World Today , June 1960, p. 259.
84 Bawden, ‘Mongolia and the Mongolians’, pp. 20–21.

< previous page page_49 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_49.html[27.08.2009 12:58:47]
page_50

< previous page page_50 next page >

Page 50
85 Bawden, ‘Mongolia and the Mongolians’, pp. 20–21.
86 For the seminal accounts of this period see for example Owen Lattimore, Pivot of Asia: Sinkiang
and the Inner Asian Frontiers of China and Russia , Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1950; and Allen S.
Whiting, Sinkiang: Pawn or Pivot , East Lasing: Michigan State University Press, 1958.
87 Justin Jon Rudelson, Bones in the Sand: The Struggle to Create Uighur Nationalist Ideologies in
Xinjiang, China, Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1991, p. 98.
88 For example see Andrew D.W. Forbes, Warlords and Muslims in Chinese Central Asia: A political
history of Republican Sinkiang, 1911–1949, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; David D.
Wang, Under the Soviet Shadow: The Yining incident. Ethnic conflicts and international rivalry in
Xinjiang, 1944–1949, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1999, pp. 40–43; and John W.
Garver, Chinese–Soviet Relations, 1937–1945: The diplomacy of Chinese nationalism , Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1988, pp. 154–62.
89 The Turkic–Muslim rebellions against Jin Shuren resulted in the formation of the first East
Turkestan Republic in Kashgar in November 1933 and precipitated Jin’s downfall. See James A.
Millward and Nabijan Tursun, ‘Political history and strategies of control’, in S. Frederick Starr (ed.)
Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Borderland, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2004, pp. 77–8.
90 Garver, Chinese–Soviet Relations 1937–1945, pp. 154–5.
91 Rudelson, Bones in the Sand , p. 98.
92 Forbes, Warlords and Muslims , p. 159; and Garver, Chinese–Soviet Relations , pp. 172–3.
93 For example see Wang, Under the Soviet Shadow, pp. 60–65; and Forbes, Warlords and Muslims ,
pp. 168–70.
94 For the general contours of Chinese policy in the Maoist period, see Donald H. McMillen, Chinese
Communist Power and Policy in Xinjiang, 1949–1977, Boulder, CO: Westview, 1979; and Millward
and Tursun, ‘Political history and strategies of control’, pp. 63–98. For the post-Mao period, see
Michael Clarke, ‘Xinjiang in the “reform” era: the political and economic dynamics of Dengist
integration’, Issues and Studies , 2007, June, vol. 43, no. 2, 39–92; Dru C. Gladney, ‘The Chinese
program of development and control, 1978–2001’, in S. Frederick Starr (ed.) Xinjiang: China’s Muslim
Borderland, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2004, pp. 101–19; and Nicolas Becquelin, ‘Xinjiang in
the nineties’, The China Journal , 2000, July, no. 44, 65–90.
95 Michael Dillon, Xinjiang: Ethnicity, Separatism and Control in Chinese Central Asia, University of
Durham, Department of East Asian Studies: Durham East Asian Papers 1, 1996, pp. 2–3; June Teufel
Dreyer, ‘The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region at thirty: a report card’, Asian Survey, 1981, July,
vol. 26, no. 7, 722–3; and Donald H. McMillen, ‘Xinjiang and Wang Enmao: new directions in power,
policy and integration?’, The China Quarterly, 1984, September, no. 99, 570.
96 Gladney, ‘The Chinese program of development and control’, pp. 101–19.
97 Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, p. 210; and Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, ‘The Russian Revolution
and Soviet policy in Central Asia’, in Gavin Hambly (ed.) Central Asia, New York: Delacorte Press,
1969, p. 230.
98 Carrère d’Encausse, ‘The Russian Revolution and Soviet policy in Central Asia’, p. 233; and
Haghayeghi, Islam and Politics in Central Asia, pp. 16–17.
99 Carrère d’Encausse, ‘The Russian Revolution and Soviet policy in Central Asia’, p. 233.
100 Cited in Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, p. 213.
101 Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, pp. 213–22; and Haghayeghi, Islam and Politics in Central Asia,
pp. 17–18.

< previous page page_50 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_50.html[27.08.2009 12:58:48]
page_51

< previous page page_51 next page >

Page 51
102 Manz, ‘Historical background’, pp. 16–17.
103 Manz, ‘Historical background’, pp. 16–17; Subtelny, ‘The symbiosis of Turk and Tajik’, pp. 51–4;
and Carrère d’Encausse, ‘The Russian Revolution and Soviet policy in Central Asia’, pp. 234–5.
104 Carrère d’Encausse, ‘The Russian Revolution and Soviet policy in Central Asia’, p. 239.
105 Carrère d’Encausse, ‘The Russian Revolution and Soviet policy in Central Asia’, pp. 236–40.
106 Carrère d’Encausse, ‘The Russian Revolution and Soviet policy in Central Asia’, pp. 236–40; and
Moshe Gammer, ‘Russia and the Eurasian steppe nomads’, in Reuven Amitai and Michael Biran (eds)
Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World , Leiden: Brill, 2005, p. 496.
107 Cited in Gammer, ‘Russia and the Eurasian steppe nomads’, p. 497.
108 Gammer, ‘Russia and the Eurasian steppe nomads’, p. 497; and Soucek, A History of Inner Asia,
p. 236.
109 Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, p. 236.
110 Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, p. 236; and Haghayeghi, Islam and Politics in Central Asia, pp.
51–2.
111 Gregory Gleason, The Central Asian States: Discovering Independence , Boulder: Westview Press,
1997.
112 See Michael Clarke, ‘China’s strategy in Xinjiang and Central Asia: towards Chinese hegemony in
the “geographical pivot of history”?’, Issues and Studies , vol. 41, no. 2, June 2005, pp. 75–118.
113 See for example, Annette Bohr, ‘Regionalism in Central Asia: new geopolitics, old regional order’,
International Affairs, 2004, vol. 80, no. 3, 485–502; Niklas Swanstrom, ‘China and Central Asia: a
new great game of traditional vassal relations?’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 2005, November, vol.
45, no. 14, 569–84; and Tsedendamba Batbayar, ‘Foreign policy and domestic reform in Mongolia’,
Central Asian Survey, 2003, June, vol. 22, no. 2, 45–59.
114 For the dynamics of inter-state rivalry see Kenneth Wesibrode, ‘Central Eurasia, prize or
quicksand? Contending Views of Instability in Karabakh, Ferghana and Afghanistan’, Aldelphi Papers ,
No. 338 (2001), pp. 20–45; Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central
Asia, London: Pluto Press, 2001, for ‘pipeline politics’ see Carolyn Miles, ‘The Caspian pipeline debate
continues: Why not Iran?’, Journal of International Affairs, 1999, Fall, vol. 53, 325–47; and for the
development of transnational ethnoreligious movements see Ahmed Rashid, Jihad: The Rise of
Militant Islam in Central Asia, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.
115 Boris Rumer, ‘The powers in Central Asia’, Survival , vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 57–68; and Chien-peng
Chung, ‘The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: China’s changing influence in Central Asia’, The
China Quarterly, 2004, December, no. 180, 990–91.
116 Becquelin, ‘Xinjiang in the nineties’, pp. 70–77; and Yueyao Zhao, ‘Pivot or periphery? Xinjiang’s
regional development’, Asian Ethnicity , 2001, September, vol. 2, no. 2, 197–224.
117 For the impact of the so-called ‘cotton strategy’, see Ildiko Beller-Hann, ‘The peasant condition in
Xinjiang’, Journal of Peasant Studies , 1997, vol. 25, no. 1, 87–112.
118 Nicolas Becquelin, ‘Staged development in Xinjiang’, The China Quarterly, Vol. 178, (June 2004),
pp. 368–70; Clifton Pannell and Laurence J.C. Ma, ‘Urban transition and interstate relations in a
dynamic post-Soviet borderland: the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region of China’, Post-Soviet
Geography and Economics , 1997, vol. 38, no. 4, 206–29; and Colin Mackerras, ‘Xinjiang at the turn
of the century: the causes of separatism’, Central Asian Survey, 2001, vol. 20, no. 3, 291–4 and 298–
300.

< previous page page_51 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_51.html[27.08.2009 12:58:48]
page_52

< previous page page_52 next page >

Page 52
119 For the Chinese government’s connection of Uyghur separatism to wider regional dynamics and
its implications for regional politics see, for example, M. Eshan Ahrari, ‘China, Pakistan, and the
“Taliban Syndrome”’, Asian Survey, 2000, July/August, vol. 40, no. 4, 658–71; Sally N. Cummings,
‘Happier bedfellows? Russia and Central Asia under Putin’, Asian Affairs, 2001, June, vol. 32, no. 2,
142–52; and Felix K. Chang, ‘China’s Central Asian power and problems’, Orbis, 1997, Summer, vol.
41, no. 3, 401–25.
120 Qunjian Tian, ‘China develops its West: motivation, strategy and prospect’, Journal of
Contemporary China, 2004, vol. 41, no. 13, 611–36.
121 Bohr, ‘Regionalism in Central Asia’, p. 490; and Clarke, ‘China’s strategy in Xinjiang and Central
Asia’, pp. 88–99.
122 B. Rumer, ‘The powers in Central Asia’, pp. 57–68.
123 Chung, ‘The Shanghai Cooperation Organization’, pp. 994–6.
124 See United States–Uzbekistan Declaration on the Strategic Partnership and Cooperation
Framework, (12 March 2002). Online. Available HTTP: <http://
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/8736.htm>; B. Rumer, ‘The powers in Central Asia’, pp. 59–60; and
Sean L. Yom, ‘Power politics in Central Asia’, Harvard Asia Quarterly , 2002, Autumn, vol. 6, no. 4.
Online. Available HTTP: <http:// www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/129/40/> (both sites accessed
13 November 2008).
125 Gao Fuqiu, ‘The real purpose of the American March into Central Asia’, Liaowang Magazine , 10
May 2002, English translation. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/pdfs/reapur.pdf> (accessed 28 October 2008).
126 Gao, ‘The real purpose of the American March into Central Asia’.
127 Gao, ‘The real purpose of the American March into Central Asia’. My emphasis.
128 See James A. Millward, ‘Violent Separatism in Xinjiang: A Critical Assessment’, Policy Studies 6,
Washington: East-West Center, 2005; and Information Office of the State Council of the PRC, ‘East
Turkistan terrorist forces cannot get away with impunity’, People’s Daily, 21 January 2002. Online.
Available HTTP: <http:/ /english.peopledaily.com.cn/200201/21/eng20020121_89078.shtml>
(accessed 13 November 2008).
129 Sergei Blagov, ‘Russia probes to bolster its authority in Central Asia’, Eurasianet, 27 March 2002.
Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav032702.shtml>
(accessed 28 October 2008); Charles Carlson, ‘Central Asia: Shanghai Cooperation Organization
makes military debut’, RFE/RL , 5 August 2003. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.rferl.org/
content/Article/1103974.html> (accessed 28 October 2008); Antoine Blua, ‘Kazakhstan: President
Nazarbaev signs Mutual Cooperation Agreement with China’, RFE/RL , 27 December 2002. Online.
Available HTTP: <http:// www.rferl.org/content/Article/1101766.html> (accessed 28 October 2008).
130 Rustam Mukhamedov, ‘Uyghurs in Kyrgyzstan under careful government supervision’, Central
Asia-Caucasus Analyst , 28 January 2004. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.cacianalyst.org/?
q=node/1850> (accessed 13 November 2008). For the Nepal case see Amnesty International,
People’s Republic of China: Uighurs Fleeing Persecution as China Wages its ‘War on Terror’ , 7 July
2004. Online: available HTTP: <http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/021/ 2004>
(accessed 13 November 2008).
131 B. Rumer, ‘The powers in Central Asia’, pp. 57–68.
132 Sergei Blagov, ‘Shanghai Cooperation Organization prepares for new role’, Eurasianet, 29 April
2002. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.eurasianet.org/
departments/insight/articles/eav042902.shtml> (accessed 28 October 2008).
133 Sergei Blagov, ‘SCO continues to search for operational framework’, Eurasianet,

< previous page page_52 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_52.html[27.08.2009 12:58:48]
page_53

< previous page page_53 next page >

Page 53
11 June 2002. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/
insight/articles/eav061102a.shtml> (accessed 28 October 2008).
134 See, for example, Sean Yom, ‘Russian–Chinese Pact a “great game” victim’, Asia Times, 30 July
2002. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/ Central_Asia/DG30Ag01.html>
(accessed 28 October 2008); and Stephen Blank, ‘The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and its
future’, Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst , 22 May 2002. Online. Available HTTP: <http://
www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/272> (accessed 13 November 2008).
135 Sergei Blagov, ‘Russia seeking to strengthen regional organizations to counter-balance Western
influence’, EurasiaNet, 4 December 2002. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav120402a. shtml> (accessed 28 October
2008).
136 Carlson, ‘Central Asia: Shanghai Cooperation Organization makes military debut’; and ‘Central
Asians perform military maneuvers, training against terrorists’.
137 Charles Carlson, ‘Uzbekistan: Foreign Ministers of Shanghai Cooperation Organization Converge
in Tashkent’, RFE/RL, 5 September 2003. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1104261.html> (accessed 13 November 2008).
138 Carlson, ‘Uzbekistan: Foreign Ministers of Shangai Cooperation Organization Converge in
Tashkent’.
139 See Eugene Rumer, ‘The US interests and role in Central Asia after K2’, The Washington
Quarterly, 2006, Summer, vol. 29, no. 3, 141–54.
140 Martha Brill Olcott, ‘The great powers in Central Asia’, Current History , 2005, October, no. 104,
335; N.T. Tarimi, ‘China–Uzbek Pact bad news for Uighurs’, Asia Times, 30 July 2004. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.atimes.com/ atimes/Central_Asia/FG30Ag01.html> (accessed 28
October 2008); and ‘FBIS analysis: PRC strengthening Central Asian ties to counter US presence’,
Cuba FBIS Report, 12 August 2005, T21:34:42Z.
141 Pan Guang, ‘The Chinese perspective on the recent Astana Summit’, The China Brief , 2005, vol.
5, issue 18, 16 August. Online. Available HTTP: <http:// www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?
articleid=2373127> (accessed 28 October 2008).
142 E. Rumer, ‘The US interests and role in Central Asia after K2’, p. 141.
143 See ‘Declaration on the fifth anniversary of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’, Shanghai,
15 June 2006. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.sectsco.org/ 502.html> (accessed 28 October
2008); and Zhou Yan, Wang Zuokui and Li Zhenyu, ‘SCO sets example for building new security
architecture’, Xinhua Domestic Service , 2006, 16 June, T14:58:55Z.
144 Li Yong, ‘Shanghai Cooperation Organization reshaping international strategic structure’, Ta Kung
Pao, 2007, 5 August, T03:49:13Z.
145 Yong, ‘Shanghai Cooperation Organization reshaping international strategic structure’.
146 Yong, ‘Shanghai Cooperation Organization reshaping international strategic structure’. My
emphasis.
147 See for example, Joshua Kucera, ‘Shanghai Cooperation Organization summiteers take shots at
US presence in Central Asia’, Eurasianet, 20 August 2007. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav082007a.shtml> (accessed 28 October
2008).
148 ‘Putin wants regular SCO exercises’, Interfax, 16 August 2007 in Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst:
News Digest , 22 August 2007. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/4682>
(accessed 28 October 2008). Almost simultaneously, Russia announced that it will be increasing the
number of its military personnel at the Kant air base in Kyrgyzstan and extending US$2.5

< previous page page_53 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_53.html[27.08.2009 12:58:49]
page_54

< previous page page_54 next page >

Page 54
million of military aid to the Kyrgyz government. See Alima Bissenova, ‘Kazakhstan agrees to expand
counterterror cooperation with Jordan’, Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, 22 August 2007. Online:
available HTTP: <http:// www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/4682> (accessed 13 November 2008).
149 See Erica Marat and Asel Murzakulova, ‘The SCO seeks energy cooperation, but problems
remain’, Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst , 21 August 2007. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/4676> (accessed 28 October 2008); and Igor Rotar, ‘Is SCO
unity an illusion?’, Eurasianet, 22 August 2007. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/ articles/eav082207.shtml> (accessed 13 November
2008).
150 ‘Admission of new SCO members is a matter of time – Kyrgyzstan’s Bakiyev’, ITAR-TASS, 3
August 2007, T17:47:28Z.
151 Nicklas Norling, ‘China and Russia: partners with tensions’, Policy Perspectives , 2007, vol. 4, no.
1, 45.
152 Bohr, ‘Regionalism in Central Asia’, pp. 493–500.

< previous page page_54 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_54.html[27.08.2009 12:58:49]
page_55

< previous page page_55 next page >

Page 55
3
Positioning Xinjiang in Eurasian and Chinese history
Differing visions of the ‘Silk Road’
James A. Millward
Georgetown University
This chapter considers some of the historiographical and political implications of Xinjiang’s position as
a geographical and cultural crossroads of Eurasia. The region known as Xinjiang today has since
prehistoric times lain between Chinese, Indian, Mediterranean and Islamic culture centres and astride
the trade routes that facilitated exchanges of goods, ideas and arts between them. The Xinjiang
region was also on the front lines of interactions between nomadic powers and oasis-based agrarian
states of Central Eurasia; it played an important geostrategic role in relations between states based
in north China and nomadic-type Inner Asian states based in what is now Mongolia and Kazakhstan.
Xinjiang has always been significant for its intermediate position. Nor has the cultural and
geopolitical significance of this ‘betweenness’ lessened as Xinjiang has become more closely
integrated with China, for it has simultaneously been drawing closer to the world.
In recent decades, in both Chinese and western writing, one predominant metaphor used to depict
Xinjiang’s intermediate position between China, Central Asia and beyond has been that of ‘the Silk
Road’. Indeed, with official PRC claims for the primordial ‘Chinese’ identity of the Xinjiang region
increasing in shrillness and ahistoricality, it is only in the context of ‘the Silk Road’ that the region’s
cultural diversity and multidirectional linkages may be safely discussed in China. Yet the Silk Road
metaphor is used in different ways and to convey different messages in China than elsewhere.
Whereas outside China the cross-cultural exchanges of ‘the Silk Road’ can serve as a heart-warming
counter-argument to the ‘clash of civilizations’ world view, Chinese silk-roadism is more parochial and
nationalistic. As this chapter will demonstrate, recent Chinese materials stake claims on the ‘Silk
Road’ and treat exchanges across its length so as to stress Chinese cultural and commercial exports
and Chinese uniqueness over bilateral exchanges and long-term pan-Eurasian integration. When
imports such as Buddhism are undeniable, then the Chinese take on the Silk Road notion serves to
highlight aspects of the Chinese past that resonate with today’s vision of ‘rising China’ playing a
major role on the world stage.

< previous page page_55 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_55.html[27.08.2009 12:58:50]
page_56

< previous page page_56 next page >

Page 56
The historiography and imagery of Xinjiang qua Silk Road is thus collared by contemporary political
concerns. This chapter explores the implications of this through propaganda, history-writing, tourism
packaging, and the official musicology of Uyghur art music, or muqam .
Games with names – is Xinjiang in Central Asia?
Let us begin with an apparently simple question. Is Xinjiang part of China? Is it part of Central Asia?
Is to say that it lies in one place or the other to make an imperialist or a separatist claim? Can one
safely say it is part of China and Central Asia simultaneously?
The first response to these questions is to state the obvious: Xinjiang is part of China: no national
entity in the international community disputes China’s sovereignty in the region; scholars outside
China do not dispute it; even among Uyghur groups in exile, the calls for an independent Uyghur
state are increasingly rare and, unlike their human rights concerns, get no serious hearing. It is also
obvious to anyone who has read about or visited the region that geographically, ethnically, culturally
and historically, Xinjiang shares much with its neighbours Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Mongolia. If you look at a map, Xinjiang lies smack-dab in the middle of
the Eurasian continent – there is even a roadside attraction within convenient driving distance of the
tourist hotels in Urumqi that claims to be the ‘geographic centre of Eurasia’. So, by any definition of
Central Asia (Central Eurasia) broader than simply ‘former-Soviet Central Asia’, Xinjiang is part of
Central Asia.
All of this is self-evident, one might think, but the issue of Xinjiang’s geographic labelling is
surprisingly fraught. As specialists in Xinjiang know, one cannot use the terms ‘Uyghurstan’ or ‘East
Turkistan’ for Xinjiang around Chinese or in any sort of official context, even when referring to
periods before the Qing conquest in the eighteenth century. This is because both terms have been
used at various points by Uyghurs or other Turkic peoples with separatist aspirations. (In the past
few years, Chinese publications have for the first time begun using the word ‘East Turkistan’
[ Dongtu], but only in scare quotes to indicate Uyghur terrorist organizations.)
More to the point here is that, in China, Xinjiang is not included within the concept of ‘Central Asia’.
The old Soviet studies centres in western countries have, since 1991, redefined themselves as
centres for the study of Eastern Europe, Russia and Eurasia – with the latter notion increasingly
including Xinjiang as well as Mongolia, Afghanistan and sometimes even Tibet. The Central Eurasian
Studies Society, the main academic organization for Central Asianists in the United States (with
members from outside the US as well, including China), explicitly includes Xinjiang within its ambit.
Indiana University’s recently created position in ‘Xinjiang Studies’ resides officially in the Uralic and
Altaic Studies department, not its East Asian Studies Center

< previous page page_56 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_56.html[27.08.2009 12:58:50]
page_57

< previous page page_57 next page >

Page 57
(Uralic and Altaic Studies also houses Indiana’s Tibetanists, although Tibetan is neither a Uralic nor
an Altaic language).
In China, however, Xinjiang is not considered part of Central Asia. The Institute of Russian, Eastern
European and Central Asian Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is officially dedicated
only to ‘international studies’.1 A volume of papers produced by a Swedish–Chinese academic
conference and study tour in Xinjiang in 1992 is entitled in English Explorations and Studies on
Central Asia. In the Chinese title, however, where the English reads ‘Central Asia’, the Chinese
substitutes ‘ Xiyu’ (Western regions – more on this term below.)2
Central Asia as a geographic concept is notoriously vague, with little agreement even among
specialists about its boundaries; it is not surprising that for the purposes of dividing fields of study
China lumps Xinjiang together with China, not with foreign countries. Since no one disputes that
Xinjiang is part of China anyway, one might think it hardly matters that western and Chinese
scholars slice the Eurasian pie differently.
However, when it comes to writing history, the implications become more troubling. Even for the
thousand-year period (eighth through eighteenth century) when no China-based power controlled
the region, recent Chinese writing nonetheless treats Xinjiang as part of Chinese history, and
periodizes it according to the names and dates of Chinese dynasties based thousands of kilometres
away. Chinese historiography considers ancient peoples of the Xinjiang region to be the ancestors of
today’s recognized Chinese minzu (nationalities). Invasions or local wars become ‘rebellions’. Trade is
regarded as ‘tribute’ to the Chinese court. And the official line that China has enjoyed uninterrupted
control over ‘the western regions’ since 60 BC is so far from what is clearly recorded even in the
official histories compiled by the Chinese dynasties themselves over some 2,000 years – let alone in
the secondary scholarship readily available in any good modern library – that much rhetorical sleight
of hand is necessary to perpetuate the government-mandated position.
Names, we all learn in our earliest courses on China, must be rectified, and indeed Confucius
stressed that the first thing a ruler should do upon assuming office is to straighten out what things
are called. ‘If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If
language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.’3
Names, then, are not mere conventions. They have political force, and can be used to establish
‘truth’. That strategic onomastics has been and remains a prime concern of Chinese regimes is made
abundantly clear in the case of Xinjiang. Han dynasty conquerors applied Chinese characters to
places that had their own Indo-European names already: Loulan and Krorän are one such pair. The
Tang’s command centre in the Tarim Basin was named to reflect the Tang’s strategic goal: Anxi, or
‘pacified west’. (The town, or at least its name and garrison, had later to be relocated further east in
response to military reality on the ground.) Some thousand years later,

< previous page page_57 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_57.html[27.08.2009 12:58:50]
page_58

< previous page page_58 next page >

Page 58
when the Qing conquered both the Tarim Basin and Zungharia, onomastic chaos ensued as different
field officials each chose different Chinese characters to transliterate local Turkic and Mongolian
place-names. The initial confusion was soon resolved through an imperially-sponsored project of
onomastic name standardization (the Xiyu tongwen zhi, 1763),4 which also attempted to reconcile
the ‘new’ names with the Chinese names from the Han and Tang periods. Throughout most of the
Qing period, the Han-era term Xiyu, ‘Western Regions’ was still commonly used for the Xinjiang
region, but with some ambiguity as to whether it included Qinghai or even Ferghana and parts
further west. Interestingly, transcription was no problem in the alphabetic Manchu script, and for that
reason the great Qing imperial atlases, compiled with Jesuit help, kept all place-names outside the
Wall in Manchu. Perhaps it was in this spirit of Manchu pragmatism that the straightforward
neologism ‘Xinjiang’ (New Frontier) – a term with no prior historical associations – was officially
applied to the region in the second half of the eighteenth century and became its unique and
exclusive administrative moniker.
Han Chinese leaders in the Republican period, indulging an undisguised assimilative agenda, stripped
Ural–Altaic names from the Xinjiang map, and replaced them with old Han names, such as Shule for
Kashgar, or patronizing ones like Ti-hwa (Dihua, ‘come to be transformed’) for Urumqi.5 The more
multicultural Communists, in building their multi-nationality state ( duo minzu guojia ), restored many
of the Turko-Mongolian and other non-Sinic names, but without quite eliminating the Han dynasty
terms either (many remain as county names).6 And the PRC then added another layer of onomastic
complexity with its nested system of ‘autonomous’ nationality counties, prefectures and regions:
former Xinjiang province itself was rechristened after 1955 as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous
Region ( Xinjiang Weiwuer zizhiqu ). While this ‘autonomous’ minority nationality place system did not,
in fact, invest its eponymous nationalities with any autonomy, it did serve the immediate purposes of
a state bent on divide et impera .7
How does this relate to situating Xinjiang in China and Central Asia? A battle is raging now over the
names used for and – a closely related matter – the narratives about Xinjiang. Scholars outside of
China may not realize that they are engaged in this struggle, but relevant units and think tanks in
China are geared up to the academic equivalent of a wartime footing. Consider a recent salvo edited
by Li Sheng, with an introduction by Ma Dazheng, entitled Xinjiang of China: Its Past and Present.
Both Li and Ma are fellows in the Research Center for China’s Borderland History and Geography
Studies,8 a unit of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The book was published in 2005 in
English, French, Japanese, Russian, Uyghur, Kazak and Arabic. Its cover copy reads:
Xinjiang of China: Its Past and Present is not a book about general history, but one focused on facts
bearing on stability and development in

< previous page page_58 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_58.html[27.08.2009 12:58:51]
page_59

< previous page page_59 next page >

Page 59
Xinjiang. It has been written on the basis of reality with the purpose of respecting history and
clarifying the truth.9
This volume was one of a raft of Chinese publications from the past decade in Chinese, English and
other languages that summarize Xinjiang’s history for general readers. These include white papers
from the State Council of the PRC on terrorism and one on the ‘History and Development of Xinjiang’,
as well as several trade publications.10 There are probably several reasons why the Chinese
government and academic units saw a need for a new publicity push at this point in time. As Xinjiang
grew more integrated with and known to the world, it was no doubt deemed necessary to step up
propaganda efforts aimed at general readers. Xinjiang and the Uyghurs came into the news after
9/11 as China sought to position Uyghur separatism as part of a global Islamic movement. More
specifically, however, authorities and scholars in China were likely responding to a research initiative
then ongoing in the United States which produced the book entitled Xinjiang: China’s Muslim
Borderland (2004). For idiosyncratic reasons this volume came directly to the attention of China’s
security apparatus, apparently arousing great concern. Its articles surveyed the history, economics,
education, security, geography and other aspects of Xinjiang (I collaborated on two history
chapters). Most readers would agree, I think, that it differs little from most academic edited volumes:
mixed in content and outlook, stronger in some parts than others, on balance useful, but free of
startling revelations, trenchant critiques or thundering polemics and already somewhat outdated by
the time it came into print. Why then the furore in China? One reason, I believe, was because the
editor, S. Frederick Starr, is director of the Central Asia–Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins
University. This, I suspect, raised alarms in Beijing: why was Xinjiang, properly part of China, being
studied by a Washington DC think tank devoted to Central Asia? The cubbyholing of Xinjiang into
‘Eurasia’ highlighted parallels with Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and Ukraine – where occurred the ‘colour
revolutions’ that Chinese and Russian authorities see as stage managed by a US government intent
on undermining their power. Specifically, since the 1999 NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, Chinese
analysts and leaders have feared that the US was planning to exploit Uyghur separatism and ethnic
tension in Xinjiang to foment a Kosovo-style rebellion. The mere existence of the Starr-edited book
touched a nerve, therefore, because it put Xinjiang in the wrong geographical category, and thus, in
the eyes of some in China, seemed to challenge China’s sovereignty in Xinjiang. The authors who
contributed to the volume had no political or non-academic purpose, of course, and did not question
Chinese sovereignty in Xinjiang. Nevertheless, Pan Zhiping of the Xinjiang Academy of Social
Sciences (XJASS) summed up in this way the PRC fears about the Starr book in his preface to the
pirated ‘secret’ translation published by XJASS:
[The American authors’] core thinking is that there is a great problem

< previous page page_59 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_59.html[27.08.2009 12:58:51]
page_60

< previous page page_60 next page >

Page 60
with the legality of Chinese sovereignty in Xinjiang. One can say that this thought comprises
American interference in Chinese internal affairs, and moreover provides a theoretical basis for one
day taking action to dismember China and separate Xinjiang.11
This context, then, explains the stress on ‘facts’, ‘reality’, ‘history’ and ‘truth’ shouting from the cover
of Li Sheng’s volume. It also explains the odd title phrase ‘Xinjiang of China’, which is not a
formulation used much, if ever, before in English. More than simply an awkward translation of
Zhongguo Xinjiang , it has the character of an assertion. It is an attempt to rectify the names, to
educate foreign audiences.
Xinjiang in World History
More than in the past, then, Chinese authorities and scholars in the 2000s feel an urgent need to
internationalize their narrative of Xinjiang history. This shift parallels two other ongoing aspects of
globalization: first, the greater integration of Xinjiang since the late 1980s (and especially since 1991)
with the rest of China and with the world, thanks to improved communications, the collapse of the
Soviet Union, expanding tourism, ‘rising China’s’ role in the global economy, oil and gas exploration in
and pipelines through the region, and even the concept of a ‘global war on terror’ which Chinese
leaders have used to frame Uyghur separatism as part of a worldwide Islamic movement. Second,
there has been a revival of general scholarly, pedagogical and popular interest in the Xinjiang region
and in Central Eurasia more broadly. In part this arises from urgent contemporary issues (oil,
Afghanistan), but it also owes something to a ‘globalization’ of history: the revived interest in world
history as a discipline and an ideology, with its relative stress on interconnections, exchanges,
networks and parallels between civilizations. This is a historiography well suited for an age of
internationalism, multiculturalism, neoliberal free-tradism and we’re-all-in-this-together
environmentalism. Whether the Huntingtonians, religious fundamentalists and trade protectionists can
reverse the trend perhaps remains an open question, but for now, speaking as a teacher of college-
level history who has surveyed the new textbooks, I can say the one-worldist approach is well
entrenched.
This affects our understanding of Xinjiang in significant ways. As a distant, dusty corner of China,
Xinjiang seemed to figure little in the creation of Chinese civilization and the Chinese nation. It was
remote, sparsely populated, climatically harsh and seemingly contributed nothing in itself. It was little
more than a corridor along which admittedly important things, like Buddhism and silk, came and
went. Like other parts of Central Eurasia, it was also a redoubt for barbarian tribesmen who
repeatedly and mercilessly attacked the cultured centres of Cathay.
But what about when the focus shifts, as it does in the world historical narrative, to ‘the places in
between’?12 Then it is intercultural contact,

< previous page page_60 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_60.html[27.08.2009 12:58:52]
page_61

< previous page page_61 next page >

Page 61
exchanges of goods and biological material and the transmission of ideas that become central. The
erstwhile barbarians are now facilitators of cross-cultural exchange. One student of mine
demonstrated perfect internalization of this lesson when he wrote in an exam, ‘in the thirteenth
century, Genghis Khan set out to globalize the known world’.
This revised outlook is not restricted to academic or pedagogical contexts, but enters the broader
popular consciousness is various ways. Viewers of television history programmes and readers of
popular science magazines thrill to learn about mummies with ‘European’ features turning up in the
Xinjiang desert. Television documentaries, travel writings, museum exhibitions and similar texts
stress the themes of interconnectivity. In Washington DC, the Smithsonian Institution in 2002 hosted
a two-week ‘Silk Road Festival’ on the National Mall between the Capitol and the Washington
Monument in which tens of thousands participated. Tourists sign up in droves for Silk Road package
tours. And books on the Silk Road, or playing on the idea of the Silk Road, are published by the
dozens: in September 2007 Amazon.com listed over 70 English-language books published since the
year 2000 with the words ‘Silk Road’ in their titles.
Not all ‘Silk Road’ fascination focuses on Xinjiang, of course, but it is certainly a key link. The ways in
which the Xinjiang region has been involved in broader regional or world history are manifold. It is in
fact much more than ‘China’s Muslim Borderland’. In the bronze and iron ages, Indo-European
speaking peoples settled and nomadized across the northern tier of Eurasia, from the Black Sea to
Gansu. Xinjiang and Mongolia were conduits and points of contact between these early peoples and
the proto-Chinese societies developing in the North China Plains, Manchuria, Sichuan and elsewhere.
Then and later, the Xinjiang region’s primary historical significance lay in its position between Sinic,
on the one hand, and Indic, Mediterranean/Islamic zones, on the other; and in the goods, ideas and
people that passed through Xinjiang in getting from one of these areas to another: barley, wheat,
domesticated sheep and camels, and, later, larger horse breeds, cotton, viniculture, plague, tea and
that mighty purgative, rhubarb; ‘animal-style’ art, the chariot, possibly aspects of the bronze or iron
metallurgical package, Han silks, Roman glass, Sassanian metalwork, Hellenic motifs, Chinese
elements in Islamic miniatures, and Mughal forms in Manchu jade work; Buddhism, Manichaeism,
Nestorian Christianity, Islam; paper, gunpowder, blue-and-white ceramics, astronomical and
mathematical methods, medicines, musical theory and such instruments as the lute, spike fiddle and
hourglass drum; chess; the travellers Zhang Qian, Faxian and Xuanzang and many more Buddhist
pilgrims and translators; the ubiquitous whirling Soghdians, William of Rubruck, Marco Polo, Sven
Hedin, Aurel Stein. And furthermore, to reduce to chaos any gathering at which Uyghurs, Chinese,
Poles or Italians are present, one need only add noodles, pizza or the humble mante (also known as
jiaozi, pierogi or ravioli) to this list.
One could write very large books dealing with exchanges over Xinjiang’s

< previous page page_61 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_61.html[27.08.2009 12:58:52]
page_62

< previous page page_62 next page >

Page 62
roads. Indeed, they have been written: the works of Edward Schafer and Joseph Needham come to
mind; more recently, Liu Xinru has contributed to this body of scholarship.13 To be sure, one may
question whether Xinjiang’s contribution to the globalization of paper or the dumpling rises above
simply that of a transit point. While this may be a legitimate caveat with regard to specific goods and
some technologies, the Tarim oases did serve as mediators of and thus contributors to the idea
systems that passed through them. Uyghur cooks are renowned in Central Asia for a reason.
Buddhism was initially translated for Chinese consumption in such places as Khotan, Kucha and
Dunhuang and by Khotanese or Kuchean monks in Chinese monasteries. The Central Asian and
Tarim passage filtered and amplified aspects of the religion, stressing certain sutras, teachings and
practices, and helping shape its form in China. The same might be said a fortiori for Islam in China,
which owes much to the missionary Sufi networks hailing originally from Bukhara and who set down
roots in Xinjiang before moving into Gansu and Qinghai.
Xinjiang’s world historical status, in short, is as the crossroads of Eurasia; no mere byway, but a
crossroads where things happened. To the east–west dimension of its world historical role, moreover,
we must add the equally significant north–south dimension. Xinjiang is linked to the steppe-sown
dynamic – a long-running issue in world history – both as a setting where that dynamic was played
out, and, more broadly, as an inevitable sideshow to any conflict between nomadic states based in
Mongolia and agrarian states based in North China. Schematically put, the argument for this goes as
follows.
The Tarim Basin oases were agriculturally fertile and stood astride lucrative trade routes. They
produced grain and revenue, but could not support herds of horses, so they tended to be dominated
by powers based in the north, where steppes and mountain slopes provided good pasture and thus a
military edge. These equestrian powers might be based as far away as Balasaghun and the Yettisu
area (modern Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan), whence they could simultaneously extend power over the
northern and western Tarim as well as Transoxiana; most important, however, were the powers that
controlled the Turfan basin and northern Tarim cities from just beyond the Tianshan passes in
Zungharia (northern Xinjiang) or even from Mongolia. When strategic rivalries between Mongolia-
based and north China-based states intensified and Chinese states attempted to cut off the nomads’
access to grain and trade revenue, the value to nomad states of the Hami–Turfan– Kucha belt rose.
China-based states then expanded operations westward, ‘to cut off the right hand of the Xiongnu’, in
the famous phrase from the Hanshu . Xinjiang was in this fashion drawn into China–Mongolia conflicts
not only during the Han–Xiongnu rivalry, but during that of the Tang with the Turks, of Khubilai with
Arigh Böke and Khaidu, of the Ming and the Mongols, and of the Qing and the Zunghars. The
Xinjiang region, then, particularly its eastern portion, is tied to what was an enduring face-off
between north China-based and nomadic-type states across the Great Wall line. Most clearly seen in
the China–Mongolia case, similar dynamics were a

< previous page page_62 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_62.html[27.08.2009 12:58:52]
page_63

< previous page page_63 next page >

Page 63
feature of steppe-sown relationships in South Asia, Iran, the Middle East, the Black Sea coast and
Russia.
The Silk Road in Chinese eyes
If ‘Crossroads of Eurasia’ represents Xinjiang’s position in world history from a non-Chinese
perspective (in particular, mine, hence my use of the phrase as the title of my history of Xinjiang),
then Li Sheng’s ‘Xinjiang of China’ sums up how Chinese scholars – officially, at least – present it. It
is not that Chinese scholars entirely ignore Xinjiang’s important world historical role as a conduit
between cultures, but that they must discuss that interconnectivity in a Chinese national context.
Since it is problematic for them to include Xinjiang in ‘Eurasia’, or ‘Central Asia’, the old Han dynasty
term Xiyu, ‘Western Regions’, is still commonly used and is politically acceptable, as it blurs the
question of pre-modern sovereignty over the Tarim Basin and Zungharia. But ‘Western Regions’ does
not work well when translated into English, as it is too easily confused with ‘the West’.
However, it turns out that the term ‘Silk Road’ fits the bill rather nicely. Sichou zhi lu (or silu ) in
Chinese, the term proves useful in allowing discussion of Xinjiang’s cross-continental linkages while
avoiding the awkward question of Xinjiang’s place in ‘Central Eurasia’. In part for this reason, I
believe, as well as for its marketing potential, China has embraced this romantic, nineteenth-century
German term as or more eagerly than anywhere else. The ‘Amazon test’ when conducted with the
bookseller’s Chinese site yields 90 current book titles including the phrases sichou zhi lu or silu .14
But Chinese sources often use ‘Silk Road’ somewhat differently than do Western materials. Outside
Xi’an (the old Tang capital of Chang’an, often called the eastern Silk Road terminus) stands the
Famen temple, whose ancient pagoda has been maintained, despite collapses, over the centuries. A
piece of the Buddha’s finger-bone once housed here was the subject of a xenophobic, anti-Buddhist
polemic by the Confucian scholar Han Yu, a rather dyspeptic piece that has been enshrined in the
canon of Chinese literature. A hidden vault under the stupa recently yielded a trove of artefacts
demonstrating early Chinese links with Indian Tantric Buddhism, including two pieces of finger-bone,
one purported to be the very bone that so exercised Han Yu. The Famensi pagoda itself is today
again a religious pilgrimage site, but the artefacts and nearby structures has been museumized.
What is interesting about the exhibits is the secular ideological uses to which they put the site and its
Silk Road ties. When I visited in 2004, a large billboard over the parking lot showed General
Secretary Jiang Zemin posing with some of the precious artefacts from the vault (but not, sadly, with
the Buddha’s finger). Text plaques in the exhibit included the following:
The ancient China in Tang’s period has strong national power, stable society, prosperous economy,
and advanced culture. Her dignified and

< previous page page_63 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_63.html[27.08.2009 12:58:53]
page_64

< previous page page_64 next page >

Page 64
vigorous royal manners, and all embracing opening attitude gained the respect from all over the
world. China becomes the prosperous paradise enjoying popular confidence. The treasures unearthed
from the underground palace of Famen temple reflect the magnificent scene of ‘the whole world are
longing to go to Tang’, and reproduce the Tang’s elegance as a proudest country in the world. The
all-embracing opening spirit of Tang creates the matchless vigorous Tang Dynasty. The completeness
and perfection of Tang’s civilization just consist in extensively assimilating the advanced culture from
all over the world. Chinese nation processes the spirit of perseverance and creativity since the ancient
times. After assimilating the outside civilization, this national spirit burst out the much stronger force ,
which is the profound inspiration and spiritual encouragement presented by the ‘elegance of grand
Tang’ and ‘oriental light’ to our common people.15
(Verbatim English text; emphasis added)
In other words, for the curators, this Silk Road site demonstrates, first, the openness of China in the
Tang as now in the post-Deng era (but unlike during certain other periods of Chinese history); and
second, that people from the across the world, like today’s Silk Road tourists, were drawn inexorably
to this elegant, confident, prosperous, matchless, dynamic, vigorous – the adjectives go on and on –
advanced, magnificent world power. All it lacks is a reference to the 2008 Olympics.
When expressed this way, the Silk Road metaphor well serves the ideological purposes of today’s
Chinese state. By emphasizing silk, Buddhism and the high imperial periods of the Han and Tang
Dynasties (the last time China had a presence in Xinjiang until the eighteenth century), China
represents Xinjiang and the Silk Road as a stage on which China plays the leading historical role. Just
as early Euro-American scholarship on south-west Asia and India once focused on traces of lost
classical civilizations and ignored or denigrated the more recent Islamic past, the historical packaging
of Xinjiang has de-emphasized the more recent, Islamic millennium in favour of Buddhist and pre-
Buddhist antiquity and Han and Tang-period areas. This is particularly noticeable at tourist sites. For
example, in Xinjiang’s westernmost, still predominantly Uyghur and Muslim city of Kashgar,
developers recently built a faux ancient city-site commemorating the Han Dynasty general Ban Chao,
complete with a mini-Great Wall (anachronistically in the Ming dynasty style), a ‘spirit road’ flanked
with life-size figures of soldiers and ministers, and of course a statue of the conquering general
himself. Ban Chao originally consolidated his control over Kashgar in the year AD 87 by calling a
banquet to celebrate a truce with the towns’ local defenders, getting them drunk, and slaughtering
them. It is hard to say whether planners or city officials considered the sensitivity of erecting a
monument to him. In any case, Pantuo City, as the park is called, has now become a new station on
the Silk Road, at least for some tourists.

< previous page page_64 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_64.html[27.08.2009 12:58:53]
page_65

< previous page page_65 next page >

Page 65
Even where the monuments are undeniably Islamic, the stress in tourist materials and guided
presentations often falls on those aspects linking the site to places further east in China. For
example, the Amin Khoja or Sulayman mosque (Su Gong Ta) in Turfan once stood by itself amid
fields and grape-drying arbours. Recently, however, developers have erected a modern statue of the
Amin Khoja, a Turki noble who collaborated in the Qing conquest of Xinjiang. He is posed in the act
of receiving an edict from the Qianlong emperor, his eyes cast reverently upwards, as if the emperor
were floating in the sky over the vast new parking lot. At the Afaq Khoja Mazar in Kashgar, much is
made of the so-called ‘fragrant concubine’ (Xiang Fei), a woman from Afaq Khoja’s family who was
married to the same Qianlong emperor after the Qing conquest. She is not in fact buried at the site.
It is Afaq Khoja and his male descendents, a powerful Sufi order who once controlled western
Xinjiang, for whom the mazar was originally erected and maintained. Still, at a concession just
outside the shrine doors one may be photographed (for a fee) with girls playing Xiang Fei in either
Uyghur dress or in martial get-up with helmet and sword.
The Silk Road idea also resonated positively with developments in the post-Deng, post-Soviet era of
openness and economic reforms, and especially the region’s renewed communications with Central
Asia and increased autonomy from Beijing in dealing with foreign tourists, governments, NGOs, trade
partners and investors. The general preface to a series of academic ‘Silk Road Researches’ published
in 1993 by Xinjiang Renmin press made the relevant connection:
…Some authors [in the series] have attempted to combine their [Silk Road] studies with the reform
and the open door policy of China in hope that the past can serve the present and show what we can
learn from our ancestors…. There is no demand that the views of the authors should be in
conformity with that of the editors. Instead, we appreciate the contention of different schools and
ideas in the studies, for we believe that it is the only way to promote the Silk Road studies…. It is
not a coincidence that the [UNESCO-affiliated] Centre for Silk Road Studies, Urumchi, has been
founded in Xinjiang: the most important section of the Silk Road. All this proves that a new age to
rediscover and revitalize the great Silk Road has come to us [emphasis added].16
The editors wished to say, in other words, that China now officially embraces the openness and
connectivity implied by the Silk Road idea. These characteristics are, after all, healthy for China’s
growing foreign trade. But at the same time, China claims a controlling stake in the Silk Road, the
‘most important section’ of which is precisely Xinjiang. Thus what in the West are celebrated as Silk
Road exchanges and interconnectivity are, in China, portrayed rather as evidence that the world is
beating a path to China’s (once again) open door. Rather than as a transnational

< previous page page_65 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_65.html[27.08.2009 12:58:54]
page_66

< previous page page_66 next page >

Page 66
bridge between civilizations, the Silk Road here is nationalized as China’s doorstep.
Yet despite such Silk Road boosterism, Chinese authorities today are not terribly interested in cultural
exchanges or linkages other than touristic or commercial ones over the revitalized Silk Road. In fact,
one of the top priorities of Xinjiang’s security apparatus today lies precisely in preventing the import
of religious and political influences, people, news and certain trade items (drugs and arms,
understandably enough, but also videotapes and books). Likewise, official China remains ambivalent
or even suspicious about Xinjiang’s historical westward links. The official approach to traditional
Uyghur music demonstrates this ambivalence.
Uyghur music and the distortions of Chinese silk roadism
Uyghur music became the object of a state music project even before the rise of the PRC. The
Uyghur art music form, muqam , is a series of suites or song cycles considered by many Uyghurs to
be the acme of Uyghur cultural achievement. Until the mid-twentieth century, the muqam in Xinjiang
consisted of a flexible tradition with many individual and regional styles (such as those of Kashgar,
Ili, Dolan and Qumul) passed on from masters to disciples. During their apprenticeship, disciples
might play percussion on the dap frame-drum while the master sang and played the dutar (a two-
string long-necked lute), rewab (a mandolin-like lute with doubled strings and a round, skin-covered
body) or tambur (another long-necked lute, with a doubled melody string).17 In this way, the pupil
could internalize the complex rhythms, poetic lyrics, melodies and rules of ornamentation before
performing muqam on a melodic instrument themselves. For the most part, it appears, Uyghur
musicians traditionally did not perform whole cycles, but rather isolated pieces or sections of muqam .
Both Ahmetjan Qasimi (leader of the Eastern Turkestan Republic in northern Xinjiang in the 1940s)
and Seypidin Äziz (Saifuding; former member of the ETR government who served later under the
PRC both as regional vice chairman and chairman of the Xinjiang Nationalities Committee) sought to
promote the muqam , and particularly the twelve muqams ( on ikki muqam ) tradition of Kashgar, as
the prestige music of the Uyghur people.18 In the 1950s, an orchestra director from Nanjing,
together with scholars in the Muqam Research Group, were charged with collecting and organizing
the suites, which in fact existed as an unsystematic living tradition with more than twelve suite
names overall, and with no one performer’s or regional tradition’s repertoire including twelve
complete suites. The collection and editing project thus focused on ‘reconstructing’ an idealized
former system of twelve and only twelve complete muqam suites, each consisting of about thirty
songs and instrumentals. In the event, it was the tradition as known and performed by one master,
Turdi Akhun, that became the basis of the canon of the twelve muqams that was recorded,
reordered, transcribed and

< previous page page_66 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_66.html[27.08.2009 12:58:54]
page_67

< previous page page_67 next page >

Page 67
published in 1960.19 This and subsequent editions (also based solely on the repertoire of Turdi
Akhun) have become the foundation of most pedagogy and professional performance of the muqams
in Xinjiang, while other variant traditions from Tarim Basin cities are dismissively treated as ‘local’ or
‘individual’. There remains little if any room for improvisation in muqam performance, as many of the
movements are now played by orchestras rather than small groups of a singer and one to four
instrumentalists. Thus preserved, systematized and frozen, the Uyghur muqams are lauded as a
‘treasure trove’, ‘encyclopaedia’, and ‘perfected’ tradition raised from a ‘germ’ over ‘two thousand
years’ by the Uyghurs as an ‘expression of their social and productive struggles’.20 The corpus of
‘folk classical’ music ( khelq klassik musikisi) has thus been apotheosized as the unique, ancient and
autochthonous tradition of Uyghur music, now reconstructed nearly in its entirety and enshrined as
one of the national musical forms of new China.
Despite the success of this programme of ethnic cultural codification and representation, the Uyghur
muqam still presents certain problems for PRC nationalist ideology, problems that arise from its Silk
Road history. Muqam (variously spelled maqâm, mugham, mukâm and so forth) as both suite form
and music theory belongs to an Arabo-Irano-Turkic tradition that spans Central Asia, the Caucasus,
Afghanistan, Iran and the Arab countries.21 Of the twelve names applied to the twelve standardized
suites in Xinjiang today (Rak, Chebbiyat, Mushavrek, Chargah, Penjigah, Özhal, Ejem, Ushshaq,
Bayat, Nava, Sigah and Iraq), all but two are used elsewhere in the Islamic world, and derive from
Arabic and Persian, not Turkic language roots. Of the two used uniquely in Uyghur muqam , ‘Rak’
may in fact be a derivation of an Arabic word, or even of the Indic raga , and Chebbiyat is a
Turkicized variation on another common Arab maqâm suite name, Bayat. Even the notion of
specifically twelve muqam (the number twelve having zodiacal significance) appears earliest in the
thirteenth century Arabic writings of Safi al-Din.22 In Arab and Persian, maqâm refers to the musical
modes of each suite, in which the pieces of a given suite are composed. The Arab maqâm maintains
the modes consistently; in Central Asia and Xinjiang in particular, the modes of pieces within the
suites vary: they may begin and end in a particular mode, but middle pieces adhere only
inconsistently.23 (A mode is a particular order in which notes of a scale are be played. The muqams
also use a wider variety of scales than the major, minor and harmonic minor scales most common in
pre-twentieth-century Western art music.)
It in no way diminishes the beauty or sophistication of the Uyghur twelve muqam to recognize that it
is part of a quintessential Silk Road musical form: variations on a theme stretching from the Tarim
Basin to the Black Sea. The muqam scales, modes, rhythms, lyrics, instruments and terminology tie
the Uyghurs to a system shared across the Islamic heartlands of Eurasia. They do not, however,
point to any obvious connections with Chinese musical tradition. Moreover, the fact that the Arab
versions maintain consistent modality, while the Uyghur and other Central Asian ones do so only

< previous page page_67 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_67.html[27.08.2009 12:58:54]
page_68

< previous page page_68 next page >

Page 68
partially or nominally, would seem to indicate an Arab centre for the tradition. ( Maqâm literally
means ‘place or rank’ in Arabic, and is one of the standard terms used for mode in Arabo-Irano
music theory.)
Both Uyghur and Han politicians in China have worked to obviate these inconvenient implications. For
example, in prefaces and keynote speeches delivered over decades on the subject of Uyghur muqam ,
Seypidin argued that muqam is originally a Uyghur word, corrupted by Persian and Arabic influences;
he urged the cultivation of a ‘Uighur Mukamology’ that Uyghurizes relevant vocabulary.
This Chahetai language [Chaghatay is a literary written Turkic, with many Persian loan-words, that
flourished from the fifteenth through nineteenth century in Central Asia – JM] found its way into the
terminology and poetry of the mukam, by way of the verses of the Maola [mullah] poets, during the
Middle Ages. The result was that the Uighurs, creators of the mukam, could hardly understand the
lyrics themselves. It is time that this mixed language of the mukam be cleansed of its impurities.24
Chinese musicologists have joined the effort to de-emphasize the obvious transnational nature of
muqam and its association with Islam, while playing up evidence of local origin and development and
connections to Chinese music. One approach has been to argue that the muqam began with the pre-
Islamic Uyghurs. In his historical study of the on ikki muqam , Abdushukur Muhemmet Imin suggests
that the word ‘muqam’ itself is originally Turkic and dates from the fourth century, well before it is
attested in Arabic and before the Islamicization of Central Asia. It was during the Karakhanid period
in the eleventh century, Imin argues, that the muqam spread westward.25 Zhou Jingbao sounds
both Turkic and Chinese nationalistic notes, making a case for the influence of ‘Chinese’ instruments
and music – i.e. those of the Turks and of Qiuci (Kucha) – on Abassid period Baghdad from the mid-
eighth century. He points to five-string lutes in frescoes at Kizil (near Kucha in Xinjiang) as evidence
that the oud , the central instrument in Arab maqâm, was a Kuchean export.26 Moreover, he argues
that al-Farabi (870–950), an author of musical treatises as well as a famous commentary on
Aristotle, was a Turk; likewise, Zhou suggests, Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980–1037),27 should be seen as
‘eastern’ in his thinking and as a beneficiary of Turkic and Chinese influence in his musical theory
because he was educated in Bukhara. Zhou’s logic is worth quoting:
In conclusion, the foundation of Ibn Sina’s thinking derives from al Farabi, and Farabi was a Turk.
Thus, there is no doubt that Ibn Sina’s theory enjoys Turkic influence…. Bukhara [where Ibn Sina
lived as a youth] fell under the control of the Anxi Commandery ( duhufu) and historical records
illuminate the influence of Chinese culture on Bukhara.

