IS EASTERN TURKESTAN A CHINESE TERRITORY?
(Erkin Alptekin)
According to some sources in Eastern Turkestan, also known as Xinjiang Uyghur
Autonomous Region, on the eve of the 57th anniversary of the so-called "peaceful
liberation of Xinjiang," Chinese authorities have staged a campaign throughout
the country claiming that "Xinjiang has been a part of China for the last two
thousand years, since then the Chinese have been dwelling in this territory and
therefore, Xinjiang is an indivisible part of China". This argument, however,
distort historical facts with the aim of protecting Chinese interests.
The fact is that until the mid-18th century Chinese attempts to control Eastern
Turkestan were sporadic and never resulted in the establishment of permanent
Chinese authority there.
Between 104 B.C. and 751 A.D. China staged six different invasions of Eastern
Turkestan resulting in periods of occupation lasting between 7 and 49 years. (1)
The total period of Chinese occupation during these 855 years was only 157 years
and even then, as the frequency of invasions suggests, Chinese control over
Eastern Turkestan was temporary and incomplete. (2) During the remaining 698
years of this period Eastern Turkestan remained an independent country.
After Arab, Turkic and Tibetan forces repulsed the Chinese occupiers in 751 A.D.
a period of thousand years passed before the conquest of Eastern Turkestan by
the Manchu rulers of China. (3)
During this period the Uyghurs voluntarily became a part of the Mongol empire
where they maintained their sovereignty and played an important cultural and
political role. The Chinese, on the other hand , suffered under the Mongol rule
from racial policy which treated them as an inferior caste and deprived them of
most of their rights. (4)
The Manchu occupation of Eastern Turkestan cannot be viewed as an assertion of
Chinese dominion because the Manchus were not Chinese. Having established their
control over China the Manchus then proceeded to subdue Eastern Turkestan which
became a part of a Manchu, and not a Chinese, empire.
During this period the Eastern Turkestanis rose up 42 times against Manchu rule
with the aim of regaining their independence. In 1863 they were successful in
expelling the Manchus from their motherland where they founded an independent
state under the leadership of Yakup Bey Badavlat. This state was recognized by
the by the Ottoman Empire, Tsarist Russia and Great Britain. (5)
Fearing Tsarist Russian expansion into Eastern Turkestan, Great Britain
persuaded the Manchu court to conquer Eastern Turkestan. The money for the
Manchu invasion forces was granted by the British Banks. (6) Large forces under
the overall command of the Manchu General Zho Zhung Tang attacked Eastern
Turkestan in 1876. After this invasion, Eastern Turkestan was given the name
Xinjiang (meaning New Territory), and it was annexed into the territory of the
Manchu empire on November 18, 1884. (7)
The Manchus were foreigners not only to the Eastern Turkestanis but also to the
Chinese. The overthrow of Manchu rule in China ought to have disengaged the fate
of China from that of Eastern Turkestan, but the Chinese then raised territorial
claims on Eastern Turkestan even though the link between the two countries was
merely that of a common set of masters-the Manchus.
The fact of an earlier historical invasion alone is not sufficient to establish
a territorial claim in the present. Long before the Chinese both Iranians and
the Greeks had invaded Eastern Turkestan and twice, in the seventh and eight
centuries Tibetans have invaded. If past invasion justified today¡¦s territorial
claims not only would China have many competitors for Eastern Turkestan, but
Tibetans and Mongols of today would be justified in claiming vast territories of
China, itself.
Nor do historical periods of subjugation invalidate a people¡¦s claim to
sovereignty in their own land.
It is know that early dynasties such as Shang (1450-1050 B.C) , Chou (1050-247
B.C), and Chin (247-206 B.C) were founded by non-Chinese proto-Turk,
proto-Tibetan and proto-Mongol peoples. This means that in ancient times China was ruled by non-Chinese peoples for 1203 years.
Turkic, Mongol and Tunguz peoples ruled China for 740 of the more than one
thousand years between 220- A.D. and 1280. (9) During only 540 years of this
period were the Chinese able to rule their own country and even then internal
rebellions and wars with other non-Chinese made control of the entire Chinese
territory impossible. (10)
Chinese ruled their own country for only 276 of the 631 years between 1280 and
1911. (11) While non.-Chinese peoples ruled China during the remaining 355
years. (12)
Thus we see that Chinese ruled their own country for only 1,242 of 3,361 years
of Chinese history and the remaining 2,119 years China was ruled by non-Chinese
peoples.