< previous page page_68 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_68.html[27.08.2009 12:58:55]
page_69

< previous page page_69 next page >

Page 69
Because before he was 18 years old Ibn Sina lived in the Bukhara area, he unavoidably received the
influence of Chinese civilization.28
Never mind the fact that the primary vehicle of the Tang dynasty’s influence in Bukhara was its
largely Turkic army, or that this army was present in Transoxiana for only a few years, 230 years
before Ibn Sina’s birth! (Ibn Sina’s autobiography gives no suggestion of Chinese influence.)29
Other arguments by PRC authors have likewise highlighted local roots and Chinese connections of the
Uyghur muqam . Some scholars have noted structural and rhythmical similarities of the Tang period
suites known as daqu with certain subsections of the muqam , and posited a common origin in the
music of Kucha. Yin Falu goes further still, claiming that the suite form itself was originally introduced
into the Tarim Basin by the Chinese during the Han dynasty, to be thenceforth adopted by the
people of Kucha, Kashgar, Turfan and so on as the basis of their own popular music.30
Mukamology (to use Seypidin’s word) in China, then, has celebrated the Uyghur muqam as a unique
cultural achievement of the Uyghur people, realized through a process of mutual interchange with
the fraternal Han people. Links to the musical traditions of Central Asia, Iran and Arab lands which
share the name muqam were, according to this argument, merely one-way; they allegedly arose
from the westward spread of Turkic and Uyghur musical culture and contributed significantly to the
development of Arab music, providing, besides the muqam , certain scales and even the five-string
lute or oud . On the other hand, according to this preferred Chinese view, the Arab and Persian
literary and terminological influences that flowed back east with Islam represent not Silk Road
cultural interaction, but an unfortunate corruption of the original purity of the Uyghur muqam .
As the Uyghur muqam begins to receive well-deserved international recognition, it is the limited,
one-way Silk Road along which it is officially situated. The 2005 UNESCO proclamation of Uyghur
muqam as one of the ‘Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity’ makes no
reference to the mukâm, maqâm or mugham of other societies in this trans-Eurasian tradition.
Rather, muqam is referred to only as Uyghur and Chinese. Moreover, while never mentioning that
the muqam form is found from Hami to the Hellespont, the UNESCO website takes pains to assert
that
The music of Uyghur Muqam is characterized by variations and continuity of musical patterns,
indicating close affinity with the musical culture of China’s central plains [my emphasis].31
UNESCO here lends a hand in the internationalization of the official PRC narrative of Xinjiang history.

< previous page page_69 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_69.html[27.08.2009 12:58:55]
page_70

< previous page page_70 next page >

Page 70
Chinese historical anxieties over Xinjiang
Are the historiographical nuances I have been discussing here at all relevant to contemporary affairs?
Does it matter that, in China, Xinjiang is not categorized as part of Central Asia, or that Chinese
writers conceive of the Silk Road differently than is fashionable elsewhere? The Silk Road is, after all,
merely a metaphor. Does it even really matter that the Chinese State Council would disseminate an
English-language document claiming, contrary to the Chinese dynastic histories, that ‘after the
establishment of a frontier command headquarters ( duhufu) in the Western Region by the Han
Dynasty in 60 BC, Xinjiang became a part of Chinese territory. From that time on, the central
government has never ceased jurisdiction over Xinjiang’?32 After all, Xinjiang is what it is, a part of
China bordering on several South and Central Asian countries as well as Russia, with an economy
expanding in pace with other rapidly developing regions of China. Half of its 20 million registered
residents – and even more if its unregistered population is included in the measure – is Han.
As a historian, of course, I am bound to argue that history – and how it is written – is relevant. It
matters not only because truth matters, but also because the efforts to ‘rectify names’ and
internationalize a peculiar narrative of Xinjiang history reveal a profound anxiety on the part of the
Xinjiang regional and Chinese national leadership, a defensiveness that actually shapes aspects of
foreign as well as domestic policy. The Chinese government’s efforts in the months following the
9/11 attacks on the United States to frame Uyghur separatism as part of the Global War on Terror
were widely seen internationally as a cynical effort to provide cover for an intensified crackdown on
Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Similarly, its assertions about the threat of Uyghur terrorist groups lack
credibility, in part because many of its claims about Xinjiang’s ancient and recent history are so
obviously false. China was internationally embarrassed when Premier Wen Jiabao signed a decree in
December 2006 that, in fulfilment of a pledge to the International Olympic Committee, China would
allow foreign journalists freedom to travel throughout the country and report without interference
between 1 January 2007 and 17 October 2008, to correspond with the Olympics – and then
specifically excluded Xinjiang and Tibet from this relaxation of restrictions.33
From the best we can tell, moreover, this sense of insecurity does not arise from serious threats on
the ground in Xinjiang or anywhere on its borders, official Chinese claims of the existence of a well-
organized, al-Qaeda-linked Uyghur terrorist network notwithstanding.34 The threat of a Kosovo-style
intervention in Xinjiang is not plausible, especially now that the US has been driven from its bases in
Central Asia. Following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, observers predicted that the influence
of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India or the United States would increase in Central Asia. Yet though
unanticipated, China has been by far the clearest and greatest ‘winner’ in this new Great Game. Far
from being destabilized by events west of the Pamirs in

< previous page page_70 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_70.html[27.08.2009 12:58:56]
page_71

< previous page page_71 next page >

Page 71
the 1990s and 2000s, Xinjiang has arguably emerged as one of the most stable places in China,
given that it seems to have experienced few of the tens of thousands of peasant and worker
disturbances that now break out in eastern and central provinces annually.35
Rather, the Chinese defensiveness about Xinjiang and its accompanying efforts to police terminology
and historiography arises from its own concerns over historical legitimacy. Chinese propaganda has
barricaded itself behind a nearly indefensible line, claiming that Xinjiang has been part of China for
2,000 years without interruption; that the borders of China under the Qing empire, and all the
peoples within them, have comprised ‘China’ since antiquity;36 that the muqams are Chinese in
origin; and so on. This is a difficult line to maintain in light of more objective historiography
highlighting the nearly constant flow of peoples and cultural material into and out of Xinjiang, from
many directions, including but not restricted to regions under the control of Chinese states;
historiography which, for that matter, also clearly demonstrates the eighteenth-century origins of the
current Chinese control in Xinjiang.
This historical anxiety betrays a fetish for historical depth that is, if not uniquely Chinese, at least
characteristically so. Most states facing separatist or ethnic dissent would be pleased to be able to
demonstrate 250 years of occupancy in a problem region, even with interruptions, especially if they
also enjoyed universal international acceptance of their sovereignty there. But China’s own modern
history, and the emphasis in its national myths on victimization by foreign imperialists in the
nineteenth century, rather than on Qing creation of empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth, back
Chinese ideologues and historians into a corner. Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan are obvious prizes of
Manchu expansion that they feel cannot be acknowledged as such.
There is a great irony here. If we do take the very long view, it is clear that the PRC is now more
secure in Xinjiang than any state based in the north China plains has ever been before it. The
stability and extensiveness of its administration far surpasses that of the Qing, the first state based
on the north China plains to directly govern both the Tarim Basin and Zungharia. Thanks to its
economic clout and the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, China now enjoys
influence across the Pamirs that not even the ‘grand Tang’ could boast. With the SCO, moreover,
China has succeeded in strongly counterbalancing US influence in Central Asia, resolving border
territorial disputes in its favour and undermining potential resistance from cross-border Uyghur
enclaves. China now enlists the security agencies of Central Asian states to police Uyghur
communities and extradite suspects. There remain environmental threats to development, especially
water shortage. But in its economic, political and diplomatic importance, Xinjiang now more
resembles that ‘most important link’ on the idealized, China-centred Silk Road than ever in the past.

< previous page page_71 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_71.html[27.08.2009 12:58:56]
page_72

< previous page page_72 next page >

Page 72
Notes
1 The IREECAS English-language website is: Online. Available HTTP: <http://
euroasia.cass.cn/English/About.html> (accessed 29 October 2008).
2 Ma Dazheng et al. (eds) Xiyu kaocha yu yanjiu (Explorations and studies on Central Asia), Urumqi:
Xinijiang renmin, 1994. The commemorative T-shirt from the conference likewise glosses ‘Central
Asia’ as ‘ Xiyu’.
3 Analects 13:3. From James Legge, trans., The Chinese Classics, Volume I: Confucian Analects,
Safety Harbor, Florida: Simon Publications, 2001; first published Hong Kong 1861. Downloaded text
from Project Gutenberg. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4094> (accessed
29 October 2008).
4 Fu-heng et al., comp., (Qinding) Xiyu tongwen zhi (Imperially commissioned unified-language
gazetteer of the Western Regions), Beijing [?]: 1763; Siku quanshu edition, 1782; repr. Minzu guji
congshu, 2 vols., Wu Fengpei (ed.) Beijing: Zhongyang minzu xueyuan chubanshe, 1984.
5 Dihua was in Qing times originally the name of a fort in Urumqi; in the Republican period
authorities applied it to the city as a whole.
6 James A. Millward, ‘Coming onto the map: “Western regions” geography and cartographic
nomenclature in the making of Chinese Empire in Xinjiang’, Late Imperial China, 1999, December,
vol. 20, no. 2, 61–98.
7 See Gardner Bovingdon, Strangers in their Own Land , book manuscript, ch. 3, for a history and
incisive analysis of the workings of the local autonomy system in Xinjiang.
8 Zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu zhongxin. Li Sheng and Ma Dazheng are old acquaintances and
colleagues of mine; I am pleased to have dined with them on shua yangrou in Beijing and blue crabs
in Washington, not to mention boiled mutton in the middle of the Taklamakan.
9 Li Sheng (ed.) Qin Min, trans., Xinjiang of China: Its Past and Present, Urumqi: Xinjiang People’s
Publishing, 2005.
10 Information Office of the PRC State Council, ‘East Turkistan terrorist forces cannot get away with
impunity’, released 21 January 2002. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200201/21/eng20020121_89078.shtml> (accessed 28 October
2008), and the websites of PRC embassies in certain countries; Information Office of the State
Council of the People’s Republic of China, ‘History and development of Xinjiang’, Beijing: New Star
Publishers, 2003, also available at PRC embassy websites as a white paper; Ji Dachun (ed.) Xinjiang
lishi baiwen (100 questions on Xinjiang history), Urumqi: Xinjiang meishu xieying chubanshe, 1997;
Wang Shuanqian (ed.) Huihuang Xinjiang (Splendid Xinjiang), Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe,
2003.
11 Pan Zhiping, ‘Wo du Meiguo de “Xinjiang gongcheng”’ (My reading of the American ‘Xinjiang
Project’) in Fuleidelike Sitaer (ed.) Xinjiang: Zhongguo musilin juju de bianchui, Frederick S. Starr
(ed.) Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Borderland, translated from English by Shi Lan (n.p.: preface dated
2004), p. 4.
12 I borrow the phrase from the title of Rory Stewart’s recent travelogue, where he follows the route
Babur once marched through Afghanistan. Rory Stewart, The Places in Between, New York: Harcourt,
2004. Babur’s mother was an Islamicized Mongol from what is now Xinjiang – which, some would
say, makes the founder of India’s Mughal dynasty a Chinese.
13 E.H. Schafer, The Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A Study of T’ang Exotics , Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1963; Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China , Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1954–85; Liu Xinru, Ancient India and Ancient China: Trade and Religious
Exchanges, AD 1–600, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988; Liu Xinru, Silk and Religion: An
Exploration of Material Life and the Thought of People, AD 600–1200, Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1996.

< previous page page_72 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_72.html[27.08.2009 12:58:56]
page_73

< previous page page_73 next page >

Page 73
14 Conducted 2 October 2007.
15 ‘Concluding remarks’ plaque, from Famensi Museum complex, Shaanxi province. The
accompanying Chinese text conveys the same meaning.
16 Zhou Jingbao, ‘The general preface to the series of Silk Road studies’ (in English), in Wang
Binghua (ed.) Sichou zhi lu kaogu yanjiu (Archaeological Research on the Silk Road), Sichou zhi lu
yanjiu congshu series no. 1, Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin, 1993, pp. 12–14.
17 Wan Tongshu, Weiwuerzu yueqi (Uyghur instruments), Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe, 1986,
has photos and descriptions of these and other Uyghur instruments.
18 Nathan Light, ‘Slippery paths: the performance and canonization of Turkic literature and Uyghur
Muqam song in Islam and modernity’, PhD dissertation, Indiana University, 1998, Ch. 1, ‘Turkic
history and the Uyghur Muqams’, pp. 29–30. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://homepages.utoledo.edu/nlight/frntmtr1.htm> (accessed 29 October 2008).
19 Wan Tongshu, On ikki muqam / shier mukamu (The Twelve Muqam). Bilingual Chinese–Uyghur
edition, 2 vols. Beijing: Yinyue chubanshe and minzu chubanshe, 1959.
20 Sai-fu-ding (Seypidin Äziz), Lun Weiwuer Mukam (On the Uighur Mukam). In Chinese and English,
Beijing: Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu chubanshe, 1994, pp. 45–6, 49, 51.
21 J.-Cl. Ch. Chabrier, ‘Makâm’, in H.R. Gibb (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn, Leiden: Brill,
1960.
22 Light, ‘Slippery paths’, Ch. 1, pp. 30–31.
23 Light, ‘Slippery paths’, Ch. 1, p. 28, p. 28 n. 19.
24 Seypidin Äziz, ‘On the Uighur Mukam’ (a speech delivered at the Xinjiang Forum on Literature and
Art, 1991), in Saifuding, Lun Weiwuer mukamu , Beijing: Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu chubanshe, 1994, p.
72.
25 Abdushukur Muhemmet Imin, Uyghur khelq kilassik muzikisi ‘On ikki muqam’ heqqide, Beijing,
1981; Sabine Trebinjac, Le pouvoir en chantant, Tome (vol.) I., ‘L’art de fabriquer une musique
chinoise’, Nanterre: Société d’ethnologie, 2000, p. 228; Light, ‘Slippery paths’, pp. 58–9.
26 Zhou Jingbao, Sichou zhilu de yinyue wenhua (Musical culture of the Silk Road), Urumqi: Xinjiang
renmin chubanshe, 1987, pp. 217–18, 224–7. A five-string lute is depicted in the cave frescoes at
Kizil (also spelled Qizil; near Kucha) and listed in Tang sources as one of the Kuchean (Qiuci)
instruments. However, such lutes with vaulted backs are common across Eurasia, and there are
similar instruments depicted in Mediterranean sites dating from the second century BC. On the pipa’s
import into China, see Shigeo Kishibe, ‘The origins of the Pipa’, Transactions of the Asiatic Society of
Japan (Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko), 2nd series, 1940, vol. 19, 259–304.
27 Avicenna’s Canon became the foundational work of Renaissance medicine in Europe.
28 Zhou Jingbao, Sichou zhilu de yinyue wenhua , p. 227.
29 W.E. Gohlman (ed.) trans., The Life of Ibn Sina, Albany: State University of New York Press,
1974.
30 Yin Falu, ‘Woguo lishi shang de minzu qianxi yu wudao wenhua jiaoliu’ (ethnic migrations and
exchange of dance culture in the history of my country), Wudao luncong 3, pp. 48–57, cited in
Trebinjac, Le pouvoir en chantant, pp. 222–3.
31 UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization), ‘Third proclamation of
masterpieces of the oral and intangible heritage of humanity’ 2005. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.unesco.org/culture/intangible-heritage/10apa_uk.htm> (accessed 29 October 2008).
32 Information Office of the PRC State Council, ‘East Turkistan terrorist forces

< previous page page_73 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_73.html[27.08.2009 12:58:57]
page_74

< previous page page_74 next page >

Page 74
cannot get away with impunity’. The more widely available white paper ‘History and development of
Xinjiang’ makes a similar false claim: ‘Since the Western Regions Frontier Command was established
in 60 BC, the inflow of the Han people to Xinjiang, including officials, soldiers and merchants, had
never stopped.’ Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, ‘History and
development of Xinjiang’, p. 2.
33 Edward Cody, ‘China to allow more freedom for journalists from abroad’, The Washington Post, 2
December 2006, A08.
34 I am among those observers of the situation in Xinjiang who believe that claims regarding the
threat of violent resistance or terrorist attacks in Xinjiang to date have been exaggerated. See James
Millward, ‘Violent separatism in Xinjiang: a critical assessment’, Policy Studies 6, Washington, DC:
East-West Center, 2004.
35 One recent exception was a fight in late September 2007 between thousands of cotton farmers in
Kuitun and police and paramilitary guards. The police had been searching farmhouses for caches of
cotton that farmers were hoping to sell at open market rates, rather than at the artificially low fixed
prices paid by the Xinjiang Production Construction Corps. The issue that sparked the incident had
nothing to do with ethnicity, and resembles similar conflicts that have broken out frequently
elsewhere in China over economic issues and abuses by local authorities. ‘Chinese cotton farmers
clash with police, 40 injured’, Associated Press , 5 October 2007.
36 The PRC State Council White Paper, ‘History and development of Xinjiang’ makes a point of
Xinjiang’s multi-ethnic character since ancient times. However, the ‘many tribes and ethnic groups’ it
mentions only migrate ‘across the land of China’, for which purpose it includes Mongolia and Tibet,
although these areas were administered by a state based in China only during the Qing period. The
document (p. 2) refers to the ‘Sai (Sak)’, for example, as ‘a nomadic tribe [that used] to roam about
the area from the Ili and Chuhe river basins in the east to the Sir (Syrdarya River westward)’. In fact,
the Sai or Saka were Indo-European speakers, part of a cultural and linguistic continuum of Iron Age
nomadic and settled peoples that stretched across Central Eurasia and included the Scythians whom
Herodotus describes at length. (Iranian ‘Saka’ and Greek ‘Scythian’ are cognate words.) Northern
Xinjiang or Mongolia was probably the easternmost extent of their range. This white paper (pp. 3–5)
also labels all China’s traditional adversaries, the nomads inhabiting territory that now lies in the
Republic of Mongolia, as Chinese. For example, ‘The Turks were ancient nomads active on the
northwestern and northern grasslands of China from the sixth to the eighth centuries’ (p. 4; my
emphasis). It is worth noting that not only were these grasslands not part of the Tang empire, but
they are not part of the PRC now! Of Chinese dynasties, only the Qing was able to incorporate and
control Mongolia (as opposed to sporadically manipulating nomad elites through bribes and
diplomacy) from north China.

< previous page page_74 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_74.html[27.08.2009 12:58:57]
page_75

< previous page page_75 next page >

Page 75
4
‘Failed States’ on the ‘Perilous Frontier’
Historical bases of state formation in Afghanistan and Central Asia
Geoff Watson
Massey University
Thomas Barfield chose The Perilous Frontier as the title for his book on relations between the
nomadic and sedentary worlds. Although written with reference to relations between nomadic
societies and China between 221 BC and 1757 it will be argued that his work resonates in present
attempts to create a new polity in Afghanistan.1 Although the present situation in Afghanistan is
popularly presented as a clash between al-Qaeda and a resurgent Taliban on the one hand, and a
fledgling Afghan government supported, to varying degrees, by the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF), the United States and Afghan warlords on the other hand, this chapter argues that the
present conflict can more accurately be viewed through the lens of the longer-term dynamics of
state-formation in Central Asia. The first section analyses the external dynamics of state formation in
Afghanistan and Central Asia, focusing on the historic usage of security concerns and perceptions of
‘oriental despotism’ as pretexts for external intervention in Central Asia. It then analyses internal
dynamics of state formation, arguing that the external pretexts for intervention can be attributed to
the historical tensions between nomadic and sedentary societies. It is further argued here that there
are historical continuities between present rhetoric, which presents Afghanistan as a base of fanatical
Islam and lawless tribalism, and the dominant discourse of the so-called ‘Great Game’ era between
1830 and 1914. In both instances, such rhetoric reveals more about mainstream Western thinking
than the regions they are applied to.
What purposes does this labelling serve? Historically, there have been three, sometimes interrelated,
pretexts for outsiders seeking to influence state formation in Central Asia: a desire to annex its
territories as part of a wider empire; to address a perceived threat from within the borders of its
territories; and a perceived moral imperative to counter ‘oriental despotism’. The first of these
pretexts, a desire to incorporate Afghanistan within a formal empire, is not evident in the present
conflict although it has been argued that Hamid Karzai’s regime has been effectively rendered a
‘client state’,

< previous page page_75 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_75.html[27.08.2009 12:58:58]
page_76

< previous page page_76 next page >

Page 76
dependent upon Western patronage.2 Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the political will exists
to undertake a permanent occupation of all or part of Afghanistan, something which was advocated
by advocates of the ‘Forward Policy’ such as Henry Rawlinson and Demetrius Boulger during the
nineteenth century.3 Attributing the present situation in Afghanistan to lawless tribalism and religious
fanaticism does, however, serve the second and third pretexts mentioned above. Concomitantly, the
topographical challenges of Afghanistan and Pakistan, combined with the perceived complicity of its
rulers and peoples in Oriental despotism, have served as exculpatory factors when the aims of past
and present objectives, such as the failure to unseat Dost Mohammad in the nineteenth century and
the continuing failure to arrest Osama bin Laden and prevent traffic of insurgents between Pakistan
and Afghanistan, have not been realized.
One of the historic bases of the present situation in Central Asia is a western tendency of caricaturing
its peoples and environment. One important rhetorical figure in this regard is the phrase ‘The Great
Game’ or ‘the New Great Game’, which is commonly applied to the region.4 A recent evocation of
this term came from Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army, who suggested the Army was ‘on the
edge of a new and deadly “great game” in Afghanistan’.5 In many ways it is a revealing term which
is important to unpack. It might be argued that the ‘Great Game’ is a useful conceptual tool through
which to view the present situation in Afghanistan because it acknowledges the contest for political
influence in Afghanistan and Central Asia which undoubtedly exists. Although acknowledging parallels
between the present situation in Afghanistan and nineteenth-century geopolitics, the present writer is
wary of pronouncing the present situation as part of a ‘New Great Game’ in which the objective is to
gain political and military influence in Central Asia (in particular its oil resources).
There are three main reasons for this. First, the oil resources of the area are small on a world scale.
Kirill Nourzhanov has recently noted that present reserves for the Caspian Sea region are estimated
at 17 billion barrels, far fewer than the 1990s projections of 200 billion barrels. Moreover, at present,
the Caspian basin produces less than two per cent of the World’s total output of oil.6 Second, the so-
called ‘Great Game’ of the nineteenth century was as much a contest for knowledge about Central
Asia and eclipsing the remnants of nomadic power as it was a contest for political and military
supremacy.7 Alarmed at the prospect of Tsarist Russia expanding its territories, the Government of
India embarked on a quest for information on Central Asia, which became the focus of sustained
exploration between the 1860s and the 1880s, culminating in the Anglo-Russian boundary
commission of the 1880s which achieved its avowed aims of ‘knowing’ the region and delimiting
mutually satisfactory frontiers.8 In contrast to the nineteenth century, twenty-first-century attempts
at state formation in Afghanistan and Central Asia have been conducted with a full knowledge of the
geography of the country and a working knowledge of its political, religious and tribal dimensions

< previous page page_76 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_76.html[27.08.2009 12:58:58]
page_77

< previous page page_77 next page >

Page 77
obtained as a result of European exploration during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the
incorporation of the majority of Central Asia into the Russian and Chinese polities of the twentieth
century and the extensive Western knowledge of Afghanistan obtained as a result of assistance given
to the Mujahideen during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan between 1979 and 1988.
The third, and perhaps most significant, problem with the term ‘Great Game’ is that it positions
Central Asia as a passive playground upon which the whims of key international actors are played
out. It appropriates the language of sport, which in popular culture is embedded with notions of
heroism and myth creation, and thereby minimizes the significant human costs of past and present
interventions in Central Asia. Just as many nineteenth-century accounts of spying and diplomatic
intrigue in Central Asia (and much of the twentieth-century analysis of these actions) presented
Central Asia as a stage on which daring feats occurred (and marginalized the killing of many of its
peoples during Russian expansion), so too do many present accounts depict present rivalries in the
region as a form of sporting tournament. To say the least, this masks the complex interplay of
political rivalry and localized factional interests in Central Asia. At another level, however, the
appellations ‘Great Game’ or ‘New Great Game’ serve as what Edward Said called ‘rhetorical figures’
which tacitly legitimate the notion that the territories and peoples of Central Asia are a prize to be
squabbled over by outsiders.9 As Don McMillen notes, a preoccupation with policy-making intended
to fulfil the ‘security’ objectives involved in such ‘games’ can lead policy-makers to believe ‘that we
do not need to be concerned about the “faceless” individuals in far-away places who are deemed to
have little impact on the “realities” of the “New Great Games” that others play on “glocal fields”’.10
One wonders if the term ‘Neocolonialism in Central Asia’, arguably a more accurate characterization
of the present situation, would be as attractive to commentators.
How might we account for the persistence of such terms in spite of the significant differences
between the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries? Part of the explanation lies in the historical
amnesia about Central Asia in mainstream western knowledge. Despite the extensive British and
American history of involvement in Afghanistan, the region is still referred to in many recent texts as
a ‘black hole’ about which little is known. This is reflected in popular works, such as the 2001 BBC
documentary Afghanistan – The Dark Ages, narrated by John Simpson, in which the viewer is
informed at the beginning that ‘this is one of the wild places of the earth, a black hole in the world’s
consciousness’.11 This perception of Central Asia as a ‘black hole’ is significant in two ways. It denies
that the region has any people residing in it who are affected by the actions of outside powers.12 It
also means that Afghanistan, and indeed much of Central Asia, becomes a blank slate upon which
any image can be projected (and sometimes old images can be reprojected onto the area). As Ebel
and Menon noted in relation to Western

< previous page page_77 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_77.html[27.08.2009 12:58:59]
page_78

< previous page page_78 next page >

Page 78
coverage of the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian region, ‘this hyperbole thrives on simple
ignorance: most Americans know next to nothing about this part of the world and exaggerations go
unchallenged – or, more likely, are simply unnoticed’.13 A May 2004 editorial on Afghanistan in the
Free Lance-Star noted that ‘before September of 2001, most Americans would have been hard
pressed to find the country on an unlabelled map’.14 The commercial success of Sacha Baron
Cohen’s 2006 mockumentary Borat, which reinforces many caricatures of Central Asia, is partially
explained by Kazakhstan being largely unknown to its Western audience, thereby enabling Cohen to
reinvent the country for his own purposes.15 This is not a new element in outside perceptions of the
region. In previous times, for example, Central Asia was believed to be the realm of Prester John, the
purported great Christian monarch who persistently eluded discovery.16 In the context of world
history, Andre Gunder Frank made similar observations about Central Asia, arguing that for those
from outside Central Asian studies the region appears as something of a black hole. Frank called for
scholars to recognize the ‘centrality of Central Asia’.17 On one level this has been achieved in that
the events of 11 September 2001 saw a revival of academic interest in Afghanistan. Much of the
coverage of Afghanistan in media reports, however, is devoid of any historical context and
consequently some old characterizations of Afghanistan as an inaccessible land inhabited by warlike,
untrustworthy peoples and ruled by inherently unstable regimes have been resurrected in modern
garb.
External influences on state formation in Afghanistan
Perceptions of threats from within Afghanistan’s borders
One dominant image projected onto present-day Afghanistan (and periodically onto Central Asia) is
the notion of the ‘failed state’. The dominant discourse among Western writers is that Afghanistan is
a failed state and, significantly, a failed state responsible for an attack on the Western world.
External intervention in Afghanistan is therefore justified on the basis that it was the source of a
threat to the western world owing to terrorist activity within its borders. Krasner and Pascual, writing
in 2005, cited Afghanistan as an example of a failed state that ‘became the base for the deadliest
attack ever on the US homeland, graphically and tragically illustrating that the problems of other
countries often do not affect them alone’.18 Condoleezza Rice, United States Secretary of State,
echoed this view when she asserted that ‘Afghanistan became a failed state and a haven for
terrorism. We all came to pay for that.’19 The continued presence of Western forces and influence in
Afghanistan is justified on the basis that Afghanistan remains a potential source of terrorist activity,
drug smuggling and instability until the present regime is appropriately secure. Frederick Starr, for
example, has warned that ‘if progress continues, the reconstruction of Afghanistan will mark a

< previous page page_78 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_78.html[27.08.2009 12:58:59]
page_79

< previous page page_79 next page >

Page 79
significant victory in the war on terrorism. If it flags, the recent gains will start to recede.’20 The
underlying implication here is that it is the responsibility of what might be termed ‘functioning states’,
that is polities with the capacity to control their own citizens and deploy armed forces abroad, to
ensure that events within ‘failed states’ do not harm nations outside their borders.21
The origins of this type of thinking can be traced back at least as far as the nineteenth century. The
term ‘failed state’ is something of a rhetorical figure, whereby any polity held to be incapable of
exerting centralized authority can be deemed a real or potential threat to regional stability, thereby
becoming a candidate for outside intervention.22 It is argued here that the historical basis of this
term can be located in the nineteenth century and that it is a twenty-first-century derivative or
mutation of Social Darwinism. The nineteenth-century forerunner of today’s ‘failed state’ versus
‘functioning state’ dichotomy was the perceived opposing forces of ‘civilization’ versus ‘barbarism’, the
belief being that ‘when civilization comes into contact with barbarism, barbarism must give way’.23
In the nineteenth century, two manifestations of this perceived barbarism, the slave trade and
nomadic raids, were cited as pretexts for British and Russian intervention in Central Asia. These
moral pretexts made it difficult for British opponents of Russian expansionism to gain traction for
their arguments that Britain should take stronger action against Russia. For example, even trenchant
critics of Russian expansion, such as Boulger, agreed that the attempted Russian invasion of Khiva in
1839 was justified because Russian citizens had been made slaves.24 It will be argued later that the
pretext of Islamic despotism provided a complementary moral legitimation to the security pretexts of
suppressing terrorism, when Afghanistan was invaded in 2001.
The Russian conquests of the Khanates of Khiva, Bokhara and Khokand in 1866, 1868 and 1873
respectively and their subsequent campaigns against the Turkomans in the 1880s were justified on
the basis that lawlessness within these polities was affecting Russia and that it was necessary to
prevent internal disorder within nomadic societies from affecting Russian territory. Accordingly, each
of these conquests was justified by the Tsarist regime on the pretext of establishing settled
government and maintaining law and order, arguments which will be familiar to those aware of the
present-day rhetoric directed at ‘failed states’. Russian generals such as von Kaufman and Skobeleff
were given free rein in Central Asia, their successes welcomed as just retribution against lawless
raiders and any failures disavowed as the actions of overzealous generals.25 Russian expansion
posed a moral dilemma in that, although many felt it threatened Britain’s strategic interests,
opponents conceded an element of moral justification in Russian expansion. Charles Marvin, for
example, supported Russia’s policy of occupying the territory of the Turkomans and maintaining
order, comparing it favourably with the British policy of sending repeated punitive expeditions to the
North-West frontier and Afghanistan.26 Accordingly, he conceded that the Russian advances in
Central Asia were justified ‘owing to the provocation of

< previous page page_79 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_79.html[27.08.2009 12:58:59]
page_80

< previous page page_80 next page >

Page 80
the nomads’.27 Even Rawlinson, the arch-opponent of Russian expansion, justified the Russian
conquests on the basis that they represented the inevitable triumph of civilization over barbarism.28
This sense of an inevitable progression in history, where civilization supersedes barbarism, is implicit
in external intervention in Afghanistan today, where it is asserted that ‘reconstruction’ (a term which
begs the question of what exactly is being reconstructed? Afghanistan as it was before the 2001
invasion?) will enable a functioning state to supersede the previous ‘failed state’.29
British intervention in Central Asia in the 1830s was also justified on the basis that it was an unstable
entity and accordingly an assertion of influence was necessary. There were two areas of concern for
the British here: the expansion of the Russian sphere of influence and the fear that Russia would
foment anti-British sentiment among the tribes of Central Asia and that this would lead to these
tribes undertaking an invasion of India.30 The effect of the Russian victory in the Russo-Persian war
of 1826–8 and its failed action against Khiva in December 1839 was that Britain sought to formulate
strategies for dealing directly with nomadic polities, which had previously only appeared in British
literature as abstract entities under the generic term of ‘Tartars’. This term was mistakenly applied to
the Mongols who invaded Europe in the thirteenth century and came to be applied to the peoples of
Eurasia in general. The term ‘Tartar’ evoked apocalyptic images, being associated with the Greek
word ‘Tartarus’ meaning hell. Those living in Tartary were deemed to exhibit the warlike and savage
characteristics of the Mongols to at least some degree. Ethnicities deemed to exhibit ‘Tartar features’,
such as the Uzbeks, were more likely to be characterized unfavourably than those of a more
European appearance, such as the Tajiks.31 These underlying perceptions informed British views of
Central Asian peoples during the nineteenth century.
Britain’s early encounters in Central Asia provided substantive evidence for the prevailing view that
its peoples were barbaric and duplicitous. Concerned at the potential for Russian expansion towards
India, the British sought to create buffer states among the Central Asian Khanates of Bukhara,
Khokand and Afghanistan. Accordingly, in 1839, it was decided to unseat the then ruler of
Afghanistan, Dost Mohammad, who, after unsuccessfully appealing to the British to curtail the
expansionist activities of Ranjit Singh, had received a Russian deputation. He was replaced by Shah
Shuja, a former ruler who had been exiled to the Punjab. In another echo of the present situation,
the initial conquest was successful but enduring control proved elusive, and the British suffered a
catastrophic defeat in 1841–2. Despite a punitive expedition being dispatched, the loss to British
prestige was considerable and Dost Mohammad was duly restored. The defeat in Afghanistan, and
the execution of two British envoys, Conolly and Stoddart, by the Amir of Bukhara in 1842, an action
which was unavenged by Britain, reinforced the underlying view that Central Asia was a region where
oriental despotism flourished.32 It also signalled a temporary end to

< previous page page_80 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_80.html[27.08.2009 12:59:00]
page_81

< previous page page_81 next page >

Page 81
British attempts to directly influence state formation in Afghanistan and Central Asia.33
The expansion of Tsarist Russia in Central Asia during the second half of the nineteenth century,
however, revived concerns about the potential threat to British India. It was the catalyst for a second
attempt at state formation, in the form of the Second Afghan War between 1878 and 1880.
Concerned about Sher Ali Khan negotiating with Russia, a British expeditionary force displaced him
and installed Yakub Khan as ruler in 1879.34 These actions prompted a revolt, during which the
British envoy Louis Cavagnari was murdered and a second British expedition, headed by Major
General Roberts, was dispatched to Kabul. Amir Abdur Rahman (reigned 1880–1901), acceptable to
both Britain and Russia, was installed as ruler with British support. Profiting from British financial
assistance, he was able to consolidate his rule, albeit in an authoritarian and bloody manner. An
Anglo-Russian boundary commission was established to delimit the frontiers of Afghanistan and
accordingly the Wakhan strip was included to ensure that the British and Russian empires did not
come into direct contact. Amir Abdur Rahman and his successors had to accept British suzerainty in
foreign policy until 1919, but this privilege was effectively purchased from Afghanistan via aid.35 It
was in the mutual interests of Britain and Tsarist Russia to have Afghanistan, as delimited by the
boundary commission, as a buffer state because both recognized that military occupation of
Afghanistan was beyond their respective capabilities.36 In a historical sense the defeats of the British
were significant because they became embedded in Afghan historical memory and remain a point of
reference today.37
What nineteenth-century Social Darwinism and the twenty-first-century concept of the ‘failed state’
share is an underlying presupposition that phenomena can be categorized into hierarchies and that
moral judgements can be abstracted from these categorizations. Just as in the nineteenth century,
different ethnicities were categorized on a hierarchical basis and on that basis it was viewed as
acceptable, indeed inevitable that ‘civilized’ nations would supersede ‘barbaric’ regimes when they
came into contact, so too is it presently argued that in the interest of global security a ‘failed state’
can and should be superseded by a ‘functioning state’. The categorization element to the ‘failed state’
concept is evidenced by a recent study released in the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy which
ranked Afghanistan among the world’s ten weakest states in the ‘Failed States Index’ for 2006.38
Another parallel between the categorization implicit in Social Darwinism and the concept of the ‘failed
state’ is that the criteria by which polities are judged is both defined and enforced by hegemonic
Western countries. In the case of the ‘failed state’ the underlying premise appears to be that the
ideal model of a state is a western-type democracy and its supporting centralized bureaucracy.
Frederick Starr, for example, sees a reconstructed Afghanistan as a key actor in the establishment of
a Greater Central Asia Partnership for Cooperation and Development (GCAP), a ‘regionwide forum for
the

< previous page page_81 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_81.html[27.08.2009 12:59:00]
page_82

< previous page page_82 next page >

Page 82
planning, coordination, and implementation of a variety of US programs’.39 Promoting democracy is
seen as a vital part of this reconstruction as is an accompanying programme promoting ‘the
fundamental American Values that inform them’.40 As in the nineteenth century, judgements of
Afghanistan and Central Asia are being made on the extent to which they conform to Western
criteria of what form a successful polity should take. Failure to meet these criteria and exercise
control over the actions of its citizens means that a polity becomes a possible candidate for outside
intervention, this intervention being justified by the argument that ‘failed states’ are destabilizing
influences on functioning polities.41 It will be argued later that seeking to impose the idealized
western model of a functioning state is particularly problematic in a Central Asian context because of
a historic pattern of resistance to centralized rule.
Moreover, just as the concepts of Social Darwinism were generally accepted in the dominant
discourse of the nineteenth century, the use of the term ‘failed state’ has become embedded into
everyday language and is largely unchallenged in the Western media.42 As Kolhatkar and Ingalls
note, the ‘failed state’ label is used when weak states affect powerful ones. Such labels are useful for
dominant powers because they focus on local issues, specific to a country, thereby ignoring the role
of external actors (especially the dominant powers) in creating disorder.43 These observations are
particularly applicable to Afghanistan and much of Central Asia. The present boundaries of
Afghanistan are a result of nineteenth-century British and Russian intervention and do not reflect any
pre-existing political or cultural entity. The borders agreed by the Anglo-Russian boundary
commission were based around the strategic need to separate the borders of British-and Russian-
controlled territory, hence the narrow Wakhan strip of land. Another nineteenth-century legacy is the
Durand Line, the boundary between present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is not recognized
by the Afghan government because it divides Afghan Pashtun communities.44 It is from within this
area, which some have labelled ‘Jihadistan’ on account of its quasi-autonomous nature, that many
Taliban cross undetected between Afghanistan and Pakistan.45
The role of external actors in destabilizing Afghanistan in the twentieth century has been
comprehensively discussed by scholars such as Saikal and Rubin. Russian intervention in Afghanistan
in 1979 was motivated partly by concern that the Soviet-backed People’s Democratic Party of
Afghanistan (PDPA) regime was losing control over the countryside.46 Russia was also concerned
about the rise of assertive Islamic regimes in the area, given the emergence of Ayatollah Khomeini in
Iran and Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan.47 The Mujahideen, whose resistance to the PDPA had been the
catalyst for the Russian invasion, vigorously resisted the Soviet incursion. After a prolonged
resistance, Russian armed forces withdrew in 1989. During the Russian invasion, however, extensive
external support for the Mujahideen was provided via the CIA, who utilized Pakistan’s Inter Services
Intelligence (ISI) agency

< previous page page_82 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_82.html[27.08.2009 12:59:01]
page_83

< previous page page_83 next page >

Page 83
as a conduit for arms to Afghanistan. As had previously occurred in the nineteenth century, the unity
generated among Afghan leaders by external intervention proved ephemeral and after the collapse of
Najibullah’s regime in 1992 a variety of leaders contended for power. Rabbani was declared leader
after the Peshawar agreement in 1992 but was soon coming under attack. The ISI-supported Taliban
took control of much of Afghanistan in 1996 and, supported by Pakistan and the United States (at
least until American support for the regime ended in 1999), remained the dominant group until
2001.48
Islamic fanaticism and ‘oriental despotism’
Historically, Western imperialism has often been accompanied by a legitimating ideology. In the
nineteenth century, this often took the form of a ‘civilizing mission’ which sought to uplift the spiritual
and material conditions of indigenous peoples.49 Similar trends can be discerned in regard to
present-day Central Asia. Subduing fanatical Islam and alleviating ‘oriental despotism’ have
consistently been cited as legitimating factors by outside countries seeking to influence state
formation in Afghanistan, and indeed Central Asia generally. One parallel between the nineteenth-
and twenty-first-century conflicts in Central Asia is that the region has been cited as the realm of
Islam in its most extreme forms. In the nineteenth century travellers such as Vámbéry were bitterly
critical of the ‘fanatical Islam’ practised in Central Asia, comparing it unfavourably with the more
moderate Islam practised in the Ottoman Empire. Some writers attributed the condition of Central
Asia to what they regarded as the excessive Islamic piety of the region. Both the ninth and eleventh
editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica attributed the decline of Central Asia to the venality of the
Mullahs.50 In the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , published in 1915, Vámbéry emphasized the
‘fanaticism’ of the region. ‘From Constantinople East’, he asserted, ‘a gradually increasing fanaticism
and ignorance will be observed and the deeper the penetration into Asia, the more outspoken and
intense become the hatred and the aversion of the believer to the adherents of a foreign creed.’51
Moreover, he maintained that the peoples of Central Asia were proud of their standing as strict
Muslims and viewed themselves as upholding the religion.52 In his view, the Muslim community in
Central Asia was presented as promulgating a primitive Islamic fundamentalism. ‘There’, he asserted,
‘we find a distinctly different religious life, the manners and customs of which do not resemble those
of West Asia. There everything bears the special stamp of extravagant fanaticism, of an exalted
conception of the value of ritual trivialities, and of a deep hatred against innovations.’53 He
reinforced his arguments by citing examples of brutal executions and the oppression of women under
Islamic rule in Central Asia.54 These attitudes, he believed, were evident in the ‘barbarous
mountaineers of Afghanistan’.55 Another justification presented for the Russian invasion of the
Central Asian

< previous page page_83 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_83.html[27.08.2009 12:59:01]
page_84

< previous page page_84 next page >

Page 84
Khanates was that they were Islamic despotisms. For example, a leading article in The Times on 6
December 1869 declared:
A country could with difficulty be named where a change of government would be more desirable
than Central Asia. The rulers show all the indolence and fanaticism of Mohomedanism with none of
its virtues. They have succeeded in reducing what were once fertile plains and wealthy cities to
dreary deserts. Land and people alike cannot but profit by a substitution of Russian genius for order,
mechanical and routine as it may be for the existing lawlessness.56
The Taliban regime, which was displaced after the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan in
September 2001, was characterized in many of the terms previously used to describe ‘oriental
despotisms’.57 Criticism focused on its rigid adherence to Islam, its intolerance, as exemplified by the
destruction of the Buddhist statues in Bamiyan in 2000, and its repressive measures against
women.58 A subtext of the invasion was that not only was it necessary on security grounds to
remove the terrorist threat, but it was also justifiable because it removed a repressive regime whose
fanaticism had seen it accommodate terrorists.59 Although in 2001 United States President George
W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were careful to reassure leaders of Muslim countries
that they respected Islam, Afghanistan was seen as the homeland of a particularly fanatical strain of
Islam.60 As Amin Saikal has noted, ‘a Western contention, which has resonated more strongly in
Washington than in any other Western capital, sees those forces of Political Islam which defy US
control or influence as a serious threat to Western interests that must therefore be combated in
whatever way necessary’.61 In his analysis of western responses to Islam since 11 September 2001
Saikal identified three kinds of rhetoric. The first emphasized the non-religious, non-ethnic nature of
the war on terror. The second identified Western civilization as superior to Islam, arguing that Islam
was an inherently warlike religion. The third view denounced Islam as a religion which inspired and
encouraged terrorism.62 The language used to describe the Taliban and, by extension, Islam in
Afghanistan, embodied the second and third types of views. The Taliban was presented as an
exemplar of extreme Islamic fundamentalism and United States policy advocated secularizing the
polities of Afghanistan and Central Asia as an insurance policy against radical Islam.63
The Taliban regime was not the only perceived Islamic threat emanating from Central Asia. At a
more general level, Shahram Akbarzadeh has argued that Islam has been seen as a threat to
regional stability in Central Asia for two reasons: first, a fear that its adherents will demand an
Islamic fundamentalist state; and second, that Islam has the potential to be a uniting force among
the peoples of Central Asia, but a uniting force against, rather than for Western interests.64 He
further argued that modern Central Asian states had the potential to suffer from a cycle of imposed
westernization, social and

< previous page page_84 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_84.html[27.08.2009 12:59:02]
page_85

< previous page page_85 next page >

Page 85
economic insecurity, popular disillusionment, Islamic radicalization and state suppression. Akbarzadeh
also noted a tendency among Central Asian states towards the first stage of this cycle (imposed
westernization) and that these states have inherited the legacy of a ‘top-down authoritarian
culture’.65 This is evident today in countries such as Uzbekistan.66
Internal dynamics of state formation in Afghanistan and Central Asia
The dialectic between nomadic and sedentary society has been a key challenge to state formation in
Central Asia. In evaluating this issue, it is important to understand the meanings of statehood in
Central Asia. If we take a state to mean a polity with clearly delimited boundaries in which power is
exercised by a centralized regime, assisted by formal institutions of government and complemented
by civil society, then, with the possible exception of Daoud’s regime between 1953 and 1963, it is
doubtful whether Afghanistan has ever met these criteria.67 David Christian’s analysis of nomadic
states is useful here. He argues that ‘state’ formation is often discussed in the context of sedentary
states and that the nomadic forms of ‘states’ have often been marginalized.68 State formations in
steppe societies tended to be minimalist, meaning that they allowed considerable autonomy to
individual chiefs but retained the capability of exerting a degree of coercive power over a large
number of people for a sustained period. They had the power to extract resources, either from within
their own sphere of influence or from outsiders.69 Christian identifies six levels of social organization
in pastoralist societies, beginning with parental groups on level 1, and extending through camping
groups of 8 to 50; reproductive groups based on kin ties of 50 to 500; tribes, associations of these
groups numbering between 500 and 1,000; and supratribal associations of between 1,000 and
100,000; and, finally, pastoralist states/empires with a population ranging upward from 100,000 to
millions. These last two levels were temporary entities which would come together to fight a common
enemy and occasionally, at the highest level, pastoralist states which could command the loyalty of
tribal and supratribal units because of their ability to distribute prestige goods, confer honours and
retain sufficient internal support to maintain at least a majority among constituent tribal groups.70
It must also be recognized that the present polities of Central Asia have emerged relatively recently
in historical terms and that their fixed borders do not reflect a nomadic heritage of migratory
pastoralism. Sayed Askar Mousavi suggests that the appellation ‘Afghanistan’ emerged in the mid-
nineteenth century, and came to be applied in a generic sense to a territory composed of many
different ethnicities.71 Previously the territories of present-day Afghanistan were known by the
appellation ‘Khorasan’. Khorasan itself denoted a geographical region, in which a number of different
polities existed, rather than a kingdom or principality per se. When, for example, envoys from Balkh
visited the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1661, they

< previous page page_85 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_85.html[27.08.2009 12:59:02]
page_86

< previous page page_86 next page >

Page 86
were not referred to as envoys of Afghanistan, but were identified as representatives from the
Kingdom of Balkh.72 As the Mughal and Safavid empires began to break up in the eighteenth
century, new polities, which Muzaffar Alam refers to as ‘successor states’, emerged.73 It was during
this process that the present-day Afghanistan emerged and under the leadership of Ahmad Shah
Abdali Afghanistan attained its greatest territorial extent in the mid-eighteenth century.
What factors allowed for the coalescence of such a diverse grouping into some type of state
formation during the reign of Ahmad Shah? Essentially, he was able to satisfy two key preconditions
– he was able to satisfy his nomadic followers who wanted war with campaigns against the
sedentary state of India. The wealth he obtained in these campaigns also enabled him to maintain a
minimalist state infrastructure via strategic redistribution of goods.74 Even at its peak, however,
Ahmad Shah did not preside over a centralized state; rather he was the head of a number of chiefs,
each of whom retained control over their own areas.75 Historically, the most successful periods of
statecraft in Central Asian history have emerged from personalized rule rather than centralized rule.
It is no coincidence that former nomadic rulers, such as Timur, have been refashioned as exemplars
of political skill in many Central Asian places.76 The problem from a western perspective is that those
leaders capable of exerting effective rule (thereby meeting security and strategic objectives) often do
so by employing repressive tactics and this in turn negates the professed objectives of ending
despotism and advancing human rights.
The key problem confronting Central Asian leaders was that supratribal associations tend to be fluid
and often fragmentary in nature. Their existence is dependent upon the ability of the leader to either
exercise coercive power and/or distribute rewards. Allegiances are conditional and transferable in the
event of conditions such as military defeat, superior economic incentives by an outside party or
intertribal feuding. Joseph Fletcher referred to this phenomenon as ‘Bloody Tanistry’.77 In the
eighteenth century, the death of Ahmad Shah Abdali resulted in a protracted succession dispute
among his descendants and it was not until Dost Mohammad that a leader capable of commanding
the allegiance of a majority of Afghan leaders emerged. A more recent example of this is the
supratribal organization referred to as the ‘Northern Alliance’, an entity which played a leading role in
defeating the Taliban in 2001 but then reverted to a diffuse collection of individual groups. Strong,
charismatic leadership is essential to the functioning of such polities.78 Judged on its own terms, the
pattern of succession disputes and internecine fighting has its own logic as tribal leaders and their
followers either seek supremacy or align themselves with what appears to be the ascendant faction.
This in turn means that the institutions and practices associated with sedentary rule, such as a
centralized bureaucracy exercising uniform authority over all regions within a territory according to a
common set of rules, does not develop.

< previous page page_86 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_86.html[27.08.2009 12:59:03]
page_87

< previous page page_87 next page >

Page 87
To outsiders from the sedentary world, Central Asian conflicts have often been viewed as evidence of
an inherent lawlessness and a consequent inability to adapt to a settled lifestyle.79 Arminius
Vámbéry encapsulated the views of many nineteenth-century observers when he wrote in 1885 of
‘the idea of a whole Afghan nation being a preposterous one, considering that these unmanageable
elements can hardly ever be roused into unity’.80 In the nineteenth century, some triumphalist
accounts of Russian expansion welcomed their victories as a decisive triumph over an age-old enemy
– the nomadic raiders of Central Asia. A review of Frederick von Hellwald’s book The Russians in
Central Asia in 1874 proclaimed that ‘the once dreaded power of the Asiatic Nomades has been
dissipated by the science of Europe, and the bravest and fiercest of the Turkoman races had not
even a chance of success in a contest with the legions of Russia’.81 The warlords of Afghanistan are
in many ways a twenty-first-century manifestation of the supratribal organizations of previous
centuries. Their leaders exercise and maintain power through a mixture of personal charisma, kin
ties, coercion and a capacity to reward a working majority of their followers. In his analysis of
warlords in Tajikistan, Kirill Nourzhanov argues that they are ‘perhaps the most efficient instrument
available to regional populaces to bargain for scarce resources’.82
Historically, rulers of Central Asian polities needed to reconcile the interests of nomadic and
sedentary elements.83 The states formed under Amir Abdur Rahman (emir from 1880 to 1901) and
his successors did so through a pattern of personalized rule which rewarded loyal adherents.
Constrained by the expansion of the Russian and British empires from attacking sedentary polities in
Persia and India, the rulers turned inward to reward their followers. The Hazaras, who had
developed settled agricultural communities, were brutally oppressed and their resources redistributed
among Abdur Rahman’s supporters.84 In the longer-term context of interaction between nomadic
and sedentary societies, the Afghan regime stood out as an example of a polity of nomadic heritage
acting in an active rather than passive way. By the last decade of the nineteenth century the
formerly independent Central Asian Khanates of Khiva, Bukhara and Khokand and the territories of
the Turkomans had been absorbed into Tsarist Russia and Yakub Beg’s regime in Kashgar had been
crushed by the Chinese armies led by Zuo Zongtang. In Afghanistan, by contrast, a polity of nomadic
heritage was able to remain in power by appropriating the resources of sedentary communities.85
Resistance to centralizing rule has continued to be a feature of Afghanistan’s history. Daoud’s second
regime, between 1973 and 1978, lost support when he proposed an ambitious policy of land
reform.86 The PDPA regime, which came into power in the subsequent coup of April 1978, also
sought unsuccessfully to impose a centralized regime on Afghanistan. Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin
used a strategy of mass arrests and executions on the one hand and instituted a series of political
reforms on the other to assert control.87 These regulations sought to usurp the role of tribal rulers
by regulating mortgages, marriages and bride price. The state was also given the power to

< previous page page_87 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_87.html[27.08.2009 12:59:03]
page_88

< previous page page_88 next page >

Page 88
place surplus lands under the jurisdiction of the Land Reform Department, which required landowners
to register their deeds with the state. These attempts to impose centralizing reforms were vigorously
resisted and a series of rebellions occurred which undermined the authority of the new
government.88 Rubin attributes the failure of the PDPA’s reforms to the weak state organization
inherited by the regime, internal weakening of the army and an inability to convince a majority of
people in the provincial regions to support the reforms, because they were poorly implemented and
on balance the villagers preferred the tribal leaders they already knew to the officials of the PDPA.
The Soviet-installed regime which replaced the PDPA was no more effective in enforcing centralized
authority than its predecessor. The new government, headed by Babrak Karmal, struggled to achieve
effective control over the countryside and therefore income from taxation was sharply reduced.
Foreign aid and sales of natural gas accounted for 60 per cent of total expenditure after the Soviet
invasion.89 The installed regime had some success in repressing internal dissension by developing
networks of informers and reorganizing the intelligence agencies but made very little progress in
convincing countryside leaders to defect to their regime en masse. Nor were the Soviet leaders
willing to commit sufficient numbers of troops to secure the whole of Afghanistan and, faced with
mounting casualties and scant evidence of success, they withdrew in 1989.90 Hamid Karzai, the
present ruler of Afghanistan, has had to accommodate the warlords in his present administration and
his power over these leaders is minimal.91 Attempts at exerting meaningful authority by stopping
opium production and forming a credible Afghan National Army have only been partially realised.92
Conclusion
This chapter has evaluated the historical bases of state formation in Afghanistan and Central Asia. It
is argued that the present challenges of constructing modern states in Central Asia reflect the
difficulties of seeking to impose centralized power in a region where state power has historically been
indirect. Institutions modelled on sedentary regimes have limited applicability in a region where
centralizing reforms have historically been resisted, although there have been periods of personalized
rule. The coercive power needed to maintain personalized rule is, however, incompatible with the
avowed humanitarian ideals of ‘reconstruction’ in Afghanistan. The reconstruction also presupposes a
shared nationalism and identity among the ethnicities of Afghanistan, which does not recognize that
the formation of modern Afghanistan owes more to the geopolitical concerns of the nineteenth
century than a pre-existing nation state in the sense that it would be conceived today.
The one dynamic which has been more successful than any other in generating a sense of Afghan
unity is outside intervention. Although this is a

< previous page page_88 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_88.html[27.08.2009 12:59:04]
page_89

< previous page page_89 next page >

Page 89
negative rather than a positive motivation, outside intervention has resulted in the formation of
supratribal coalitions for the purposes of undermining invasions. This was evident in the Afghan wars
of the nineteenth century and the prolonged resistance of the Mujahideen during the 1980s. Outside
interventions have been motivated by two key factors. First: a perceived threat to the security of
Western territories from within the borders of Afghanistan. Second: the perception of Central Asia as
a heartland of Islamic fanaticism and oriental despotism has provided a humanitarian gloss for
outside intervention. It has been argued here that the perception of Central Asia as a region
inhabited by warlike, lawless tribes hostile to Western citizens and ideals is an enduring one which
can be traced back at least as far as the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century. Outsiders have
vacillated between viewing Central Asian polities as potential allies or as a threat to settled societies
depending on political priorities.
This labelling has served important purposes in legitimating intervention. In the nineteenth century,
British and Russian intervention was justified on the basis that Central Asia was a region ruled by
capricious, unreliable sovereigns and populated by unruly tribes who engaged in immoral activities.
Nomadic societies were also viewed as degenerate, according to the judgements of Victorian
literature. The twenty-first-century version of nineteenth-century Social Darwinism is the concept of
the ‘failed state’, whereby polities deemed a threat to Western countries become candidates for
outside intervention. One term common to both eras is the notion of the ‘Great Game’, a term which
simultaneously relegates the peoples and places of Central Asia to a passive position and
appropriates the heroic elements of sport to romanticize and legitimate external intervention. One
reason why such recurring allusions are possible is the enduring perception of Afghanistan in
particular, and Central Asia in general, as a ‘black hole’ whose history and peoples are allegedly
unknown despite the vast developments in Western knowledge of the region since the nineteenth
century. This historical amnesia is evident in everyday reporting on Afghanistan and Central Asia and
as a consequence informed debate on these areas is lacking (despite the existence and accessibility
of material detailing the historical context of present events). Much work remains to be done before
the scholarly awareness of the ‘centrality of Central Asia’ filters through to a wider audience.
Notes
1 T. Barfield, The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China , Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell,
1989.
2 S. Kolhatkar and J. Ingalls, Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords and the Propaganda of
Silence , New York: Seven Stories, 2006, pp. xvii, 69.
3 In relation to the ‘Great Game’ period see for example Henry Rawlinson, England and Russia in the
East: A Series of Papers on the Political and Geographical Condition of Central Asia, London: John
Murray, 1875, p. 204 and p. 365; D.C.

< previous page page_89 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_89.html[27.08.2009 12:59:04]
page_90

< previous page page_90 next page >

Page 90
Boulger, England and Russia in Central Asia, London: W.H. Allen, 1879, vol. 2, pp. 338–9. See also
John Lowe Duthie, ‘Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson and the art of great gamesmanship’, Journal of
Imperial and Commonwealth History 11, 1982–83, 253–74; A. Vámbéry, The Coming Struggle for
India, London: Cassell: 1885, p. 100.
4 The phrase the ‘New Great Game’ or ‘The Great Game’ has been evoked since the 1990s in relation
to contests for political and military influence in Central Asia since the collapse of the former Soviet
Central Asian Republics in 1991. See, for example, H. Hendrischke, ‘Chinese concerns with Central
Asia’, in D. Christian and C. Benjamin (eds), Worlds of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern,
Turnhout: Brepols, 1998, p. 97; L. Klevemann, The New Great game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia,
New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003.
5 Dominion Post, 29 August 2007, B1.
6 K. Nourzhanov, ‘Caspian oil: geopolitical dreams and real issues’, Australian Journal of International
Affairs, 2006, vol. 60, no. 1, 60. See also R. Ebel and R. Menon (eds), Energy and Conflict in Central
Asia and the Caucasus, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000, p. 2.
7 G. Watson, ‘Beyond the great game: British images of Central Asia c.1830–1914’, Unpublished PhD
Thesis, Brisbane: Griffith University, 1998, pp. 3, 250–52.
8 T. Holdich, ‘The use of practical geography illustrated by recent frontier operations’, Geographical
Journal , vol. 13, 5, 1899, p. 467; G. Watson, ‘Sitting the stage: representations of Central Asian
environments in British Literature c.1830–1914’, New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies , 2007, vol. 9,
no. 1, 105.
9 The term ‘rhetorical figure’ here is applied both in the linguistic sense, where a phrase is used in a
different sense to the usual literal meanings of its words, and in the sense used in Edward Said’s
analysis of European ways of depicting other cultures, in which ‘rhetorical figures’, including notions
such as ‘bringing civilization to primitive or barbaric peoples’ and “they” were not like “us” and for
that reason deserved to be ruled’, are employed. E. Said, Culture and Imperialism , London: Vintage,
1994, pp. xi–xii.
10 D. McMillen, ‘Xinjiang, Central Asia and “glocality” 2006’, Xinjiang and Central Asia into the 21st
Century, Brisbane: Griffith Asia Institute, 2006, p. 7.
11 J. Simpson, Afghanistan – The Dark Ages, BBC Education and Training, 2001.
12 Conversation with Basil Poff, Massey University, 11 May 2006.
13 Ebel and Menon, Energy and Conflict , p. 1.
14 Free Lance-Star , May 2004, cited in Kolhatkar and Ingalls, Bleeding Afghanistan , p. xi.
15 Manawatu Standard , 22 August 2007, p. 2.
16 On the search for Prester John see L.N. Gumilev, Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom: The
Legend of Prester John , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. On Western Images of
Central Asia see Geoff Watson, ‘1200–1800 Yillari Arasinda Bati’daki Orta Asya Imaji’ in Kemal Cicek
(ed.) Turkler, Ankara: Yeni Turkiye, 2002, vol. 8, pp. 334–44. An English language version ‘Western
images of Central Asia 1200–1800’ was published in H.G. Guzel, C.C. Orguz and O. Karatay (eds) The
Turks: vol. 2, Middle Ages, Ankara: Yeni Turkiye Publication House, 2002, vol. 8, pp. 795–804.
17 A.G. Frank, ‘The centrality of Central Asia’, Studies in History , 1992, vol. 8, no. 1, 43.
18 S.D. Krasner and C. Pascual, ‘Addressing state failure’, Foreign Affairs, 2005, vol. 84, no. 4, 153.
19 C. Rice cited in The Toronto Star , 16 September 2006. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.thestar.com/article/96110> (accessed 29 October 2006).
20 F. Starr, ‘A partnership for Central Asia’, Foreign Affairs July/August 2005, p. 164.
21 Kolhatkar and Ingalls, Bleeding Afghanistan , p. xii.

< previous page page_90 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_90.html[27.08.2009 12:59:05]
page_91

< previous page page_91 next page >

Page 91
22 Krasner and Pascual, ‘Addressing state failure’, pp. 153–63.
23 The Times, 12 July 1869, p. 8. A later article, reflecting on the invasion of Khiva, suggested
Russian progress in Central Asia followed the ‘inevitable law of contact between civilized and
uncivilized peoples’, The Times, 17 November 1875, p. 9.
24 See for example, Boulger, England and Russia in Central Asia, vol. 1, p. 152.
25 Vámbéry, The Coming Struggle for India, p. 63.
26 C. Marvin, The Russian Advance Towards India: Conversations with Skobeleff, Ignatieff, and other
distinguished Russian generals and statesmen, on the Central Asian Question , Nendeln: Kraus, 1882
[Reprint 1978], p. 130.
27 Marvin, The Russian Advance Towards India, p. 206.
28 Rawlinson, England and Russia in the East, p. 269.
29 Starr, ‘A partnership for Central Asia’, p. 174.
30 It was also feared that fomenting discontent among the Afghan tribes might inspire a rebellion
among Indian Muslims. Vámbéry, The Coming Struggle for India, pp. 153–61.
31 G. Watson, ‘Representations of Central Asian ethnicities in British literature c.1830–1914’, Asian
Ethnicity , 2002, vol. 3, no. 2, 142–4.
32 Boulger, England and Russia in Central Asia, pp. 185–91; and Rawlinson, England and Russia in
the East, p. 159.
33 V.K. Chavda, India, Britain and Russia: A Study in British Opinion (1838–74) , Delhi: Sterling, 1967,
p. 221.
34 S. Tanner, Afghanistan: A Military History From Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Taliban ,
Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2002, pp. 208–9.
35 A. Saikal, Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival , London: I.B. Tauris, 2004, p.
36.
36 R.H. Magnus and E. Naby, Afghanistan: Mullah, Marx and Mujahid, Boulder: Westview, 2000, p.
58.
37 D. Walsh, ‘We’ll beat you again, Afghans warn British’, Guardian Weekly, 30 June 2006, p. 3.
38 J. Lobe, ‘Iraq, Afghanistan among top ten failed states’, Inter Press News Service Agency, 2 May
2006. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.ipsnews.net/news. asp?idnews=33087> (accessed 29
October 2009).
39 Starr, ‘A partnership for Central Asia’, p. 165.
40 Starr, ‘A partnership for Central Asia’, p. 174. Starr advocated a public diplomacy programme
beginning with the extension of American cultural centres to all GCAP members.
41 Kolhatkar and Ingalls, Bleeding Afghanistan , pp. xii–xiii.
42 Western countries, for the purposes of this chapter, refers to North American, Western European
and Australasian Democracies. Amin Saikal, Islam and the West: Conflict and Cooperation ,
Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003, p. 2.
43 Kolhatkar and Ingalls, Bleeding Afghanistan , p. xiii.
44 Saikal, Modern Afghanistan , p. 28.
45 Newsweek, ‘A nursery for Jihad’, cited in New Zealand Herald, 30 September 2006, B 13–14.
46 B. Rubin, The Fragmentation of Afghanistan , New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002, p. 123.
47 Saikal, Modern Afghanistan , p. 196.
48 Saikal, Islam and the West , pp. 95–110.
49 Saikal, Modern Afghanistan , p. 25.
50 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edn, 1875–89, vol. 23, 637; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edn,
vol. 26, p. 422.
51 A. Vámbéry, in J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , vol. 8, Edinburgh: Clark,
1915, p. 885.
52 ‘Strange to say, the Central Asians are themselves fully alive to the exceptional

< previous page page_91 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_91.html[27.08.2009 12:59:06]
page_92

< previous page page_92 next page >

Page 92
position which they occupy in Islam; they are even proud of it, asserting that they are the most
rigorous executors of the Ordinances of the Prophet, and the only Muslims whose religious belief has
not been contaminated by foreign influence.’ Vámbéry, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , p. 887.
53 Vámbéry, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , p. 885.
54 ‘Women’, Vámbéry contended, ‘are looked upon as mere chattels and slaves in the hand of a
tyrannical master, in spite of the milder views of the Quran and its expounders. They not only cover
their faces with a thick, impenetrable veil, but they are literally shrouded in a cloak of greater length
and width than their body; and, in order not to attract the covetous glance of men, young girls even
have to feign the appearance of decrepit matrons, and very often walk leaning on a stick, as if
bowed down by age or infirmities.’ Vámbéry, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , p. 885.
55 ‘This difference becomes still more important when we observe that the spirit of zealots has
extended into N. India, and has particularly infected the barbarous mountaineers of Afghanistan.
When we hear of the murderous attack by some Pathan or Khaibari on an unoffending British officer,
we have always to think of those fanatics, who, anxious to become a ghazi, a warrior of the faith, is
ready to sacrifice his life for the title of martyr, and for the prospect of a place in Paradise. The
existence of such ghazis was formerly reported among the adherents of Shaikh Shamil in the fierce
struggle between the Russians and the Lesghians in the N.W. Caucasus but nowhere else in Islam. It
is therefore, to the wild influence of Islam of Central Asia that their appearance in the North of India
must be ascribed.’ Vámbéry, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , p. 885.
56 The Times, 6 December 1869, p. 8.
57 This concept has been traced back to the classical era. In the Renaissance and Enlightenment it
was used to differentiate the embryonic republics in Europe with autocratic rule elsewhere. Franco
Venturi, ‘Oriental Despotism’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 24 (1963), p. 133.
58 Kolhatkar and Ingalls, Bleeding Afghanistan , pp. viii–ix.
59 Taliban leaders refused United States requests to extradite Osama Bin Laden on the basis that he
was their guest and, under Islamic protocol, such a person could not be asked to leave.
60 Saikal, Islam and the West , p. 13.
61 Saikal, Islam and the West , p. 1.
62 Saikal, Islam and the West , pp. 14–15.
63 Starr, ‘A partnership for Central Asia’, p. 165.
64 S. Akbarzadeh, ‘Islam and regional stability in Central Asia’, in David Christian and Craig Benjamin
(eds), Silk Road Studies IV: Realms of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern, Turnhout: Brepols, 2000,
p. 181.
65 Akbarzadeh, ‘Islam and regional stability in Central Asia’, pp. 190–1.
66 S. Akbarzadeh, ‘Uzbekistan and the United States: friends or foes?’, Xinjiang and Central Asia into
the 21st Century, Brisbane: Griffith Asia Institute, 2006, p. 119.
67 Saikal, Modern Afghanistan , pp. 8, 130–31.
68 D. Christian, ‘State formation in the inner Eurasian steppes’ in D. Christian and C. Benjamin (eds),
Silk Road Studies IV: Realms of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern, Turnhout: Brepols, 2000, p. 51.
69 Christian, ‘State formation in the inner Eurasian steppes’, pp. 53–4; and Barfield, The Perilous
Frontier, p. 8.
70 Christian, ‘State formation in the inner Eurasian steppes’, p. 58; see also Barfield, The Perilous
Frontier, p. 5.
71 S.A. Mousavi, The Hazaras of Afghanistan: An Historical, Cultural, Economic and Political Study,
New York: St Martins, 1997, p. 2.
72 F. Bernier, Travels in the Mogul Empire, A.D. 1656–58 , London: Archibald

< previous page page_92 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_92.html[27.08.2009 12:59:06]
page_93

< previous page page_93 next page >

Page 93
Constable, 1891, reprinted Delhi 1968, p. 120. See also N. Manucci, Storia Do Mogor or Mogul India
1653–1708, London: John Murray, 1907, vol. 2, p. 39.
73 M. Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707–48 , Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 12, 103.
74 Saikal, Modern Afghanistan , p. 21.
75 Rubin, The Fragmentation of Afghanistan , p. 22.
76 Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov, for example, is presented as a reincarnation of Timur.
Akbarzadeh, ‘Uzbekistan and the United States: friends or foes?’ p. 112. See also, K. Nourzhanov,
‘The politics of history in Tajikistan: reinventing the Samanids’, Harvard Asia Quarterly , 2001, Winter,
pp. 21–6.
77 J. Fletcher, ‘Bloody tanistry: Authority and succession in the Ottoman, Indian Muslim, and Later
Chinese Empires’, a paper for the Conference on the Theory of Democracy and Popular Participation,
Bellagio, Italy, 1978.
78 Christian, ‘State formation in the inner Eurasian steppes’, p. 64.
79 Barfield, The Perilous Frontier, p. 1.
80 Vámbéry, The Coming Struggle for India, p. 128. See also Saikal, Modern Afghanistan , p. 30.
81 The Times, 1 May 1871, p. 10.
82 K. Nourzhanov, ‘Saviours of the nation or robber barons? Warlord politics in Tajikistan’, Central
Asian Survey, 2005, June, vol. 24, no. 2, 126.
83 Barfield, The Perilous Frontier, pp. 7–8.
84 Saikal, A History of Modern Afghanistan , p. 36.
85 Mousavi, The Hazaras of Afghanistan , p. 95.
86 Saikal, A History of Modern Afghanistan , p. 184.
87 Rubin, The Fragmentation of Afghanistan , pp. 111–21.
88 Rubin, The Fragmentation of Afghanistan , p. 120.
89 Rubin, The Fragmentation of Afghanistan , p. 130.
90 Rubin, The Fragmentation of Afghanistan , p. 145.
91 A. Rashid, Afghanistan and its Future, Eurasianet.org, 26 June 2006. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/ eav062606.shtml> (accessed 29 October
2008).
92 A. Baker, ‘Taking aim at the Taliban’, Time, 27 August 2007, pp. 18–21.

< previous page page_93 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_93.html[27.08.2009 12:59:07]
page_94

< previous page page_94 next page >

Page 94
5
Xinjiang and Central Asia Interdependency – not integration
Ann McMillan
Independent Researcher
The theme of the workshop at the Griffith Asia Institute in June 2006 was political and economic
integration in the Xinjiang–Central Asian region. The term integration and the connotations that
spring to mind with usage of this term do not realistically describe the relationships that exist in this
region. In fact, it is my contention that there is an enormous dearth of integration between
neighbouring states in this region. This lack of integration between these states is in many ways to
the disadvantage of the individual states in that it is hindering progress on numerous fronts such as
border procedures, trade, water and electricity, to name but a few, that could go some way towards
alleviating the many societal woes that exist in this area.
However, whereas there is a dearth of integration, another relationship does exist and that is
interdependency , and it is this relationship of interdependency that is driving certain agendas in this
region. This economic and strategic interdependency that has built up since the 1991 break-up of the
Soviet Union between China, specifically the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the
People’s Republic of China (PRC), and several of the former Soviet Union (FSU) states, will be
examined in this paper. The initial emphasis will focus on how this relationship of interdependency
impacts on the reasoning behind many of the decisions that are made by various governments within
the region, and the implications of such decisions. The lack of integration among these states is a
drawback to an individual state when it is dealing with a more powerful neighbour and it is this lack
of willingness to operate as a group that does to a certain extent benefit one of the major players in
the area – China.
Nevertheless, even major players in the region such as China or Russia do not entirely have it their
own way. When it ‘comes to the crunch’, several leaders in the region put their own personal survival
and the survival of their regime and power base ahead of any other considerations and it is this
attitude and, in some cases, distrust of each other, that thwart what could be a mutually beneficial
relationship between all Central Asian states.
The United Nations Development Fund (UNDP) in its 2005 report on human development in the
Central Asian region describes the small amount

< previous page page_94 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_94.html[27.08.2009 12:59:07]
page_95

< previous page page_95 next page >

Page 95
of integration that does exist in the region as superficial, which is an entirely appropriate way of
describing the current situation.1 Given this description of the state of affairs within the region, and
following on from my initial emphasis, this chapter will go a step further and present a brief overview
of how, if interdependency progressed into full integration for all countries within the Xinjiang–
Central Asian region, the effects of this integration would bring some degree of benefit to all parties.
Not only would the more powerful players in the field such as China and Russia benefit, but the
smaller and less powerful states would also enjoy the rewards of such a relationship which would,
hopefully, given good governance, flow through to the populace of these countries.
Xinjiang–Central Asia
Before proceeding further, I will briefly explain the reasoning behind my grouping of the Xinjiang
Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China and the neighbouring FSU states as a
unit, in an interdependent regional relationship, rather than classifying the FSU states as one unit,
and Xinjiang as completely separate, as part of the People’s Republic of China. Although the historical
aspect is extremely important, my reasoning for the inclusion of Xinjiang and the neighbouring FSU
states in this unit is that the interdependency issues at play in this region in the first decade of the
twenty-first century are clearly becoming dominant. A relationship of interdependency covering such
diverse issues as trade, security and geophysical matters, among others, has been established and
impacts on several of the neighbouring Central Asian states and Xinjiang in very similar ways. This
interconnecting and interdependent environment will continue to develop, thereby building this
relationship into one that must be analysed together, not just as a group of separate states. The
overlapping issues are assuming added importance as the interdependency between all of these
actors (Xinjiang and FSU states) deepens. Given this, throughout this chapter I will refer to this
relationship as either Xinjiang–Central Asia or simply Central Asia.
To further clarify the point I am making regarding the relationships in Xinjiang–Central Asia, I am not
using this term interdependency to convey a relationship of total equality between regional states. I
do acknowledge that the relationships in the Xinjiang–Central Asian region are not equal: China does
dominate, economically, politically and militarily. However, a condition of interstate dependency does
exist, and is continuing to expand, and will prove of benefit to all participating parties to some
extent, as it is not totally a one-way street in favour of China. On the one hand, the bordering FSU
states and others have what China needs to maintain its economic growth; and on the other hand,
China can provide funding to these states to enable infrastructure to be built, which in turn can
benefit local economies. According to Yang et al.:

< previous page page_95 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_95.html[27.08.2009 12:59:07]
page_96

< previous page page_96 next page >

Page 96
China’s recent growth is simply not sustainable without access to foreign markets and injections of
foreign capital
and
given the size of the Chinese market and the difficulties in pushing around a country as large as
China, it is already evident that those who benefit from trade with China are very reluctant to sever
ties of interdependence. It seems that the economic logic of market forces overcomes most
opposition.2
This economic interdependency relationship that has formed in the Xinjiang– Central Asian region is
not only contributing to economic development in the western regions of China, in particular the
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous region, but also in several neighbouring FSU states. As this
interdependency relationship has coalesced and tightened its grip, the relationship with its ever
strengthening ties is not only countering previous and new tensions such as border demarcation,
water diversion, inter-state migration of Han Chinese and Islamic activism, it is also restricting
secessionist movements, primarily emanating from the Uyghur ethnic group, both within Xinjiang and
in neighbouring countries. Neighbouring countries, several of which have a substantial number of
Uyghur diaspora residing in their countries, have previously taken an attitude of leniency towards
them; but this leniency has evaporated as the economic interdependency in the Xinjiang–Central
Asian region expands. The crackdown against any group that may impact on the stability of the
region, be it through secessionist movements or religious ideals, is a direct result of the burgeoning
economic relationships that have arisen and are continuing to take place within the region.
The predominantly economic interdependency that now exists in the region encompassing Xinjiang
and several of the bordering FSU states is such that it has assumed an ever increasing importance to
all of the states involved in this relationship. This interdependency is not solely based on any one
factor, although the supply and processing of oil and gas is dominant. Xing Guangcheng argues that
China and Central Asian states have established an entirely new relationship in the last few years. He
states that this relationship ‘has been developed to establish good neighbourhood relations, and to
make progress in common economic prosperity for both China and the Central Asian states.’3 Xing
believes that mutually beneficial economic cooperation can help economic reforms in both China and
Central Asia; that in expanding its trade and economic relations with Central Asia, China could not
only alleviate severe economic difficulties in Central Asian states, but benefit from its stable and
prosperous neighbouring states. Xing further argues that, ‘ to a large extent the stability and
prosperity of Northwest China is closely bound up with the stability and prosperity of Central Asia.’4

< previous page page_96 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_96.html[27.08.2009 12:59:08]
page_97

< previous page page_97 next page >

Page 97
Xing’s argument is pertinent. China recognized at a very early stage of its economic reform that in
order to progress not only the economics of the north-west, but also of the rest of China, it needed
to expand economically into the Central Asian region. China also recognized that from the viewpoint
of security, it needed not only to reinforce its profile in Central Asia, but to become a major player in
order to keep control in Xinjiang, and post-11 September, with the entry of the US forces into the
Central Asian region, there was a further incentive for Chinese presence in Central Asia. By
developing the western regions, and more specifically Xinjiang, to tie it closer to the centre (as many
analysts stated), does not achieve one of the primary objectives of the Chinese government, that of
stopping any separatist movement within Xinjiang; control of separatist movements must also be
exercised from the Central Asian side. The Chinese government recognizes that stability in Central
Asia is essential to guarantee stability in Xinjiang.
Stephen Blank’s argument is not dissimilar to Xing’s. Blank argues that:
Chinese scholars explicitly articulate the connection between Xinjiang and Central Asia, arguing that
China’s policy to expand economic cooperation with Central Asia is undertaken, among other
reasons, because to a large extent the stability and prosperity of northwest China is closely tied to
Central Asia’s stability and prosperity.5
Chinese expansion into the Central Asian region has in the past been mainly for military purposes,
but the current push by China into this region is largely an economic exercise. To a certain extent the
military priority has been superseded, but not downgraded, by economics. Following the break-up of
the Soviet Union, pressure has been taken off the previous Sino-Soviet border zone in this area, with
the FSU states providing a buffer zone between the two major powers.
China, in its relationship with neighbouring states, has been the ‘soul of diplomacy’ in most instances.
Border disputes that were left over from what is now two centuries ago have been amicably (to
some) agreed upon. However, not all have been happy with decisions taken by the various
government leaders, which has led to ongoing tensions both within and without states, and one of
the issues that have provoked dissent within the states involved in the interdependency relationship
is border demarcation. In the introduction to this chapter I referred to China as being the beneficiary
of a lack of integration and coordination between states in Central Asia. The border demarcation and
water diversion of transboundary river systems is one such instance, and a very important instance,
where the former FSU states may have produced a better outcome, especially where the diversion of
the Ili and Irtysh river systems by China is concerned, if matters had been negotiated as a unified
group, including the involvement of the other affected party in that particular instance of water
diversion, Russia, rather than as individual states.6 However, it is the specific issue of the border
agreement between

< previous page page_97 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_97.html[27.08.2009 12:59:08]
page_98

< previous page page_98 next page >

Page 98
China and Kyrgyzstan that will be addressed in this instance because of its ongoing relevance.
Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have all been involved in high-stakes negotiations to define their
respective borders. Strong-arm politics, economic pressures, shadowy backroom deals, nationalist
sentiments, public dissatisfaction and an environment of mutual mistrust have marked this process.7
Although border demarcation issues in the region have been resolved to some extent, and certainly
China has put a lot of effort into attempting to solve its long-standing border disputes, all may not
be quite as cut-and-dried as initially thought.
The demarcation of the China–Kyrgyzstan border is one such instance in which, because of the way
it was negotiated, the result has been dissatisfaction within Kyrgyzstan. In early 2003, a power
struggle took place between the executive and legislative branches of government in Kyrgyzstan and
the parliament deputy Azimbek Beknazarov was arrested on abuse of power charges. This charge,
according to some sources, seemed to disguise the real problem, which was that Beknazarov had
been a vocal critic of the Kyrgyz government’s decision to cede large portions of the Kyrgyz territory
to China, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. His committee rejected two Chinese–Kyrgyz agreements
signed in 1996 and 1999 respectively that called on Kyrgyzstan to transfer about 125,000 hectares of
territory to China in order to settle a territorial dispute.8 The territory in question borders the south
of Xinjiang, and is in the south of Kyrgyzstan in the Uzengi–Kuush Valley that is situated between the
provinces of Issyk-Kul and Naryn.
Although this land deal between the former President Akayev of Kyrgyzstan and the Chinese
government did not pass through the Kyrgyz parliament in what would normally be termed the
correct procedure, the local people affected by this loss of land to China were not concerned because
the land was of poor quality (or so I was informed). It may well be that the land is of poor quality,
not easily accessible from the Kyrgyz side and seemingly sparsely populated, if at all, but it has what
China is seeking from wherever they can access it, and that is water. This territory has large volumes
of fresh water in mountain glaciers.9
It did appear at the time that the border demarcation issue was being used by political opponents of
the former Kyrgyz president to generate unrest, since protests did not start in the disputed area, but
were instigated in a remote province of the Jalal-Abad region of Kyrgyzstan in Aksy by the local
member of that region, Azimbek Beknazarov, who is a very vocal critic of the territorial concessions.
Concessions made in border negotiations can be rich fodder for political oppositions (in those Central
Asian states where opposition groups are allowed to operate), and this has served to further
constrain the latitude of governments to compromise.10 The main problem with the Chinese/Kyrgyz
demarcation agreement is that a so-called ‘backroom deal’

< previous page page_98 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_98.html[27.08.2009 12:59:09]
page_99

< previous page page_99 next page >

Page 99
took place without the authority of the parliament or the wishes of the people being taken into
account.
Akayev’s administration and legislators had long been at loggerheads over the delimitation of the
country’s border with China. The confrontation began brewing in May 2001, when legislators
discovered the administration’s intention to transfer territory to China.11 MPs contended that, while
the 1996 agreement was ratified by the previous parliament, officials kept the 1999 amendment
secret. Opposition deputies also maintained that under Kyrgyz law, ratification of such border
agreements required a two-thirds majority of votes.12
According to the then opposition leaders, the 10 May 2002 session of the Legislative Assembly –
during which the lower house ratified the land transfers – lacked the necessary two-thirds majority.
They also say the government violated other procedural requirements by not making available to MPs
specific information concerning the transfer, including topographical maps.13 Government officials
told local media that Kyrgyzstan could not risk incurring China’s wrath by reneging on the deal.
During the 10 May parliamentary session, for example, the then pro-governmental deputy Turdakun
Usubaliev portrayed China as a ‘sleeping dragon’. Akayev, who attended this session, hinted that
China would exert military pressure on Kyrgyzstan in the event that parliament did not ratify the
treaties.14 Thus border demarcation is seen as another instance in which China has achieved an
outcome that on the surface appears to be all to China’s benefit rather than an equitable solution for
all concerned. There is real unease in Central Asia from many sectors that China is overriding any
objections, whether it be in matters such as water diversion or border demarcation, and that the
Central Asian neighbouring states are unable to achieve equality in these matters.
In March 2005 Kyrgyzstan experienced the ousting of its president of 14 years, Askar Akayev, in the
‘Tulip Revolution’. Flawed elections, corruption and general discontent with his leadership among
other matters – including, once again, dissatisfaction with the outcome of the delineation of the
Kyrgyz–Chinese border – led to Akayev’s downfall. However, whereas the border issue will continue
to surface on a regular basis, especially when it suits a political purpose, it is unlikely to cause a
major rift between Kyrgyzstan and China simply because Kyrgyzstan’s needs from China now and in
the foreseeable future far outweigh anything China could possibly require from Kyrgyzstan. Apart
from that, the country’s current president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, seems certain to continue Akayev’s
balancing act of being amenable to both Russia’s offer of friendship and prospects of improved
cooperation with China.15
Trade with China is increasingly significant to all the states in the region, but its economic presence
is largest in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan hopes to be a gateway to China because both
are members of the World Trade Organization. Yet the Kazakhs and the Kyrgyz understand there is
no way that the future of their countries can be fully separated from that of

< previous page page_99 next page >

file:///C:/...0Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_99.html[27.08.2009 12:59:09]
page_100

< previous page page_100 next page >

Page 100
China. And there is little indication that they have become more nervous about China in the past few
years.16
In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Both countries appear a bit more comfortable in their ability
to manage the relationship with Beijing, which they see as sometimes requiring concessions on their
part, as was the case with delineation of their borders. The long-term relationship with China could
prove more problematic than the one with Russia: China’s potential power seems almost limitless,
and the needs of its growing population could overwhelm those of the Central Asians. For the short
term, however, China’s posture toward the Central Asian states appears generally supportive of the
goals of these state’s leaders,17 especially given the importance China places on stability in the
Xinjiang–Central Asian region.
How significant is Xinjiang?
The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is extremely significant to China. Not only is it significant
because of its geographically strategic position, it also gives China access to the potentially vast
quantities of oil and gas in the Central Asian–Caspian area, which can in turn supply much-needed
energy resources in order to fuel China’s economic development. At the same time, it reopens an
ancient trade route by providing a springboard for China’s trade expansion into Central Asia, and
onwards to the Caspian region, the Middle East and Europe. The inlet through Xinjiang provides an
added source for energy supplies, and as an outlet, it not only functions as a trade route, but it also
offers additional security to China if, for any reason whatsoever, such areas as the Taiwan Strait
become unusable.
Furthermore, as the director of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Organization Department in
Xinjiang has stated:
The stability and development of Xinjiang bear on the stability and development of the whole
country. We must recognize the importance of maintaining stability in Xinjiang from this standpoint …
we must completely isolate and crack down on a handful of ethnic separatists and serious criminals
of various kinds.18
In 1991, the disintegration of the Soviet Union produced five new countries in Central Asia –
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – with a total population of 57
million people. New borders carved up the region like a jigsaw puzzle. They interrupted trade and
other human links and weakened critical but vulnerable region-wide water and energy systems. The
severing of supply connections for industry and agriculture, the flight of many skilled Russians, the
drying up of subsidies from Moscow, and the disappearance of the central administrative apparatus of
the Soviet Union led to a dramatic economic collapse. This brought about a significant

< previous page page_100 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_100.html[27.08.2009 12:59:10]
page_101

< previous page page_101 next page >

Page 101
increase in poverty, severely weakening the region’s human development and human security.19
Nevertheless, the break-up of the Soviet Union also led to the opening of Central Asia’s previously
closed borders with China, Iran and, eventually, Afghanistan. This opening up of borders holds the
potential for reviving the historic trade routes through Central Asia, for sending the region’s rich
energy resources to world markets, and for establishing dynamic trade and communication links
between the region and the rest of the world. But if the potential is to be captured it requires the
Central Asian countries to work together cooperatively towards a common future.20
Xinjiang borders four former Soviet republics: Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and a small sliver of
Russia, as well as four other countries: Mongolia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. On the east and
south-east lie China’s Gansu and Qinghai provinces and the Tibet Autonomous Region.21 Xinjiang’s
geopolitical location is its most salient feature. During the Cold War, it shared a long border with the
Muslim underbelly of the Soviet Union; now it has eight neighbours, several of which provide a buffer
zone between it and Russia. It is the site of China’s nuclear tests and accommodates a heavy military
presence.22 The combination of geography and security have a major influence on government
policies in this region, and in recent years this has been emphasized in the ‘Go West Strategy’, a
government policy which is directed towards more government funding for this region, but also calls
for private investment from a variety of sources.
The difference now is that the burgeoning interdependency relationship in the Xinjiang–Central Asian
area in the first decade of the twenty-first century is possibly tilted more heavily towards the
economic sector than the security sector. This is not because the security aspect has been
downgraded; it is simply because the economic development, for China especially, and Xinjiang more
specifically, is essential in maintaining the overall growth of the Chinese economy, and therefore the
modernization of the Chinese state. The Chinese government is placing a considerable amount of
emphasis on economic growth providing stability. China has previously exercised control over the
trade routes in this region, and this is still highly relevant to the situation today, where China
appears to be very much in control of this interdependency relationship, and two of the vehicles of
control are economics and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a vehicle that is starting to show its teeth. Although
many commentators in the past, and even today, have written off this organization as being of no
significance, this is an erroneous viewpoint. The SCO has slowly but steadily progressed to the point
where it has the opportunity to turn into a substantial and influential organization given the extension
of the present six member states – China, Russia,

< previous page page_101 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_101.html[27.08.2009 12:59:10]
page_102

< previous page page_102 next page >

Page 102
Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – to extend observer status, leading to possible
membership in the future, to Afghanistan, India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan.
The SCO has stated that regional economic cooperation is one of its main tasks. The SCO covers
territory totalling 30.17 million square kilometres, the population totals 1.5 billion, and the total gross
domestic product surpasses US$1.5 billion. While China has advantages in textiles, household
electrical appliances and telecommunications, the other members of the SCO have advantages in
metallurgy, chemical industry, mechanics, energy sources, space and aviation industry, animal
husbandry and various other raw materials. At this stage, China does have an advantage in trade
matters as the other member states are all transitional economies from centrally planned to market-
oriented, and are also different from each other in their economic strengths and trade regimes.23
Matthew Oresman stated that many believed that the US deployment to bases in Afghanistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan would undermine the need for the SCO, but China and Russia
had both invested serious political capital in this project and were therefore unwilling to let it fade
away; they both see the SCO as an essential component of their plans for the region.24 The
establishment of the secretariat in Beijing and the anti-terrorism centre in Tashkent indicates the
importance China and Russia have placed on this organization.
China and Russia continue to solidify their commitment to Central Asia, with China holding its first
ever combined military exercise with Kyrgyz border forces in October 2002, and Russia committing
new assets to the Kant air base in Bishkek which is the spearhead for the SCO’s rapid reaction
forces.25 Following a meeting between the Kyrgyz Defence Minister Esen Topoyev and
representatives from the General Staff of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, which took place in
August 2003 in Kyrgyzstan, China agreed to provide military and technical aid to the Kyrgyz army ‘in
the form of logistical equipment’ and further agreed that the Kyrgyz military would continue their
training in Chinese higher military educational establishments in the next few years, and that Beijing
would continue to allocate resources from the country’s budget for this purpose.26 China’s accession
to the 2001 SCO treaty stipulates its membership of a collective security organization, thereby
legalizing for the first time the projection of Chinese troops beyond China’s borders if one of the
other signatories requests its support.27
In 2003, both China and Russia increased efforts to dissuade the Uzbeks from further expanding US
ties. This may be one of the reasons why the long-planned opening of the Regional Anti-terrorist
Centre in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, was scrapped. On 4 September 2003, Russian Foreign Ministry
spokesman Aleksander Yakovenko confirmed plans that the centre would be relocated to Tashkent,
Uzbekistan’s capital.28 This was following a visit to Uzbekistan by Russian President Vladimir Putin,
where he held talks with Uzbek President Islam Karimov. This visit was seen as being significant

< previous page page_102 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_102.html[27.08.2009 12:59:10]
page_103