During the reign of of Han dynasty (2006 B.C.-220 A.D.) the Chinese were able to
rule themselves, but even then they were constantly threatened by the Hsiung-nu
(Huns) against whom the Chinese erected the Great Wall. The Great Wall for the
first time delineated the boundary between the settled Chinese and the nomadic
non-Chinese. (13) The Great Wall is the best proof that Eastern Turkestan was
always outside Chinese territory.
One of the western gates of the Great Wall facing Eastern Turkestan is called Yu
Min Guang ("Jade Gate") Eastern Turkestan is famous for its Jade. The New China
Atlas, published in Shanghai in 1939, clearly states that during the Ch¡¦in, Han
and Tang dynasties the Jade Gate was accepted by the Chinese as their
westernmost border. (14)
Eastern Turkestan and China were separated by more than a wall or political
authority. Separate geography, history and culture were recognized from early
times.
Pan Ku, the great historian of the Han dynasty wrote: "¡KAs for clothing,
costume, food and language the barbarians are entirely different from the Middle
Kingdom¡K Mountains , valleys and the great desert separate them from us¡KThis
barrier which lies between the interior and the alien was made by heaven and
earth.. Therefore, the sage rulers considered them as beasts and neither
established contact with them nor subjugated them¡K The land is impossible to
cultivate and the people are impossible to rule as subjects¡K Therefore, they are
always to be considered as outsiders and never as citizens¡K Our administration
and teaching have never reached their people¡K" (15)
Not only do these words show that during the Han dynasty , Eastern Turkestan was
not under Chinese "administration", but the people of Eastern Turkestan were
always regarded as outsiders, not as citizens and the Chinese "teaching" never
reached those with different clothing, costume , food and language.
Until the Manchu conquests of Eastern Turkestan few Chinese had settled in that
country.
One of the first travellers , Fa Hsien, visited the cities of Turfan, Karashehir,
Kucha, Hoten and Charkilik in 399 A.D. and wrote in his memoirs that he met no
Chinese there. Another traveller, Hsuan Chang followed the same route in 629
A.D. confirmed Fa Hsien¡¦s observations writing that during his trip he met only
three Chinese Buddhist monks.
Even had there been settlements it would not have justified China¡¦s territorial
claims on Eastern Turkestan. Today¡¦s millions of Chinese living in the United
States, EU and Southeast Asian countries do not provide China a legitimate claim
to these countries. Chinese have recently asserted that it was the Chinese who
first discovered America. Does that mean that the Chinese will soon raise claims
on America?
China¡¦s claim that Eastern Turkestan is an ancient and inseparable part of China
is based on false interpretation of history and grounded in the hope that
suppression and assimilation will eventually establish this distortion as
legitimate in the eyes of the world.
Notes
1. Wofram Eberhard, Cin¡¦in Simali Komsulari, Ankara 1942, p.2; Mehmet Emin
Bughra, Dogu Türkistan Hürriyet Davasi ve Cin Siyaseti, Istanbul, 1954, p.24
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Annamarie vob Gabain, Das Leben im Uighurischen Königreig von Qoco,
Wiesbaden, 1973, p.19: Wolfram Eberhard, Ibid p.259-270; Henry Schwarz, China¡¦s
Development Experience, New York 1976, p.196
5. Isa Yusuf Alptekin, Dogu Türkistan Davasi, Istanbul 1973, p.126-128
6. Owen Lattimore, Pivot of Asia, Boston, 1950, p.31
7. Ibid. p.50
8. Wolfram Eberhard, Ibid, p.31,33,78
9. Ibid,
10. Ibid
11. Ibid. p. 257-258
12. Ibid
13. Owen Lattimore, Studies in Frontier History, london 1962, p.59
14. China¡¦s New Atlas, Shanghai, 1939, p.51; also see Herman Albert, Historical
and Commercial Atlas of China, Harvard University Press 1935
15. Pan Ku, The Account of Hsiung-nu , Han-shu, 94, sec. 2, p. 32 a-b