< previous page page_103 next page >

Page 103
because the meeting was Putin’s first visit to Uzbekistan since Karimov contracted a strategic
partnership with Washington in 2001.29 SCO members had originally planned to establish the anti-
terrorism centre in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek. Karimov’s successful effort to get it moved to
Tashkent is one of the signs that his regime – having spurned most regional security initiatives, and
generally shunned Russia, especially after throwing in its lot with the US in the wake of 11
September 2001 – re-examined the wisdom of putting too many eggs in one basket.30 Karimov at
this time did a complete turnaround in his attitude towards Russia. Previously he had made countless
speeches demeaning Russia, but in his speech during the 2003 visit of the Russian president, he
virtually made a public recantation in Putin’s presence. An emphasis in his speech was that an old
friend is always better than a new one.31
Of course, in recent times in Uzbekistan, the Andijan incident has taken place, leading to the
subsequent termination of the US air base lease. Because of the ongoing repercussions of the Andijan
incident and its importance in prevailing political considerations in the area and its possible impact on
neighbouring states, an overview of the incident is necessary.
On 10 May 2005, media sources reported that approximately 4,000 people had gathered outside the
courthouse in the eastern city of Andijan to protest in support of 23 residents who were on trial for
being members of a religious extremist group, Akrimiya.32 On 13 May, the events in Andijan become
worldwide news.33 During the night of 12 May a group of up to a hundred men reportedly attacked
a police building and military barracks in the city, seizing guns in the process. They then entered the
city prison and freed the 23 defendants, together with hundreds more prisoners. The attackers then
took over the Hokemiyat (government building). The following morning crowds estimated to be up to
10,000 congregated in the central square, expressing support for the 23 defendants and airing
grievances.34 According to a Human Rights Watch report, eyewitnesses said that, later that evening,
the crowd was fired upon by military units and army snipers using heavy-calibre machine guns.
Unverified accounts claim that up to a thousand people died in the killings. The Uzbek government
has denied that troops fired on protestors, insisting that only terrorists were targeted and that
civilians were killed by the terrorists.35
Following the incident, a group of US senators visited Uzbekistan and called for an independent
investigation to be carried out by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), of
which Uzbekistan is a member. Further demands also came from NATO and the EU. Uzbek
authorities set up their own investigation.36 The investigation by the Uzbek Prosecutor-General Office
concluded that the Andijan events were planned and implemented by foreign destructive forces. In
August 2004 these destructive forces, with the involvement of international terrorist and religious
extremist organizations such as the Islamic Movement of Turkestan, Hizb-ut Tahrir and one of its
branches, the Akrimiya, planned to carry out acts of

< previous page page_103 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_103.html[27.08.2009 12:59:11]
page_104

< previous page page_104 next page >

Page 104
terror in May 2005 with the aim of seizing power and overthrowing the constitutional order.37
Here we have a very brief outline of the incident giving two very different points of view as to what
happened in Andijan from the Uzbek government perspective and the outside perspective, which in
the main consists of various US and European bodies. I would like to add another viewpoint to this
discussion, which is the viewpoint of Shirin Akiner, published in a Silk Road Paper as an independent
assessment.38
Akiner was in Uzbekistan shortly after the occurrence of the Andijan incident and took the
opportunity to go to Andijan in order to ascertain what may or may not have occurred there on 13
May 2005. She was in Uzbekistan in order to deal with organizational matters arising from the
cancellation of a conference which had been due to take place later that month but had been
aborted in reaction to reports of violence in Andijan.
The main points that Akiner makes are:
• It was a carefully prepared attack, not a spontaneous demonstration;
• This was not a demonstration by peaceful civilians, but by armed men with some degree of military
training;
• The action was planned for a Friday to possibly give it a religious overtone;
• Some of the insurgents were local, but many were from other places in Uzbekistan and
neighbouring countries;
• Considerable amounts of foreign currency (US$) were allegedly found on some of the insurgents.39
To attempt to further clarify certain questions that have arisen as a result of actions either taken or
not taken by the Uzbek government, I will bring in comment from S. Frederick Starr in his
introduction to Akiner’s Silk Road Paper.
Starr asks the obvious question as to why the differences between the different accounts of the
incident have not been settled by a high-level international fact-finding commission, drawn from
public citizens and experts with a proven record as dispassionate observers, when such a proposal
was made by both the European Union and United States but summarily rejected by the Uzbek
government.40
As Starr quite rightly points out, Tashkent’s rebuff of this proposal seems the height of irrationality,
and self-defeating besides. Nonetheless, given what had happened previously, the decision taken by
the Uzbek government has a certain logic. A year previous to the Andijan incident an Uzbek citizen,
35-year-old Andrei Shelkovenko, who had been imprisoned for Islamic extremism, died while in
police custody. Human Rights Watch and other organizations immediately disseminated reports
asserting categorically that he had died under torture. Most western papers carried these reports.41

< previous page page_104 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_104.html[27.08.2009 12:59:11]
page_105

< previous page page_105 next page >

Page 105
Meanwhile, however, another international group on the ground in Tashkent, Freedom House,
proposed that the government of Uzbekistan establish a non-partisan commission of international
experts to look into the charges. This proposal the Uzbeks duly accepted. A commission was formed;
among its members were the Chief Forensic Pathologist of the government of Ontario and three-
times US Ambassador Victor Jackovich. The commissioners were given full access to evidence,
including to Shelkovenko’s body, which had to be recovered from Human Rights Watch, which had
illegally hidden it in order to ‘protect the evidence’.42
The commission found absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Shelkovenko had died under
torture and much evidence that he had long suffered from a life-threatening medical condition. Yet
not one major western paper that had carried the earlier story published an update or revision. For
its part, Human Rights Watch attacked the commission as a gang of Uzbek toadies. Starr believes
that this previous matter, for better or worse, is the likely reason for which Tashkent now rejects
calls from Brussels and Washington for an international commission.43 The writer of this chapter also
concurs with Starr’s conclusion and finds it fully understandable from the viewpoint of the Uzbek
government that they would have extreme reluctance in allowing a commission to be set up given
the experience of the Shelkovenko investigation.
Before ending this brief discussion of the Andijan incident I would like to refer back to a point Akiner
brought up: the issue of large amounts of American dollars being found on some of the insurgents.
For several years there have been rumours of outside bodies, namely NGOs or those associated with
NGOs, funding groups of mainly young men in the Central Asian region for whatever purpose they,
the NGOs, think fit. Following ‘colour revolutions’ in Central Asia and Eastern Europe in recent times,
governments in Central Asia have taken action against many NGOs – closing down or restricting their
operations. Governments in the region, rightly or wrongly, are of the opinion that many of the NGOs
and associated entities are the source of much of the unrest in the region.
To conclude this part of the discussion, the question arises as to whether or not such perceived
interference by NGOs, be it true or not, has an impact on all the states within the region. Since a
primary focus of this chapter is on the interdependency between China and Central Asian states, it
would be expected that what has been occurring in Central Asia and elsewhere in relation to NGOs
would be closely watched by the Chinese government. Certainly, in China, the government has
heightened scrutiny of NGOs following the ‘colour revolutions’ and this has impacted on local NGOs
within China as can be seen by their reluctance to comment on the November 2005 toxic spill into
the Songhua River. The editorial in the China Development Brief summarizes the situation very
succinctly in stating that

< previous page page_105 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_105.html[27.08.2009 12:59:12]
page_106

< previous page page_106 next page >

Page 106
the atmosphere in China is not helped by a statement put out by the US State Department in which it
declares its intention of ‘promoting democracy’ in Iran by funding NGOs. Whatever vision of
democracy the State Department has – and it appears to be a simplistic vision, uncomplicated by
much historical understanding – it is a marvel that they cannot see the harm their antics cause to the
organic development of civil societies across Russia, China and Central Asia.44
Martha Olcott also comments on this type of perception when she makes the comment that ‘they’
(meaning the Central Asian states) fell further at odds with Washington during the second
administration of George W. Bush, when the rhetorical thrust of US foreign policy became focused on
supporting ‘democratic revolutions’ and ‘freeing the world’s citizens from tyranny’ – policies that could
be construed as targeting countries in the region, and potentially even Russia and China.45
The democratization ideals embodied in the Bush administration’s foreign policy have arguably
undermined American national security by alienating many governments in Central Asia and
elsewhere in the Islamic world that might otherwise be receptive to strengthening ties with the
United States. Central Asia, for one, is a more unstable place at present than before Washington
championed its regime-change agenda, and leaders in the region now view the American government
not as a force for stabilization, but as a dangerous agent of chaotic change.46 This is one of the
reasons why integration between countries within the Central Asian region has not progressed. Many
of the leaders are too focused on protecting their ‘patch’ of territory and power base.
However, the realization must be there among the majority of these states that this is the only way
forward if they wish to raise the standard of living in their countries and stabilize the region. As set
out in the introductory section of this chapter, interdependency certainly does exist and in this
discussion the interdependency between Xinjiang and neighbouring Central Asian countries has been
established; who benefits from this state of affairs has been assessed, and the lack of integration has
been commented on. Because integration needs to happen for the benefit of all of the states in the
Central Asian region, an overview of the prospects for this to happen will next be considered.
Integration – what prospect?
To attempt to get an understanding as to why there is very little in the way of integration in Central
Asia, a reasonable starting point would be to take a view from the top down; in other words, to look
at the role of the presidency.
Strong presidencies emerged from the institution of the Communist Party’s First Secretary in each
republic at the end of the Soviet era. Presidential elections took place in all the new states shortly
after independence, but their competitiveness was severely circumscribed. Subsequent presidential

< previous page page_106 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_106.html[27.08.2009 12:59:12]
page_107

< previous page page_107 next page >

Page 107
referenda, constitutional changes and presidential elections were designed to increase and
consolidate the power of the chief executive. Even those regimes that had initially liberalized the
political and/or economic spheres in the early post-Soviet years increasingly followed the more
autocratic political model of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. According to constitutional scholars, by
1996, all the Central Asian regimes had become ‘super-presidential’ systems, in which the president
and his administration (the ‘apparat’) control political decision-making while the parliament and
courts are only nominally independent.47 Thus we have seen situations occurring where in matters
such as border demarcation, especially in reference to the Kyrgyzstan/China border, lack of
transparency and consultation with the appropriate authorities has been deficient.
A direct holdover from the Soviet system and political culture is the centralized level of control with
which the Central Asian presidents seek to manage domestic political and economic systems and
relations with their neighbours. Although the ideological belief in communism has all but disappeared,
the belief in the need for state-directed and state-managed economic activity has persisted. The
presidents characteristically have a high level of distrust of their counterparts in the region, despite a
significant number of shared interests. They have worries that their neighbours’ actions – whether in
the area of political liberalization or economic reform or security measures – will impede the security,
sovereignty and legitimacy of their own state and regime.48
The Central Asian presidents’ general perspectives on key foreign policy issues have varied
substantially, while shaping the framework within which they view issues of regional cooperation and
integration. As has been referred to previously, the Uzbek leadership had since the early 1990s been
opposed to a Russian presence on Uzbek territory before an about-face, and most recently
Uzbekistan has turned even more towards Russia in an apparent reversal of external political
direction. At the same time, it has favoured bilateral regional relations over multilateral approaches,
and generally has not played a lead role in any of the regional institutions, including the SCO, while
hosting the SCO’s regional anti-terrorism centre in its capital city of Tashkent.49
The UNDP-HDR-CA report which is cited throughout this chapter, when discussing integration within
the Central Asian region, as previously pointed out, uses the term ‘superficial’. It attempts to
quantify, within the report, the impact in terms of economic losses and gains, and the number of
people involved, in these states’ not cooperating and integrating. When regional cooperation
problems are discussed, benefits for the country are considered to be benefits for everybody in the
country. As the report points out, it is difficult to understand why governments and other
stakeholders fail to cooperate. However, one must not ignore the multiplicity of interests within
countries, which imply that benefits for a country are a net result of gains for some and losses for
others. The resulting position of the country’s

< previous page page_107 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_107.html[27.08.2009 12:59:13]
page_108

< previous page page_108 next page >

Page 108
leadership may not coincide with the interests of those who benefit from cooperation.50
It is necessary to distinguish cooperation’s winners and losers. The position then adopted by a
country’s leadership depends on who – the winners or the losers – is currently in power. This
explains also why some pro-cooperation agreements are poorly implemented. Those who conclude
the agreements (national government officials) could be interested in cooperation, while those
implementing them (local officials) may stand to lose out and therefore sabotage the agreements,
deliberately or unwittingly.51 Who are the winners and losers from cooperation? As cooperation
brings increased efficiency, transparency and long-term gains, winners would be those who are
competitive, who are poor (because cooperation lowers prices and creates jobs), and who have a
long-term perspective.52 Losers would be rent-seekers of all kinds – corrupt government officials,
businesspeople preserving their monopoly and/or economizing on environmental protection, and
unskilled workers fearing competition from migrants.53
What way forward for integration?
To quote the UNDP:
The main external role in the regional integration process of Central Asia can be played by Russia,
China and the major international technical assistance agencies operating under the aegis and in
close cooperation with the UN. At the same time, Afghanistan and Iran are the most appropriate and
strategic transport bridges to the global economy.54
For geographic, linguistic and historical reasons, the position taken by the UNDP is entirely practical
and logical while also possibly being, at the present time and in the foreseeable future, especially as
far as transport bridges are concerned, rather optimistic.
The most important economic partner for the Central Asian republics is Russia. It has fewer language
and cultural barriers than others, and offers a vast market, a haven for job seekers, a centre for
higher education and a source of investment capital. An active partner bilaterally, Russia is engaged
in most of Central Asia’s regional organizations.55
The second most important regional economic partner is China. With China engaged in an intensive
search for new sources of energy to fuel its rapid economic growth, its capital investment in Central
Asia’s energy sector has grown rapidly. In addition, China’s interest in having stable neighbours has
kindled its engagement in Central Asia’s economic and political future. Both China and Russia are key
security partners for the region, mainly through the SCO, which addresses the region-wide problems
of terrorism and illegal trafficking in drugs and weapons.56 As mentioned previously, the SCO

< previous page page_108 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_108.html[27.08.2009 12:59:13]
page_109

< previous page page_109 next page >

Page 109
also gives China the mechanism to counter separatist movements both within its borders and in
neighbouring states.
The growing sense of mutual security interests and the utility of the SCO in addressing those
interests have opened up a basis for greater trust and cooperation in other areas. There is an
opportunity now to build on the shared perception of a need to address common security concerns
and on the recognition that economic cooperation is an important ingredient in fostering better
regional development, security and stability.
However, hindrances to further economic reform and regional cooperation and integration have
emerged from the presidential institutions, from powerful business interests linked to governments,
and from the middle and lower levels of the public administrations and security services.57
These obstacles are closely related to problems of political and economic governance. The formal
governmental institutions and the widespread informal networks and interest groups have developed
a symbiotic relationship that benefits from the status quo, at least in the short term. In one country,
Kyrgyzstan, the political economy has already led to the completion of a vicious cycle in which these
powerful interest groups have exploited their privileged positions, avoided accountability, and
repressed competition and opposition, to the point where the opposition reacted in a radical manner
and overthrew the regime. Unstable social and economic conditions threaten to bring political
instability and regime breakdown unless the underlying problems are addressed. The collapse of the
Kyrgyz regime and recent violence in Uzbekistan to differing degrees and in different ways
demonstrate this process.58
Before summarizing this chapter, the possible scenarios for what may occur in the Central Asian
region as put forward by the UNDP-HDR-CA report are worth noting. The report distinguishes five
scenarios according to three major characteristics of cooperation and integration: openness of
borders, quality of regional institutions, and scope – breadth and intensity – of cooperation. The five
scenarios include a pessimistic scenario, where the region takes a step back in all three dimensions
with very little if any cooperation; a status quo scenario, which perpetuates the current relatively
low-key approaches; a cluster scenario, where some countries in the region cooperate and integrate,
but others more or less isolate themselves from their neighbours; a scenario of proactive
cooperation, with many more open borders, stronger regional institutions, and a broad-gauged scope
of cooperation that is also intensive in some areas; and a deep integration scenario, where borders
are fully open for trade, capital and labour, there are strong regional institutions, and the scope of
cooperation is broad and deep across the board (approaching that of the European Union, for
example).59
The UNDP-HDR-CA report does not regard the pessimistic scenario as likely for Central Asia in the
foreseeable future. While some countries, in particular Turkmenistan, can afford to follow this
approach for some time to come, due to their energy resources and their access to markets outside

< previous page page_109 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_109.html[27.08.2009 12:59:13]
page_110

< previous page page_110 next page >

Page 110
Central Asia, the costs of this isolationist scenario for the region would be severe in terms of
economic stagnation, poverty and political instability and conflict. All indications are that the Central
Asian countries, with the possible exception of Turkmenistan, do not see isolationism as a desirable
scenario. The status quo option is more likely, but it too has high costs from risks and forgone
benefits, which appear to be appreciated at least by some of the countries in the region. This leads
to two possible alternative scenarios in the foreseeable future: the cluster and proactive cooperation
scenarios. Under the former, some of the countries would cooperate and integrate more with each
other and the rest of the world. This would most likely involve Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan,
if we extrapolate from the current trends in virtually all important areas – trade, transport and
transit, water and energy, border management and social sectors. In contrast, Uzbekistan and
especially Turkmenistan remain for now on a more isolationist path.60
A special area for cooperation is national and regional security – impetus on this issue has been
gathering recently in Central Asia and this is where an organization such as the SCO can lead the
way. However, there is a risk with the current joint concerns about regional and national security in
Central Asia. In the wake of the ‘colour revolutions’ in Georgia and Ukraine, and the forceful removal
of the Kyrgyz government by protestors in March 2005, followed by the violent events in Uzbekistan
in May 2005, Central Asian governments have perceived their countries’ stability and their own
survival threatened by the growth of civil society, by opposition movements, and by radical and
terrorist forces from inside and outside their borders. This has led governments, mutually supportive
of each other and backed by China and Russia, to clamp down on these perceived and real political
threats. While this may help maintain short-term stability, it will not help to build the kind of
transparent, accountable and honest government structures that are essential in the longer term for
a stable, peaceful, integrated and cooperative region that will bring some degree of benefits to all the
states in the Xinjiang–Central Asian region.61
Conclusion
China’s influence adds a very important new geostrategic dimension to Central Asian relations. China
is not yet dominant in any single Central Asian country, nor is it yet comparable in stature to the
Russians by tradition and history, or to the US presence. Nonetheless, China’s steady expansion of
regional involvement with the SCO is a geopolitical watershed. China, in effect, is returning to the
region as a major player.62
China has not allowed the US move into the Central Asian region to disrupt its agenda. It knows that
internal stability within China is essential, and China’s development of the western regions, especially
Xinjiang, and its progression into Central Asia has progressed at a very rapid pace. Notwithstanding
the rapidity of China’s progression in the Xinjiang–Central

< previous page page_110 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_110.html[27.08.2009 12:59:14]
page_111

< previous page page_111 next page >

Page 111
Asian region, and its seeming dominance in diverse areas in this region, there has been a relatively
soft approach from China. They are not taking an aggressive stance. In fact, in many regards, they
have been very conciliatory, or have given the appearance of being so. This has been evident when
negotiations on such issues as border demarcation or access to energy have taken place, while
keeping in mind that, in most instances, the Chinese have obtained their objective. Their primary
purpose at the present time is to attain and preserve internal stability, and for a vast country such as
China, with its large and diverse population, this is not an easy goal.
China has economic might. This economic might is being used in a way that benefits its Central
Asian neighbours. Chinese money and expertise is flowing into the economies of its neighbours in the
Xinjiang–Central Asian region. For Central Asia, Chinese investments bring needed capital and
technical knowledge, and Chinese development assistance offers trade credits and investment
capital.63
China has achieved what it set out to accomplish. It has extended its influence into Central Asia.
New trade routes have been opened, additional sources of energy have been obtained, and last, but
not least, China has gone a long way towards suppressing, and obtaining the cooperation of other
countries to suppress, separatist movements both within and outside of Xinjiang. This relationship of
economic and strategic interdependency in Xinjiang–Central Asia is such that governments involved
in this relationship are making decisions based on this relationship. To a certain extent, this is in
China’s favour at the present time, although, as pointed out in the introduction, it is not completely
one-way as the neighbouring states have what China needs to expand, and that is energy resources.
Superficial integration is not the way forward; neither is the present state of interdependency. While
interdependency has certainly brought benefits to all of the states engaged in this relationship, it has
also produced decisions by individual governments that may rebound on both participating parties in
the future. Integration, in its fullest sense, could and should produce a more balanced and beneficial
climate of cooperation. However, for this to happen regional organizations need to lead the way and
this is where a ‘home-grown’ organization such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, for one,
could play a pivotal role.
Notes
1 UNDP Human Development Report for Central Asia 2005, Central Asia Human Development Report.
Bringing down barriers: Regional Cooperation for Human Development and Human Security . Online.
Available HTTP: <http:/hdr.undp.org/
docs/reports/regional/CIS_Commonwealth_of_Independent_States/Central_Asia_2005_en.pdf>
(accessed 30 October 2008). (Hereafter referred to as UNDP-HDR-CA 2005).
2 Richard H Yang, Jason C. Hu, Peter K.H. Yu and Andrew N.D. Yang (eds), Chinese Regionalism: the
Security Dimension, Colorado: Westview, 1994, p. 8.

< previous page page_111 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_111.html[27.08.2009 12:59:14]
page_112

< previous page page_112 next page >

Page 112
3 Guangcheng Xing, ‘China and Central Asia: towards a new relationship’ in Yongjin Zhang and
Rouben Azizian (eds), Ethnic Challenges Beyond Borders: Chinese and Russian Perspectives of the
Central Asian Conundrum , Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998, p. 32.
4 Xing, ‘China and Central Asia: towards a new relationship’, p. 35. The italics are Xing’s own
emphasis.
5 Stephen Blank, ‘Xinjiang and China’s strategy in Central Asia’, Asia Times, 3 April 2004. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/ FD03Ad06.html> (accessed 30 October
2008).
6 For a detailed examination of the impact of the diversion of the Ili and Irtysh rivers see Ann
McMillan, Effects of interdependency in the Xinjiang–Central Asian region , unpublished PhD thesis,
Griffith University, 2004.
7 ‘Central Asia: border disputes and conflict potential’, ICG Asia Report no. 33 . 4 April 2002. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index-.cfm?id=1439&l=1> (accessed 30 October
2008).
8 Alisher Khamidov, ‘MP’s arrest focuses attention on executive-legislative struggle in Kyrgyzstan’,
Eurasia Insight, 9 January 2002. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/rights/articles/eav010902.shtml> (accessed 30 October
2008).
9 Albert Bogdanov, ‘China opening Kyrgyz market’, Times of Central Asia, 13 February 2003.
10 ‘Central Asia: border disputes and conflict potential’, Times of Central Asia, 12 April 2002.
11 Alisher Khamidov, ‘Protests continue despite government crackdown in Kyrgyzstan’, Eurasia
Insight, 20 May 2002. Online. Available HTTP: <http://
www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav052002.shtml> (accessed 30 October 2008).
12 Khamidov, ‘Protests continue despite government crackdown in Kyrgyzstan’.
13 Khamidov, ‘Protests continue despite government crackdown in Kyrgyzstan’.
14 Khamidov, ‘Protests continue despite government crackdown in Kyrgyzstan’.
15 Martha Brill Olcott, ‘The great powers in Central Asia’, Current History , October 2005. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.currenthistory.com/Article. php?ID=361> p. 3 (accessed via Carnegie
Institute, <http://www.carnegie endowment.org/files/CurHistOlcott.pdf>, 30 October 2008).
16 Olcott, ‘The great powers in Central Asia’, p. 8.
17 Olcott, ‘The great powers in Central Asia’, p. 3.
18 Chen Demin, quoted in XJRD, 10 May 1996, p.1, FBIS, 29 May 1996, p.72, quoted in James D.
Seymour and Richard Anderson, New Ghosts, Old Ghosts: Prisons and Labor Reform Camps in China ,
Armonk: ME Sharpe, 1998, p. 121.
19 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 20.
20 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 20.
21 June Dreyer, ‘The PLA and regionalism in Xinjiang’, Pacific Review , 1994, vol. 7, no. 1, 4.
22 Sean L. Yom, ‘Uighur Muslims and separatism in China: a looming dilemma’, Briefing Notes on
Islam, Society and Politics , Washington: CSIS, 2001, September, vol. 4, no. 1, 16. Alson online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/27/ 06_IIASNewsletter27.pdf> (accessed 13 November
2008).
23 ‘Economic cooperation to add new life to SCO’, People’s Daily, 29 May 2002.
24 Matthew Oresman, ‘Day of reckoning for China–Central Asian group’, Asia Times, 24 May 2003.
Online. HTTP: <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_ Asia/EE24Ag02.html> (accessed 30 October
2008).
25 Oresman, ‘Day of reckoning’.
26 ‘Kyrgyzstan, China reach military collaboration accord’, ITAR-TASS News

< previous page page_112 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_112.html[27.08.2009 12:59:15]
page_113

< previous page page_113 next page >

Page 113
Agency , Moscow, reported on the BBC monitoring newsfile. Also available online in Australia via
factiva database (last accessed 12 September 2003).
27 Stephen Blank, ‘Central Asia’s great base race’, Asia Times, 19 December 2003. Online. Available
HTTP: <http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/ EL19Ag01.html> (accessed 30 October
2008).
28 McDermott, Roger N., ‘Shanghai cooperation organization takes significant step towards viability’,
Eurasia Insight, 5 September 2003. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav090503b.shtml> (accessed 13
November 2008).
29 Adam Albion, ‘Putin in Samarkand: the “old friend” returns’, RFEFL, 11 August 2003. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/ 1142977.html> (accessed 20 October 2008).
30 Albion, ‘Putin in Samarkand’.
31 Albion, ‘Putin in Samarkand’.
32 Akrimiya or Akramia. Break-away group from Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) founded by previous member of
HT, Akram Yuldashev.
33 ‘Uzbekistan: Year in Review 2005 – Growing Isolation’, IRIN, Ankara, 12 January 2006. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?Report Id=33646> (accessed 30 October
2008).
34 ‘Uzbekistan: Year in Review’.
35 ‘Uzbekistan: Year in Review’.
36 ‘Uzbekistan: Year in Review’.
37 ‘Uzbekistan: Year in Review’.
38 Shirin Akiner, Violence in Andijan, 13 May 2005: An Independent Assessment, Silk Road Paper
July 2005, Central Asia–Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Programme, 0507Akiner. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.isdp.eu/files/publications/srp/05/sa05violencein.pdf> (accessed 30
October 2008).
39 Akiner, Violence in Andijan, pp. 12, 32–3.
40 S. Frederick Starr, ‘Introduction’, in Akiner, Violence in Andijan, p. 7; and Akiner, Violence in
Andijan, pp. 12, 32–3.
41 Starr, p. 8.
42 Starr, pp. 8–9.
43 Starr, p. 9.
44 Editorial section, China Development Brief , 2006, March, vol. X, no. 2, 2. Online. Available HTTP:
<www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/node/7> (accessed 30 October 2008).
45 Olcott, ‘The great powers in Central Asia’, p. 2.
46 Dmitry Shlapentokh, ‘Rethinking the Islamic radical threat’, Eurasianet Book Review , posted 14
April 2006. Online. Available HTTP: <http://
www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav041406.shtml> (accessed 30 October 2008).
This comment by Shlapentokh is at the end of his book review of John Gray, Al Qaeda and What it
Means to be Modern, New York: The New Press, 2003.
47 Stephen Holmes, ‘Superpresidentialism’, East European Constitutional Review , Fall 1993/Winter
1994, pp. 123–6, quoted in UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, pp. 188–90.
48 UNDP Country Background Studies: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.
Forthcoming in Problems of Economic Transition. Quoted in UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, pp. 188–90.
49 ‘UNDP Country Background Study: Kazakhstan’, pp. 188–90.
50 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 189.
51 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 189.
52 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 189.
53 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 189.
54 UNDP Country Background Study: Uzbekistan. Prepared for the UNDP

< previous page page_113 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_113.html[27.08.2009 12:59:15]
page_114

< previous page page_114 next page >

Page 114
Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS Central Asian Human Development Report. ‘Bringing down
barriers: regional cooperation for human development and human security’. Forthcoming in Problems
of economic transition. Quoted in UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 203.
55 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 204.
56 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 204.
57 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, pp. 202–3.
58 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, pp. 200–1.
59 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 226.
60 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, p. 226
61 UNDP-HDR-CA 2005, pp. 225–6.
62 Zbigniew Brzezinski, foreword in Bates Gill and Matthew Oresman, ‘China’s new journey to the
West: China’s emergence in Central Asia and implications for US interests’, Centre for Strategic and
International Studies , Washington, August 2003. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_ csis_pubs/task,view/id,15/> (accessed 30 October
2008).
63 UNDP-HDR-CA, pp. 204–7.

< previous page page_114 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_114.html[27.08.2009 12:59:16]
page_115

< previous page page_115 next page >

Page 115
6
Uyghurs in the Central Asian Republics Past and present
Ablet Kamalov
Central Asian Resource Center, Kazakhstan
Uyghurs have communities in almost all of the newly independent Central Asian Republics varying
from the largest one in Kazakhstan to the smallest group in Tajikistan. With the exception of Uyghurs
living in the Ili Valley borderlands, which were annexed by the Russian Empire in the nineteenth
century, who finally found themselves in present-day Kazakhstan, most of the Uyghur communities in
Central Asia were formed as a result of Xinjiang’s (East Turkestan) geographic proximity and
migrations caused by internal events in the Uyghur homeland as well as international relations. Two
main regions densely populated by the Uyghurs in Central Asia until recent times were the
Semirechye Valley in present Kazakhstan, and the Ferghana Valley (Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan).
These two main Uyghur groups in Central Asia were made up respectively by the northern Uyghurs
(Taranchi) from the Kulja region and those who migrated from Kashgaria, the southern realm of East
Turkestan. These two communities differed not only in the regional representation of the Uyghur
population in their homeland, but also in the history of their establishment.
For the Semirechye Uyghurs the starting point of their population’s growth was the Russian
occupation of the Ili Taranchi (Uyghur) Sultanate in 1871 and the resettling of the Sultan family from
Kulja, a capital of the Sultanate, to the Russian citadel of Verny (the present city of Almaty,
Kazakhstan). However, the first major regional population movement across the Qing–Russian border
occurred in 1881–4 when large numbers crossed over to avoid the Qing imperial armies reoccupying
the Qing portion of the Ili Valley. Part of the provision of the Treaty of St Petersburg concluded
between the two empires included the Qing ceding a portion of the western Ili Valley to Russia for
the resettlement of Chinese Muslims and Uyghur refugees. The return of the Kulja area to the Qing
was accompanied by the resettlement of a considerable number of Uyghur families who feared
reprisals and chose not be reintegrated into the Qing Empire. The resettlement of the Uyghur farmers
was organized by the Russian administration in 1881–4.1 By 1884 more than 45,000 Uyghurs had
moved from the Kulja area to the Russian portion of the Ili Valley. In the Russian portion of the Ili
Valley (Semirechye), the Uyghur migrants founded the town of Yarkend and

< previous page page_115 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_115.html[27.08.2009 12:59:16]
page_116

< previous page page_116 next page >

Page 116
approximately ninety smaller settlements ( qishlaq ).2 Six districts ( volost’) were established for the
Uyghur migrants in Yarkend, Aksu, Charyn, Koram and Karassu, and four settlements in Verny. From
this time the Uyghurs have been one of the three main ethnic groups in the Russian portion of the Ili
Valley along with the Kazakhs and the Russians.
The formation of an Uyghur community in another part of Central Asia, the Ferghana Valley, differed
from that of the Semirechye area. Unlike the migration to Semirechye, which took place within a
couple of years and involved a significant number of Uyghurs, the migration to the Ferghana Valley
was characterized by an infiltration of small groups of Uyghurs moving from Kashgar, Aksu and
Yarkand. The motives for their migration were not only political, such as Chinese expansion and the
struggle of different religious groups, but also economic, such as shortage of lands and trade
relations. By the middle of the nineteenth century, ancestors of the Ferghana Uyghurs had
established a number of settlements along the Kara Darya and Naryn rivers in the eastern part of the
Ferghana Valley. Here, as well as in Semirechye, the Uyghur immigrants established settlements in
accordance with their kinship patterns. By the end of the nineteenth century a relatively small group
of Uyghurs also moved further from Semirechye to the Mary region in present Turkmenistan and
settled in the village of Bairam-Ali.3
Uyghur migrations across Central Asian frontiers
The size of the Uyghur population in Russian Central Asia was very much affected by other
migrations across Central Asian frontiers.4 As a result of the upheaval of the Bolshevik Revolution an
Uyghur migration ( köch-köch) back to China occurred in 1918, when a group of militia led by
Commissar Murayev organized a mass extermination of the Uyghurs in the Semirechye region.
Bayanday and Tashken-saz were two local villages where significant numbers of Uyghurs were killed
because of the perception that they were anti-Soviet. The soldiers were allied with the emerging Red
Army. Families heard of the violence and packed up their belongings and moved to the agricultural
villages across the Republic of China border in order to avoid a Bolshevik terror against Uyghurs,
apparently in collaboration with the White Russians. Local Uyghur families in Kazakhstan still speak of
that year as atu yili or ‘the year of the shooting/killing’ that was part of the local violence initiated by
the Bolsheviks. The shooting became known generally as ‘ Atu’ and during the Soviet period this
theme was a closed one for public or official discussion.
In the late 1920s through to the early 1930s there was another population shift of Uyghur and
Kazakh families from the USSR to China. These families were escaping the terrors of Stalin’s regime
against the kulaks or prosperous peasants along with many other Turkic peoples across Central Asia.
As is well known, at that time millions of Kazakhs died of starvation, which was a natural outcome of
the policy of forced collectivization pursued by the Soviet

< previous page page_116 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_116.html[27.08.2009 12:59:16]
page_117

< previous page page_117 next page >

Page 117
regime in the agricultural sphere. Many individuals who moved to China nonetheless kept their Soviet
identification papers in the hope or anticipation of themselves or their children returning to their
villages and homes. Indeed, Soviet archival materials show that the period between 1930 and 1931
was the peak of such migration of the Uyghurs from the USSR to Xinjiang.
In 1932 Sheng Shicai, the Han Chinese warlord in Xinjiang, with the help of Soviet troops, defeated a
Chinese Muslim army that had besieged the city of Urumqi. For the rest of the 1930s the Soviet
influence in Xinjiang grew so comprehensive that some scholars believe it became actually a semi-
colony of the Soviet Union.5 The Soviet government sent instructors and advisors, including many
Uyghurs and Kazakhs, to Xinjiang in virtually every field. At the same time, Central Asian higher
education institutions helped train Uyghur specialists for the Xinjiang economy. The heyday of the
Soviet penetration in Xinjiang came later with the establishment of the pro-Soviet East Turkestan
Republic (ETR) in the three districts of Xinjiang adjacent to Soviet Kazakhstan – those of Ili, Altai and
Tarbaghatai, in 1944–9.6 This short-lived republic was handed over to the Chinese Communists
when they came to power in 1949.
The last large-scale migration of Uyghurs to Soviet Central Asia was that of the 1950–62 period.
Approximately 60,000 to 100,000 Uyghurs and Kazakhs migrated to the then Soviet republics in
Central Asia during that decade. According to some estimates, of this number 35,000 to 40,000 were
Uyghurs. The majority of these people crossed the border in May 1962. This notorious exodus of
1962, known as ‘the 29 May incident’, was a logical outcome of deteriorating Sino-Soviet relations.
When it became obvious that this deterioration of bilateral relations would finally lead to the rupture
of diplomatic relations, before leaving Xinjiang the Soviets arranged a political action, which was to
demonstrate the failure of the Chinese national minorities policy and cause internal problems for
Chinese rule in Xinjiang. In supporting the migration of Uyghurs from Xinjiang in the early 1950s, the
Soviets also satisfied their own labour needs created by the Virgin Lands Project in northern
Kazakhstan. In 1962, however, the labour needs had been met and the Uyghurs were allowed to
settle in Alma-Ata and its environs instead. Only a handful of Uyghurs were sent to northern
Kazakhstan but, unable to adjust, they finally moved to Semirechye. After 1963 the Soviet–Chinese
border was closed and did not open again until the late 1980s.
Soviet policy toward Uyghurs
The primary goal of the Soviet policy towards neighbouring countries was to create a zone of
friendly, pro-Soviet regimes along the border of the Soviet Union. The same goal was pursued by the
Soviets in Chinese Central Asia. When this policy succeeded in this region in the 1930s with the
establishment of the dictatorship of Sheng Shicai, the Soviets played a controversial role in the life of
the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. On the one hand, it was the Soviet

< previous page page_117 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_117.html[27.08.2009 12:59:17]
page_118

< previous page page_118 next page >

Page 118
military force that helped suppress anti-Chinese rebellions of the Muslim population and eliminate the
Turkic Islamic Republic of East Turkestan (TIRET, 1932–3) in the south of the province. On the other
hand, the Soviets encouraged the local government to accept the Soviet model of national policy
stimulating development of the Uyghur nation ( millät ). For implementation of this national project in
Xinjiang the Soviets had to render special state support to their own Uyghur communities. The 1930s
marked commencement of the wide-scale cultural and educational development of the Soviet
Uyghurs. Soviet scholars in Central Asia designed and the Publishing Houses printed textbooks in the
Uyghur language for Xinjiang students. Central Asian universities, especially Central Asian State
University (SAGU), trained Uyghur specialists for Xinjiang. Such Uyghur cultural institutions as the
Uyghur Theatre, first set up in Uzbekistan, then moved to Alma-Ata, and newspapers and magazines
were published in Uyghur to propagate the Communist ideology among the Uyghur population of
Xinjiang. This external need also thus promoted the institutional development of Uyghur culture in
Soviet Central Asia, where the cultural centre gradually moved to Alma-Ata, the capital city of
Kazakhstan. In 1937 the Uyghur district (Uyγur rayoni) was also established on the territory bordering
with China.
The need for institutional support for Uyghur culture in the Soviet Union increased with the
proclamation of the East Turkestan Republic (ETR) in the three westernmost districts of Xinjiang in
1944–9. The Soviet Uyghurs as well as other Turkic peoples were actively used by the government in
providing military, economic and cultural support to this pro-Soviet regime.
The Soviet Union instituted a special policy toward Uyghurs after 1949, when the Uyghurs’ homeland
became part of Communist China. Initially, during the era of Sino-Soviet friendship, this special
attitude was necessary to support the cultural development of the Uyghurs in friendly China. During
the last three decades of the USSR, Soviet treatment of its Uyghur population aimed to show the
superiority of Soviet national policy over the Chinese attitude toward their own ethnic minorities.
The cultural achievements of Soviet Uyghurs were widely publicized, and special governmental efforts
were undertaken to support Uyghur education and culture. As a result of this policy, a wide network
of Uyghur cultural institutions was established, especially in Kazakhstan and its capital city of Alma-
Ata. These institutions included a full secondary education system in the Uyghur language (the only
non-titular nationality in Kazakhstan which had a secondary education system in its own language),
mass media in Uyghur (five Uyghur newspapers, magazines, radio and television broadcasts), Uyghur
theatre, and the Uyghur music theatre and dance groups. In addition, there were Uyghur
departments at some institutions of higher education and in the main publishing houses (including
that of the Kazakhstan Academy of Science), an Uyghur section at the Association of Kazakhstan
Writers and the Ministry of Education, an Uyghur group at the Pedagogical Research Institute and a
special section of Uyghur studies at the Academy of

< previous page page_118 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_118.html[27.08.2009 12:59:17]
page_119

< previous page page_119 next page >

Page 119
Sciences of the Kazakh SSR. The latter was transformed in 1986 into the Institute of Uyghur Studies.
Some Uyghur cultural institutions also existed in Uzbekistan. Among them was an Uyghur radio
station, broadcasting programmes to Xinjiang, and an Uyghur music and dance group, as well as a
Department of Uyghur Studies at the Institute of Asian and African Studies (formerly the Department
of Oriental Studies) at Tashkent State University. The special attention paid to Uyghurs in Kazakhstan
is also illustrated by the appointment of Uyghur Communist Ismail Yusupov as First Secretary of the
Communist Party of Kazakhstan from 1961 to 1964.7 As T. Rakowska-Harmstone noted, Yusupov’s
tenure as Kazakhstan’s First Secretary was ‘an unusual departure from the placement pattern in
Central Asian republics, according to which the position is reserved for a member of the republic’s
titular nationality. Yusupov was removed along with Khrushchev; as is well known, the new
leadership attempted initially to improve Sino–Soviet relations.’8
Although providing Uyghur cultural institutions with special support, the Soviet authorities never
recognized Uyghurs as an indigenous people of Soviet Central Asia and avoided giving them any
administrative autonomy. This attitude was reflected in Soviet scholarship on the origins of the
Uyghurs. Drawing a new ethnic map of Central Asia in the 1920s, the Soviet authorities made official
historiography responsible for the justification of new policies in Central Asia. From that time on,
‘ethnogenesis’ became a main topic in Soviet historiography. Theoretical works and official histories
of republics, in particular, substantiated the idea of the indigenous origin of titular ‘nations’ and their
historical right to the territory of the republics. While official Soviet historiography described the
titular ethnic groups of Central Asian Republics as indigenous peoples, Soviet writings on Uyghur
history were different, considering east Turkestan as the historical homeland and ethnic territory of
the Uyghurs and considering them immigrants from that region.
The only exception was the period of the existence of the East Turkestan Republic, when the leaders
of the Communist party of Kazakhstan seriously discussed a possibility of establishing the Uyghur
autonomy oblast within the Kazakh SSR. On February 1947 the Central Committee of the (Bolshevik)
Communist party of Kazakhstan submitted to the Central Committee of the All-Union (Bolshevik)
Communist Party a proposal on establishing the Uyghur Autonomous oblast, which would include the
territories of the Panfilov and October regions of the Taldy-Kurgan oblast and the Chilik, Enbekshi-
Kazakh, Uyghur, Narynkol and Keghen regions of Alma-Ata oblast. An Uyghur autonomous oblast
was proposed to resolve the following problems: a) to revive the Uyghur Socialist culture and oppose
claims of inequality of the Uyghurs; b) to accelerate economic development of the Uyghur region
bordering the Ili region of Xinjinag, which was a centre of the national liberation movement of
Muslims in China; and c) to influence the three million Uyghur population of Xinjiang and activate
their national liberation movement, orientating it toward the Soviet Union. The Uyghur

< previous page page_119 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_119.html[27.08.2009 12:59:18]
page_120

< previous page page_120 next page >

Page 120
population constituted 20 per cent of the whole population of the planned autonomous oblast
comprising 23,000 people. The capital of the proposed oblast was to be the town of Panfilov
(Jarkent/Yarkend).9
Although this proposal was not approved by Moscow, it nevertheless undertook some additional
measures for the case of implementing such a plan. Some influential Soviet historians who were
responsible for the creation of an Uyghur national history raised a problem of an Uyghur ‘trace’ in the
history of Semirechye. For example, A.N. Bernshtam published an article on the Uyghur epigraphic
texts from the region. Another special historical work on the ancient and medieval history of the
Uyghurs was also written by him at the same time, but published later, in 1951.10 Published in
Uyghur with Arabic script, it was addressed specifically to Uyghur readers in Xinjiang. However, by
the time of its publication the political situation had changed dramatically and there was no longer a
need for such a book, which was considered extremely nationalist by the Xinjiang authorities, and
the Soviets had to withdraw all copies and stop printing further editions. This book became one of
the main contributions to the Uyghur nationalist concept of their history. It is important to note that
the widespread idea of Uyghur autonomy within Kazakhstan which circulated among the Uyghur
intellectuals in Soviet Central Asia was first proposed by the Kazakh Communist leaders.
With the Communist takeover in China the idea of Uyghur autonomy within Kazakhstan lost ground
and very soon nobody remembered it. Hence no discussion of Uyghur autonomy within the Soviet
Republics was allowed and the Soviet authorities prohibited any deviation from the official concept of
Uyghur origin in historical writings. When Uyghur historian Malik Kabirov, during the perestroika
period in 1987–88, took pains to prove that Uyghurs were the native people of Semirechye, his
unpublished manuscript on this issue ‘The Uyghurs as autochthonous people of Semirechye’, was
officially criticized by the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, Gennady Kolbin, who
accused him and all other Uyghur intellectuals of Uyghur nationalism. The Soviets instead
encouraged studies on the Uyghur migrations from China to the Russian Empire, the major
contribution to which was ironically made by the same historian, Malik Kabirov, who in 1951 had
published his research on the history of the Uyghur migration to Semirechye at the end of the
nineteenth century. At the same time, any other ‘neutral’ topics on Uyghur history and culture were
welcome, such as the ancient and medieval history. Of special importance for Soviet propaganda
were publications on the social and cultural achievements of the Uyghurs in the USSR. The
propaganda nature of academic and popular writings on Uyghurs is witnessed by books such as The
Revived Uyghur People (Mashur Ruziev) or The Blossoming of Uyghur Culture (M. Khamrayev),
whose objective was to demonstrate that only in the Soviet Union were the Uyghurs able to revive
their culture and have it blossom.11
Soviet policy towards the Uyghur communities in the Central Asian republics was determined by the
particular character of Sino-Soviet relations. The

< previous page page_120 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_120.html[27.08.2009 12:59:18]
page_121

< previous page page_121 next page >

Page 121
Soviet Union used its Uyghur communities as a means of manipulating its political interests in
Xinjiang. Although the promotion of Uyghur culture was made in the context of general Soviet policy
on nationalities, the Chinese factor had an impact on the special attention paid to Uyghur institutions
by the Soviet government. Looking at the establishment of Uyghur cultural institutions or at
significant Uyghur events in Soviet Central Asia in conjunction with Sino-Soviet relations reveals a
direct correlation between them. Such a correlation can be seen, for instance, in the development of
Uyghur Studies in the USSR.
Uyghurs in the Central Asian Republics
Kazakhstan
The largest group of Uyghurs in Central Asia is in Kazakhstan. According to the census of 1999,
Uyghurs made up 210,300 or 1.4 per cent of the total population of the republic (14,953,000). The
Uyghurs are densely situated in the south-eastern part of Kazakhstan, mainly in Almaty oblast, where
they inhabit the Uyghur, Chilik, Enbekshi-Kazakh and Panfilov districts, and in and around the city of
Almaty itself. Uyghurs rank seventh in population among the ethnic groups of Kazakhstan after the
Kazakhs, Russians, Ukrainians, Uzbeks, Germans and Tatars. Between the census of 1989 and 1999,
the number of Uyghurs in Kazakhstan increased by 15.9 per cent from 181,000 to 210,300. This
increment is less than that of Kazakhs (1,488,200 or 22.9 per cent), but higher than those of other
substantial ethnic minorities (Kurds and Dungans showed the highest percentage).
The infrastructure of Uyghur cultural institutions still exists in a modified form. The Kazakh
government continues to support secondary education in Uyghur and Uyghur cultural institutions. At
present, there are 64 Uyghur schools in Kazkahstan, totalling 21,000 Uyghur pupils. Of these, 15,
including three schools in the city of Almaty, are ‘pure’ Uyghur, 31 are mixed, and the remainder only
have Uyghur groups. Cultural and educational institutions and mass media are represented by
Uyghur musical theatre, Uyghur teachers training groups at Abai State University in Almaty, an
Uyghur teachers’ college in Jarkent (Panfilov), a newspaper, Uyghur avazi (Voice of Uyghurs, formerly
Kommunizm tughi [Communist Flag]), and half an hour of television programming per week as well
as some radio programmes.
Kyrgyzstan
In 1999, according to the official data, 46,733 Uyghurs lived in Kyrgyzstan, or about one per cent of
the total population of the republic (about five million). Their communities were located in two
regions of Kyrgyzstan; one in the north and one in the south, with different cultural traditions. The
Uyghur population in the northern part of the country totalled 32,300 people,

< previous page page_121 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_121.html[27.08.2009 12:59:18]
page_122

< previous page page_122 next page >

Page 122
distributed in the oblasts as follows: Chu − 14,706, Talas − 166, Naryn − 527, Issyk-kul − 3,969,
and the capital city of Bishkek − 12,932. A smaller number of Uyghurs, 14,433, inhabited the
southern districts, with the largest group in Osh oblast (10,352), a smaller one in Jalal-abad oblast
(3,776) and the smallest group in Batkend oblast (305).12 The Uyghurs of northern Kyrgyzstan
consist of two subgroups, those of the Issyk-kul region, who were originally migrants from
Kazakhstan and China in the 1950 and 1960s, and those of the capital city of Bishkek and its
environs (the villages of Lebedinovka, Pokrovka, Malovodnoye, etc.) who came from Kulja and
Kashgar during the last wave of migration. In southern Kazakhstan, Uyghurs live in Osh oblast.
Together with the Uyghurs of Andijan vilayet of Uzbekistan they comprise a special group of
Ferghana Valley Uyghurs.
During the Soviet period there were no Uyghur cultural institutions in Kyrgyzstan, and the cultural
needs of the local Uyghurs were served by institutions located in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. As the
links between Central Asian Uyghur communities weakened after the demise of the Soviet Union, this
practice also ceased. More recently, some private Uyghur newspapers and the Uyghur Department at
the Kyrgyz University at Bishkek have been established. At present, Uyghurs also have their own
public and cultural organizations in Kyrgyzstan.
Uzbekistan
In Uzbekistan, Uyghurs live in the Ferghana Valley and the Tashkent region. In the Ferghana Valley
they are concentrated in the Pakhtabad district of the Andijan vilayet and the city of Andijan. The
overwhelming majority of Ferghana Uyghurs, as mentioned above, are descendants of migrants from
southern Xinjiang (Kashgaria). In both parts of the Ferghana Valley, belonging to Uzbekistan and
Kyrgyzstan, Uyghurs have been under the strong cultural influence of Uzbeks. Uzbekization of
Uyghurs was facilitated by cultural and linguistic ties. Both Uyghur and Uzbek belong to the same
Qarluq subgroup of the Turkic linguistic family. In addition, it should be noted that people of
different ethnic groups in Uzbekistan were forced to change their official nationality to ‘Uzbek’ under
pressure from the local government, and many Uyghurs fell victim to this policy, which is even more
pervasive in post-Soviet Uzbekistan. The process of assimilation of Uyghurs in this republic was also
hastened by the absence of favourable conditions for the development and preservation of their
language. The only school with instruction in Uyghur existed in Kashgar-qishlaq in the Karassu district
of Osh oblast in Kyrgyzstan in the 1940s, and was closed long ago. Today, only secondary education
in Uzbek and Kyrgyz gives Uyghur students the opportunity to continue on to higher education and
jobs.
The process of Uzbekization of the Ferghana Uyghurs was already strong during the Soviet period.
Scholarly expeditions under the direction of G. Sadvakasov, organized in the 1960s by linguists of the
Section for Uyghur

< previous page page_122 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_122.html[27.08.2009 12:59:19]
page_123

< previous page page_123 next page >

Page 123
Studies, Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, revealed the prevalence of bilinguism among the
Uyghurs. Describing the linguistic situation in the village of Kashgar-qishlaq, Sadvakasov concluded
that its Uyghur population consisted of those Uzbekicized, those mixed, and those who preserved
their spoken Uyghur.13 Though there are still groups of people, mostly elderly, who identify
themselves as Uyghurs in both parts of the Ferghana Valley, these Uyghurs are no longer linked with
their ethnic relatives in other parts of Central Asia and are at risk of disappearing.
At the moment there are no official statistic data available on the Uyghur population of Uzbekistan.
President Islam Karimov openly declared that there is no Uyghur population in Uzbekistan in order to
avoid problems with China, which is becoming a strategic partner of his regime. However, the census
of 1989, just before the collapse of the Soviet Union, gave a total number of Uyghurs in this republic
as 23,000, including 14,009 (39 per cent of all Uyghurs of this republic) in Andijan oblast, 7,964 (31
per cent) in Tashkent oblast, and 1,107 (22 per cent) in the capital city of Tashkent.14
Turkmenistan
The smallest group of Uyghurs in Central Asia is in Turkmenistan. The history of the Uyghur
community in Turkmenistan commenced with the migration of a group of 272 Uyghur families (1,308
people from Semirechye to the oasis of Murgab) in 1890. Those Uyghur families settled at Bairam-Ali.
During the first years of Soviet power, some Uyghur schools were opened in Bairam-Ali and its
vicinities. The process of assimilation of Uyghurs by the Turkmen majority has resulted in a lack of
population growth. According to unofficial information provided by the Uyghur cultural centre of
Turkmenistan, the number of Uyghurs in the early 1990s reached 1,400. In Bairam-Ali, the Uyghurs
comprised 1.6 per cent of its population (704 people). Some groups of Uyghurs also live in Mary and
the village of Turkmen-kala. The Turkmenistan Uyghurs are the most isolated group of Central Asian
Uyghurs, who have practically lost all ties with Uyghur communities in other parts of Central Asia. It
is obvious that this situation is likely to lead to the disappearance of the Uyghur language in
Turkmenistan.15
Tajikistan
There are no significant numbers of Uyghurs in modern Tajikistan. It is known that there is a small
Uyghur community in the capital city of Dushanbe, which has an Uyghur cultural association.
Uyghur long distance nationalism in Central Asia
During the Soviet period, the Central Asian republics differed primarily in terms of culture, while
economic, social, and political conditions did not

< previous page page_123 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_123.html[27.08.2009 12:59:19]
page_124

< previous page page_124 next page >

Page 124
differ from republic to republic. This resulted in a quite similar development of all Uyghur groups
dispersed in Central Asia, with local variants related to linguistic and cultural surroundings only.
Today, the Uyghur communities in independent Central Asian nation states are becoming more and
more isolated from each other, in large part due to the breakdown of the traditional communication
system. Separated by custom control posts, different currencies and immigration regulations, as well
as suffering from economies in transition, the Central Asian Uyghur communities are being forced
further apart.
There is, however, a shared trend within all Uyghur communities, which induces the governments of
different countries to form a common attitude toward the Uyghur communities. This is a restoration
of ethnic links between the Central Asian Uyghurs and their ethnic relatives in the historical
homeland – Xinjiang (East Turkestan). After the long period of separation from Xinjiang, when all
relationships between the Soviet Uyghurs and Xinjiang were interrupted, perestroika saw an
improvement in Sino-Soviet relations and state borders became open for commerce and mutual visits.
This restored links between Central Asian Uyghurs and their ethnic brethren across the border.
These links, however, were different for two main groups of local Uyghurs in Central Asia, at least in
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, namely yärlik (locals) and kälgänlär (immigrants of the 1950s and
1960s). Returning to the last wave of Uyghur migration to Soviet Central Asia, one should admit that
it played an essential role in the particular development of the social and cultural life of Soviet
Uyghurs concentrated mostly in Kazakhstan, and is, therefore, of great interest from the standpoint
of diasporic studies.
Uyghur migrations in the 1950s and 1960s injected new life into the Uyghur communities in Soviet
Central Asia. Culturally, it was particularly significant for Soviet Uyghurs since numerous Uyghur
intellectuals migrated to the USSR and became leading specialists in their fields. Among them were
well-known writers, journalists, scholars, artists, musicians and teachers. The brochure Uyghur
Writers of Kazakhstan published by the Pushkin State Library of Kazakhstan in 1982 provides
information on 34 Soviet Uyghur writers, including 24 contemporary ones. Among the latter, 11 had
migrated during the 1950s and 1960s, the most prominent of whom was Ziya Samadi, a writer who
had been Minister of Education in the Xinjiang government in the 1950s.16
Of great importance was the fact that numerous officials of the East Turkestan Republic, including
some of its leaders and many senior officers (including State Secretary Abdurauf Makhsum, Minister
of Education Ziya Samadi, General Zunun Teipov and others) also migrated to the USSR,
strengthening support among the local Uyghur community for independent East Turkestan. The anti-
Chinese feelings of the Uyghur migrants were used by the Soviets when Sino-Soviet relations cooled.
For example, one of the activists, Yusufbek Mukhlisi (1920–2004), was allowed to conduct anti-
Chinese activity by distributing his newspaper Shärqi Turkestan avazi (Voice of East Turkestan) and
appealing to the UN and other international

< previous page page_124 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_124.html[27.08.2009 12:59:20]
page_125

< previous page page_125 next page >

Page 125
organizations asking to settle the ‘Uyghur problem’. The growth of anti-Chinese feelings among the
Uyghur intellectuals led them to establish political organizations to support the struggle for East
Turkestan’s independence.
Yusufbek Mukhlisi’s activities were, if not encouraged, then at least not objected to by the KGB. His
newspaper was compiled manually. Its first issue in the form of a photocopied leaflet came out in
1979. Later on, in the early 1980s, many other Uyghur intellectuals started supporting the
newspaper. Among them were the ETR activists, such as the ETR People’s Hero Ghani Batur,
Generals Zunun Teipov and Marghup Iskhakov (of Tatar origin), a journalist of the Uyghur Radio of
Tashkent called Abdulla Baratov, and even a well-known philologist, Professor Murat Khamrayev.17
The initial stage in the history of Central Asian Uyghur organizations starts with the establishment of
the first Uyghur organization in Soviet Kazakhstan, which was the United National Revolutionary Front
of East Turkestan (UNRFET), set up in 1984 by Yusufbek Mukhlisi. This was an informal organization
without a membership system, but for the Soviet situation it was still an extraordinary event, which
could not occur without the tacit support of the authorities. The goal of the organization was quite
radical: ‘a restoration of the Uyghur state on the territory of the so-called Xinjiang Uyghur
Autonomous Region.’ Activities of the UNRFET nevertheless involved a handful of individuals, mostly
former ETR leaders and officers, but did not acquire a wider support even among local intellectuals,
who, although they sympathized with its goals, did not join it.
One of the most striking features of the early stage of the Uyghur political movement in Central Asia
was open discussion in local Uyghur newspapers in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on issues very
important for Uyghurs as a nation. Among such issues was that of the name for the Uyghurs’
homeland. Uyghur nationalists have always rejected the Chinese name of their homeland – ‘Xinjiang’
(New dominion) – referring to its colonial implications. However, the discussion was not on whether
or not an official name was acceptable to Uyghurs, but rather on the appropriateness of the names
‘East Turkestan’ and ‘Uyghurstan’. The leaders of the ‘Uyghurstan Azatliq Tashkilati’ (UAT or
‘Organization for the Freedom of Uyghurstan’), formed in 1982, especially Hashir Vahidi, advocated
the name ‘Uyghurstan’ in their writings, while Yusufbek Mukhlisi stood for ‘East Turkestan’. At first
glance, the discussion seemed ridiculous, since the talks were about a country that was a part of
China and had the official name of the ‘Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region’. However, the
arguments were not accidental. On the one hand, they were symptomatic of the new contemporary
stage in the Uyghur nationalist movement in Central Asia, where pan-Turkic ideology was fully
eradicated in the course of the Communist rule on both sides of the border and ethnic priorities
became most important against pan-Turkic ones. On the other hand, it was a continuation of
analogical discussions held in Xinjiang in the early 1950s when Uyghur nationalists, especially those
from the Ili region, i.e. the former ETR activists, demanded that their homeland be named the

< previous page page_125 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_125.html[27.08.2009 12:59:20]
page_126

< previous page page_126 next page >

Page 126
‘Uyghurstan Autonomous Region’. Mao Zedong did not approve the name, referring to the
continuation of a revolutionary struggle for which the name was not ostensibly beneficial.
The 1990s discussions of the name ‘Uyghurstan’ among the Uyghur intellectuals had a slight
difference from that of the previous period in the fact that it was opposed to another ‘separatist’
name: ‘East Turkestan’. This kind of discussion was not new either. It is sufficient to mention the
clash between two groups of Uyghur nationalists in Xinjiang in the 1940s: the pro-Soviet ETR leaders
advocated the Uyghur national idea based on the Soviet model of national policy, while pan-Turkist
leaders backed by the Chinese Nationalist government of Goumindang perceived the Turkic peoples
of Xinjiang as a united Turkic nation.
During the 1990s discussions, proponents of the name ‘East Turkestan’ referred to the necessity of
gaining support for their struggle from other Turkic peoples, for which the name ‘Uyghurstan’
seemed quite unsuitable. On the contrary, proponents of the name ‘Uyghurstan’ put forward several
arguments such as:
1 the name ‘Uyghurstan’ does not mean that the Uyghur state the name implies is exclusively a state
for Uyghurs; the name ‘Uyghurstan’ simply stresses that Uyghurs are indigenous inhabitants of this
territory and in this sense it is of extreme importance for the struggle for self-determination;
2 the name ‘Uyghurstan’ does not restrict the interests of other peoples; on the contrary, it imposes
on Uyghurs a serious responsibility for guaranteeing their interests; as for the statehood of other
Turkic peoples of Central Asia, they have already gained their independence in Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan;
3 the name ‘Uyghurstan’ is important to oppose the menace of the assimilation of Uyghurs by
Chinese colonizers;
4 those thinking that the name ‘Uyghurstan’ is not known in the world should remember that the
names ‘Kazakhstan’, ‘Kyrgyzstan’, ‘Uzbekistan’, etc. were not known either, but at present the world
community recognizes these as the names of nation states.
The discussions on the name of the Uyghur homeland were less important for the Uyghur diaspora
outside Central Asia, especially for the Uyghurs in Turkey, where adherence to pan-Turkism is much
more important and determines the success of Uyghur organizations. Nevertheless, such discussions
in Central Asia had their impact on international Uyghur organizations with the representation of the
Central Asian Uyghur. As a result, the East Turkestan (Uyghurstan) National Congress convened in
1999 in Munich accepted this compromise name with ‘Uyghurstan’ in parentheses.
Liberalization of Soviet society, beginning with perestroika, opened another stage in the history of
Uyghur political movement: the emergence of legal

< previous page page_126 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_126.html[27.08.2009 12:59:21]
page_127

< previous page page_127 next page >

Page 127
public organizations. In Kazakhstan such organizations came to being following the decree of the
Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR from 14 April 1989, ‘On the procedure of establishment and
activity of amateur public associations’. A series of Uyghur cultural centres have been set up across
Central Asian republics from 1989 to 1991 on the initiative of the Communist Party Central
Committees.18 These centres addressed the problems of the cultural revival of the Uyghur nationality
by working exclusively on enlightenment and cultural issues such as the establishment of new
Uyghur schools or Uyghur groups at schools and the holding of cultural events etc. By 1991 Uyghur
cultural associations, like the analogical organizations of other ethnic groups, had been established in
almost all Central Asian republics. Thus, during the second period, by the Soviet demise in 1991 there
were two different types of Uyghur organizations operating in Kazakhstan: legally operating cultural–
educational organizations working on local problems of Uyghur communities and non-registered
political organizations propagating the independence of East Turkestan.
The third period in the life of Uyghur organizations in Central Asia starts with the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the independence of Central Asian republics. From this point Uyghur associations in
the different republics faced a problem of disintegration and a need to work in accordance with the
local political atmosphere in their home countries. This made important a coordination of activities of
the different Uyghur Associations previously separated geographically, but now also politically. This
task was to be pursued by the Inter-Republican Organization of Uyghurs (IROU), the first inter-state
Uyghur organization in Central Asia, established in Almaty on 26 January 1992 at a meeting attended
by 300 representatives of different Uyghur cultural centres. The IROU was an organization based on
associated membership of existing cultural organizations in various republics and regions of Central
Asia. It declared cultural-enlightening work among Uyghurs as its priority task, distancing itself from
the political struggle for independence of their historical homeland. Such orientation of the
organization did not find support among some Uyghur leaders, especially former ETR activists, who
opposed the programme and tactics of the new Association and stood out for another alternative
political organization.
The first meeting of the new organization called Uyghurstan Azatliq Tashkilati (UAT or ‘Organization
for the Freedom of Uyghurstan’) was held on 20 June 1992 in Almaty and gathered about 700
people, including representatives from all the Turkic republics of Central Asia, as well as those from
Turkey, Germany and China. As was usual for such kind of meetings, it was also attended by Kazakh
officials. The initiative for the establishment of the UAT belonged to the prominent Uyghur political
activist Hashir Vahidi (1922–98), who was elected its leader. According to the documents approved
by the First Congress of the UAT, it considered its main aim as ‘a promotion of restoration of
Uyghurstan’s independence’, using exclusively political tools in its activity. The latter was a
distinguishing feature of this

< previous page page_127 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_127.html[27.08.2009 12:59:21]
page_128

< previous page page_128 next page >

Page 128
organization, which unlike Yusufbek Mukhlisi’s organization, declared its adherence to non-violent
forms of struggle.
Of the three Uyghur organizations with their different goals, status and tactics, the most legitimate
was the IROU, representing all groups of Uyghurs and not having a political purpose, while the other
two organizations represented mostly the older generation of the new 1950s and 1960s immigrants
from Xinjiang. The IROU, registered in Kazakhstan, had to change its status after the government
issued two new decrees in 1995 and 1996. The latter, called ‘On public associations’, confined
permitted public associations to three categories only, namely republican, regional and local ones.19
The inter-state character of the IROU was changed to a republican one. The change of status did not
affect the organization’s activeness. It very soon became an active member of the international
network of world Uyghur organizations, including the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples
Organization (UNPO). Its representatives partook in the work of the First World Congress ( Kurultai )
of Uyghurs (Istanbul, December 1992), the International Organization of the Uyghur Youth (Munich,
November 1994), the Fourth Session of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO)
(The Hague, January 1995), etc. Participation in such activities became the grounds for a split in the
IROU leadership. As a result, in 1995 a new organization, the Association of Culture of Uyghurs of
the Republic of Kazakhstan, broke away from the IROU, which itself was reorganized on 2 December
1995 into the Regional Public ‘Association of Uyghurs’, the head of which remained Kaharman
Khojamberdi.
After the Kulja events of 1997 the three Uyghur organizations of Kazakhstan came to agreement and
established the United Political Council (UPC). It aimed at the prevention of any split in the Uyghur
movement and the working out of joint actions of all Uyghur public organizations in order to draw the
attention of the world community to the ‘Uyghur problem’. The attempts at consolidation of Uyghur
immigrant organizations were successful and resulted in their participation in the working out and
discussion of documents on the international coordinating centre of the Uyghur movement, namely
that of the National Centre of ‘East Turkestan’ (Turkey, 1998) and the East Turkestan (Uyghurstan)
National Congress (Germany, 1999).
With the growth of authority and influence of the Association of Uyghurs other immigrant
organizations in Kazakhstan joined it, reducing their own activities. For example, in 1997 the
Association of Uyghurs and the Organization for the Freedom of Uyghurstan merged. Despite wide
support from local Uyghur communities, the Association of Uyghurs finally had to terminate its
activities due to the obstacles created by local authorities no longer willing to harbour Uyghur
political organizations striving for an independent East Turkestan. The last attempt of its leader
Kaharman Khojamberdi to reanimate political activities was the setting up of an ‘Uyghurstan Party’ in
2003 in Almaty. Since local legislation would never permit this type of organization, it did not apply
for registration and

< previous page page_128 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_128.html[27.08.2009 12:59:21]
page_129

< previous page page_129 next page >

Page 129
operated illegally for a short time until the authorities undertook serious measures to stop it. As a
result, Khojamberdi was fined by the authorities for his ‘illegal activities’. This marked the end of the
third period in the history of Central Asian Uyghur organizations which was characterized, on the one
hand, by the extreme increase in anti-Chinese political activism of the Uyghur immigrant and local
organizations and leaders, and, on the other hand, by the increasing Chinese pressure on Central
Asian governments to suppress any separatist organization striving for the independence of East
Turkestan. The elimination of Uyghur separatist organizations in Central Asia was possible due to the
use of a very effective tool – the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (founded as the ‘Shanghai Five’
in 1996). As members of this organization, Central Asian states had an obligation to assist China in
fighting Uyghur separatism. This was done using both legal methods (legislation) and the liquidation
of Uyghur leaders (some Uyghur leaders, such as H. Vahidi, N. Bosakov and D. Samsakova were
killed in unclear circumstances, and local authorities have never announced the results of
investigation of the cases).20 After the American tragedy of September 11, the local authorities,
following the Chinese government, also contributed greatly to the portrayal of Uyghurs as extremists
and terrorists.
At present, Uyghur organizations still exist in the two Central Asian Republics – Kazakhstan and
Kyrgyzstan. Those based in Kazakhstan include such cultural associations as the Society of Culture of
Uyghurs of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which stemmed from the IROU in 1995 (chairman: Farkhad
Khasanov), the Association of Uyghur Businessmen, Entrepreneurs and Agricultural Workers (leader:
D. Kuziev), the Nazughum Foundation (head: the daughter of murdered Dilbirim Samsakova), the
Union of Uyghur Youth of Kazakhstan (leader: A. Turdiev) and the Uyghur Cultural Association
(chairman: A. Shardinov). Most of these organizations focus on the resolution of economic, social and
cultural and national problems of the Uyghurs living in the republic.
Organizations based in other republics have never been radical in their agenda. There is no
information on Uyghur organizations in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. More active are the
organizations in Kyrgyzstan: the Uyghur Association ‘Ittipaq’ (R. Abdulbakiev), the Uyghur
Information-project Centre on Central Asia (N. Kenjiev) and the Human Rights organization
‘Democracy’ of the city of Bishkek (T. Islam).
Some of the present leaders, for instance F. Khasanov in Kazakhstan and N. Kenji in Kyrgyzstan,
even propagate the idea of collaboration with the Chinese government in resolving the Uyghur
communities’ problems. With the death of the most prominent Uyghur immigrant leaders of the older
generation such as Ju. Mukhlisi, H. Vahiidi, S. Abdurakhmann and so forth, such collaborationist ideas
do not meet serious opposition, although they are not supported by local Uyghurs either. Another
trend in Uyghur public life in Kazakhstan is the growing influence of businessmen, who try to control
all cultural activities among the local Uyghurs. One such businessman,

< previous page page_129 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_129.html[27.08.2009 12:59:22]
page_130

< previous page page_130 next page >

Page 130
D. Kuziev, has already succeeded in doing this using both his financial and political position, though
most of the Uyghurs have expressed doubts about his intentions.
Conclusion
The Uyghur communities in present Central Asian states were formed mostly in the late nineteenth
century as a result of the political relations between the two Empires – the Russian and the Qing
empires. The Soviet government used local Uyghurs in their policy toward the neighbouring Xinjiang
province of China populated by their ethnic brethren. Economic and political interests prompted the
Soviet authorities to develop Uyghur cultural and educational institutions in Soviet Central Asia,
primarily in Kazakhstan where the majority of the Central Asian Uyghur population lived. This
resulted in the establishment of a number of cultural institutions in Kazakhstan.
For about three decades of the Soviet–Chinese hostility Soviet Uyghurs were totally separated from
their historical homeland. The improvement of Soviet–Chinese relations during the perestroika period
restored the ties, broken for a long time, intensifying mutual visits of Uyghur families and cultural
exchanges between Uyghurs of both sides of the border. The break-up of the Soviet Union and
independence of Central Asian nations inspired Central Asian Uyghurs, especially the immigrants of
the 1950s and 1960s, to undertake political activities aiming at independence for their homeland –
East Turkestan (Xinjiang). The Uyghur separatist movement in the Central Asian republics, mainly in
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, reached its peak in the mid-1990s, but with the establishment of the
Shanghai Five organization in 1996 (which became the SCO in 2001), under strong Chinese pressure
Central Asian governments had to suppress all local Uyghur political organizations. Today Uyghur
public organizations in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are exclusively confined to the spheres of culture,
education and the socio-economic development of Uyghur communities.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Central Asian Uyghurs lost their common political and socio-
economic space and became isolated from each other, forming separate communities in the newly
independent Central Asian states. Moreover, the Uyghur culture lost special support from the state,
and this new situation led to confusion and disillusionment when Uyghurs became merely an ethnic
minority. At present Central Asian Uyghur communities are experiencing all the economic difficulties
of the transition period that all new states undergo. These difficulties in Central Asia, as well as
ethnic clashes in their homeland (East Turkestan/Xinjiang), have put pressure on Uyghur populations
on both sides of the border, resulting in the migration of Uyghurs to Europe and North America and
the emergence of small Uyghur communities there.

< previous page page_130 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_130.html[27.08.2009 12:59:23]
page_131

< previous page page_131 next page >

Page 131
Notes
1 On the migration of the Ili Uyghurs to the Russian Empire see M. Kabirov, Pereseleniye Iliyskikh
Uigurov v Semirech’ ie [Migration of the Ili Uyghurs to Semirech’ ie ], Alma-Ata: Kazakhstan, 1951; Iu.
G. Baranova, ‘K voprosu o pereselenii musulmanskogo naseleniya iz Iliyskogo kraya v Semirech’ie v
1881–1883’ [The problem of Muslim migration from the Ili area to Semirechye in 1881–1883], Trudy
Sektora vostokovedeniya , t.1, pp. 34–7; M. Kabirov, Ocherki istorii Uigurov v Semirech’ ie [Essays on
the History of Uyghurs in Semirech’ ie] , Alma-Ata: Kazakhstan, 1975.
2 A. Kamalov, ‘Uighur community in 1990s Central Asia: A decade of change’, Central Asia and the
Caucasus. Transnationalism and Diaspora, T. Atabaki and S. Mehendale (eds), London and New
York: Routledge, 2005, p. 156.
3 On the history of the movement of the Uyghurs to the Murghab oasis in Turkmenistan see D. Isiev
and M. Mamatov, Bairam-Aliliq Ui γurlarning ötmushi vä hazirqi hayati [Past and present life of the
Uyghurs of Bairam-Ali] , Alma-Ata, 1976, pp. 22–45.
4 W. Clark and A. Kamalov, ‘Uighur migration across Central Asian frontiers’, Central Asian Survey,
2004, June, vol. 23, no. 2, 167–82.
5 On Soviet-Xinjiang cooperation in the 1930s see V. Barmin, SSSR i Sintsian. 1918–1941 [USSR and
Xinjiang. 1918–1941], Barnaul: Izd-vo BGPU, 1998.
6 L. Benson, The Ili Rebellion, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1990; A. Forbes, Warlords and Muslims in
Chinese Central Asia: A political history of Republican Sinkiang 1911–1949 , Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986; D. Wang, Under the Soviet Shadow: The Ining incident. Ethnic Conflicts and
International Rivalry in Xinjiang 1944–1949, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1999.
7 A. Ghaniev, Ismail Yusupov: ‘S chistotoiy pomyslov’ [Ismail Yusupov: ‘With purity of intentions’] ,
Almaty: Kazakhstan, 1997.
8 T. Rakowska-Harmstone, ‘Islam and Nationalism: Central Asia and Kazakhstan under Soviet Rule’,
Central Asian Survey, 1983, vol. 2, no. 2, pp.7–87.
9 V. Khliupin, Geopoliticheskii treugolnik Kazakhstan-Kitai-Rossia. Proshloy i nastoyasheye
pogranizhnoi problemy (Geopolitical triangle Kazakhstan-China-Russia. Past and present of the
border problems), n/p, 1999, pp. 227–8.
10 A.N. Bernshtam, Uy γur hälqining qedimqi vä ottura äsir tarihining qissiliri [Essays on ancient and
medieval history of the Uyghur people], Alma-Ata: Qazaq eli, 1951.
11 M. Ruziev, Vozrojdionniy Uigurskiy narod [The Revived Uyghur People], Alma-Ata: Kazakhstan,
1982; M. Khamraev, Rastsvet kultury uigurskogo naroda [Blossoming of the Culture of the Uyghur
people], Alma-Ata: Kazakhstan, 1967.
12 ‘Chislenost’ postoyannogo naseleniya Kyrgyzskoi Respubliki po otdelnym natsionalnostiam i
regionam po perepisi naseleniya 1999 goda’ [Ethnic structure of permanent population of the Kyrgyz
Republic per the 1999 Census], The Uighur newspaper ‘ Ittipaq ’, 08 (63), 31 August 2000, p. 3.
13 G.S. Sadvakasov, Yazyk Uigurov Ferganskoi doliny [Language of the Ferghana Valley Uyghurs] ,
Alma-Ata: Nauka, part 1, 1970; part 2, 1976.
14 S. Dautova, ‘Yazylovaya situatsiya rayonov kompaktnogo projivaniya Uigurov Srednei Azii i
Kazakhstana’ [Linguistic situation in the regions of dense Residence of the Uyghurs of Central Asia
and Kazakhstan], Ui γurlar hayati yashlar näzäridä , Almaty: Gylym, 1996, p. 118.
15 S. Dautova, op. cit., pp. 121–2.
16 Qazaqstan Uighur yaghuchiliri. Uigurskiye pisateli Kazakhstana [Uyghur Writers of Kazakhstan] ,
Alma-Ata, 1982, pp. 38, 89.
17 K.L. Syroyejkin, Mify i realnost etnicheskogo separatisma v Kitaye i bezopasnost’ Tsentralnoi Azii
[Myths and reality of ethnic separatism in China and security of Central Asia], Almaty: Daik-Press,
2003, p. 451.

< previous page page_131 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_131.html[27.08.2009 12:59:23]
page_132

< previous page page_132 next page >

Page 132
18 K. Khojamberdi, Uygury v rakurse istorii [Uyghurs in historical perspective] , Almaty: Qazaqstan
joghary mektebi, 2001, pp. 233–4.
19 Khojamberdi, op. cit., p. 238.
20 Some of these cases are discussed by B. Bekturghanova, ‘Uygurskiy ekstremism’ v tsentralnoi Azii:
mif ili realnost? (sotsiologizheskii analiz problemy) [‘Uyghur extremism’ in Central Asia: myth or
reality? (sociological analysis of the problems)] , Almaty: Kompleks, 2002.

< previous page page_132 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_132.html[27.08.2009 12:59:24]
page_133

< previous page page_133 next page >

Page 133
7
Xinjiang and Central Asia since 1990
Views from Beijing and Washington and Sino-American relations
Colin Mackerras
Griffith University
This chapter explores how China and the United States have viewed Xinjiang and the Central Asian
region since 1990, but with the main attention paid to the period since the 11 September 2001
incidents in New York and Washington. It gives a good deal of focus to the ways in which
developments in the situation in Xinjiang and Central Asia have impacted on the interrelationship
between China and the United States. Both China and the United States consider Xinjiang to be part
of China, though China with far more passion than the United States. In the context of this chapter,
Central Asia is defined as the contemporary nation states Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, all of which were republics of the Soviet Union until that enormous
state collapsed at the end of 1991. This treatment takes two particular events as particularly
important to the world as a whole and the Central Asian region in particular: the collapse of the
Soviet Union at the end of 1991 and the September 11 incidents of 2001.
The ethnic composition of the Central Asian region, including Xinjiang, is immensely complex. The
most populous of the Central Asian states is Uzbekistan, with an estimated mid-2007 population of
27.78 million. A 1996 estimate put the proportion of Uzbeks in the population at 80 per cent, with
Russians at 5.5 per cent and Tajiks at 5 per cent.1 In China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,
non-census estimates for 2005 put the number of Han Chinese at 7.9566 million, which was 39.58
per cent of the total Xinjiang population of 20.1035 million. The Uyghurs were 9.2350 million, or
45.94 per cent of the total, with the remainder belonging to the Kazakh, Hui (Sino-Muslim), Kyrgyz,
Mongolian and other ethnic groups.2 Kazakhstan’s 1999 census showed 14,953,000 people, among
whom 53.4 per cent were Kazakhs and 30 per cent Russian.3 Tajiks are the majority in Tajikistan
(population in the 2000 census: 6.1 million) and Kyrgyz in Kyrgyzstan (1999 census: 4,822,938).4
The Kazakhs, Uyghurs, Kirgiz and Uzbeks are Turkic ethnically and linguistically and the
overwhelming majority believe in Islam. The Tajiks speak an Iranian language and are also Islamic.
It follows

< previous page page_133 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_133.html[27.08.2009 12:59:24]
page_134

< previous page page_134 next page >

Page 134
that the majority of the people of the Central Asian republics of concern to this chapter and Xinjiang
are Muslims, the vast majority being Sunni.
The flow-on from the collapse of the Soviet Union
The collapse of the Soviet Union altered the power arrangements in Central Asia fundamentally.
Instead of the Soviet Union, China faced to its west a number of independent countries. Although
their governments were initially the same as what had been in place under the Soviet Union and they
still remained close to the Russian Federation, they all had their own individual interests. Moreover,
though to very different extents, they began to be influenced by the kind of Islamic fundamentalism
(Islamism) that was already a strong enough force in Afghanistan to lead to an Islamist regime’s
taking power in the capital Kabul in 1994 and again, after being expelled, in September 1996, with a
considerable extension of their territory and broadening of control in 1998. Meanwhile, the borders
between Xinjiang and Central Asia began to be opened in the late 1980s, leading to an expansion of
trade and cultural dealings, but also in the interchange of criminal activities like the smuggling of
narcotics and arms and the spread of Islamist terrorism. China is particularly concerned with the
spread of Uyghur separatism due to open borders and Islamist terrorism.5
Although the Soviet Union had been in decline for some time, among other factors because it was
unable to cope economically with the arms race imposed by the United States’ Reagan Administration
of 1981 to 1989, the actual Soviet demise at the end of 1991 left the United States very visibly as the
world’s only superpower. Both China and the United States continued to push for cordial mutual
relations, but there were deep-seated conflicting interests over economic, strategic and ideological
matters, especially trade, Taiwan and human rights. In the 1990s, Sino-American relations were
extremely unstable and media and popular views of each country in the other became quite
negative. In the United States, the ‘China threat’ syndrome increased in influence quite markedly,6
while among Chinese writers, the view that the United States was already or was seeking to become
the world hegemon was quite normal, even prevalent.7
In many ways, the period from 1990 to 2001 was not a particularly good one for the Central Asian
countries. Although this was when they won or obtained independence as nation states, it also saw
economic stagnation and political instability. There were many tensions in relations among the
countries of Central Asia, as well as with Russia. Tajikistan experienced a four-year civil war that
ended with a peace accord only in 1997, and even then outbreaks of violence persisted and national
unity remained elusive, warlords and Islamists retaining control over most of the country’s territory.
Kazakhstan has very large reserves of crude oil, and America, South Korea, Germany and other
countries invested in the country to explore and develop the oil and gas fields, build pipelines and
develop infrastructure. For

< previous page page_134 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_134.html[27.08.2009 12:59:24]
page_135

< previous page page_135 next page >

Page 135
example, in August 1998, the German engineering company Siemens signed a large deal to build a
telecommunications network across the country, while the same year a Belgian company agreed to
build a domestic gas pipeline that would help overcome serious gas shortages. However, one serious
problem was that, though the United States was very keen to undertake investments that suited its
interests, it did all it could to block any energy exports from Central Asia either through or to Iran,8
which is an important country for all states of the region.
As a balance, ‘all the Central Asian states dramatically improved their relations, trade and investment
with China’.9 This trend coincided with China’s increasing concern about energy as its economy
boomed during the 1990s. In 1993 China became a net importer of crude oil, and in 2000 imports
reached 60 million tons, compared to production of 200 million tons.10 By the end of 2006, China
was importing about 40 per cent of its oil.11 In April 1994, during a visit to Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Mongolia, Chinese Premier Li Peng called for a new ‘Silk
Road’ that would include infrastructure like a network of roads and railways, trade and economic
collaboration and various strategic issues. For example, he signed an agreement on the 1,700km
Sino-Kazakhstan border and one for a Turkmenistan–China–Japan gas pipeline.12 Much of the trade
and infrastructure network eventuated, though the gas pipeline proved abortive at this stage.
As far as China was concerned, the emerging situation in Central Asia was thus quite positive, but
also had its dangers. Economically and politically, it had great advantages. It was quite receptive to
American economic advances there, and one specialist notes that in the 1990s China still saw the
American role ‘as a stabilising influence on Russia’s great power ambitions’.13 Certainly, China
preferred the emerging situation as preferable to the Soviet threat that had dominated the earlier
period and the United States was not yet a strategic presence in Central Asia. However, there was
one important exception. It did not want any American interference in human rights issues or
American support for separatism in Xinjiang. Moreover, with Turkey very friendly to the United
States, the strong growth of Turkish influence could become dangerous from China’s point of view,
especially given the ethnic links between Turkey and many of the peoples of Central Asia.14
The Shanghai Five and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
In April 1996, the presidents of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan met in Shanghai
to discuss matters of mutual interest. Initially called simply the Shanghai Five, this group followed up
this first meeting with annual conferences in the capitals of the four former-Soviet countries. In June
2001, also in Shanghai, the presidents of the four countries expanded their group to include their
Uzbekistani counterpart, and formally established the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

< previous page page_135 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_135.html[27.08.2009 12:59:25]
page_136

< previous page page_136 next page >

Page 136
The first meeting agreed to build military confidence in the border areas, while the second one, held
in April 1997 in Moscow, agreed on mutual reduction of military forces in border areas. The 1998
meeting was held in the Kazakhstan capital Alma-Ata (now called Almaty and no longer the capital).
It expanded concern to other matters as can be seen from Article 5 of the joint statement issued on
3 July 1998:
The parties are unanimous that any form of national splittism, ethnic exclusion and religious
extremism is unacceptable. The parties will take steps to fight against international terrorism,
organized crimes, arms smuggling, the trafficking of drugs and narcotics, and other transnational
criminal activities and will not allow their territories to be used for the activities undermining the
national sovereignty, security and social order of any of the five countries.15
This agreement was the basis of the Chinese phrase ‘the three evils’ ( sanhai ), these being
separatism, extremism and terrorism. The following year saw an agreement to set up in Bishkek a
centre to coordinate anti-terrorism activities. Of course the agreements include the general idea of
promoting trade.
Islamism in Xinjiang and Central Asia
As Article 5 of the Alma-Ata declaration suggests, the governments saw a growth of Islamism in
Xinjiang and the countries of Central Asia during the 1990s. Ahmed Rashid writes that ‘the floodgates
of the Islamic revival’ in Central Asia opened in 1989,16 that being the year the Soviet Union agreed
to withdraw from Afghanistan, signalling the defeat of the invasion it had undertaken at the end of
1979. While Islamic revival is by no means the same as the rise of Islamism, under the conditions
prevailing in Central Asia, the former could easily facilitate the latter, especially in the light of what
was happening in Afghanistan.
Probably the two most prominent Islamist groups in Central Asia in the period leading up to
September 11 were the Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (Party for Islamic Freedom) and the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan. The first of these stands for setting up an Islamic state in a united Central
Asia and Xinjiang and eventually among all Muslims. Ahmed Rashid claims that, by the beginning of
the twenty-first century, it had become ‘the most popular, widespread underground movement’ in
the three Central Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.17
Among the former Soviet republics, the country to be most seriously affected by Islamism was
Uzbekistan. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan was formally set up in 1998, although as early as
1990 an Islamist group had established a mosque in a town in Uzbekistan with the sign ‘Long Live
the Islamic State’ displayed outside.18 The Islamist threat reached its height on 15 February 1999
when terrorists exploded several massive car bombs in the

< previous page page_136 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_136.html[27.08.2009 12:59:25]
page_137

< previous page page_137 next page >

Page 137
capital Tashkent, in an attempt to assassinate Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov. Although they
failed, they succeeded in killing at least thirteen people and injuring over a hundred. Not surprisingly,
they also provoked Karimov into even fiercer crackdowns than he had undertaken before.19 On 25
August 1999, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan issued a call to jihad against the Karimov
government and declared that it would establish an Islamic state.20 The cycle of terrorism and
repression appeared to be getting worse.
In Xinjiang, an Islamist uprising led by Uyghur Zahideen Yusuf took place in April 1990 in Baren
Township near Kashgar in the south-west. Western journalist Michael Winchester learned from one of
Zahideen’s enthusiastic supporters that the leader had taken his inspiration from the idea of the ‘holy
war’ (jihad) being practised in Afghanistan by the mujahideen who had just inflicted a humiliation on
the Soviet ‘infidel invader’.21 This uprising led on to a whole series of disturbances in Xinjiang,
especially in Kulja (which the Chinese know as Yining) in 1997. The Chinese suppressed all these
disturbances violently, believing them to be separatist in intent.22 Uyghur identity feelings and
resentment against Chinese rule undoubtedly had their own dynamic. However, it also seems likely,
as one journalist suggests, that there were connections between the rise of Islamism in Central Asia
and the situation in Xinjiang:
The newly independent Central Asian states bordering Xinjiang inspire Uighur [Uyghur] separatists.
They have also become sources of weapons, money, training and places of refuge. Foreign Islamic
missionaries now target Xinjiang’s Muslims, and Uighurs are starting to take part in armed Islamic
movements abroad, from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan and even Chechnya.23
The impact of September 11 and the ‘war on terror’ on Sino-American relations
The September 11 incidents resulted in an immediate American-led ‘war on terror’, to use the oft-
repeated phrase of its principal proponent, United States President George W. Bush. The first stage
of this war was a military invasion of Afghanistan, which overthrew the Islamist regime there late in
2001. The person Bush held responsible for September 11 was the Islamist Osama bin Laden, a
Saudi national who had taken refuge in Afghanistan but whom, despite much effort, the American
forces and their allies failed to capture.
China, Russia and the newly independent Central Asian states expressed their strong support for the
war on terror, leading to a temporarily quite strong joint concern over Islamist terrorism. As we saw
earlier, most of these states were already involved in their own war against terrorism, which
preceded Bush’s war on terror and mattered greatly to them. The United States used the war on
terror to establish a military presence in several of the

< previous page page_137 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_137.html[27.08.2009 12:59:26]
page_138

< previous page page_138 next page >

Page 138
Central Asian countries. Within five months of September 11, there were United States bases in
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, while Tajikistan allowed the Americans to use military facilities on its
territory.24
This was the first time in history that the Americans had moved militarily into Central Asia. The
Chinese impact had been growing there since the fall of the Soviet Union, but this was traditionally
within the Russian sphere of influence. Despite its improved relations with the United States, China
could scarcely be other than nervous about this new potential threat on its western borders. And as
for Russia, the new rivalry in an area that not long before had actually been part of the same state
can only have been extremely unwelcome.
The immediate aftermath of the September 11 incidents saw the United States, China and Russia on
the same side in a major conflict for the first time since World War II. In the first instance, China
was proactive in supporting the American efforts against terrorism. Actions included:
• Voting for an anti-terrorism resolution in the United Nations Security Council;
• Supporting Pakistan in its pro-United States efforts against Osama bin Laden;
• Providing intelligence information on terrorist networks and activities in the region; and
• Freezing the accounts of terrorist suspects in Chinese banks.25
For its part, the United States helped the Chinese against separatism and terrorism in Xinjiang.26
When the United States Department of State issued its report on terrorism in May 2002, the first
since September 11, it was very positive about China. The report accepted the link China was
claiming between terrorism and separatism and implied that China’s concern over two groups it had
declared terrorist was understandable.27 Perhaps most importantly, towards the end of August 2002,
the United States Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, announced at a news conference in
Beijing that the United States had frozen all assets belonging to a body called the East Turkestan
Islamic Movement (ETIM) because of its activities as a terrorist organization, the United Nations
following the American lead soon afterward. In January 2002, the Chinese government had issued a
long document, claiming numerous terrorist activities in Xinjiang by ‘East Turkestan’ separatist
groups, ETIM being foremost among them.
By early in 2003 uneasy signs were beginning to appear that seemed not to bode well for the quasi-
partnership between China and the United States over the war on terror. In November 2002 Hu
Jintao replaced Jiang Zemin as CCP general secretary and the following March as state president. It
seems that Hu is somewhat less well disposed towards the United States than Jiang, but
correspondingly more pro-Russian. Perhaps more important was the American-led war in Iraq, which
began in March 2003. The Hu Jintao leadership was opposed to this war right from the start. China
was alarmed

< previous page page_138 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_138.html[27.08.2009 12:59:26]
page_139

< previous page page_139 next page >

Page 139
about the implications of an invasion of a sovereign country against the wishes of its government,
without any authorization from an international body like the United Nations, where the United States
had refused to put the issue of war to a vote after realizing it would lose. The Chinese Islamic
Association immediately put out a statement, strongly condemning the United States and its allies for
choosing war over diplomacy. Association Vice-President Ma Liangji, also the imam of the great
mosque of Xi’an, condemned the war as ‘an incursion of Iraq’s sovereignty’.28
The continuing violence in Iraq, the exposure of the falsity of the initial casus belli that former Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein was storing weapons of mass destruction for potential use, and the Abu
Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal were all factors that hardened Chinese opposition to the war. Among
ordinary Muslims in China, the war in Iraq has intensified anti-Americanism, many equating it with a
war against Islam itself.29 The war in Iraq was also one of the many factors that gave the Chinese
government grounds for criticizing the United States’ human rights performance. In view of the
constant American inclination to denounce China for human rights abuses, the opportunity to
counter-attack on similar grounds is always welcome to the Chinese government.30
Another sign of the decline in Sino-American relations over the war on terror was that, when China
issued its first-ever list of Uyghur terrorist groups and leaders at the end of 2003 and appealed to
the international community for support against them, the United States reacted with deafening
silence. Moreover, in April 2004 the National Endowment for Democracy, an American government-
funded body, gave $75,000 to the Uyghur American Association, which advocates independence for
Xinjiang. This was the first time the National Endowment had taken such a step and China reacted
angrily.
In July 2005, the SCO held its annual meeting in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan since the end of
1997. Its declaration repeated the member states’ determination to resist and conquer separatism,
terrorism and extremism, but also noted an improvement in the situation in Afghanistan. What this
meant was that members of the coalition might no longer need troops to be stationed in Central
Asia, since the original rationale for them was to assist in opposing terrorism in Afghanistan. The
declaration requested that ‘respective members of the antiterrorist coalition set a final timeline for
their temporary use of … objects of infrastructure and stay of their military contingents on the
territories of the SCO member states’.31 The United States response to this demand was that it
would take up the issue of American presence with the relevant countries. Kyrgyzstan demanded that
the Americans pay a higher price to retain their Manas base outside the capital Bishkek, and China
and Russia continue to want it removed. Uzbekistan, by contrast, did demand American withdrawal.
There is some irony in the reality that Taliban influence in Afghanistan appears to have gathered
some momentum since the 2005 meeting, with the result that

< previous page page_139 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_139.html[27.08.2009 12:59:27]
page_140

< previous page page_140 next page >

Page 140
the rationale for the American bases may not have declined as much as the SCO thought it would.
In the meantime, political instability continued to affect at least part of the region. In March 2005,
Kyrgyzstan underwent a revolution that removed President Askar Akayev from power. In Uzbekistan,
disturbances in May the same year failed to topple Islam Karimov, with whom China had moved to
improve relations. The new Kyrgyzstan authorities are still willing to belong to the SCO. On the other
hand, China may not be very happy to see popular revolutions that overturn political orders in
Central Asia, because of the danger that the separatist forces still active in Xinjiang could use them
to their own advantage. A popular revolution in Xinjiang that overthrew the current political order
would be complete anathema to China.
Another change was the death, in December 2006, of Turkmenistan’s Saparmurad Niyazov, who had
been president of the country since it came into existence in 1991. Although Chinese leaders had got
on well with Niyazov, they were not so enamoured of the extreme personality cult he sponsored and
enjoyed, since it was reminiscent of the out-of-fashion years of Mao Zedong. They were quite
capable of dealing with the successor regimes.
Because of its unprecedented oil boom, Kazakhstan has loomed very large as a power in Central Asia
with great significance in Sino-American relations. Both China and the United States have done their
best to woo and maintain good relations with this large Central Asian country. As of 2008, Nursultan
Nazarbayev has been president since Kazakhstan’s independence in 1991. There have been several
prime ministers. Among these, Karim Masimov was appointed in January 2007 and it is especially
interesting in that he is a Uyghur who can speak Chinese very well and is reputed to be favourably
disposed towards China.
Early in May 2006, United States Vice-President Dick Cheney made a visit to Kazakhstan with the aim
of trying to coax Astana more into its geopolitical orbit. Given the deteriorating relationship with
Uzbekistan, uncertainty over the American base in Kyrgyzstan and a renewed Russian and Chinese
confidence vis-à-vis Central Asia, such a move makes sense from Washington’s point of view. Just
before going to Astana and meeting with President Nazarbayev, Cheney had strongly criticized the
Russians for trying to use energy as a political weapon. Despite its political and strategic importance,
Cheney’s visit was mainly economic and will be considered further below. Nazarbayev visited
Washington in September 2006 and Beijing in December. Both visits boosted bilateral ties between
Kazakhstan on the one hand and the United States and China on the other. The latter visit resulted
in a range of agreements on science, culture, trade, energy, border controls and labour migration.
‘Before leaving Beijing, a visibly optimistic Nazarbayev told the press that China and Kazakhstan had
finally eliminated all their border problems and laid a solid foundation for mutual trust and
friendship.’32
The mid-June 2006 SCO meeting, held in Shanghai, saw an important

< previous page page_140 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_140.html[27.08.2009 12:59:27]
page_141

< previous page page_141 next page >

Page 141
factor very unwelcome to the United States and with the potential to damage Sino-American
relations, namely the presence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The United States
includes Iran in George W. Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ and among the main sponsors of terrorism. Along with
other powers, especially those of the West, the United States is doing all it can to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear energy, even though it is claimed to be for peaceful purposes only. Both China
and Russia have been much less enthusiastic for sanctions against Iran designed to prevent it from
developing nuclear power. China, in particular, has been trying to develop relations with Iran and
flatly denies the American claim that it is sponsoring terrorism. When questioned early in June about
the invitation for Ahmadinejad to attend the meeting in Shanghai, SCO Secretary General Zhang
Deguang responded: ‘We cannot abide other countries calling our observer nations sponsors of
terror. We would not have invited them if we believed they sponsored terror.’33
The United States has some reason to be concerned about the growth of the SCO, which has been
much more successful and influential than it had expected. It continues to be very hostile to Islamist
terrorism, but its 2005 and 2006 meetings make it abundantly clear that the SCO is taking a more
overtly anti-American line than was earlier the case.
The Uyghurs and terrorism outside China: Guantanamo Bay
One way in which Islamist terrorism has affected Sino-American relations is the way both Chinese
and American authorities have regarded Uyghurs involved in violent fighting outside China itself. In
the case of those Uyghurs whom American forces have captured and detained, the issue of American
refusal of Chinese requests to repatriate detainees has also impacted on bilateral relations.
When the United States Department of State issued its report on terrorism in May 2002, it had the
following to say:
China has expressed concern that Islamic extremists operating in and around the Xinjiang Uyghur
Autonomous Region who are opposed to Chinese rule received training, equipment, and inspiration
from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremists in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Several press reports
claimed that Uyghurs trained and fought with Islamic groups in the former Soviet Union, including
Chechnya.34
In January 2002, the Chinese government spelled out its main ‘concern’ in some detail. It named
Hasan Mahsum as the leader of ETIM and accused Osama bin Laden of colluding with him to stir up
a holy war in Xinjiang, ‘with the aim of setting up a theocratic “Islam state” in Xinjiang’. It went on:
The terrorist forces led by bin Laden have given much financial and

< previous page page_141 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_141.html[27.08.2009 12:59:27]
page_142

< previous page page_142 next page >

Page 142
material aid to the ‘East Turkistan’ terrorists. In early 1999, bin Laden met with the ringleader of the
‘East Turkistan Islamic Movement’ [Hasan Mahsum], asking him to ‘coordinate every move with the
“Uzbekistan Islamic Liberation Movement” and the Taliban’, while promising financial aid. In February
2001, the bin Laden terrorists and Taliban leaders met at Kandahar to discuss the training of ‘East
Turkistan’ terrorists. They decided to allocate a fabulous sum of money for training the ‘East
Turkistan’ terrorists and promised to bear the funds for their operations in 2001. Moreover, the bin
Laden terrorists, the Taliban and the ‘Uzbekistan Islamic Liberation Movement’ have offered a great
deal of arms and ammunition, means of transportation and telecommunications equipment to the
‘East Turkistan’ terrorists.35
Interviewed on Radio Free Asia just after the Chinese government issued this report, Hasan Mahsum
flatly denied receiving institutional, let alone financial, support from al-Qaeda but refused to
condemn violence, commenting that ‘any rational human being has the duty to fight against invaders
to protect his homeland’.36 However, an American newspaper report issued about three years later
gives a different perspective. It claims that ETIM Deputy Chairman Abdula Kariaji ‘confirmed in an
interview what China has long alleged: ETIM formed a relationship with Mr bin Laden before the US
invasion of Afghanistan in 2001’.37 By 2004, Hasan Mahsum was dead: Pakistan military forces had
killed him in October 2003.
The American administration seemed in broad agreement with the Chinese view on terrorism in
Afghanistan. However, there were also areas of disagreement. These seem to have gathered
momentum in severity, even causing tension between the two countries.
One of them was over the rich Uyghur businesswoman Rebiya Kadeer. Touted as a minority woman
who could succeed in the socialist Xinjiang, she even became a member of China’s National People’s
Congress. However, she turned against Chinese policy after a violent clash in 1997 between youthful
demonstrators and the police, and her husband had meanwhile fled to the US. In 1999 Kadeer was
arrested for revealing state secrets to foreigners and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.
Released in March 2006, she went to the US, where she has developed a reputation as a human
rights, democracy and independence activist. Like the Dalai Lama for Tibetans, Kadeer charges China
with undermining Uyghur culture: ‘our cultural and traditional values are being deteriorated’, she is
quoted as saying. ‘This is a moral crisis for the Uighur people.’ The Chinese authorities regard her as
a terrorist, an accusation to which she pleads guilty, but in a sense very different from how China’s
leaders understand the term: ‘If I terrify the Chinese government, then yes, I am a terrorist, and
long may it last.’38 Although her fame is very far short of the Dalai Lama’s, her influence is on the
increase, especially in the United States. She has attracted the attention of President George W.
Bush, who in mid-2007 praised her in a speech and met her during a conference in

< previous page page_142 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_142.html[27.08.2009 12:59:28]
page_143

< previous page page_143 next page >

Page 143
Prague. China reacted by calling the meeting ‘blatant interference’ in Chinese affairs.39 She has
definitely become a thorn in the flesh of Sino-American relations.
Another area of disagreement between the American and Chinese government views was the issue of
Uyghur prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where despite the successful Cuban revolution of 1959
the Americans had retained a military base, setting up a prison camp for Islamist terrorists. In
essence, the problem between China and the United States was based on the fact that, though the
two countries shared concerns over terrorism and agreed that Xinjiang was part of China, the United
States was much less worried than China about separatism in Xinjiang and far more concerned to
uphold its particular view of human rights, and was more subject to influence from the Uyghur
diaspora.
After the American-led coalition overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan in November 2001,
22 Uyghurs were captured along both sides of the Afghanistan–Pakistan border and transferred to
Guantanamo Bay. There the American authorities imprisoned them without charge as terrorist
suspects and enemy combatants who had links with al-Qaeda and thus posed a threat to the United
States and American lives. The Chinese authorities demanded their extradition on many occasions,
but the United States refused on the grounds that they would face persecution or unacceptably
inhumane treatment if sent back to China.
Late in 2003 the Pentagon decided that seven of the Uyghurs were enemy combatants and should
continue in detention, but that the other fifteen were innocent or only low-risk terrorists whose
target was the Chinese government, not the United States. The trouble was, however, that the State
Department refused them entry into the United States. It approached numerous other countries to
give them asylum, all of which initially rejected them. In August 2005, the fifteen were transferred
from cells to Camp Iguana, where conditions are considerably better, but they were ‘still surrounded
by a fence’, being allowed virtually no contact with the outside world and given no idea when their
‘legal limbo’ would end.40
For five of them this limbo ended in May 2006, when Albania agreed to give them asylum. As the
five flew off to Tirana, the Pentagon declared that its main objective was ‘to resettle the Uyghurs in
an environment that will permit them to rebuild their lives’, and that Albania would give them such
an opportunity. On 9 May 2006, just a few days later, China reacted angrily, lodging formal
complaints against both the United States and Albania for contravening international law, and
demanding that Albania hand over the men as terrorist suspects. Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu
Jianchao declared that ‘These people accepted by the Albanians are by no means refugees but
terrorist suspects, and so we think they should be returned to China.’41
As it turned out, the experiment to send these five men to Albania turned out very badly. By the
middle of 2007, two points were clear about the experiment. Firstly, Albania was clear that it would
not take any more

< previous page page_143 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_143.html[27.08.2009 12:59:28]
page_144

< previous page page_144 next page >

Page 144
Uyghurs. This meant that all those remaining in Guantanamo Bay had no escape other than to
remain where they were or return to China, because no other country had signalled any wish to take
them. Secondly, the five Uyghurs had been extremely unsuccessful in adapting to their new home.
They were reduced to remaining ‘in a squalid government refugee center on the grubby outskirts of
Tirana, guarded by armed policemen’. They expressed themselves even more desperate than they
had been in Guantanamo Bay, because hope of a better future had evaporated. They could not even
get work permits, let alone jobs, without knowing Albanian, and this proved very difficult for them.42
China, the United States, Russia and Central Asia: the energy factor
China’s rapidly growing economy depends on the availability of oil and other forms of energy. China
and the United States have become major rivals for oil supplies available from Central Asia, especially
Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is quite happy to deal with both countries. In an interview with Tribune
towards the end of 2006, Kazakhstan Energy Minister Baktykozha Izmukhambetov described both
China and the United States as ‘strategic partners’.43 Xinjiang is already taking a major role in
China’s domestic energy production. The west-to-east natural gas pipeline linking the Tarim Basin in
Xinjiang with Shanghai is highly significant for China’s long-term energy security. Already Xinjiang is
among China’s main oil and gas producers and is likely to become China’s energy base during the
twenty-first century.44
Given China’s growing dependence on foreign oil, it is not surprising that energy has become a
central factor in China’s foreign diplomacy in recent years. It has aroused American and other
Western ire by being quite happy to deal with states the United States regards with hostility, such as
Iran and Sudan. Among the reasons for China’s policy its need for energy supplies ranks high.
The energy factor has loomed large in the complex web of interrelationships in the Central Asian
region. Russia holds the world’s largest reserves of natural gas, but the main exports go to Europe,
none of them to China. However, among numerous agreements Russian President Vladimir Putin
signed with Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao during a state visit he made to Beijing in March 2006, one
pledged two natural gas pipelines costing up to US$10 billion. These were to be built within five
years and will potentially be able to provide China with vast amounts of gas, enough to cause
concern in Europe that its own gas supplies might be affected.45 Another Putin–Hu agreement
promised a feasibility study on building a spur line to China from a crude oil pipeline to be built from
eastern Siberia to the Pacific Ocean. Russia’s earlier agreement to build this pipeline would make
Russian oil readily available to Japan and had caused some disquiet in China, which felt left out of
the deal and disliked anything that would yield energy benefits to

< previous page page_144 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_144.html[27.08.2009 12:59:29]
page_145

< previous page page_145 next page >

Page 145
Japan. Although in March 2006 the Russian and Chinese leaders issued a statement that ‘bilateral
relations are at an unprecedented level of development’,46 Chinese concern over the Russian eastern
oil pipeline may not be completely quietened, since there remains doubt over whether Russia can
fulfil its pledge on the two gas pipelines to China, and the agreement to build the oil pipeline to the
Pacific appears to carry more weight than a mere feasibility study for the spur line to China.
Both for China and the United States, Central Asia is becoming more and more important in a new
competition that is based less on ideology than on energy. Although this new ‘great game’ has been
developing for some time, it appears to be sharpening as world oil prices rise. Numerous countries
are involved, all seeking to ensure their energy supplies, but with Russia and Kazakhstan known as
major suppliers of oil.
Iran provides a significant proportion of China’s imported oil, and the two countries have agreed on a
deal by which China buys Iranian liquefied natural gas in return for permission for a Chinese
company to exploit Iran’s Yadavaran oilfield. The oil pipeline from West Kazakhstan to West China
proposed in the late 1990s is already in use, and on 25 May 2006 it was used to import crude oil into
China through a pipeline for the first time in history. It is estimated that some 10 million tons of oil
will go through this pipeline from Kazakhstan to China, a figure that will more than double when the
3,000km pipeline is completed in 2011.47 The pipeline was constructed under a 50–50 joint venture
between China National Petroleum Corporation and Kazakhstan’s KazMunaiGaz, and ‘is a strong
symbol of Central Asia’s integration by transnational projects’.48 At the same time there is a
possibility of another oil and a gas pipeline leading from Kazakhstan into China.49
Early in April 2006, Turkmenistan reached a deal with China to sell it large quantities of oil and
natural gas for 30 years beginning in 2009. The pipeline that would facilitate the gas sales would go
through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to China, with Turkmenistan likely to rely on China to provide
finance to build it. The geopolitical implications are extensive, because Russia has always assumed it
enjoys a quasi-monopoly on Turkmen gas and may not relish the competition.50
Meanwhile, when Cheney visited Kazakhstan in May 2006, he ‘waded into a messy geopolitical
struggle for energy and influence in the countries of the former Soviet Union, rapidly becoming one
of the world’s largest-producing regions’.51 In essence, this ‘messy geopolitical struggle’ sees the
United States trying to woo Astana away from traditional allies like Russia and to win Kazakhstan’s
favour against its neighbour and America’s enemy Iran, which is also keen to exert influence in the
region. The United States wants to direct potential pipelines through countries it can trust or where it
can exert control. These include Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Certainly, it does not want
pipelines that would make it necessary for Central Asian oil to go through such countries as Russia or
Iran. And, within the context of high and rising world oil prices and the continuing booming Chinese
economy, the United

< previous page page_145 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_145.html[27.08.2009 12:59:29]
page_146

< previous page page_146 next page >

Page 146
States would like to limit China’s influence in Central Asia and even oil imports from the region. The
new ‘great game’ over energy is likely to be a major factor determining Sino-American relations and
the overall strategic situation in the Central Asian region for the foreseeable future.
Conclusion
The great China and Central Asia specialist Owen Lattimore once called Xinjiang the ‘pivot of Asia’.52
And there is still discussion over whether the phrase is appropriate to describe the area, as shown in
at least one other chapter in this book. I argue that the phrase can in some ways be applied not just
to Xinjiang but to the Central Asian region as a whole. Two factors have added weight to the
region’s geopolitical significance. These are:
1 It has gained great importance as a source of energy in a world where energy is assuming as
critical a role as we are witnessing in contemporary times; and
2 Central Asia has become involved in the war on terror.
Of the two major events of focus in this chapter, the fall of the Soviet Union and the September 11
incidents, the former is much the more important for the Central Asian region. While the countries of
Central Asia were part of the Soviet Union their strategic and economic influence was much more
crucially determined in Moscow than has been the case since then. It was the fall of the Soviet Union
that released some of the main forces that have made the region so influential in the Asian political
economy. It appears, for instance, to have been Soviet decline and disintegration that allowed
Islamism to rise in the region as quickly as it did. There was a war against terrorism in Central Asia
well before September 11.
Yet this is no reason for underestimating the impact of this latter event. While it was much less
important for Russia and China than the Soviet collapse, it mattered more to the Americans. And it
was they who invaded Afghanistan, thereby involving the region in the war on terror. This invasion
has itself crucially altered the geopolitics of Central Asia by bringing American military influence into a
region where it never existed beforehand.
From an economic point of view, I again argue that the fall of the Soviet Union was more important
than September 11. It was Soviet collapse that brought economic involvement in Central Asia both
from China and the United States. Although the rise of energy politics was not new in the early
1990s, it has certainly gathered momentum on a big scale since then, with enormous, far-reaching
and probably long-lasting repercussions in the entire Central Asian region.
The impact on Sino-American relations has been multifaceted. In some ways involvement in Central
Asia has improved the relationship, but in other ways it has created tensions that did not exist
before. The fundamental factor

< previous page page_146 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_146.html[27.08.2009 12:59:30]
page_147

< previous page page_147 next page >

Page 147
for more positive relations has been a shared concern to defeat terrorism. The war on terror has
greatly increased American fear of Islamist terrorism and hence diverted some of its negative
concerns over China, such as human rights and the rise of China. The factors pointing in the opposite
direction include tensions over the war in Iraq and the Uyghur prisoners detained in Guantanamo
Bay, and rivalry over energy and influence in Central Asia.
This chapter has focused on just a couple of major factors in Central Asia with the potential to affect
Sino-American relations and the geopolitics of the region into the twenty-first century. Many other
factors are at play that may turn out to be even more important in the future. These include HIV/
AIDS, which two writers claimed in 2004 was already spreading in Xinjiang ‘like a whirlwind’. They
believed it would pose a greater immediate threat to Beijing’s control of Xinjiang than Uyghur
militancy or terrorism.53 And narcotics and water are among issues that have wide-ranging
implications for the societies, economies, politics and international relations of the Central Asian
region. Other chapters take up these crucial matters.
Notes
1 These figures come from the web version of the Central Intelligence Agency’s The World Factbook,
section on Uzbekistan. Online. Available HTTPS: <https:// www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook/geos/uz.html> (accessed 31 October 2008).
2 Statistics Bureau of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Xinjiang tongji nianjian Xinjiang Statistical
Yearbook 2006, Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2006, pp. 82–3.
3 Barry Turner (ed.) The Statesman’s Yearbook: the Politics, Cultures and Economies of the World
2003, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. The World Factbook gives a mid-2007
estimate of Kazakhstan’s population of 15,284,929. Online. Available HTTPS:
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ the-world-factbook/geos/kz.html> (accessed 31 October
2008).
4 Turner (ed.) The Statesman’s Yearbook, pp. 1531, 1015. July 2007 estimates for Tajikistan and
Kyrgyzstan are respectively 7,076,598. Online. Available HTTPS:
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ ti.html> and 5,284,149
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kg.html>, according to The World
Factbook. Websites accessed on 31 October 2008.
5 See Sean R. Roberts, ‘A “Land of borderlands”: implications of Xinjiang’s trans-border interactions’,
in S. Frederick Starr (ed.) Xinjiang, China’s Muslim Borderland, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2004, pp.
216–37. On p. 229, Roberts writes that the exposure of the Uyghurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang
to neighbouring Muslim sovereign nation states ‘has increased the hope for the establishment of
either a Uyghur or an Eastern Turkistan nation-state’.
6 For a good scholarly account of this view, see Ross Terrill, The New Chinese Empire and What It
Means for the United States , New York: Basic Books, 2003.
7 Samantha Blum, ‘Chinese Views of US Hegemony’, Journal of Contemporary China , 2003, May, vol.
12, no. 35, 239–64.
8 Far Eastern Economic Review , ‘Central Asian Republics’, in Michael Westlake (ed.) Asia 1999
Yearbook, A Review of the Events of 1998, Hong Kong: Review Publishing Company, 1999, p. 96.

< previous page page_147 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_147.html[27.08.2009 12:59:30]
page_148

< previous page page_148 next page >

Page 148
9 ‘Central Asian Republics’, in Westlake (ed.) Asia 1999 Yearbook, p. 96.
10 Chien-peng Chung, ‘The Shanghai Co-operation Organization: China’s changing influence in
Central Asia’, The China Quarterly, 2004, December, no. 180, 1001.
11 Evan Osnos, ‘The coming fight for oil’, Tribune, 19 December 2006.
12 ‘Premier’s Tour Opens New “Silk Road”’, Beijing Review , 9–15 May 1994, vol. 37, no. 19, 5.
13 Hans Hendrischke, ‘Chinese concerns with Central Asia’, in David Christian and Craig Benjamin
(eds), Worlds of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern, Turnhout: Brepols, 1998, p. 101.
14 See also Hendrischke, ‘Chinese concerns with Central Asia’, pp. 100–1.
15 ‘Joint Statement of China, Kazkhstan, Krgyzystan, Russia and Tajikistan on the Alma-Ata Meeting’,
Beijing Review , 27 July–2 August 1998, vol. 41, no. 30, 9.
16 Ahmed Rashid, The Resurgence of Central Asia, Islam or Nationalism? , London and New Jersey:
Oxford University Press; Karachi: Zed Books, 1994, p. 244.
17 Ahmed Rashid, Jihad, The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia, New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2002, p. 115.
18 Rashid, Jihad , p. 138.
19 Far Eastern Economic Review , ‘Central Asian Republics’, in Michael Westlake (ed.) Asia 2000
Yearbook, A Review of the Events of 1999, Hong Kong: Review Publishing Company, 2000, p. 105.
20 For the full text of ‘The call to Jihad by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’, see Rashid, Jihad ,
pp. 247–9.
21 Michael Winchester, ‘Beijing vs. Islam’, Asiaweek , 24 October 1997, vol. 23, no, 42, p. 31.
22 For a brief rundown on these disturbances see James A. Millward, Eurasian Crossroads, A History
of Xinjiang , New York: Columbia University Press, 2007, pp. 324–34; and Colin Mackerras, China’s
Ethnic Minorities and Globalisation, London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003, pp. 49–54.
23 Susan V. Lawrence, ‘Where Beijing fears Kosovo’, Far Eastern Economic Review , 7 September
2000, vol. 163, no. 36, 23–4.
24 See Michael Clarke, China’s Post-9/11 Strategy in Central Asia, Regional Outlook Paper No. 5,
Griffith Asia Institute, Brisbane, 2005, p. 12. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.griffith.edu.au/business/griffith-asia-institute/publications/ regional-outlook> (accessed
31 October 2008).
25 See Jia Qingguo, ‘Learning to live with the hegemon: evolution of China’s policy toward the US
since the end of the Cold War’, Journal of Contemporary China , 2005, August, vol. 14, no. 44, 402–3.
26 See also Millward, Eurasian Crossroads , pp. 338–41.
27 US Department of State, Counterterrorism Office, Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001, Washington
US: Department of State, 2002, pp. 16–17. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10290.pdf> (accessed 3 November 2008).
28 Allen T. Cheng, ‘A surprise move by the Mainland’s Islamic Community’, South China Morning
Post, 25 March 2003, 6.
29 See Dru Gladney, Dislocating China, Reflections on Muslims, Minorities, and Other Subaltern
Subjects , London: Hurst and Co., 2004, pp. 331–4. It might be added that the signs of anti-
Americanism among non-Muslim Chinese point in contradictory directions. While Chinese policy
condemns the Iraq war and the overwhelming majority of ordinary people accept this, one study
finds that Chinese images of the United States may have improved since September 11, and ‘even
since the outset of the Iraq war in March 2003’. See Wang Jisi, ‘Reflecting on China’, part of ‘A
Symposium on the American Image’, The American Interest , 2006, Summer, vol. 1, no. 4, 74.
Wang’s full article extends pp. 774–8. He is Dean of the School of International Studies, Peking
University.

< previous page page_148 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_148.html[27.08.2009 12:59:30]
page_149

< previous page page_149 next page >

Page 149
30 For instance, see ‘“Guardian of human rights” shows its true colour’, China Daily, 10 March 2006,
p. 5. This is the Chinese Information Office of State Council’s white paper on the human rights record
of the United States in 2005.
31 Quoted by Pan Guang in ‘The Chinese perspective on the recent Astana Summit’, China Brief , 16
August 2005, vol. 5, issue 18. Online. Available HTTP: <http://
www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373127> (accessed 3 November 2008).
32 Marat Yermukan, ‘Amid mounting criticism in Kazakhstan, Beijing and Astana seal new deals’,
Eurasia Daily Monitor , 9 January 2007, vol. 4, no. 6. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id= 2371781> (accessed 3 November 2008).
33 See Rowan Callick, ‘Iran welcome in China’s new sphere’, The Australian, 13 June 2006. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/ 0,20867,19453012-2703,00.html>
(accessed 3 November 2008).
34 US Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001, pp. 16–17.
35 Information Office of the State Council, ‘“East Turkistan” terrorist forces cannot get away with
impunity’, Beijing Review , 31 January 2002, vol. 45, no. 5, 19.
36 Erik Eckholm, ‘U.S. labeling of group in China as terrorist is criticized’, New York Times, 13
September 2002. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.nytimes.com/
2002/09/13/international/asia/13CHIN.html?ex=1032924072&ei=1&en=b38311 cb3dc86865>
(accessed 31 October 2008).
37 David S. Cloud and Ian Johnson, ‘Friend or foe, in post-9/11 world, Chinese dissidents pose U.S.
dilemma, Uighur nationalists have peaceful, violent wings; deciding who is a threat: “Omar is not a
bomb thrower”’, Wall Street Journal , 3 August 2004, p. 1.
38 Paulette Chu Miniter, ‘Taking a stand for China’s Uighurs’, Far Eastern Economic Review , 2007,
March, vol. 170, no. 2, 28.
39 Scott McDonald, ‘China denounces U.S. memorial’, International Herald Tribune, 13 June 2007.
Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/ 14/asia/AS-GEN-China-Bush-
Memorial.php> (accessed 31 October 2008).
40 Robin Wright, ‘Chinese detainees are men without a country’, Washington Post, 24 August 2005.
Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301362.html> (accessed 3 November 2008).
41 Edward Cody, ‘China demands Albania return asylum seekers’, Washington Post, 9 May 2006.
Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.washingtonpost. com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900478.html> (accessed 3 November 2008).
42 Tim Golden, ‘Chinese leave Guantánamo for Albanian limbo’, New York Times, 10 June 2007.
43 Osnos, ‘The coming fight for oil’.
44 Nicolas Becquelin, ‘Staged development in Xinjiang’, in David S.G. Goodman (ed.) China’s
Campaign to ‘Open Up the West’: National, Provincial and Local Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004, pp. 50–1.
45 Andrew Yeh, Richard McGregor, Arkady Ostrovsky and Carola Hoyos, ‘Russia pledges gas pipelines
to China’, Financial Times, 21 March 2006. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5ed1f5c0-b8d9-11da-b57d-0000779e 2340.html> (accessed 31 October
2008).
46 Frank Ching, ‘The uneasy partners’, South China Morning Post, 29 March 2006.
47 Asia Pulse/XIC, ‘Kazakh oil pours into China through pipeline’, Asia Times, 27 May 2006. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China-_Business/HE27Cb05.html> (accessed 31
October 2008).
48 David Gosset, ‘The Xinjiang factor in the New Silk Road’, Asia Times, 22 May 2007. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/ IE22Ag01.html>, p. 2 (accessed 31
October 2008).

< previous page page_149 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_149.html[27.08.2009 12:59:31]
page_150

< previous page page_150 next page >

Page 150
49 Yermukan, ‘Amid mounting criticism in Kazakhstan, Beijing and Astana seal new deals’.
50 Daniel Kimmage, ‘Central Asia: Turkmenistan–China pipeline project has far-reaching implications’,
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 10 April 2006. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1067535.html> (accessed 31 October 2008).
51 Ilan Greenberg and Andrew E. Kramer, ‘Cheney, visiting Kazakhstan, wades into energy battle’,
New York Times, 6 May 2006.
52 Owen Lattimore et al., Pivot of Asia, Sinkiang and the Inner Asian Frontiers of China and Russia ,
Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1950.
53 Justin Rudelson and William Jankowiak, ‘Acculturation and resistance: Xinjiang identities in flux’, in
Frederick Starr (ed.) Xinjiang, China’s Muslim Borderland, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2004, p. 318.

< previous page page_150 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_150.html[27.08.2009 12:59:31]
page_151

< previous page page_151 next page >

Page 151
8
Central Asia’s domestic stability in official Russian security thinking under Yeltsin and
Putin
From hegemony to multilateral pragmatism
Kirill Nourzhanov
Australian National University
After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the Russian leadership did not perceive Central Asia as an
important area in its foreign relations. The Atlanticist stance of President Boris Yeltsin and his Foreign
Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, suggested that Moscow’s priorities would aim at integration with the rich,
enlightened and democratic West. The newly independent Central Asian republics were looked upon
as aziatshchina , an area of alien Asian values, and a developmental black hole, from which Russia
ought to isolate itself. Regional threats were to be dealt with in the spirit of liberalism, using
international norms and institutions. As Kozyrev put it in December 1992,
We must prevent a drift to ‘Asiaticism’ [ aziatshchina ] … We must draw the region in the CSCE
[Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe] process with all its lofty principles … Russia’s
goals and interests demand ensuring that our international environment is not ‘Asiaticism’ but the
CSCE area with its democratic standards and market rules, or all that is inherent in European political
culture.1
Taking issue with such statements, the Kazak President’s adviser, Umirserik Kasenov, asked: ‘Where
does this snobbish Europe-centrism and condescending attitude towards Asia come from? And are
Central Asian states inanimate objects in the hands of Russia that it can give away or not give away?
’2 Yeltsin’s ministers inclined to give an affirmative answer to the latter question. The pro-Western
orientation of the Kremlin was complemented by the residual imperial mentality. The Russian
government took it for granted that Central Asia would continue to defer to Moscow no matter what.
The weight of history and innumerable cultural, economic and military ties sustained this conviction.
Boris Yeltsin personally found it difficult to deal with the regional heads of state as the leaders of
sovereign independent nations.3

< previous page page_151 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_151.html[27.08.2009 12:59:32]
page_152

< previous page page_152 next page >

Page 152
The line of complacency and neglect was further reinforced by Moscow’s desire to rid itself of the
fiscal burden inherited from the Soviet period. In 1989, the all-Union budget financed the Central
Asian republics to the tune of US$25 billion. In 1992, direct and indirect subsidies from Moscow to
the region amounted to approximately US$9 billion, or 5 per cent of Russia’s GDP.4 The country’s
shrinking economy could ill afford such expenditure.
By the mid-1990s the situation had altered dramatically – Central Asia had moved to the forefront of
Russian foreign policy discourse. The change was brought about by a number of factors. Russia’s
honeymoon with the West was over. Idealistic expectations of a harmonious alliance with the West
had given way to the primacy of the ‘national interest’ – defined in a tantalizingly vague manner, it
nonetheless dispensed with the ‘romantic, infantile pro-Americanism’5 of the previous years. The
Central Asian leaders quickly developed a taste for sovereignty and ethnonationalism, and proved to
be remarkably adroit at bypassing the former ‘Big Brother’. Within Russia, influential groups with
specific interests in the region coalesced and made their voices heard. The most important of these
were the military, the so-called national-patriotic political parties, and corporate entities, especially oil
companies.
Finally, and most significantly, Russian policy-makers had realized that the southern republics of the
former USSR formed an integral part of their country’s security zone. As an astute observer
commented at the time, ‘The motive, as in the past, is fear – not so much of a rival great power, but
of disorder. The Russians are concerned that turbulence in those regions, if not checked, could creep
north.’6 Both ‘democrats’ and ‘national-patriots’ in Moscow now agreed that maintaining peace and
stability in Central Asia formed Russia’s vital interest. Leaving the region, with which Russia shared
the longest land frontier in the world (an unfortified and porous frontier at that), simply was not an
option.
This consensual view has survived until the present day. At the same time, over the past decade
substantial differences have persisted among the Russian political elite over the practical model that
Russia ought to follow for the purpose of maintaining stability in Central Asia. Major points of
contention can be summarized as follows:
• What are the main factors of instability in Central Asia?
• What instruments does Russia have to maintain order in the region?
• Should preference be given to stability over good governance in dealing with the local regimes?
• How can bilateral, regional and multilateral approaches to security be harmonized?
• Under what circumstances can Russia become militarily involved?
These questions do not take into account diversity within the region; nor

< previous page page_152 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_152.html[27.08.2009 12:59:32]
page_153

< previous page page_153 next page >

Page 153
do they reflect the complexity of geopolitical competition in Central Asia. Nonetheless, they
accurately represent the ongoing discussion in the Russian political establishment, which has been
striving to elaborate an overarching cogent policy towards this region without linking it rigidly to
Russian–US relations or some other area of ‘high geopolitics’. A Russian academic, writing in 1996,
referred to relations between Moscow and the newly independent states of Central Asia as a
‘collection of uncertainties’.7 We can now proceed with an examination of how successfully these
uncertainties have been rectified by the Russian leadership over the past decade.
Boris Yeltsin and the magic wand of integration (1994–2000)
The first concise document outlining the Russian understanding of threats to Central Asian security
appeared in September 1994. Entitled Russia-CIS: Does the West’s Position Need Correction? , it was
prepared by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) and published under the signature of its
Director, Evgenii Primakov.8 The report highlighted the following factors of insecurity applying to
Central Asia:
• tensions between ethnic Russians and the eponymous populations
• inter-state and ethnic conflicts
• proximity of Afghanistan
• involvement of Iran and Turkey
• encroachment by the ‘leading countries of the “far abroad”’ (i.e. the USA and, possibly, China)
• deterioration of the socio-economic situation
• Islamic extremism
It also suggested a solution to all these problems – reintegration with Russia under the aegis of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (the CIS). The success of this project ‘would lead to
stabilization, democratization, the advancement of reform’, while its failure ‘will be accompanied by
an intensification in authoritarian and undemocratic trends. The criminalization of society, the
infringement of ethnic minorities’ rights, and mass violations of human rights will be additional
destabilizing factors.’
The SVR report was merely a position paper, a statement of intent by a group of intelligence officers
and analysts influenced by the recrudescent ideology of Eurasianism. However, after Primakov’s
promotion to head the Foreign Ministry in January 1996, its main clauses were incorporated into the
official state policy. The Russian National Security Blueprint enacted by presidential edict in December
1997 stated that ‘The deepening and development of relations with CIS member states is a most
important factor promoting the settlement of ethno-political and inter-ethnic conflicts, ensuring socio-
political stability along Russia’s borders, and ultimately preventing centrifugal phenomena within
Russia itself.’9 It also referred to the attempts by

< previous page page_153 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_153.html[27.08.2009 12:59:32]
page_154

< previous page page_154 next page >

Page 154
third parties to limit Moscow’s influence in Central Asia as an explicit threat to its national security.
Despite routine declarations about the equal and voluntary partnership within the CIS, Yeltsin’s
integrationist project in the second half of the 1990s had all the features of a hegemonic alliance.
The Central Asian countries were to be corralled into a political and military bloc where they would
cede part of their sovereignty. In return, the Kremlin promised security and economic prosperity. The
willing participation of the Central Asian leaders was taken for granted. Their carefully worded
objections and alternative projects of integration, such as Nursultan Nazarbyaev’s 1994 proposal of a
Eurasian Union, were ignored as mere opportunistic attempts to carve a better deal within the
impending Commonwealth. Even the disastrous war in Chechnya did not spoil official Russian
triumphalism: ‘Moscow indeed has the levers required for the creation of a new type of “velvet
empire”, based on financial, economic and military dependence of the post-Soviet states on
Russia.’10
Rudderless and Sailless: the failure of the CIS solution
The results of Yeltsin’s strategy for stability in Central Asia were disappointing (to say the least).
Multiple CIS summits and feverish activity of its bureaucratic structures, sponsored and directed by
Moscow, led to few concrete results. As of mid-1999, ‘90 per cent of more than 2,000 documents
signed within the CIS framework remained scraps of paper. The inner problems of the
Commonwealth have not been solved, on the contrary, they continue to aggravate.’11 The impulse
for integration failed to mitigate any of the factors of instability in Central Asia.
The economic sphere
The main reason for this failure was economic. The key element in Yeltsin’s plan to create a
prosperous common market consisted of so-called financial– industrial groups (FIGs). By bringing
under one roof remnants of the highly integrated and specialized Soviet industry, they were supposed
to evolve as efficient transnational corporations, especially in hi-tech areas such as the nuclear and
aerospace industries and power generation. The idea was still-born. Very different legal regimes
(especially property laws), unavailability of start-up capital, obsolete equipment and direct
competition for markets overseas resulted in a paltry 20 FIGs being established across the CIS
between 1994 and 2000 (by comparison, Western corporations set up 2,000 affiliates in the CIS over
the same period).12 Russian trade with Central Asia plummeted, especially following the financial
crisis of 1998. In 1999, its exports to the region amounted to US$1.67 billion, registering a 2.5 fold
decrease compared to 1996.13 The situation with imports was not much better.
Private investors from Russia by and large ignored Central Asia. One study estimated the volume of
Russian investment at less than 10 per cent of the

< previous page page_154 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_154.html[27.08.2009 12:59:33]
page_155

< previous page page_155 next page >

Page 155
total foreign direct investment in the region of US$8 billion between 1996 and 2000.14 This figure in
itself was completely inadequate as far as the development needs of the region were concerned. An
all-out trade war between Russia and Kazakhstan in 1999 destroyed the last illusions about Moscow’s
self-ascribed role as a locomotive of joint economic renaissance.
The only meaningful economic activity that tied Russia and Central Asia throughout the 1990s was
the endless cycle of politically motivated debt write-offs and trade subsidies from Moscow.15 One
author assessed the value of such ‘economic gifts’ at 0.7 to 1 billion US dollars a year.16 This was
enough to elicit token loyalty from the local leaders, but insufficient to expedite an economic
breakthrough in the region.
The political sphere
Political integration did not occur at all. To the contrary, the second half of the 1990s was marked by
the growing disregard of Moscow’s policy preferences within the CIS on the part of the Central Asian
elites. Yeltsin tried to check this trend by signing bilateral agreements with the Central Asian leaders.
The Declaration on Eternal Freedom and Alliance between Russia and Kazakhstan initialled in July
1998 was a typical document. It contained a bombastic pledge that ‘the Republic of Kazakhstan and
the Russian Federation as good neighbours take upon themselves to consider in full measure each
other’s lawful interests in the political, economic, military and other areas’.17 The vagueness of the
formula and the absence of a practical implementation mechanism made such pronouncements
useless.
By that time all Central Asian countries had evolved neo-patrimonial sultanistic regimes, which
jealously guarded their sovereignty and professed to follow their unique path of political
development. They reacted nervously to attempts by the Kremlin to position itself as the custodian of
liberal values and chief mediator between governments and opposition groups in the region.18 Turar
Koichuev, President of the Kyrgyz Academy of Sciences and advisor to Askar Akayev, publicly
condemned the perception of Central Asian societies as ‘modern feudalism’ and ‘Asian absolutism’
current in Russia.19 In July 1994 the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan formed the
Central Asian Union (CAU), a virtual entity whose only purpose was to let Russia know of their
displeasure when it overstepped the line.
Gradually Moscow abandoned its high moral ground on democracy and authoritarianism. After 1993
Boris Yeltsin could hardly claim to be an accomplished liberal himself. The course of events in the
region demonstrated that, contrary to the conviction prevalent in the West (and among the Russian
Atlanticists), the absence of representative and accountable government was not a serious security
risk. The peoples of Central Asia were not pining for democracy and liberty; they were primarily
interested in order and economic survival.20 Finally, the civil war in Tajikistan during 1992–97,
where the Yeltsin government initially supported one faction on the strength of its

< previous page page_155 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_155.html[27.08.2009 12:59:33]
page_156

< previous page page_156 next page >

Page 156
implied democratic credentials, demonstrated that ideological affinity is not always the most efficient
factor for sensible foreign policy aimed at stability.
Having given up its commitment to Western-type democracy, Moscow did not generate any ideal
type of political system for the post-Soviet space. In the meantime, Central Asian presidents
displayed remarkable creativity in this area, tapping into the vast intellectual tradition ranging from
Plato to John Stuart Mill to justify their rule. President Emomali Rahmonov of Tajikistan eventually
came up with a fascinating dictum, ‘Democratic political fundamentalism runs contrary to the basic
freedom of the individual’, while his Turkmen colleague modestly proclaimed: ‘I, as the Head of
State, have assumed the responsibility for the fate of my people … Political pluralism would threaten,
if not destroy, the internal harmony for which our country is renowned.’21
Russian officials ended up putting a premium on the political status quo over democratic and
representative government in Central Asia. Their position became purely reactive, accepting whatever
experiments the regional potentates conducted on their populations, so long as they didn’t rock the
CIS boat. This became evident in 1995, when the presidents of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan extended their tenure in office without going through the charade of elections. The
smooth retention of power by the incumbents wouldn’t have been possible without acquiescence
from Moscow. In a series of bilateral meetings and negotiations, Boris Yeltsin decided not to bring up
the issue of ethnic Russians in Central Asia – the most vocal critics of authoritarian and exclusionary
rule in the region.22
As already discussed, discrimination against ethnic Russians and Russified members of titular
nationalities was identified as one of the most important factors of instability in Central Asia by
policy-makers in Moscow. The 1993 Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation listed ‘the
suppression of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests’ of compatriots as an ‘external military
danger’ which may trigger the deployment of armed force against the offender. Thus, it is quite
remarkable that the Yeltsin government did excruciatingly little throughout the 1990s to improve the
situation. The litany of grievances emanating from the region was extensive. The physical and
psychological pressure to leave was compounded by draconian linguistic legislation, restricted access
to government positions and tertiary education, day-to-day abuse, and cultural blockade. A Kazak
journalist observed in 1998:
Over the past 3–4 years the unified information and cultural-psychological space of Russia and
Kazakhstan has been contracting like chagrin skin. This causes strong discomfort and feelings close
to despair not only amongst Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians, but also amongst a significant
portion of the Kazak population brought up on Russian literature and culture.23
‘The number of people ready for armed struggle against the illegal regime [of

< previous page page_156 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_156.html[27.08.2009 12:59:34]
page_157

< previous page page_157 next page >

Page 157
Nazarbayev] is on the rise,’ opined one of the leaders of the Russian community in Kazakhstan, and
added that ‘the leadership of Russia has the right to restore constitutional order in Kazakhstan just
like it does in Chechnya.’24 Moscow’s response was to arrest a few chauvinist hotheads on its
territory and push for dual citizenship, which the governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and
Uzbekistan easily rejected. The juggernaut of ethnocratic politics continued to roll on.
The military and security sphere
Its economic and political weakness notwithstanding, Russia was uniquely positioned to create and
lead a military alliance that would contribute to stability in Central Asia. It succeeded in convincing all
the region’s countries except Turkmenistan to join the CIS Collective Security Treaty (CST). This
document provided for collective defence, non-aggression, non-violent conflict resolution, and joint
efforts to counter threats to ‘security, territorial integrity and sovereignty’ involving member states.
In practice, the CST meant Russia’s military hegemony, which was highlighted in its 1993 Military
Doctrine: ‘The interests of the security of the Russian Federation and other states belonging to the
CIS may require troops (forces) and resources to be deployed outside the territory of the Russian
Federation.’25 Turkmenistan did not join the CST, yet concluded separate agreements with Moscow
sanctioning the deployment of Russian border guards on its soil.
Like so many other CIS agreements, the CST remained largely on paper. Its only success in Central
Asia was a peacekeeping operation in Tajikistan, which put an end to the hottest phase of the civil
war in that country in the autumn of 1992. Even here the success was relative, because the low-
intensity warfare continued for five more years. Russia did not emerge as a universal protector and
conflict arbiter in the region. Throughout the 1990s Central Asia remained a zone of interstate
tension. Disputes over borders, enclaves, resources such as water and hydrocarbons, perceived
historical injustices and minorities, which often went unreported and unnoticed by the rest of the
world, had the potential to escalate into an all-out war.26 That they didn’t was by no means owing
to Russia’s presence.
The ultimate test of the CST efficiency came in 1999 when a group of insurgents associated with the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) crossed the frontier from Afghanistan (patrolled by Russian
border guards) and made a raid through Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to the Ferghana Valley. Russian
officials denied military assistance to the government of Kyrgyzstan, which allowed the insurgents to
escape and return again the next year. The impotence of the CST was accentuated by Uzbekistan’s
withdrawal from the treaty in May 1999.
The failure of Yeltsin’s military strategy in Central Asia stemmed from the miscalculation of threats to
the region. Russia’s apprehensions about the expansionist intentions of foreign powers proved utterly
unfounded in the

< previous page page_157 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_157.html[27.08.2009 12:59:34]
page_158

< previous page page_158 next page >

Page 158
eyes of Central Asians. Writing in 1996, Nazarbayev’s national security adviser attacked the ‘myth of
the Chinese threat’ propounded by Moscow and continued:
The Central Asian countries have no manifestations of pan-Turkic and pan-Islamist solidarity … Iran
is not and will not be a source of military threat for the states of Central Asia … contacts with NATO
are expanding, and joint programmes are being realized in the security sphere.27
Even the Taliban regime in Afghanistan turned out to be a straw bogeyman. Moscow was preparing
to defend the region from an external aggression by another state. When it didn’t eventuate, Russian
services were no longer needed, and the Kremlin had little to offer to the local regimes by way of
mobile and professional forces capable of dealing with the real danger of Islamist insurgents.28
Another area where Russian performance in securing stability in Central Asia was below par involved
transnational organized crime, especially drug trafficking. Multiple agreements on combating narcotics
were signed within the CIS, but hardly any of these went into effect. Russian border guards who
stayed in Turkmenistan and Tajikistan until 1999 and 2005 respectively turned out to be helpless in
stemming the ever increasing flow of drugs from Afghanistan. Most significantly, the emergence of
powerful drug lords in Tajikistan following the 1997 power-sharing agreement in that country
occurred with Russia’s connivance.29 Extremely high levels of addiction, an HIV epidemic putting
strain on the already struggling health systems, rampant criminality and endemic corruption have
been some of the more pernicious effects of the narcotics business in the region, undermining its
stability.30
Russia has been hit by drugs originating from Afghanistan as well. Eighty per cent of heroin
consumed in Russia comes through Central Asia. The official (and much understated) number of
addicts in the country has risen fourfold since 1990, and seizures of heroin have increased from 6.5kg
to 2,093kg between 1995 and 2000.31 In a fit of panic and desperation, the Russian Government
Commission on Combating Narcotics in 2001 suggested abandoning the unwinnable fight in Central
Asia and erecting a cordon sanitaire on the border with Kazakhstan.
In sum, the official Russian strategy of maintaining peace and stability in Central Asia based on
integration of the CIS under Russian hegemony could not and did not work. From the start Russian
understanding of security threats and the means to counter them was at variance with the vision of
the Central Asian leaders. Russia did not have sufficient financial, technological or even military
resources to carry out the role of a universal protector and benefactor in the region. Moscow’s
insistence on the exclusivity of its sphere of national interests, exacerbated by the reappearance of
Cold War-like paranoia about US activities around the Caspian basin, denied it an option

< previous page page_158 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_158.html[27.08.2009 12:59:34]
page_159

< previous page page_159 next page >

Page 159
of sharing the load with other parties. Interestingly, some Russian observers towards the end of the
Yeltsin period began to intimate that the West was encouraging Russia to follow its existing flawed
policy: ‘The West is interested in Russia’s sinking deeper into the ungrateful, laborious and
unpredictable job of maintaining an acceptable level of stability in Central Asia.’32 The implication
was that while Russia exhausted itself acting as a gendarme in the region, Western powers would
reap economic benefits from its vast natural resources. While such conspiracy theories did not gain
much currency in the Kremlin, Russian policy-makers were in dire need to rethink their approaches
to Central Asian stability as the twenty-first century dawned.
The 9/11 interlude
As Vladimir Putin assumed the presidency of the Russian Federation, nothing suggested a dramatic
change of course. In 2000 three important documents outlining the new leadership’s vision for the
Near Abroad and Central Asia in particular were published. They showed a great deal of continuity
with the preceding era, and at the same time demonstrated a shift in accents and priorities. Attempts
of other states to ‘weaken Russia’s positions’ in sensitive regions including Central Asia were
identified as a national security threat in the National Security Concept. This time around it was the
USA and NATO, and not Iran and Turkey, who were named as the main culprits. The change of
guard among the ‘bad guys’ was not Putin’s initiative. It simply captured the mood of the last years
of Yeltsin’s presidency.
The Foreign Policy Concept continued to refer to the CIS as the best mechanism to implement the
national security tasks of the country, with a special emphasis on settling conflicts in the former
Soviet republics. However, it also spoke about ‘different-speed and different-level integration’, which
was a subtle departure from the one-size-fits-all attitude of Boris Yeltsin. The Military Doctrine played
down the possibility of direct foreign aggression. It singled out a ‘humanitarian intervention’
bypassing the UN and international law as the most likely conventional military threat – an obvious
allusion to the NATO campaign in the Balkans in 1999. It then proceeded to name terrorist structures
and extreme separatist, nationalist and religious organizations, combined with transnational drug and
arms trafficking syndicates, as the greatest danger for Russia and its allies. The Doctrine envisaged
the creation of Russian military bases abroad to ensure prompt reaction to the threats outlined
above. This clause was not present in the 1993 Doctrine. Thus it appears that on the doctrinal level
Russia’s official assessment of factors of instability in its ‘soft underbelly’ became more realistic and
calibrated, while retaining its hegemonic tenor.
One circumstance did set Yeltsin and Putin apart rather dramatically. The former could never
overcome the mentality of a tsar or a General Secretary, clinging instinctively to the fading imperial
grandeur. The latter, a quintessential technocrat with no ideological baggage of Soviet-style politics,
could

< previous page page_159 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_159.html[27.08.2009 12:59:35]
page_160

< previous page page_160 next page >

Page 160
adapt to the changing situation rapidly and map out a new course that was in synch with the wishes
of the region’s leaders, resulting in a much more informed and nuanced approach to stability in
Central Asia. As Martha Brill Olcott has observed, Putin started by ‘winning favour with his Central
Asian colleagues by treating each of the region’s presidents more like his equal than Yeltsin had ever
done’.33
However, the opportunity to break away from the Procrustean bed of musty doctrines as far as
Russian policy in Central Asia was concerned did not arise from listening to the ‘philosopher-kings’ of
the region. It came in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the USA. Overcoming the age-old
stereotypes and resistance from the conservative military-intelligence circles, Putin opted for close
cooperation with the Bush Administration to ensure stability in Central Asia. The period between late
2001 and March 2003 was a rare juncture when all Central Asian states, Russia and the USA were in
agreement about the security needs of the region and worked in unison to destroy Islamic radicals
and normalize the situation in Afghanistan.
The joint declaration of Putin and Bush after the Moscow summit on 24 May 2002 read:
In Central Asia and the South Caucasus, we recognize our common interest in promoting the
stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of all the nations of this region. The United States and
Russia reject the failed model of ‘Great Power’ rivalry that can only increase the potential for conflict
in those regions. We will support economic and political development and respect for human rights
while we broaden our humanitarian cooperation and cooperation on counterterrorism and
counternarcotics.34
Now it was the USA’s turn to carry out the ‘ungrateful, laborious and unpredictable job’ of policing
the region. NATO troops were deployed in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. So long as
Washington objectively contributed to stability in Central Asia, the Kremlin was prepared to forgo its
erstwhile efforts at hegemony: ‘Tashkent’s decision to place itself squarely under the patronage of
Washington, accompanied by the deployment of American forces in Uzbekistan, was accepted by
Putin.’35 Simultaneously, the Russian leadership disengaged from the CIS project. The process had
reached its natural conclusion by 2005, when Putin announced that the organization ‘was created for
a civilized divorce … If somebody expected of the CIS any particular achievements in the sphere of
economy, in political, military cooperation, then, naturally, this did not happen because this could not
happen.’36
A highly influential Moscow-based think tank, the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (CFDP),
released a discussion paper entitled ‘New Security Challenges and Russia’ in November 2002.37
Praising Putin for using effectively the ‘fortuitous opportunity’ accorded by the War on Terror (a feat
that it

< previous page page_160 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_160.html[27.08.2009 12:59:35]
page_161

< previous page page_161 next page >

Page 161
ascribed to CFDP’s sage advice), it recommended further pragmatism and selectivity in relations with
the Near Abroad. It also provided a new assessment of threats to stability in Central Asia. In addition
to the obvious dangers of terrorism and extremism, it focused on the notion of ‘failing states’.
However, far from attributing this failure to the lack of democracy as the West was wont to do, it
argued that the incumbent regimes were losing control owing to traditional ‘pre-globalization’ factors.
A former official from the Presidential Archive in Kazakhstan, who later became an adviser to the
Russian Duma, deciphered this rather vague message: ‘One should clearly understand that in today’s
Central Asia the determining factor of power consists of clannish tribalism … The trend is towards an
organic morphing of the formal presidential republics into the informal khanates.’38 His advice was to
support the incumbents, albeit in a pragmatic manner, without onerous long-term commitments. A
similar suggestion came from a former Russian diplomat in Tashkent:
Obviously, we should not borrow American tactics of emphasis on the human rights issue yet we
should not reject contacts with prominent opposition leaders. Normally, in Central Asia opposition is
latent, therefore we should use our contacts with the regional and clan figures.39
Putin took all this on board. References to ‘political development and respect for human rights’
continued to appear in his speeches; yet they began to mean something quite different from the
Western liberal interpretation. The ultimate result was the correction of the security condominium
with the US in Central Asia.
In search of a pragmatic balance: the democracy redux and multilateralism
In 2003 signs began to appear that the Central Asians were not happy with the US performance as a
guarantor of stability. While all five nations endorsed the US-led campaign in Afghanistan in 2001,
only Uzbekistan welcomed the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. All others joined ranks with France,
Germany and Russia in calling for the cessation of violence and UN involvement. Their reasoning was
straightforward: the war in Iraq would undermine the process of normalization in Afghanistan. The
Taliban may have been ousted from power, but in the opinion of the Central Asian leaders security
threats associated with radical Islamist groups and drug trafficking had not been fully resolved and
had in fact gained in acuteness. The head of the Institute of Strategic Studies (KISI), a top think
tank attached to the President of Kazakhstan, summarized these sentiments:
If the campaign in Iraq becomes prolonged, in all likelihood the situation in Afghanistan will be put
even more in the background. And this is

< previous page page_161 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_161.html[27.08.2009 12:59:36]
page_162

< previous page page_162 next page >

Page 162
fraught with a series of negative outcomes … inevitably affecting the situation in the Central Asian
region.40
Furthermore, the Bush Administration repeated the two mistakes of Boris Yeltsin. Despite calls for a
‘Marshall Plan for Central Asia’ inside the US and the region, its attempts to create a security system
in Central Asia were not accompanied by a large-scale programme of economic development. An
even bigger blunder was the American policy-makers’ conviction that they had the right and the
ability to prescribe the rules of domestic politics to the local elites.
The ruling elites of the region tolerated, absorbed and deflected criticism by the West of their
dubious record of human rights violations, suppression of civic freedoms, and endemic corruption.
This was the price they were prepared to pay for security. However, when Washington started to
export its preferred model of liberalization, directly contributing to regime change in the former
Soviet Union, its image as a harbinger of stability quickly turned into that of a major source of
instability. A chain of so-called ‘Coloured Revolutions’ began in Georgia in 2003, continued in Ukraine
in 2004, and finally reached Kyrgyzstan in March 2005. None of them represented a mass
spontaneous movement aimed at destroying corrupt authoritarianism. Using the discourse of
democracy, factions from the already existing elite came to power without the slightest desire to
change the rules of the political game. Even President Islam Karimov started to have second
thoughts about the utility of a strategic partnership with the United States: ‘Because it did not take
into account the situation on the ground, the rapid democratization that was ever more persistently
demanded by Uzbekistan’s Western partners carried with it the risk of severe destabilization.’41
The riots in Andijan in Uzbekistan in May 2005 were also interpreted by the Central Asian leaders as
an attempt at a coup d’état inspired from abroad. In the assessment of KISI, ‘The events in
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan demonstrated how destructive an abrupt change of power can be.
Indeed, these experiments showed the extent to which the West is expediting the spread of the
“coloured revolutions”.’42 The panic mood of the Kazakh leadership in anticipation of the upcoming
presidential elections, which might have been used to trigger yet another coup, seeped through a
statement from a high-ranking Kazak official from the department of the State Chancellor: ‘The ruling
elite, acting not in the interests of staying in power but in the interests of ensuring national security
and territorial integrity of the state, not only has the right but is obliged to use coercive means at its
disposal.’43
The concerns of the Central Asian leaders were shared by Russia. The common perception of the
‘coloured revolutions’ as a threat formed a new pivot for Moscow’s thinking about regional stability.
In his state of the nation address in April 2005, Putin made a programmatic statement: ‘Russia
should continue its civilizing mission on the Eurasian continent. This mission consists in ensuring that
democratic values, combined with national interests, enrich and strengthen our historic
community.’44 Thus the USA was denied a

< previous page page_162 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_162.html[27.08.2009 12:59:36]
page_163

< previous page page_163 next page >

Page 163
monopoly on interpreting what constitutes ‘democratic values’, and a message was sent to the
Central Asian leaders that they can count on Russia’s understanding and support in their historically
distinct Eurasian path of state-building.
The Putin doctrine?
The operationalization of the new ‘Putin Doctrine’ for Central Asia is still under way.45 As always,
there are various schools of thought and interest groups debating the most practical ways to ensure
stability in the region in the changed conditions. Nonetheless, an official consensus on the nature of
threats has been reached. It has been well captured by Gennadii Chufrin, an influential academic
close to the Kremlin:
The events in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have confirmed that challenges to the existing order in the
Central Asian countries stem not just from the forces of Islamic extremism and international
terrorism, but also from the USA, which has embarked upon the path of the export of democracy and
direct support of the ‘coloured revolutions’.46
Chufrin continued his analysis with a list of factors that make the region vulnerable to these threats:
• poverty
• fragmented elites
• military weakness
Stanislav Chernyavsky, Deputy Director of the 1st Department (the CIS countries) of the Foreign
Ministry of Russia, has spelled out basic principles of addressing domestic sources of instability in
Central Asia as follows:
The Russian strategy must rest on sound pragmatism stemming from the country’s relatively limited
foreign-policy resources. These resources must concentrate on key areas, above all, on security, the
creation of favourable conditions for economic growth, and the protection of the rights of Russian
citizens and ethnic Russians living in the region.47
Pragmatism, deference to the opinion of the Central Asians, and multilateralism involving
international partners (insofar as it does not undermine stability) are the catch cries of the emerging
Russian line for the time being.
The economic sphere
Poverty reduction is regarded as a key element of the overall strategy to maintain order in the
region. Unless it is accomplished, combating such ills as

< previous page page_163 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_163.html[27.08.2009 12:59:37]
page_164

< previous page page_164 next page >

Page 164
narcotics, extremism and terrorism would be futile. In sharp contrast to the Yeltsin period, forced
economic reintegration is not on the Kremlin’s agenda. Projects such as the Eurasian Economic
Commonwealth (EurAsEC) and Single Economic Space (SES) are extremely slow-moving and boil
down to the harmonization of trade tariffs. Investment from Russia is a much more efficient tool.
Again, unlike the 1990s, the flow of capital to Central Asia does not pursue the goal of political
hegemony and is not orchestrated by officials: ‘the only sector in which we found much evidence of
Russian government involvement in foreign investment decisions by Russian companies was in the
energy sector, and even here investments appear to have been driven by corporate rather than
government motives.’48
The congruence of interests of the newly confident and cash-rich Russian business, the Kremlin and
the Central Asian leaders has led to impressive results. The arrival of RusAl, RAO EES, and Gazprom
in Tajikistan has injected US$2 billion into its struggling economy as of 2006, and will ensure a
dynamic development of the impoverished republic’s core industries, i.e. aluminium production and
hydropower generation, for decades to come.49
Another area where Russia could make a difference for many Central Asians living in poverty is
labour migration. There are some one million guest workers from the region staying in Russia at any
given time, and their remittances are vitally important for sustaining a decent quality of life back
home.50 While on a visit to Tajikistan in 2003, Putin pledged to expedite and regularize labour
migration and improve living conditions for migrants, primarily through reducing red tape and police
arbitrariness.
The political sphere
Vladimir Lukin, a veteran of Russian diplomacy and presently the country’s Human Rights
Commissioner, has mapped out Moscow’s official attitude to domestic politics in Central Asia:
Russia’s experience of dealing with Central Asia is unique in many respects; therefore, the Russian
Federation should encourage the secular regimes there by working toward good-neighbourly relations
in the region and practical approaches to the social and economic problems, the main catalysts of
regional instability. We should bear in mind, however, that excessively harsh domestic policies
preferred by some of the regional regimes as well as thoughtless ‘games at democracy’ are fraught …
with outbursts of radicalism and extremism. Our encouragement of the openly authoritarian regimes
should be conditioned by their step-by-step movement toward a more open and less repressive
government.51
In order to allay the fears of the incumbent rulers about the extent and content of Moscow’s
pressure, as well as the speed of the required change,

< previous page page_164 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_164.html[27.08.2009 12:59:37]
page_165

< previous page page_165 next page >

Page 165
President Putin has put in place important caveats and intimated that political exchange would go
both ways:
We would like to achieve synchronization of the pace and parameters of reform processes under way
in Russia and the other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. We are ready to
draw on the genuinely useful experience of our neighbours and also to share with them our own
ideas and the results of our work.52
All things considered, the Russian leader has spoken in favour of a gradual authoritarian withdrawal
towards some form of guided (limited, electoral, etc.) democracy.
Moscow has undertaken steps to preclude the use of alleged voting irregularities as a trigger for
regime change. One major innovation has been the creation of a plethora of international election
observer missions under the auspices of the CIS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).
As one Russian official has explained, ‘Unfortunately, the activity of [Western] observers is being
increasingly used both by opposition forces within a particular state and by foreign “champions of
democracy” as a tool for exerting political pressure within that country.’53
Since 2000, the Kremlin has tried for the first time to project ‘soft power’ across Central Asia in
earnest. The Russian-sponsored Slavic Universities in Bishkek and Dushanbe are now prestigious
tertiary institutions churning out future elites. The former was chosen by 186 out of 200 top school
leavers in Kyrgyzstan to continue their education in 2003.
In May 2005 an inconspicuous non-profit organization called the Institute of Eurasian Studies (IES)
was registered in Moscow. Its chartered objective is ‘to restore and develop cultural, humanitarian
and educational ties among the former republics of the USSR, belonging to the historic Eurasian
space.’54 The IES appears to have unlimited (if opaque) funding. It has set up local branches not
only in capital cities but also provincial towns in Central Asia. Its activities include cultural events,
scholarships, building up libraries – as well as giving friendly advice to the region’s officials on
constitutional law and public administration – and developing modern civic society. It also supports
moderate opposition, such as the Democratic Movement of Kyrgyzstan. The IES regularly
commissions high-quality sociological surveys, which enables it to monitor public opinion on the
ground closely. The spectrum and depth of the IES operations approximate those of the USAID-
sponsored NGOs – perhaps it has been designed as a counterweight to the latter.
Moscow has acknowledged the importance of proactive work with ethnic Russians in the Near
Abroad. A special department has been set up within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards this end.
According to its director, ‘Russia’s strategic goal is aimed at turning its compatriots into law-abiding
citizens of their countries, enjoying full rights and actively promoting

< previous page page_165 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_165.html[27.08.2009 12:59:37]
page_166

< previous page page_166 next page >

Page 166
Russia’s interests.’55 Between 2002 and 2005, the relevant appropriation in the federal budget
increased by 235 per cent.
The military and security sphere
Moscow’s multilateral approach to maintaining Central Asia’s stability is most salient in the
military/security area. It currently operates two military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the status
and responsibilities of which are clearly defined. Speaking about the latter, the Duma’s Defence
Committee Chairman, Mikhail Babich, named ‘the protection of the most important objects in
Tajikistan, assistance to the armed forces of that country in case of an armed conflict and/or an
incursion by terrorist or bandit groups from adjacent territories’ as the Russian troops’ main tasks.56
This is precisely the guarantee that the local leaders wished to hear, lest the IMU raids of 1999 and
2000 occur again. At the same time, Babich denied the possibility of opening other bases in the
region, although such provisions exist, for example, in the 2004 Agreement on Strategic Partnership
between Russia and Uzbekistan.
In general, bilateral and region-wide military pacts involving Russia and the Central Asian states
(such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization) are much more concrete and businesslike in
tone than their predecessors in the 1990s. The above-mentioned 2004 Agreement prioritizes the
deliveries of Russian armaments, training of Uzbek officers, and joint exercises.
Moscow’s strategy since 2001 has been to share policing duties in Central Asia with the USA and
China. The former retains a base in Kyrgyzstan, and the latter is a dominant member of the SCO,
which has a counterterrorist and intelligence component. This arrangement has generated fierce
internal criticism in Russia. Sergei Karaganov, CFDP Chairman of the Board, defended Putin’s current
policy, citing commonality of interests in securing the region. He also attacked ‘the parrots of the
Cold War who, because of senility, stupidity or self-interest keep croaking on both sides about a
“fight over Central Asia” and see in each step a “victory” or a “defeat”’.57
Dealing with China
Pragmatic engagement with China has been a hallmark of Putin’s strategy in Central Asia. When
anxiety about Beijing’s intentions is observed among the top brass in the Russian army and security
establishment,58 this reflects wishful thinking on the part of Western analysts rather than the
Kremlin’s official line. In the words of a top-ranking Russian diplomat, ‘one may state that the
relations between the two countries have reached an unprecedentedly high level. They have no
major irritants, nor is the emergence of any such irritants on the cards in the future.’59
The emerging Sino-Russian compact in the region is grounded in the complementarity of objectives
and threat perceptions. China’s strategic interests

< previous page page_166 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_166.html[27.08.2009 12:59:38]
page_167

< previous page page_167 next page >

Page 167
in Central Asia have been clearly formulated: containment of separatism in Xinjiang; securing Central
Asia as a stable and friendly rearguard; and promotion of trade, especially in energy resources.60 So
long as Beijing does not go beyond this essentially conservative agenda Moscow has no problems
with any of the above. Indeed, its position concerning the Uyghur question has been very close to
that of the Chinese government, which expedited the creation and continuous functioning of the
SCO.61 In 2000, Russia handed over two Uyghur mujahideen captured in Chechnya to the Chinese
authorities.
The SCO’s consensual treatment of Uyghur separatism, Chechen insurgency and Central Asian
Islamist opposition as elements of a global terrorist network found its institutional embodiment in
2004 when the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) was launched under its auspices. Situated in
Tashkent, it is charged with tracking regional terrorist activities, sharing intelligence and advising
members about counterterrorist policies. In March 2006 RATS held its first anti-terrorist exercises in
Uzbekistan with all SCO member-states participating.
The success of RATS also highlights the limits of China’s power in the region. It is the only specialized
permanent body of the SCO (apart from a tiny Secretariat) currently in existence. Neither Russia nor
the Central Asian republics have been keen to embrace initiatives at greater political, economic and
security cooperation floated, rather tentatively, by China. Russia does not want to share fully its
newly acquired leadership role, while the Central Asians still feel apprehensive about their neighbour
to the East. According to a 2005 sociological survey, 84 per cent of Kyrgyz citizens viewed Russia as
a ‘friend’, while China topped the list of ‘enemies’ with 23 per cent; 74 per cent of those polled
objected to the presence of Chinese troops on Kyrgyz soil under any circumstances.62 The Central
Asian countries are happy to pursue free trade and massive development projects with Russia.
However, when it comes to opening economically to China, they ‘are likely to want to apply the
brakes and channel as many benefits as possible through direct bilateral investments for some
time’.63
In summary, Russia and the Central Asian states consider China as an important ally in preserving
the political status quo in the region against internal opposition (especially of the extremist
persuasion) and external pressures for regime change. They grow rich from trade with China, but
maintain protectionist barriers. In return, Beijing receives support in its efforts to pacify its
troublesome Western provinces. ‘China is afraid to encroach on the domineering influence of Russia,’
opined its former Ambassador to Moscow, Li Fenlin: ‘Taking into account the self-awareness of the
region’s countries as newly independent states, China has been avoiding actions which might be
interpreted as imposing its will upon these countries’.64 It is difficult to predict for how long this
balance of interests will persist. A well-informed Kazak analyst has forecast that by 2020 China will
eclipse Russia and acquire a hegemonic position in the region, primarily through ‘economic and

< previous page page_167 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_167.html[27.08.2009 12:59:38]
page_168

< previous page page_168 next page >

Page 168
demographic methods’.65 It is unclear whether Moscow has a contingency plan for such an
eventuality.
Conclusion
Official Russian thinking on Central Asian stability has travelled a long way. As a subset of Moscow’s
general foreign policy strategy, it followed the latter’s twists and turns with unfailing regularity.
However, with the exception of the first couple of years after the USSR’s dissolution, it has been
founded on recognition of the fact that order, internal peace and absence of conflicts in this region
are vitally important for Russia’s own security.
In the final analysis, all the issues covered above can be reduced to one question – ‘What does
Russia want from the Central Asian republics?’ According to Konstantin Kosachev, Chairman of the
Duma Committee on International Relations, the answer is ‘loyalty, friendship, good neighbourly
relations, continued economic ties and secure borders’.66 The present course of Putin’s government
seems to be well suited to achieve these objectives. However, it is not set in stone; it hasn’t even
been codified in a concise doctrine. Demands for greater certainty, transparency and continuity in
Moscow’s official position vis-à-vis Central Asia are on the rise from the region: ‘Sooner or later
Russia will have to formulate the principal foundations of its policy more cogently ... It cannot regard
the countries of Central Asia in the same category as other CIS states. A special approach is required
here.’67 Whether Russia stays the present course, lapses into neo-imperialism or withdraws into
isolationism depends on many internal and external factors, which warrant separate and thorough
investigation beyond the scope of this study.
Notes
1 ‘What foreign policy Russia should pursue’, International Affairs (Moscow) , 1993, no. 2, 3–21.
2 U.T. Kasenov, Tsentralnaia Aziia i Rossiia: ternistyi put’ k ravnopravnym otnosheniiam , Almaty:
KISI, 1994, p. 10.
3 Yeltsin’s bodyguard, Alexander Korzhakov, related an incident from 1992 when Yeltsin performed a
musical number with a spoon on the head of Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev (Alexander Korzhakov,
Boris Yeltsin: ot rassveta do zakata . Moscow: Interbuk, 1997, p. 82.) Such behaviour was
reminiscent of the relationship between the omnipotent Tsar and a court jester.
4 Mark Khrustalev, Tsentralnaia Aziia vo vneshnei politike Rossii , Moscow: Tsentr mezhdunarodnykh
issledovanii MGIMO, 1994, p. 6.
5 Vladimir Lukin, ‘Russia and its interests’, in Stephen Sestanovich (ed.) Rethinking Russia’s National
Interests , Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1994, p. 106–15.
6 Michael Mandelbaum, ‘The reluctance to intervene’, Foreign Policy , 1994, issue 95, 3–18.
7 Alexei Malashenko, ‘The Islamic factor in relations between Russia and Central Asia’, in Roald
Sagdeev and Susan Eisenhower (eds) Islam and Central Asia: An

< previous page page_168 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_168.html[27.08.2009 12:59:39]
page_169

< previous page page_169 next page >

Page 169
Enduring Legacy or an Evolving Threat?, Washington, DC: Center for Political and Strategic Studies,
2000, pp. 155–69.
8 Rossiia – SNG: nuzhdaetsia li v korrektirovke pozitsiia Zapada? , Moscow: Sluzhba vneshnei
razvedki, 1994.
9 ‘Russian National Security Blueprint’, FBIS-SOV-97–364 , 30 December 1997. Online. Available
HTTP: <http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/blueprint.html> (accessed 31 October 2008).
10 V. Baranovskii, ‘Rossiia i ee blizhaishee okruzhenie: konflikty i usiliia po ikh regulirovaniiu’,
Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 1996, no. 1, 46–55.
11 Alexei Vasilyev, ‘Russia and the Central Asian countries of the CIS’, Russia and the Moslem World ,
1999, vol. 86, no. 8, 23–5.
12 V.A. Gustov, V.Kh. Manko, ‘Sokhranit’ nyneshnee polozhenie v Sodruzhestve Nezavisimykh
Gosudarstv – znachit lishit’ ego perspektivy’, Problemy sovremennoi ekonomiki , 2003, vol. 6, no. 2.
Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.m-economy.ru/art.php3?artid=16458> (accessed 13 November
2008).
13 S.V. Zhukov and O.V. Reznikova, Tsentralnaia Aziia v sotsialno-ekonomicheskikh strukturakh
sovremennogo mira , Moscow: Moskovskii obshchestvennyi nauchnyi fond, 2001, p. 206.
14 L.Z. Zevin, N.A. Ushakova, ‘Rossiia i Tsentralnaia Aziia: ekonomicheskie otnosheniia’, Vostok
(Oriens) , 2005, no. 2, 77–89.
15 For details of the discussions on the issue within the Russian government, see Alexander A.
Pikayev, ‘The Russian domestic debate on policy toward the “Near Abroad”’, in Lena Jonson and Clive
Archer (eds) Peacekeeping and the Role of Russia in Eurasia , Boulder: Westview Press, 1996, pp.
51–6.
16 Zhukov and Reznikova, Tsentralnaia Aziia , p. 230.
17 Deklaratsiia o vechnoi druzhbe i sotrudnichestve. Online. Available HTTP: <http://
www.russia.kz/dis.html> (accessed 31 October 2008).
18 A think tank associated with the Russian Foreign Ministry advised as early as September 1992 that
‘Russia must use its influence to assist in the smooth transformation of the Central Asian states’
political structures in order to establish cooperation between the main competing groupings of the
ruling elite and the opposition.’ (TsMI MGIMO, Sodruzhestvo nezavisimykh gosudarstv: protsessy i
perspektivy . Moscow: MGIMO, 1992, p. 13.)
19 T. Koichuev, Postsovetskaia Tsentralnaia Aziia: Sostoianie, poisk puti, vozmozhnosti, Almaty: KISI,
1994, p. 13.
20 This mood was clearly captured by an extensive sociological survey conducted by the US Institute
of Peace in Kazakstan and Uzbekistan in 1993–4: the absolute majority of respondents showed
strong support for authoritarian presidents so long as they guaranteed order and stability – ‘there
were no obvious alternatives to challenge their power.’ See Nancy Lubin, ‘Leadership in Uzbekistan
and Kazakhstan: the Views of the Led’, in Timothy J. Colton and Robert C. Tucker (eds) Patterns in
Post-Soviet Leadership , Boulder: Westview Press, 1995, pp. 217–34. Another study of public opinion
in Kazakstan revealed that only 21.3 per cent of the population believed that democracy can resolve
the country’s social problems, while 44 per cent did not have trust in it. See R.K. Kadyrzhanov,
‘Voprosy demokratizatsii v obshchestvennom mnenii kazakhstanttsev’, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia ,
2001, no. 12, 41–6.
21 For a detailed discussion of the philosophical views of Central Asian leaders on the nature of
power and authority, see Kirill Nourzhanov, ‘Nursultan Nazarbaev, the visionary president of
Kazakstan’, Russian and Euro-Asian Bulletin , 1998, vol. 7, no. 4, 1–5.
22 In 1995, ethnic Russians numbered 6.2 million in Kazakstan and 3.3 million in other Central Asian
republics. S. Savoskul, ‘Rossiia i russkie v blizhnem zarubezh’e’, Etnopoliticheskii vestnik , 1995, no. 3,
129–40.

< previous page page_169 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_169.html[27.08.2009 12:59:39]
page_170

< previous page page_170 next page >

Page 170
23 ‘V Rossii obsuzhdaiut fenomen Kazakhstana’, Rossiia i musulmanskii mir, 1998, vol. 72, no. 6, 74.
24 Nikolai Gunkin, ‘Opasnost’ zakliuchaetsia ne v voine, a v samoobmane, kotoryi opravdyvaet
nereshitelnost’ rossiiskoi vlasti’, Shturm , 1996, no. 3, 31–7.
25 The basic provisions of the military doctrine of the Russian Federation. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/russia-mil-doc.html> (accessed 31 October 2008).
26 A concise analysis of interstate conflict potential in Central Asia can be found in: International
Crisis Group, ‘Central Asia: Border disputes and conflict potential’, Asia Report, 2002, no. 33, 4 April.
27 Umirserik Kasenov, ‘Tsentralnaia Aziia: natsionalnye I regionalnye aspekty bezopasnosti’,
Kazakhstan i mirovoe soobshchestvo , 1996, no. 1, 21–35.
28 Roy Allison highlights the absence of trained personnel and commitments to the North Caucasus
theatre as major operational constraints on Russian military activities in the Near Abroad. See Roy
Allison, ‘The military background and context to Russian peacekeeping’, in Lena Jonson and Clive
Archer (eds) Peacekeeping and the Role of Russia in Eurasia , Boulder: Westview Press, 1996, pp.
33–50.
29 For details, see Kirill Nourzhanov, ‘Saviours of the nation or robber-barons? Warlord politics in
Tajikistan’, Central Asian Survey, 2005, vol. 24, no. 2, 109–30.
30 See International Crisis Group, ‘Central Asia: Drugs and conflict’, Asia Report, 2001, no. 25, 26
November.
31 ‘Kratkii obzor itogov raboty, iiul’ 1999 – iiul’ 2001’, Net Narkotikam . Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.narkotiki.ru/research_2227o.html> (accessed 31 October 2008).
32 Zhukov and Reznikova, Tsentralnaia Aziia , p. 410.
33 Martha Brill Olcott, Central Asia’s Second Chance, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 2005, p. 61.
34 The White House, The President’s trip to Europe and Russia . Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020524–2.html> (accessed 31 October
2008).
35 Boris Rumer, ‘The powers in Central Asia’, Survival , 2002, vol. 44, no. 3, 57–68.
36 ‘SNG bylo zaprogrammirovano na raspad, zaiavil Putin’, Novosti Rossii , 25 March 2005. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.newsru.com/russia/ 25mar2005/doomed.html> (accessed 31 October
2008).
37 ‘New security challenges and Russia’, Russia in Global Affairs, no. 1, 2002. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/printver/453.html> (accessed 31 October 2008).
38 Vitalii Khliupin, ‘Kitai i Rossiia v bor’be za Tsentral’nuiu Aziiu’, Informatsionnoanaliticheskii bulleten’
stran SNG , 2001, no. 28. Online. Available HTTP: <http:// www.e-journal.ru/p_bzarub-st6–14.html>
(accessed 31 October 2008).
39 Dmitry Trofimov, ‘Russia and the United States in Central Asia: Problems, Prospects, and
Interests’, Central Asia and the Caucasus, 2003, vol. 19, no. 1. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.ca-c.org/online/2003/journal_eng/cac-01/ 09.troeng.shtml> (accessed 31 October
2008).
40 M.S. Ashimbaev, ‘Vyzovy i ugrozy bezopasnosti regiona v pervom desiatiletii XXI veka’, Analytic,
2003, no. 2, 2–10.
41 Vitaly Naumkin, ‘Uzbekistan’s state-building fatigue’, The Washington Quarterly, 2006, vol. 29, no.
3, 127–40.
42 M.T. Laumulin, ‘Novye geopoliticheskie factory i geopolitika Tsentralnoi Azii’, in A.Zh. Shomanov,
ed. Kitai, Rossiia, SshA: Interesy, pozitsii, strategii i vzaimootnosheniia v Tsentralnoi Azii na
sovremennom etape . Almaty: KISI, 2005, pp. 17–21.
43 M.E. Shaikhutdinov, ‘SShA, Kitai Rossiia v Tsentralnoi Azii: ot strategii sopernichestva – k strategii
sotrudnichestva’, in A.Zh. Shomanov (ed.) Kitai, Rossiia,

< previous page page_170 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_170.html[27.08.2009 12:59:40]
page_171

< previous page page_171 next page >

Page 171
SshA: Interesy, pozitsii, strategii i vzaimootnosheniia v Tsentralnoi Azii na sovremennom etape .
Almaty: KISI, 2005, pp. 32–7.
44 Vladimir Putin, ‘Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation’, President of
Russia Official Web Portal, 25 April 2005. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/text/speeches/2005/04/25/2031_type-70029type82912_87086.shtml>
(accessed 31October 2008).
45 A recent and informed analysis of competing views on foreign policy in Putin’s Russia can be
found in Yury E. Fedorov, ‘“Boffins” and “Buffoons”: Different strains of thought in Russia’s strategic
thinking’, Johnson’s Russia List , 2006, no. 125, 30 May.
46 G.I. Chufrin, ‘Zadachi povysheniia effektivnosti ShOS’, in B.K. Sultanov et al. (eds) ShOS i
problemy bezopasnosti v Tsentralnoi Azii . Almaty: KISI, 2005, pp. 14–19.
47 Stanislav Chernyavsky, ‘Central Asia in an era of change’, Russia in Global Affairs, 2006, no. 1.
Online. Available HTTP: <http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/14/ 1001.html> (accessed 31 October
2008).
48 Keith Crane, D.J. Peterson and Olga Oliker, ‘Russian investment in the Commonwealth of
Independent States’, Eurasian Geography and Economics , 2005, vol. 46, no. 6, 405–44.
49 Ivan Iniutin, ‘Russian strategy in Central Asia’, Central Asia and the Caucasus, 2006, vol. 38, no.
2, 27–36.
50 See Elena Tiuiukanova, ‘Denezhnye perevody migrantov v rossiiskom kontekste’, Pro et Contra,
2005, vol. 9, no. 1, 91–6.
51 Vladimir Lukin, ‘2005: Fewer illusions, more realism’, International Affairs (Moscow) , 2006, vol. 52,
no. 1, 74–5.
52 Putin, ‘Annual Address’.
53 Vladimir Gorovoi, ‘CIS election observer missions in Commonwealth States’, International Affairs
(Moscow) , 2005, vol. 52, no. 2, 79–87.
54 ‘Institut evraziiskikh issledovanii’, Sootechestvennik informatsionnyi portal. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://compatriot.su/about/iei/> (accessed 31 October 2008).
55 A.V. Chepurin, ‘Sootechestvenniki kak zarubezhnyi resurs’, Nezavisimaia gazeta , 13 February
2006.
56 Cited in Yuri Kotenok, ‘Bez Srednei Azii my stanem mladshim bratom’, Utro , 1 June 2006.
57 Sergei Karaganov, ‘O Rossii, SShA i Srednei Azii’, Rossiiskaia gazeta , 20 October 2005.
58 See, for example, Stephen Blank, ‘China in Central Asia: The hegemon in waiting?’, in Ariel Cohen
(ed.) Eurasia in Balance: The US and the Regional Power Shift, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005, pp. 149–
82.
59 Konstantin Vnukov, ‘Moscow-Beijing: New Vistas of Cooperation’, International Affairs (Moscow) ,
2006, vol. 52, no. 3, 40–45.
60 Zhao Huasheng, Kitai, Tsentralnaia Aziia i Shankhaiskaia Organizatsiia Sotrudnichestva . Moscow:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005, p. 31.
61 Pan Guang, ‘East Turkestan terrorism and the terrorist arc: China’s post-9/11 anti-terror strategy’,
The China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, 2006, vol. 4, no. 2, 19–24.
62 ‘Poll: main “enemies” of Kyrgyzstan are China and US’, 12 June 2005. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://regnum.ru/english/555319.html> (accessed 31 October 2008).
63 Ruslan Maksutov, The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: A Central Asian Perspective .
Stockholm: SIPRI, 2006, p. 29.
64 Quoted in Mikhail Kurnikov, ‘Kitai zainteresovan v stabilnosti v regione Tsentralnoi Azii’, Materik,
18 September 2006. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.materik.ru/print.php?
section=analitics&bulsectionid=15634>

< previous page page_171 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_171.html[27.08.2009 12:59:40]
page_172

< previous page page_172 next page >

Page 172
(accessed 31 October 2008).
65 M.T. Laumulin, ‘Geopoliticheskaia strategiia Kitaia i bezopasnost’ v Tsentralnoi Azii’, in B.K.
Sultanov et al. (eds) ShOS i problemy bezopasnosti v Tsentralnoi Azii . Almaty: KISI, 2005, pp. 33–47.
66 Konstantin Kosachev, ‘From the logic of the “near abroad” to the community of interests’,
International Affairs (Moscow) , 2005, vol. 51, no. 3, 85–91.
67 Shaikhutdinov, ‘SShA, Kitai Rossiia v Tsentralnoi Azii’, p. 34.

< previous page page_172 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_172.html[27.08.2009 12:59:40]
page_173

< previous page page_173 next page >

Page 173
9
‘Glocality’, ‘Silk Roads’ and new and little ‘great games’ in Xinjiang and Central Asia
Michael Clarke
Griffith Asia Institute
Don McMillen began this volume by outlining an analytical framework of ‘glocality’ that he suggested
was implicit to the essays of all contributors. It is now timely to revisit this idea not only in the
context of the specific issues explored and analysed by each of the contributors but also to explore
the broader themes that link what on the surface might appear to be disparate papers with discrete
concerns. His suggestion to begin thinking ‘glocally’ about the various geopolitical, political,
economic, diplomatic and cultural issues that were the focus of the contributors highlights the pre-
eminent theme that binds all the preceding essays together – the ‘apparent seamlessness between
the macro and the micro affairs of actors within Central Asia and Xinjiang’ and their subsequent
impact on regional and global ‘fields’. In this process, however, one particular issue appears to frame
all others – the issue of identity. What is striking in contemporary Xinjiang and Central Asia, and is
borne out in the contributions to this volume, is the simultaneous existence, evolution and
development of forms of identity from the individual to state to regional levels that often pull in
opposite directions.
One of particular importance, which the contributors have touched on in significant detail, concerns
conceptions or visions of ‘Central Asia’ from both outside and inside the region itself. Much of the
period since the watershed moment of the Soviet collapse of 1991 has witnessed attempts by both
the newly independent states of Central Asia and the dominant external players, Russia and China, to
come to grips with the political, economic and strategic consequences of this development. Questions
raised explicitly and implicitly in this regard have concerned, for example, whether one can speak of
‘Central Asia’ as a region, whether Xinjiang or Afghanistan are rightly encompassed by the term,
whether ‘Central Asia’ is the ‘pivot’ or ‘periphery’ of world history and whether ‘integration’ is
occurring between Xinjiang and Central Asia. Yet these questions are asked from an external
perspective in an attempt to establish knowledge of the region from the outside-in. A number of
contributors have dwelt upon this theme at length, particularly those concerned with the approaches
of the dominant external powers in the region, Russia, China and, in the post-11 September 2001
period, the US, and those concerned with a long-term historical perspective of the region’s place and

< previous page page_173 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_173.html[27.08.2009 12:59:41]
page_174

< previous page page_174 next page >

Page 174
role in world history. Indeed, the contributions of James Millward, Geoff Watson, Colin Mackerras and
Kirill Nourzhanov have highlighted the central role that such a re-visioning of the region by dominant
external powers has played in shaping their policies toward the region.
Complementing these approaches have been those contributions that have sought to provide a
perspective of the region from within. In this respect Ann McMillan and Ablet Kamalov’s chapters
have dwelt at length upon such issues as the underlying economic and political interdependency of
Xinjiang and Central Asia and the changing approach of the Soviet Union and the Central Asian states
to the Uyghur diaspora in Central Asia. These contributions highlight not only the increasing
interconnectivity across the region but also the impact of developments at the micro-level on the
macro-level and vice versa. Thus the chapters in this volume encompass perspectives that address,
in Don McMillen’s phrase, the ‘little and great “games”’ that are currently being played out in Xinjiang
and Central Asia. Prior to turning to discuss the significant interconnections between these little and
great games in Xinjiang and Central Asia it is useful to explore how the concept of ‘glocality’ can be
effectively deployed to help us develop new perspectives and understandings of the region’s
geopolitical, economic and cultural ‘realities’.
The dynamics of ‘Glocality’ in contemporary Xinjiang and Central Asia
‘All experience is local … We are always in place, and place is always with us.’1
Drawing on the scholarship of Roland Robertson and Robert Holton, Don McMillen reminded us in his
thoughtful introduction that many of the dominant themes of post-1991 developments in Xinjiang
and Central Asia addressed by the contributors – from great power politics, radical Islamism,
terrorism and ethnic nationalism to economic modernization – encompass actors and actions that are
often simultaneously local and global in origin and effect.2 More importantly, the reality of ‘glocality’
– the syncretic interpenetration of the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ – raises to the forefront the salience of
identity for scholars and other observers interested in developing an understanding of contemporary
Xinjiang and Central Asia. This dynamic operates at least at two levels: the state level and the
societal level. With respect to the state level, what emerges from the accounts of the dominant
external actors here, Russia, China and the US, is that the respective governments bring to the table
distinct visions or conceptions, firstly, of what the region currently is, and secondly, predispositions
as to what it should be in the future. Moreover, these visions and predispositions are embedded
within ongoing global debates and discourses about the shape and content of international ‘order’
that impinge directly upon Xinjiang and Central Asia, most notably those surrounding the ‘War on
Terror’, radical Islam and democratization.
Simultaneously, such dynamics and debates also play out at the local,

< previous page page_174 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_174.html[27.08.2009 12:59:41]
page_175

< previous page page_175 next page >

Page 175
societal level within the states of Central Asia and Xinjiang; witness the ‘Tulip Revolution’, the Andijan
Incident and the activities of Uyghur advocacy organizations in Central Asia and beyond, for example.
In this regard the reflection of Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks regarding the importance of identity,
noted in the opening chapter of this volume, is significant:
We live in the conscious presence of ‘difference’. In the street, at work and on the television screen
we constantly encounter cultures whose ideas and ideals are unlike ours. That can be experienced as
a profound threat to identity … Religion is one of the great answers to the question of identity. But
that, too, is why we face danger. Identity divides. The very process of creating an ‘Us’ involves
creating a ‘Them’ – people not like ourselves.3
While Rabbi Sacks’ reflection is directly concerned with one particular form of identity – religious
identity – it nonetheless rings true not only for political, cultural and social identities within a given
nation state but also across nation states. Indeed, Geoff Watson’s chapter in particular identified the
lingering predisposition of external actors, particularly Western ones, not only to objectify the region
and its peoples in civilizational terms but then to use this as a justification for intervention in the
region. That is to juxtapose their self-identity against that of the perceived other in Central Asia.
Thus, the discourse of Social Darwinism and ‘oriental despotism’ of the late nineteenth century
justified British and Russian attempts to ‘tame’ Central Asia and its peoples, while the contemporary
post-Cold War and post-11 September 2001 discourse of ‘state failure’ and ‘Islamic fundamentalism’
has guided the West’s re-engagement with and reintervention in Central Asia.
However, it is useful to note here that classical sociologists such as Charles Horton Cooley and
George Herbert Mead argued that identity, particularly self-identity, is a reflected concept.4 Thus,
according to this view, ‘we understand the social “meaning” of our behaviours and words as we
imagine how others are imagining us. The self develops through our perceptions of others’
perceptions.’5 This not only has implications for how external actors view the region and their actions
toward it, but also for those ‘within’ the region itself and for their actions toward external powers.
Thus, the development of the ‘looking glass self’, in Cooley’s terms, is not unidirectional in the
context of Central Asia either in the contemporary period or historically. For example, Michael
Clarke’s chapter clearly highlighted how ‘Central Asia’ was distinguished on the basis of the enduring
perception of the divergent life-ways of the pastoral nomadic peoples living ‘inside’ the region from
the sedentary and agricultural life-ways of those living ‘outside’. Of particular importance here is
Mead’s conception of ‘significant others’, which are defined as those with whom we have important
relationships and whose ‘imagined’ perceptions of us are particularly influential.6 As a number of
chapters in this volume have demonstrated, Xinjiang and Central Asia have had numerous

< previous page page_175 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_175.html[27.08.2009 12:59:42]
page_176

< previous page page_176 next page >

Page 176
‘significant others’ throughout history, from the relationship between the nomadic pastoralist and the
sedentary civilizations of the Eurasian core and periphery, to the imperial states of Russia and the
Qing, through to the contemporary web of relations between independent Central Asia and Russia,
China and the US. While Meyrowitz’s assertion that ‘place is always with us’ remains in many
respects a major factor in identity formation in contemporary Xinjiang and Central Asia, what appears
to be novel in the era of ‘glocality’ is that this sense of place and identity is often no longer the sole
definer of communities. ‘Glocality’ in many respects may be defined by this unbinding of place and
identity. As Meyrowitz suggests:
We are now more likely to understand our place, not just as the community, but as one of many
possible communities in which we could live. We are less likely to see our locality as the center of the
universe. We are less likely to see our physical surroundings as the source of all our experiences.7
This dynamic in the context of contemporary Xinjiang and Central Asia may perhaps be seen in the
resurgence or revitalization of Islam as a unifying force or rallying point for opposition and as a
vehicle through which to challenge the existing political and social orders. The post-11 September
2001 revelations of an, albeit small, Uyghur presence in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and Chinese
government charges of Uyghur collusion with radical Islamists in Central Asia suggests the continued
potential for cross-border interactions beyond the control of the state.8 Meanwhile, in key Central
Asian states such as Uzbekistan, much of the last decade has witnessed the existing political order
increasingly being challenged by the growth of radical Islamist organizations, both violent and non-
violent, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT).9 However, it is
important not to overstate this point in the Xinjiang and Central Asian context, as the region’s history
as a ‘crossroads’ between Europe and Asia has often had multiple identities and multiple reference
points for those identities beyond that of Islam.10
Nonetheless, post-9/11 dynamics suggest that Uyghurs in Xinjiang may increasingly look beyond
their immediate region, toward Western Europe and the US, for models of political activism and to
establish support for Uyghur autonomy or independence in Xinjiang. Instructive in this respect, and
emblematic of the ‘glocality’ outlined by Don McMillen’s chapter, was the response of prominent
Uyghurs to the ‘Tulip Revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan in 2005. As noted by a number of contributors, China
had exerted considerable influence on former Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev since the early 1990s to
keep a tight rein on the Uyghur émigré community in Kyrgyzstan. However, with his removal from
office in March 2005, Uyghurs hoped for greater freedom to promote the pro-separatist cause.11
Although the Tulip Revolution’s effect within Xinjiang is difficult to gauge at this juncture, it

< previous page page_176 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_176.html[27.08.2009 12:59:42]
page_177

< previous page page_177 next page >

Page 177
appears at the least to have served an exemplary purpose for the Uyghur. Such sentiment was
expressed by perhaps the most prominent Uyghur dissident now exiled in the US, businesswoman
Rebiya Kadeer. Kadeer stated that, ‘When I heard the news about what happened in Kyrgyzstan, I
was so excited ... Whatever happens to our brothers and sisters in Kyrgyzstan affects people in East
Turkistan’, clearly embedding Xinjiang and the Uyghur struggle for independence from Beijing within
the context of the contemporary ‘struggle’ for ‘democracy’ in Central Asia.12
More alarmingly for both the remaining authoritarian rulers of the Central Asian states and the
governments of Russia and China was the perceived role played by the US government in the last of
the so-called ‘Colour Revolutions’ in Kyrgyzstan that had also swept through Ukraine and Georgia.13
While Washington denied that its programme of ‘democracy promotion’ in Central Asia was aimed at
subverting either Russian or Chinese influence, it can hardly have been surprised at the adverse
reaction of both these powers to events in Kyrgyzstan.14 Such a perception on the part of the
remaining Central Asian rulers and Russia and China was of course reinforced by the subsequent
outbreak of the Andijan Incident in Uzbekistan in May 2005. As noted by Ann McMillan, the Uzbek
authorities clearly blamed US government-funded organizations for contributing in part to the unrest
of May 2005 while one external observer, Shirin Akiner, clearly questioned the prevailing opinion in
many Western media and government circles that the Andijan Incident was a cognate of the ‘Tulip
Revolution’.15
As these and other issues addressed by contributors demonstrate, the majority of developments in
Xinjiang and Central Asia encompass the interpenetration of the truly ‘global’ and ‘local’, with a
resulting cross-cutting of influences, interests, interpretations of events and outcomes for all actors
engaged in the region. In this sense it is possible to suggest that Xinjiang and Central Asia at
present can be conceived of as simultaneously the ‘pivot’ and ‘periphery’ in world history as it is
simultaneously assailed by multiple external powers and influences, while itself being a source of
major dynamics. It is at once an actor and acted upon on the historical stage. As argued in Michael
Clarke’s chapter, historically Central Asia as a region has often been defined by the nature of its
relationship to major civilizations on its periphery, most particularly those based in Russia and China.
Therefore it is necessary to address the interaction of the region with its ‘significant others’, with a
particular emphasis on the ways in which these external powers have framed their interests in
Xinjiang and Central Asia through their own overarching visions of ‘Central Asia’.
The ‘great games’ of Central Asia’s ‘significant others’: China, Russia and the United
States
As noted above, ‘significant others’ are those with whom we have important relationships and, more
importantly in the context of this section, those

< previous page page_177 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_177.html[27.08.2009 12:59:43]
page_178

< previous page page_178 next page >

Page 178
‘whose imagined views of us are especially powerful’.16 As explored by a number of contributors
such as Geoff Watson, James Millward, Colin Mackerras and Kirill Nourzhanov, the ‘imagined’ views of
Xinjiang and Central Asia that have come to dominate Western/US, Chinese and Russian thinking
about ‘Central Asia’ have had a significant impact in both defining their interests and shaping the
exercise of their influence in the region. Moreover, the dominant views of the region held by these
three ‘significant others’ also shape to a significant degree the ‘field of play’ upon which local actors
interact with ‘global’ processes. Ultimately, all of the various issues explored by the contributors, from
Central Asia’s role in world history to Beijing and Washington’s view of Central Asia, concern politics.
In this regard, however, Levy suggests that:
Globalization is probably the first major event that is reflexively thought of at the same time as, or
even before it is lived. Billions of people are now discussing what the world is, what it is becoming,
what it should and should not be, and what we can do to make it fit our desires. Unsurprisingly,
these intense discussions are mainly about politics. All of the most pressing global issues involve
politics, such as environmental sustainability, economic regulation, cultural diversity, good
governance, fair development, desirable solidarity, ethical values, global law enforcement and
international justice, representation and legitimacy.17
Levy’s suggestion is that in the contemporary era the location of ‘politics’ – wherein these questions
are resolved or contested – is no longer certain or indeed bound to the territorial nation state.
Simultaneously, however, ‘the substance of the spatial objects involved matters, and this substance
has a very strong historical dependence’.18 As we have seen throughout the chapters of this volume,
the ‘substance’ of contemporary ‘Central Asia’ does indeed matter and this has clearly been shaped
by the region’s history. This, I suggest, is particularly important to consider when exploring the
‘imaginings’ of Russia, China and the US in the Central Asian context.
China’s problematic ‘Silk Road’
James Millward’s exploration of the historiographical and political implications of Xinjiang’s position at
the crossroads of Eurasia was particularly illuminating in outlining the parameters of China’s
‘imagining’ of both Xinjiang and Central Asia. He argued persuasively in his chapter that there is a
clear disjuncture between Chinese conceptions and deployment of the Silk Road metaphor and
international (generally Western) commentary on the Silk Road, which may point to a number of
permutations regarding the future exercise of Chinese influence in Central Asia. Indeed, his chapter
suggests that China increasingly conceives the Silk Road, to which Xinjiang is seen as being central,
in nationalistic terms reflecting China’s identity as a

< previous page page_178 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_178.html[27.08.2009 12:59:43]
page_179

< previous page page_179 next page >

Page 179
‘rising power’. In particular, Millward’s discussion of the discourse surrounding Silk Road ‘sites’ and
Uyghur muqam points toward the possible re-emergence of a Chinese conception of world order that
sees, in Mark Mancall’s famous phrase, ‘China at the centre’.19 Moreover, Millward has argued that
such a conception of the Silk Road equates the openness of China under the Tang Dynasty (618–
907) with today’s post-Deng China and its attraction to the people of the world, who are drawn to a
dynamic and vigorous world power.20
Thus, as Millward argued, ‘China represents Xinjiang and the Silk Road as a stage on which China
plays the leading historical role. ’ Suggestive of China’s purpose is the historically selective nature of
its Silk Road discourse, whereby the region’s recent Islamic past is downgraded in favour of
highlighting the Buddhist and pre-Buddhist antiquity and Han (206 BCE–220 CE) and Tang period
sites. This selectivity is generated by the fact that the interconnectivity between China and Central
Asia which lies at the heart of the Silk Road metaphor has presented China with both opportunities
and challenges in the context of Xinjiang since 1991 that it has sought to manage through a
programme of development and an active foreign policy in Central Asia.21 Thus the clear distinction
between Western and Chinese conceptions of the Silk Road is that, for the former, it is conceived of
as a trans-national bridge linking civilizations, while for the latter, it is increasingly conceived of in
national terms that reinforce current Chinese sovereignty over Xinjiang.
However, what does this entail for the practice of China’s foreign policy and influence in Central
Asia? Colin Mackerras’s chapter concerning the ‘view’ of Xinjiang and Central Asia from Beijing and
Washington, and the region’s overall impact on Sino-US relations, offered an analysis and discussion
that complements the insights of James Millward’s chapter. It is clear from Mackerras’s discussion
that two major and interrelated factors stimulated significant anxiety in Beijing regarding the Chinese
position in Xinjiang. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union ultimately presented China with both
opportunities and challenges. The relative retreat of Russian power and influence in the immediate
post-Soviet period was undoubtedly received as a welcome development given the long-standing
tensions along the Sino-Soviet frontier. However, the subsequent emergence of five independent
states in Central Asia, three of which shared borders with Xinjiang, held a number of potential threats
to China’s position in Xinjiang, not the least of which were the example of the achievement of
independent statehood and the potential for cross-border ethnic affinities to translate into support for
Xinjiang’s restive ethnic minorities. Second was the re-emergence of Islam as a political force in
Central Asia, but also in Afghanistan, which held the potential to spread among the Muslim ethnic
groups of Xinjiang. As Mackerras noted, such an outcome came to pass in the Chinese government’s
perception with the outbreak of ‘Islamist’ inspired unrest in Xinjiang throughout the 1990s.22
China’s key interests with respect to Central Asia in the 1990s therefore revolved around securing its
frontiers with the new Central Asian republics

< previous page page_179 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_179.html[27.08.2009 12:59:43]
page_180

< previous page page_180 next page >

Page 180
and ensuring internal security within Xinjiang. These interests were also increasingly complemented
by an attempt to broaden the ‘reform and opening’ strategy implemented under Deng Xiaoping’s
leadership to facilitate greater Xinjiang–Central Asian trade and accelerate the economic
modernization of the region in order to placate ethnic minority opposition to Chinese rule.23 Key to
this programme was the establishment of constructive relationships with Central Asia, in particular
Xinjiang’s immediate neighbours Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Thus China’s Xinjiang-centric
concerns provided the bases for Beijing’s foreign policy in Central Asia and contributed to the
establishment of the multilateral ‘Shanghai Five’ in 1996 and its subsequent transformation into the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2001.
Indeed, Sino-Central Asian relations benefited significantly from the convergence of interest between
Beijing and the various Central Asian capitals with what became known in the official statements of
the Shanghai Five and SCO as the ‘three evils of separatism, extremism and terrorism’ – that is,
Uyghur opposition in Xinjiang and radical Islamism in Central Asia.24 These issues were of course
raised in prominence with the events of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent US invasion of
Afghanistan. As Mackerras notes, the injection of an unprecedented US political, military and
economic presence in Central Asia after 2001 was a contradictory development for Beijing. While the
US emphasis on combating ‘terrorism’ was beneficial to China’s interests within both Xinjiang and
Central Asia, the establishment of close US–Central Asian relations, largely at the expense of the
SCO, was not.
In terms of Beijing’s approach to the region, however, Mackerras concludes that the consequences of
the Soviet Union’s collapse, in comparison to those of 11 September 2001, remain more important
although the latter event has certainly resulted in the reconfiguration of the region’s geopolitics. In
this latter respect, the advent of a major US presence has arguably exacerbated existing great power
competition around such issues as energy security. Nonetheless this more recent development has
permitted Beijing to deploy the discourse of terrorism more forcefully both internally and externally.
In this latter respect, Mackerras and other contributors have noted that China’s cooperation in the
US-led ‘War on Terror’ has resulted in an acknowledgement from Washington that China’s claims to
be combating terrorism in Xinjiang are not totally spurious, and has led to an improvement in Sino-
US relations. The picture that emerges from Millward and Mackerras’s contributions regarding how
China perceives Xinjiang and the bases of its foreign policy and interests in Central Asia is a
complementary one. James Millward’s conclusion that the Chinese attempt to ‘internationalize a
peculiar narrative’ of Xinjiang’s history discloses ‘a profound anxiety’ on behalf of the provincial and
national authorities that informs Beijing’s foreign policy in Central Asia is reinforced by Colin
Mackerras’s overview of China’s approach to Central Asia since 1991. Indeed, both contributors
reveal that China’s position both in Xinjiang and in Central Asia is characterized by a profound

< previous page page_180 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_180.html[27.08.2009 12:59:44]
page_181

< previous page page_181 next page >

Page 181
paradox or contradiction. As both note, China’s position in Xinjiang is arguably more secure and
consolidated than at any other time in its recorded history of relations with the region. Yet this is
coupled with an acute sensitivity and anxiety over its current sovereignty over Xinjiang that stems
not only from the relatively recent consolidation (1949) of Chinese rule but ultimately its position as
the Eurasian ‘cross-road’.
Russia’s ‘near abroad’
Meanwhile, as Kirill Nourzhanov demonstrates, after some early indecision and debates between
those advocating an ‘Atlanticist’ orientation toward Western Europe and those stressing the natural,
and historically informed, ‘Eurasian’ strategic orientation of the country, Russia has increasingly
framed its approach to Central Asia in neo-imperial terms. During the early 1990s with the
ascendancy of the ‘Atlanticist’ orientation in the Kremlin, he noted that the region was largely looked
upon as ‘an area of alien Asian values and a developmental black hole’ from which Russia had to
isolate itself. This approach in effect amounted to a benign neglect of Central Asia. Yet this situation
changed rapidly by the middle of that decade as the government of President Yeltsin became
disillusioned with the ‘Atlanticist’ strategic option as efforts to establish closer ties with Western
Europe and the US failed to yield adequate benefits. Moreover, a return to a ‘Eurasianist’ orientation
was also encouraged by contemporaneous developments in Central Asia such as the escalation of the
Tajik civil war, continued instability and warlordism in Afghanistan, the deterioration of Central Asian
economies, the rise of radical Islamism and the ‘encroachment’ of regional (Turkey, Iran) and extra-
regional powers (China, US). As noted by Nourzhanov, Russia’s re-engagement with Central Asia was
determined by fear – a fear that the instability and insecurity that had come to characterize the
region could ‘creep’ northward if left unchecked. Thus, this dynamic in important respects revisited
the imperial discourse surrounding Russian expansion into the lands of the present Central Asian
states during the late nineteenth century. This is now, however, recast in contemporary rhetoric with
Russia promoting ‘integration’ of the region within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as
the solution to the ‘instability’ and ‘insecurity’ that is deemed to characterize Central Asia. Indeed, as
Nourzhanov demonstrates, Russia’s political, economic and military/security strategies toward the
region under Yelstin, particularly after Evgenii Primakov’s promotion to the head of the Foreign
Ministry in 1996, were framed at the rhetorical level by the assertion that only greater engagement
and integration with Russia on the part of Central Asia could ensure both Russia’s legitimate security
concerns and lead to ‘stabilization’, ‘democratization’ and ‘reform’ amongst the Central Asian states.
Beyond the rhetoric, however, Russian policy throughout the 1990s clearly privileged the
maintenance of the political status quo and stability in Central Asia over any high-minded promotion
of ‘democracy’.

< previous page page_181 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_181.html[27.08.2009 12:59:44]
page_182

< previous page page_182 next page >

Page 182
As with China, the events of 11 September 2001 intervened to significantly alter Russian policy
toward Central Asia. As Nourzhanov highlights, however, Russia had also recently experienced a
change in leadership with the ascent of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, which also impacted on the
Kremlin’s response to events in Central Asia. Putin’s ‘pragmatism’ resulted in close Russian
cooperation with the Bush administration’s invasion of Afghanistan and stabilization of Central Asia
from 2001 to 2003. However, US political, economic and military penetration of Central Asia, and the
development of close relationships with individual states such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, was
also a contradictory development for Moscow. Certainly Washington’s assumption of responsibility for
ensuring stability and security, including the destruction of the Taliban and the various radical
Islamists that it had harboured (e.g. al-Qaeda, IMU) in Central Asia served Russia’s immediate
security interests, while the significant strategic reorientation of the region toward the US (and the
West more generally) ultimately weakened Russia’s position. However, as a number of contributors
note, from 2003 onward Washington’s increasing efforts to pressure its new Central Asian partners to
undertake political reform and ‘democratization’, and the impact of the invasion of Iraq, undermined
the US position as Central Asian leaders bridled at the former suggestion and questioned the effect of
the latter upon the security situation in Afghanistan. These dynamics, as we have seen across a
number of chapters, resulted in the reassertion of Russian and Chinese influence, with the former felt
largely through the regeneration of bilateral ties and the latter through the revitalization of the SCO.
The Central Asian estrangement from Washington reached an apex in 2005 with the third of the so-
called ‘Colour Revolutions’ sweeping Kyrgyzstan in March and the outbreak of the Andijan Incident in
Uzbekistan in May. The leaders of Central Asia thus began to perceive the US no longer as a
‘harbinger of stability’ but as ‘a major source of instability’, resulting in a questioning of their relations
with the US in favour of closer relations with Moscow. According to Nourzhanov’s analysis, Russia
now perceives that challenges to the existing order in Central Asia not only stem from radical
Islamism and international terrorism but also the role of the US itself through Washington’s
promotion of ‘democracy and human rights’. However, he also notes that while Russian foreign policy
elites subscribe to the notion of the dangers of ‘state failure’ in the region as much as their Western
counterparts, this is blamed not so much on the lack of ‘democracy and human rights’ but upon the
‘traditional’ ‘clannish and tribal’ nature of Central Asian politics.
Thus, while Russia under Putin ostensibly criticizes the West (the US in particular) for its imperialist
promotion of ‘democracy’, it nonetheless has itself returned to a theme that has clear continuities
with Russia’s own imperial past (both Tsarist and Soviet), with President Putin asserting in 2005, for
example, that Russia should continue in its ‘civilizing mission’ on the Eurasian continent. Therefore
the Russian imperative to project its influence and secure its ‘near abroad’ remains framed not only
by its contemporary

< previous page page_182 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_182.html[27.08.2009 12:59:45]
page_183

< previous page page_183 next page >

Page 183
political, economic and strategic interests but also by major historical legacies. In the future, both
Russia and China would prefer to define Central Asia according to the extent of ‘stability’.
The West’s ‘black hole’
The West’s and in particular the US approach to Central Asia across the 1991 to 2007 period has
largely fallen into two clear phases: pre- and post-11 September 2001. As S. Frederick Starr noted in
his 2005 piece in Foreign Affairs, the US throughout the 1990s suffered somewhat from ‘attention
deficit’ with respect to Central Asia and Afghanistan.25 Indeed, prior to 11 September 2001, US and
Western attention to Central Asia was often fixated upon discrete issues directly impacting on
Western interests rather than upon the trajectory of the region’s development as a whole. For
example, Western concern focused sporadically on issues surrounding the fate of former Soviet
nuclear weapons and materials in Kazakhstan in 1992/3, the ‘pipeline politics’ surrounding the
Caspian Basin between 1996 and 1998 or the human rights ‘outrages’ of the Taliban in Afghanistan
after 1996.26 Such a lack of direct US, and indeed Western, engagement with the region during this
period could be accounted for on the basis of a number of factors such as geographical remoteness,
relative inaccessibility and a degree of ignorance of the region’s history and culture.27
Yet, perhaps most importantly, as President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott
asserted in a 1997 address, the US had no compelling interest in Central Asia that would drive it to
become a competitor in the ‘new great game’ for political and strategic influence in the region.28
Indeed, he stressed that a situation in which the region became the sight of a geopolitical arm-
wrestle between major external powers such as Russia, China, Iran and Turkey would be the worst
possible outcome for the region and argued that ‘Our goal is to avoid and actively discourage that
atavistic outcome.’29 Nonetheless, Talbott framed US goals toward the region in now all too familiar
terms, suggesting that Washington sought the ‘promotion of democracy, the creation of free market
economies, the sponsorship of peace and cooperation within and among the countries of the region
and their integration with the larger international community’.30 As one observer noted, this resulted
in an ‘unspoken but obvious conclusion: the United States would be willing to help with economic
development and democratization, but most of all it would like to keep the region from becoming an
American problem’.31 By the close of the 1990s, however, Central Asia and Afghanistan had
increasingly become characterized as something of a quagmire of ‘failing states’, ethnic conflict,
authoritarian rule and radical Islamism in which the US should avoid becoming ensnared.32
The events of 11 September 2001 of course intervened to make such an approach untenable for the
US and made the region very much an ‘American problem’. The contours of US intervention in
Afghanistan and

< previous page page_183 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_183.html[27.08.2009 12:59:45]
page_184

< previous page page_184 next page >

Page 184
the establishment of close political, economic and military ties with the Central Asian states are now
well documented, as are the effects of these developments for the geopolitics and domestic politics
of the region.33 But what has been of greater interest, given the context of the discussion presented
here, is how the US ‘imaginings’ of Central Asia have affected its approach to the region.34 As Geoff
Watson identified in his chapter, the relative neglect of Central Asia and Afghanistan by the West
resulted in the resurfacing of familiar tropes and ‘imaginings’ of the region in policy circles, scholarly
treatments and the popular media. Whether the region has been imagined as a ‘black hole’,35 a
geopolitical ‘cockpit of terrorism and ideological confrontation’36 or as part of the ‘non-integrating
gap’ of the global system,37 the implication is that the region remains to a large degree ‘outside’ of
the trajectory of ‘modernity’ – which is largely framed in Western terms. Here we see a resurgence of
a theme of some antiquity where, for the ‘civilized’ societies that surround the Eurasian core, Central
Asia is identified as that amorphous and incomprehensible place, ‘from whence all bad things
come’.38 Indeed, we have seen that in the contemporary period it is not marauding, bloodthirsty
barbarians on horseback bent on conquest and destruction that emanate from Central Asia in such
perceptions but rather stateless Islamic radicalism/ fanaticism and authoritarian political regimes that
present at once an anomaly and a challenge to the dominant Western narrative of history.39
In contrast to current Russian perceptions, however, the Bush administration placed the blame for
the parlous state of the region largely upon the failure of the Central Asian states to consolidate, in
the words of the 2002 US National Security Strategy, the ‘single model for national success: freedom,
democracy and free enterprise’.40 Thus, what we see here is a geopolitics defined not only by the
spatial and geographic relations of the region defined as ‘Central Asia’ to other such bodies/regions
but also increasingly by the content, or more correctly the perceived content, of that body/region. A
clear example of the importance of this process can be seen in the furore surrounding the souring of
US–Uzbek relations after the May 2005 Andijan Incident, whereby the self-identity of the US as a
promoter and upholder of ‘democracy and human rights’ was explicitly juxtaposed with that of a
‘corrupt’ and authoritarian Central Asian state. Some critics of US policy in this respect have
suggested that the Bush administration in effect should have downplayed such concerns in order to
consolidate the ‘strategic partnership’ with Tashkent.41 S. Frederick Starr, for example, argued that
Washington’s failure to do so resulted in a strategic blunder:
As US and European pressure increased in the area of democratization and human rights, both
Russia and China were able to dangle before Tashkent alliances based on a less rigorous standard in
these areas, yet promising greater rewards than were forthcoming from Washington. Both were
pursuing long-term strategic objectives, which they could present as less threatening to Tashkent
than the US’s preoccupations.42

< previous page page_184 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_184.html[27.08.2009 12:59:46]
page_185

< previous page page_185 next page >

Page 185
As noted by another observer, however, such a ‘realist’ critique of US–Uzbek relations ignores the
‘real-world’ importance of identity in the context of the ‘great game’ among the ‘great’ and ‘little’
powers in Central Asia.43 As we have seen throughout a number of contributions to this volume,
from China’s attempt to ‘nationalize’ the Silk Road metaphor to Russia’s re-embrace of the concept of
the ‘near abroad’ as central to its security, images and identity (both of self and other) matter. With
respect to the US position in Central Asia it is useful to conclude by noting Heathershaw’s argument
that the US is ‘understood as a qualitatively different actor in the region than Russia or China’ due to
the fact that it ‘is an “outside” actor that must downplay its outsiders’ expectations and
representations and construct an illusion of “partnership”’.44
Xinjiang and Central Asia in the era of ‘glocality’: back to the future?
It will be recalled that Michael Clarke noted in his chapter Denis Sinor’s judgement that the definition
of what constituted ‘Central Asia’ throughout history was the relative economic and cultural standard
of the area and not its absolute content.45 Thus, for Sinor and other scholars of the region, it was
the geographically and ecologically determined ‘life-way’ of nomadic pastoralism that generated its
‘centrality’ and importance in world history from antiquity until the latter centuries of the second
millennium CE. As Clarke demonstrates, once the nomadic pastoral ‘life-way’ of the various Turco-
Mongolian peoples of the region was weakened and ultimately controlled by the expansion of the
centralized sedentary states of imperial Russia and China, ‘Central Asia’ was effectively ‘removed’
from the processes of interaction and interconnectivity with the civilizations on the Eurasian periphery
that had characterized its existence since antiquity. Thus ‘Central Asia’, in S.A.M. Adshead’s terms,
became a site of the ‘convergence’ of geopolitical, political, economic, military, religious and cultural
pressures and structures generated from outside of the region (i.e. from Russia and China), rather
than as a site of ‘diffusion’ of such processes.46 Such a theme of convergence for Adshead was also
aligned to a change in function for ‘Central Asia’ in world history. In contrast to early periods of
history where the region had been an active diffuser of political, economic, religious/cultural and
technological processes and dynamics, the region since at least the sixteenth century by his
reckoning had gradually become a passive recipient of dynamics from external civilizations. However,
as Clarke suggests in his contribution, Central Asia, understood as consisting of the five post-Soviet
Central Asia states, Xinjiang, Afghanistan and Mongolia, has re-emerged since 1991 simultaneously
as both a diffuser and recipient of broad geopolitical, political, economic and cultural developments.
Moreover, this assessment is reinforced by the analysis and discussion of the other contributors
which clearly highlight that the region is once more characterized by a

< previous page page_185 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_185.html[27.08.2009 12:59:46]
page_186

< previous page page_186 next page >

Page 186
high level of interconnectivity and interaction with the civilizations on its periphery as it was prior to
the twentieth century.
Nonetheless, as a number of contributors have noted, the nature of this interconnectivity and
interaction is of a different order to that referred to by scholars such as Sinor or Adshead. As
discussed above, this reconnection of ‘Central Asia’ with world history – in the sense of becoming
once more an independent actor therein – takes place in the context of an international system
arguably in a state of flux in a number of important senses from the ‘rise’ of ‘new’ great powers such
as China and India, the renegotiation of state–society relations under the pressures of globalization
to heightened concern with ‘trans-national’ threats posed by terrorism, pandemics and environmental
disasters. In the Central Asian context that has been our focus, such issues are clearly prominent
and important. Yet what emerges from the discussions presented throughout the volume and in this
concluding chapter is that ‘Central Asia’ is once more defined by the relative political, economic and
cultural standards of the region. Thus we have seen how the major external actors in the region –
Russia, China and the US – have structured their responses to developments in the region since 1991
on the basis of distinct ‘imaginings’ of its content. Indeed, for all of these external actors their
connections with and approaches toward Central Asia are framed to a significant extent by their
juxtaposition of their self-image against what they perceive Central Asia to be defined by. As we
have seen, the region is perceived by Moscow, Beijing and Washington as being characterized by
Islamic radicalism and authoritarian and/or ‘weak’ or ‘failing’ states that inherently threaten their
interests and security.
Finally, what of the region itself, of the various peoples that inhabit Xinjiang and Central Asia? Given
the analysis and discussion presented by the contributors here, what may be increasingly important
and significant for the development of the region in the near future is the interaction of what Don
McMillen referred to as ‘contending glocalities’ with the imperatives of not only the three great
powers noted above but also the governments of the five Central Asian states themselves. The
region is arguably replete with numerous political, religious, ethnic and social identities that are
competing with the governments of the region and the great powers for the loyalties of the peoples
of Central Asia from radical movements such as HT or the IMU to ‘civil society’ groupings or
organizations seeking to embed the region within global discourses of ‘democracy’ and ‘human
rights’. Thus, while one may suggest that Flashman has ‘returned’ to Central Asia, in the sense that
external powers are once more explicitly jostling for strategic and economic advantage, they must
now contend with the interests and imperatives of not only the independent governments of the
region but also increasingly with those of the diverse populations of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turmenistan, Afghanistan and Xinjiang.

< previous page page_186 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_186.html[27.08.2009 12:59:46]
page_187

< previous page page_187 next page >

Page 187
Notes
1 Joshua Meyrowitz, ‘The rise of glocality: new senses of place and identity in the global village’ in
Kristof Nyrini (ed.) A Sense of Place: The Global and Local in Mobile Communication , Vienna:
Passagen Verlag, 2005, p. 21.
2 See for example, Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, London: Sage,
1992; and Robert Holton, Making Globalization, London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005.
3 Chief Rabbi J. Sacks, quoted in Hon. Andrew Robb (Member for Goldstein and Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Australia), ‘In Support of a Formal
Citizenship Test: address to the Jewish National Fund Gold Patron’s Lunch’, Melbourne, 25 October
2006, p. 4. My emphasis.
4 See Charles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order (rev. ed.), New York: Schocken,
1964 (originally published in 1922); and George Herbert Mead, Mind, self, and society: from the
standpoint of a social behaviorist, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934.
5 Meyrowitz, ‘The rise of glocality’, p. 22.
6 See Mead, Mind, Self, and Society and Meyrowitz, ‘The rise of glocality’, p. 22.
7 Meyrowitz, ‘The rise of glocality’, p. 23.
8 For a thorough account of the extent of Uyghur separatism and an examination of Chinese claims
of Uyghur ‘terrorism’ and links to radical Islamists in Afghanistan and Central Asia, see James A.
Millward, Violent Separatism in Xinjiang: A Critical Assessment, Washington DC: East-West Center,
2004; and also Michael Clarke, ‘China’s “War on Terror” in Xinjiang: human security and the causes
of violent Uighur separatism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 2008, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 271–301.
9 For the history and development of the IMU and Hizb ut-Tahrir see Ahmed Rashid, Jihad: The Rise
of Militant Islam in Central Asia, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002, pp. 137–52; Emmanuel
Karagiannis and Clark McCauley, ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami: evaluating the threat posed by a radical
Islamic group that remains nonviolent’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 2006, vol. 18, no. 2, 315–
34; and Svante E. Cornell, ‘Narcotics, radicalism, and armed conflict in Central Asia: the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 2005, vol. 17, no. 4, 619–39.
10 See for example, James A. Millward, Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang , New York:
Columbia University Press, 2006; S.A.M. Adshead, Central Asia in World History , London: Macmillan,
1993; and Svat Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
11 Nury Turkel, ‘People power sends a message to oppressive regimes’, W all Street Journal , 21 April
2005. Online at the Uyghur American Association. Available HTTP:
<http://www.uyghuramerican.org//articles/74/1/People-Power-Sends-a-Message-To-Oppressive-
Regimes/People-Power-Sends-a-Message-To-Oppressive-Regimes.html> (accessed 31 October
2008).
12 Cited in Turkel, ‘People power sends a message to oppressive regimes’.
13 See for example, Pepe Escobar, ‘The Tulip Revolution takes root’, Asia Times, 26 March 2005.
Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GC26Ag03.html> (accessed 31
October 2008).
14 For an account of the role of US government-funded organizations in the ‘Tulip Revolution’ see
Richard Spencer, ‘Quiet American behind the Tulip Revolution’, The Telegraph, 2 April 2005. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://www.telegraph. co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/kyrgyzstan/1486983/Quiet-
American-behind-tulip-revolution.html> (accessed 31 October 2008).
15 See Shirin Akiner, Violence in Andijan, 13 May 2005: An Independent Assessment,

< previous page page_187 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_187.html[27.08.2009 12:59:47]
page_188

< previous page page_188 next page >

Page 188
Silk Road Paper July 2005, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Programme,
0507Akiner. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.isdp.eu/files/publications/srp/05/sa05violencein.pdf> (accessed 30 October 2008).
16 Meyrowitz, ‘The rise of glocality’, p. 22.
17 Jacques Levy, ‘Globalization as a political invention: geographical lenses’, Political Geography , vol.
26, 2007, p. 15.
18 Levy, ‘Globalization as a political invention’, p. 15.
19 Mark Mancall, China at the Center: 300 Years of Foreign Policy , New York: The Free Press, 1984.
20 James Millward, ‘Positioning Xinjiang in Eurasian and Chinese History: Differing Visions of the “Silk
Road”’ (Chapter 3 of this volume).
21 For example see, Sean R. Roberts, ‘A “Land of Borderlands”: implications of Xinjiang’s trans-border
interactions’, in S. Frederick Starr (ed.) Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Borderland, Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, 2004, pp. 216–37; Nicolas Becquelin, ‘Xinjiang in the nineties’, The China Journal , 2000, July,
no. 44, 65–90; and Michael Clarke, ‘China’s strategy in Xinjiang and Central Asia: Toward Chinese
hegemony in the “geographical pivot of history”?’, Issues and Studies , 2005, June, vol. 41, no. 2,
75–118.
22 For accounts of unrest in Xinjiang during the 1980s and 1990s see Millward, Violent Separatism in
Xinjiang ; Michael Clarke, ‘Xinjiang in the “reform” era, 1978–1991: the political and economic
dynamics of Dengist integration’, Issues and Studies , 2007, June, vol. 43, no. 2, 39–92; and Colin
Mackerras, ‘Xinjiang at the turn of the century: the causes of separatism’, Central Asian Survey, 2001,
vol. 20, no. 3, 289–303.
23 Becquelin, ‘Xinjiang in the nineties’, pp. 70–5; and Yueyao Zhao, ‘Pivot or periphery? Xinjiang’s
regional development’, Asian Ethnicity , 2001, September, vol. 2, no. 2, 200–5.
24 See Sally N. Cummings, ‘Happier bedfellows? Central Asia under Putin’, Asian Affairs, 2001, June,
vol. 32, no. 2, 142–52; Eshan Ahrari, ‘China, Pakistan and the “Taliban Syndrome”’, Asian Survey,
2000, July/August, no. 40, 658–71; and Chien-peng Chung, ‘The Shanghai Cooperation Organization:
China’s changing influence in Central Asia’, The China Quarterly, 2004, December, no. 180, 989–
1009.
25 S. Frederick Starr, ‘A partnership for Central Asia’, Foreign Affairs, 2005, July/ August, vol. 84,
164–78.
26 See for example George Perkovich, ‘The plutonium genie’, Foreign Affairs, 1993, Summer, vol. 72,
153–65; S. Frederick Starr, ‘Making Eurasia stable’, Foreign Affairs, 1996, January/February, vol. 75,
80–92; Martha Brill Olcott, ‘Pipeline and pipe dreams: energy development and Caspian society’,
International Affairs, 1999, Fall, vol. 53, no. 1, 305–24; Adam Garfinkle, ‘Afghanistanding’, Orbis,
1999, Summer, vol. 43, no. 3, 405–20; and Ahmed Rashid, ‘Afghanistan: ending the policy
quagmire’, Journal of International Affairs, 2001, Spring, 395–410.
27 Eugene Rumer, ‘Flashman’s revenge: Central Asia after September 11’, Strategic Forum , 2002,
December, no. 195.
28 Strobe Talbott, ‘Farewell to Flashman: American policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia’, address
by the Deputy Secretary of State to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies,
Baltimore, Maryland, 21 July 1997. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n6_v8/ ai_19715181> (accessed 13 November
2008).
29 Talbott, ‘Farewell to Flashman’.
30 Talbott, ‘Farewell to Flashman’.
31 Rumer, ‘Flashman’s revenge’.
32 See for example, Kenneth Weisbrode, ‘Central Eurasia: Prize or quicksand? Contending views of
instability in Karabagh, Ferghana and Afghanistan’, Adelphi

< previous page page_188 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_188.html[27.08.2009 12:59:47]
page_189

< previous page page_189 next page >

Page 189
Papers , no. 338, 2004; and Rashid, ‘Afghanistan: ending the policy quagmire’, pp. 395–410.
33 See for example, Svante E. Cornell, ‘The United States and Central Asia: In the Steppes to stay?’,
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2004, July, vol. 17, no. 2, 239–54; Michael Clarke,
‘“Making the crooked straight”: China’s grand strategy of “peaceful rise” and its Central Asian
dimension’, Asian Security , 2008, Spring, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 107–42; and Shahram Akbarzadeh,
‘Uzbekistan and the United States: Friends or foes?’, Middle East Policy , 2007, Spring, vol. 14, no. 1,
107–16.
34 For an excellent analysis of this, see John Heathershaw, ‘Worlds apart: the making and remaking
of geopolitical space in the US–Uzbekstani strategic partnership’, Central Asian Survey, 2007, March,
vol. 26, no. 1, 123–40.
35 J. Simpson, Afghanistan – The Dark Ages, BBC Education and Training 2001.
36 Stephen Blank, ‘Making sense of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s Astana Summit’, Central
Asia-Caucasus Analyst , 27 July, 2005. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.cacianalyst.org/?
q=node/3242> (accessed 13 November 2008).
37 Thomas P.M. Barnett, ‘The Pentagon’s new map’, Esquire, 2003, March, vol. 139, no. 3, 174–82.
38 Denis Sinor, ‘The Hun Period’, in Denis Sinor (ed.) The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 180.
39 This dominant narrative can perhaps be characterized as viewing history as the inevitable
progress of political communities toward ‘democracy’, ‘free markets’ and ‘liberalism’.
40 White House, ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’, September 2002.
41 See for example, Eugene Rumer, ‘The US interests and role in Central Asia after K2’, The
Washington Quarterly, 2006, Summer, vol. 29, no. 3, 141–54.
42 S. Frederick Starr, ‘Introduction’, in John C.K. Daly, Kurt H. Meppen, Vladimir Socor and S.
Frederick Starr (eds) Anatomy of a Crisis: US–Uzbekistan Relations, 2001–2005 , Silk Road Paper,
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program – Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, February 2006, p. 5.
43 Heathershaw, ‘Worlds apart: the making and remaking of geopolitical space in the US–Uzbekstani
Strategic Partnership’, p. 136.
44 Heathershaw, ‘Worlds apart: the making and remaking of geopolitical space in the US–Uzbekstani
Strategic Partnership’, p. 136.
45 Denis Sinor, ‘Introduction: the concept of Inner Asia’, in Denis Sinor (ed.) The Cambridge History
of Early Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 10–19, p. 16.
46 See Adshead, Central Asia in World History .

< previous page page_189 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_189.html[27.08.2009 12:59:48]
page_190

< previous page page_190 next page >

Page 190
Index

Abdur Rahman, Amir 81, 87

Adshead, S.A.M. 22, 28, 185
adventurers, explorers and romantics, scholarship of 2
Afaq Khojar Mazar 65
Afghanistan 14, 15, 75–93, 134, 161–2;
drugs trafficking 158;
external influences on state formation 78–85, 88–9;
internal dynamics of state formation 85–8;
perceptions of threats from within borders of 78–83;
‘war on terror’ 137
Afghanistan – The Dark Ages 77
Ahmad Shah Abdali 86
Ahmadinejad, M. 45, 141
Ahmetjan Qasimi 66
Akayev, A. 43, 98, 99, 140, 176
Akbarzadeh, S. 84–5
Akhun, T. 66–7
Akiner, S. 104, 105, 177
Akrimiya 103–4
al-Din, Safi 67
al-Farabi 68
al-Qaeda 15
Alam, M. 86
Albania 143–4
Amin, H. 87
Amin Khoja mosque 65
Andijan incident 43, 103–5, 177
Appadurai, A. 20
Armitage, R. 138
Association of Culture of Uyghurs of the Republic of Kazakhstan 138
Association of Uyghurs 128
autonomous nationality place system 58

Babich, M. 166
Bakiyev, K. 45, 99
Balkh 85–6
Ban Chao 64
barbarism 79
Barfield, T.J. 25, 27, 75
Baylis, J. 4
Beknazarov, A. 98
Bernshtam, A.N. 120
bilateral agreements:
China 41–2;
Russia 155;
US 40–1
bin Laden, O. 137, 141–2
‘black hole’ perception of Central Asia 77–8
Blair, T. 84
Blank, S. 97
Bolshevik Revolution 36, 116
Borat 78
border demarcation 97–100
Bosakov, N. 129
Boulger, D.C. 76, 79
Bovingdon, G. 3
Britain 79–81
Buddhism 63–4
Bukhara 80, 87

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_190.html[27.08.2009 12:59:48]
page_190

Bush, G.W. 84, 137, 142–3, 160

Castells, M. 13
Cavagnari, L. 81
Central Asia 9;
confluence of geography and culture 21, 22–8;
from 1991 to 2007 29, 38–46;
imperial collapse and reassertion in the 20th century 29, 33–8;
inclusion of Xinjiang in 56–60;
interdepency with Xinjiang 95–100;
pivot and periphery 28–46;
remoteness and otherness 10–13;
‘removal’ from world history 1700–1900 29, 30–3;
Russian security thinking and domestic stability in 151–72;
scenarios for 109–10;
state formation in 75–93;
US military bases 8, 137–8, 139–40;
in world history 21–54
Central Asian Union (CAU) 155
Central Eurasian Studies Society 56
central planning 37–8
Cheney, D. 140, 145
Chernyavsky, S. 163
China 178–81;
bilateral agreements with Central Asia 41–2;
economic and security partner for Central Asian republics 108–9;
historical anxieties over Xinjiang 70–1;
interdependency between Xinjiang and Central Asia 95–100, 110–11;
policies towards Xinjiang 9, 35–6, 39–40;
Russian thinking on Central Asia and 166–8;
and SCO 42–5, 102–3;
Silk Road metaphor 63–6, 178–9;
Sino-American relations 133–50, 179–81;
and terrorism 14–17;
Uyghur music 66–9;

< previous page page_190 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_190.html[27.08.2009 12:59:48]
page_191

< previous page page_191 next page >

Page 191
views on Xinjiang and Central Asia since 1990 133–50, 179–81
China Development Brief 105–6
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 1–2, 35–6
Chinese Islamic Association 139
Christian, D. 25, 85
Chufrin, G. 163
civilization 79
cluster scenario 109–10
Cohen, S.B. 78
Collective Security Treaty (CST) 157
collectivization 37
colonization, internal 17, 31–2
‘colour revolutions’ 105, 162, 177, 182
Commission on Combating Narcotics 158
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) 153–4, 181;
failure of integration project 154–9
Confucius 57
Cooley, C.H. 175
cotton cultivation 32, 37–8
cotton farmers’ conflict 74
Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (CFDP) 160–1
crossroads of Eurasia, Xinjiang as 61–3
culture:
confluence of geography and 21, 22–8;
Uyghur cultural organizations 118–19, 121, 122, 127
Cyrillic script 37

Dannatt, R. 76
Daoud Khan, M. 85, 87
Darius 27
deep integration scenario 109
democracy 81–2, 162–3;
US promotion of 105–6, 162, 177, 182
deserts 22, 23
Di Cosmo, N. 25, 26
difference 7
Dillon, M. 14
direct-taxation empires 27
diversion of river systems 97
Dost Mohammad 80, 86
drug trafficking 158
dual-administration empires 26–7
Durand Line 82

East Turkestan, as name for Uyghur homeland 56, 125–6

East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) 15, 138, 141–2
East Turkestan Republic (ETR) 35, 117, 118, 119, 124–5, 126
East Turkestan (Uyghurstan) National Congress 126
Ebel, R. 77–8
economic development 101
economic sphere 154–5, 163–4
election observers 165
energy resources 76, 134–5, 144–6
ethnic composition 10, 133–4
ethnogenesis 119
ethnoscapes 20
Eurasia 56–7;
Xinjiang as crossroads of 61–3
Eurasian Economic Commonwealth (EurAsEC) 164
exploration 76–7
external interventions, in Afghanistan 75–85, 88–9

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_191.html[27.08.2009 12:59:49]
page_191

‘failed states’ 78–83

Famen temple 63–4
fanaticism, Islamic 83–5;
see also Islamism
Ferghana Valley 115, 116, 122
financial–industrial groups (FIGs) 154
five-string lutes 68, 69, 73
Fletcher, J.F. 25, 86
Foreign Policy Concept (Russia) 159
Frank, A.G. 78
Free Lance-Star 78
Freedom House 105
‘functioning states’ 79

gas resources 134–5, 144–5

geography, confluence of culture and 21, 22–8
global fields 5
globalization 5, 60, 178
‘glocal continuum’ 6
‘glocality’ 173, 185–6;
as a framework of analysis 4–9;
dynamics of 174–7
‘Go West Strategy’ 40, 101
‘great games’ 75, 76–7, 89;
‘great games’ of Central Asia’s significant others 177–85;
‘new great games’ 14–17, 76–7
‘Great Western Development/Open Up the West’ campaign 40, 101
Greater Central Asia Partnership for Cooperation and Development (GCAP) 81–2
greed 24
Guantanamo Bay 143–4

Han Yu 63
Hazaras 87
Heathershaw, J. 185
Hellwald, F. von 87
hierarchies 81
historical anxiety 70–1
HIV/AIDS 147
Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (Party for Islamic Freedom) 136, 176
Holton, R.J. 5
Hu Jintao 138–9, 144
human conditions 18
Human Rights Watch 104, 105

Ibn Sina 68–9

Idanthyrus 27–8
idea systems 61–2
identity 7, 175–6
ideology and academic voyeurism, scholarship of 3
Imin, Abdushukur Muhemmet 68
imperialism 30–3
imposed Westernization 84–5

< previous page page_191 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_191.html[27.08.2009 12:59:49]
page_192

< previous page page_192 next page >

Page 192
India 76
indirect imperial rule 32
information and communication technologies (ICT) 13
Ingalls, J. 82
Institute of Eurasian Studies (IES) 165
Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies 57
integration 94–114;
prospects for 106–8;
way forward 108–10;
Yeltsin and the CIS 153–9
Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) 82–3
Inter-Republican Organization of Uyghurs (IROU) 127, 128
interaction 185–6
interconnectivity 185–6
interdependency 94–114;
SCO 101–6;
significance of Xinjiang 100–1;
Xinjiang and Central Asia 95–100
interest groups 109
internal colonization 17, 31–2
internecine conflict 86
Iran 141, 145
Iraq 18, 138–9, 161
Islamic fanaticism 83–5
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) 136–7, 157, 176
Islamism 39, 134, 136–7, 176
isolationism 109–10
Izmukhambetov, B. 144

Ji You 14, 15
Jiang Zemin 42
Jurchen Jin dynasty 27

Kabirov, M. 120
Kadeer, R. 142–3, 177
Karaganov, S. 166
Kariaji, A. 142
Karimov, I. 43, 102–3, 123, 137, 140
Karmal, B. 88
Karzai, H. 88
Kasenov, U. 151
Kashgar 64, 87
Kazakhs 30–1, 37
Kazakhstan 37, 78, 100, 133, 134–5;
China and 99–100;
Russia and 155, 156–7;
Uyghurs in 118–19, 121, 129
Kazakhstan Institute of Strategic Studies (KISI) 161–2
Kenji, N. 129
Khamrayev, M. 120
Khan, Sher Ali 81
Khan, Yakub 81
Khasanov, F. 129
Khitan Liao dynasty 27
Khiva 87
Khojamberdi, K. 128–9
Khokand 80, 87
Khorasan 85
Kohlhatkar, S. 82
Koichuev, T. 155
Kolbin, G. 120

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_192.html[27.08.2009 12:59:49]
page_192

Kosachev, K. 168
Kozyrev, A. 151
Krasner, S.D. 78
Kuziev, D. 129–30
Kyrgyzstan 37, 100, 109, 133;
border demarcation between China and 98–9;
relationship with China 99–100;
Tulip Revolution 43, 99, 176–7;
Uyghurs in 121–2, 129

labour migration 164

Lattimore, O. 146
Levy, J. 178
Li Fenlin 167
Li Peng 135
Li Sheng 58, 60, 63
Liu Jianchao 143
Liu Xinru 62
Lukin, V. 164
lutes, five-string 68, 69, 73

Ma Dazheng 58
Ma Liangji 139
Mackinder, H. 21, 28
Mahsum, H. 141–2
Mancall, M. 179
Mao Zedong 126
mapping 31
martial qualities 24
Marvin, C. 79–80
Masimov, K. 140
May 29 incident 117
McGrew, A. 5
McMillan, A. 177
McMillen, D. 77
Mead, G.H. 175
Menon, R. 77–8
Meyrowitz, J. 176
migration 10, 39;
labour migration 164;
Uyghur migrations 115–17, 124
Military Doctrine (Russia) 159
military and security sphere 157–9, 166
Millward, J. 16–17
Mongolia 30, 31, 32, 34–5, 61
Mongols 27, 30, 80
Mousavi, S.A. 85
Mujahideen 77, 82–3
Mukhlisi, Y. 124–5
multilateralism 161–6
music, Uyghur ( muqam ) 66–9

names:
rectification of 57–8;
for Uyghur homeland 125–6
nation-building 37
National Endowment for Democracy 139
national security 110;
Russian security thinking 151–72
National Security Concept (Russia) 159
nationalism, Uyghur long distance 123–30
Nazarbayev, N. 140
Needham, J. 62
network society 13

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_192.html[27.08.2009 12:59:49]
page_192

< previous page page_192 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_192.html[27.08.2009 12:59:49]
page_193

< previous page page_193 next page >

Page 193
new global security architecture 44
‘new great games’ 14–17, 76–7
Niyazov, S. 140
nomadic pastoralism 23–8, 31, 185;
Soviet rule of Central Asia and 37–8;
state formation 85
nomadic polities 26–7
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 105–6
Northern Alliance 86
Nourzhanov, K. 76, 87

oases 23
oil resources 76, 134–5, 144–6
Olcott, M.B. 106, 160
Olympic Games 2008 16, 70
onomastics 57–8
Oresman, M. 102
‘oriental despotism’ 75, 83–5
otherness 10–13
oud 68, 69
Pakistan 76, 82–3
Pan Zhiping 59–60
Pantuo City 64
Pascual, C. 78
People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) 82, 87–8
personalized rule 86
pessimistic scenario 109–10
pipelines, oil and gas 134–5, 144–6
political sphere 155–7, 164–6
poverty reduction 163–4
presidencies, role of 106–8
Prester John 78
Primakov, E. 153, 181
proactive cooperation scenario 109–10
propaganda 56–60, 71
Putin, V. 144, 182;
SCO 42, 45, 102–3;
security thinking and Central Asia 159–60, 161, 162, 163–6

Qing empire 30–3

Rahmonov, E. 156
raiding 24–5
Rakowska-Harmstone, T. 119
Rashid, A. 136
Rawlinson, H. 76, 80
Regional Anti-terrorism (RAT) centre 42, 102–3, 136, 167
regional security 110
relativization 5–6
religion 7, 175;
see also Islamic fanaticism, Islamism
remoteness 10–13
Rice, C. 78
river systems, diversion of 97
Roberts, Major General 81
Robertson, R. 5–6
Rubin, B. 82, 93
Russia 34, 108, 181–3;
dealing with China 166–8;
expansionism 79–81;

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_193.html[27.08.2009 12:59:49]
page_193

imperial control of Central Asia 30–3;

official security thinking and Central Asia’s domestic stability 151–72;
and SCO 42–5, 102–3;
see also Soviet Union
Ruziev, M. 120

Sacks, J. 7, 175
Sadvakasov, G. 122–3
Sai (Saka) 74
Said, E. 77
Saikal, A. 82, 84
Samadi, Z. 124
Samsakova, D. 129
Schafer, E.H. 62
‘scholarly visitors, generation of’ 3–4
scholars of Xinjiang/Central Asia 1–4
secondary products revolution 23–4
security 6–7;
cooperation on 110;
military and security sphere 157–9, 166;
new global security architecture 44;
Russian security thinking 151–72
sedentary states 85
Semireche Valley 115–16
separatism 14–17, 59, 70, 124–9, 130, 138
September 11 terrorist attacks 8, 137–8, 160, 183–4
Seypidin Äziz 66, 68
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) 8, 14, 39, 41, 71, 129, 135–6, 180;
interdependency 101–6, 108–9;
RAC 42, 102–3, 136, 167;
re-invigoration of 42–5;
war on terror and Sino-Soviet relations 139–41
Shanghai Five 39, 135, 180
Shärqi Turkestan avazi (Voice of East Turkestan) 124–5
Shelkovenko, A. 104–5
Sheng Shicai 35, 117
Shuja, Shah 80
Siemens 135
significant others 175–6;
‘great games’ of Central Asia’s 177–85
Silk Road 55–74;
Chinese view 63–6, 178–9;
Uyghur music and distortions of Chinese silk roadism 66–9
‘Silk Road Researches’ academic series 65
Simpson, J. 77
Single Economic Space (SES) 164
Sinor, D. 24, 27, 185
Smith, S. 4
Smithsonian Institution 61
Social Darwinism 79, 81–2
Soviet Union 34–8;
Afghanistan 82, 88;
collapse of 38, 100–1, 134–5, 146, 180;
policy toward Uyghurs 117–21;
see also Russia
sport 77
stability 109, 140;
Russian security thinking and Central Asian 151–72
Stalin, J. 36
Starr, S.F. 2, 8, 59, 78–9, 81, 104–5, 183, 184
state formation 75–93;
external influences 78–85, 88–9;
internal dynamics 85–8
status quo scenario 109–10

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_193.html[27.08.2009 12:59:49]
page_193

steppe zones 22–3

< previous page page_193 next page >

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_193.html[27.08.2009 12:59:49]
page_194

< previous page page_194

Page 194
strategic resources 17–18
succession disputes 86
suites, musical 66–7, 69
supratribal associations 25, 26, 85, 86
surveys 31

Tajikistan 37, 100, 123, 133, 134;

civil war 155–6, 157
Talbott, S. 183
Taliban 83, 84, 158
Tang dynasty 63–4
Tarim Basin oases 62
‘Tartars’ 80
terrorism:
Afghanistan as source of 78–9;
September 11 attacks 8, 137–8, 160, 183–4;
Uyghur separatism and 14–17, 70;
Uyghurs and terrorism outside China 141–4;
war on see war on terror
Tibet 16
Times, The 84
Timur 27, 86
Timurids 27
tourism 63–6
trade 24–5
trade-tribute empires 26
traditional geopolitics, scholarship of 2
tribal associations 25–6
tribute empires 26
Tulip Revolution 43, 99, 176–7
Türk empires 26
Turkey 135
Turkic Islamic Republic of East Turkestan (TIRET) 118
Turkic-Muslim movements 33, 35, 36–7
Turkmen 31
Turkmenistan 37, 100;
Uyghurs in 123

UNESCO 69
United National Revolutionary Front of East Turkestan (UNRFET) 125
United Nations Development Fund Human Development Report for Central Asia (UNDP-HDR-CA) 94–
5, 107–8;
scenarios 109–10
United Political Council (UPC) 128
United States of America 18, 40–2, 45;
Afghanistan 82–3;
military bases in Central Asia 8, 137–8, 139–40;
promotion of democracy 105–6, 162, 177, 182;
Russian cooperation with 160–1, 182;
Sino-American relations 133–50, 179–81;
and Uzbekistan 41, 43, 184–5;
views on Xinjiang and Central Asia since 1990 133–50, 183–5
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) 128
Urry, J. 13
Usubaliev, T. 99
Uyghur American Association 139
Uyghur autonomous oblast 119–20
Uyghur empire 26
Uyghur Writers of Kazakhstan 124
Uyghurs 115–32;
in the Central Asian republics 121–3;

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_194.html[27.08.2009 12:59:50]
page_194

long distance nationalism 123–30;

migrations 115–17, 124;
music 66–9;
separatism 14–17, 59, 70, 124–9, 130, 138;
Soviet policy towards 117–21;
and terrorism outside China 141–4;
and Tulip Revolution 176–7
Uyghurstan, as name for Uyghur homeland 56, 125–6
Uyghurstan Autonomous Region 125–6
Uyghurstan Azatliq Tashkilati (UAT) 125, 127–8
Uyghurstan Party 128–9
Uzbekistan 37, 41, 42–3, 43, 100, 107, 133;
Andijan incident 43, 103–5, 177;
RAC 42, 102–3, 167;
and US 41, 43, 184–5;
Uyghurs in 119, 122–3

Vahidi, H. 125, 127, 129

Vámbéry, A. 83, 87

Wang Enmao 3
war on terror 7, 8, 180;
Sino-American relations 137–41;
Sino-Soviet relations 146–7
warlords 35, 87, 88
water diversion 97
Wen Jiabao 70
Western-type democracies 81–2
Winchester, M. 137
women 83, 92
world history 185–6;
Central Asia in 21–54;
Xinjiang in 60–3

Xiang Fei 65
Xing Guangcheng 96–7
Xinjiang 133;
Chinese historical anxieties over 70–1;
Chinese view of Silk Road 63–6;
constructions of 8–9;
in Eurasian and Chinese history 55–74;
from 1991 to 2007 39–40;
imperial collapse and reassertion 35–6;
inclusion in Central Asia 56–60;
interdependency with Central Asia 95–100;
remoteness and otherness 10–13;
separatism 14–17;
significance of 100–1;
Uyghur migrations into 116–17;
Uyghur music and distortions of Chinese silk roadism 66–9;
in world history 60–3
Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Borderland (Starr) 59–60
Xinjiang of China: Its Past and Present (Li Sheng) 58–9, 60
Xiongnu empire 26

Yakovenko, A. 102
Yang, R.H. 95–6
Yeltsin, B. 151, 153–4, 155, 156, 159–60, 181
Yin Falu 69
Yusupov, I. 119

Zahideen Yusuf 137

Zhang Deguang 141
Zhou Jingbao 68–9

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_194.html[27.08.2009 12:59:50]
page_194

Zunghars 30

< previous page page_194

file:///C:/...Colin.%3b%20Clarke,%20Michael%20-%20China,%20Xinjiang%20and%20Central%20Asia/files/page_194.html[27.08.2009 12:59:50]