Iran & China: Contrasting reactions to internal crises

A Muslim Uighur woman walks with her son past security forces in the town of Kashgar, Xinjiang Province. The Government is omnipresent in this remote Autonomous Province in deep crisis but the news media are not banned.

The recent events in China and Iran were significant in the very contrasting ways these two nations handled their respective internal problems. Both the post-presidential election crisis in Iran and the bloody riots in the westernmost Xinjiang province of China were well documented in the international media, albeit with some predictable biases and prejudices.The two events were of course not similar in nature but they went a long way reflecting on the relative stability, self confidence and their "savoir faire".

The clashes in Iran were (and still are) mostly ideological between the existing theocracy and relatively more liberal forces of the opposition. These widespread protest, clashes and reprisals pierced serious holes in the Armour of the Ayatollahs and their secular conservative followers. The legitimacy of the present Theocracy, headed by the Supreme Spiritual Leader Khamenei, was openly questioned and challenged by huge masses despite all the muscled and improvised repressions.

On the other hand China's problems were of ethnic and racial origin in a very remote Xinjiang region as the divide between the Chinese Han and Turkic Muslim Uighurs came to a bloody collision course, not for the first time in recent history. However, China's stability was not threatened nor questioned and surprisingly Beijing showed a great deal of expertise and media Savvy in dealing with the very bloody events.

Lessons were learned in Beijing from past errors, but these same lessons are yet to be learned by Tehran. Both countries were shaken deeply by their internal events, but only a blind would not see that Tehran lost points while Beijing proved that under certain circumstances it can act as an "enlightened" and rather "tolerant" Government.

Protest in Iran (Tehran's Azadi freedom square): The frustration behind the smile.

The circumstances and underlying root causes were very different from China to Iran. However, they gave us a window of truth to get a glimpse of what makes these regimes function and what are their respective tolerance limits in times of internal crisis.The racial conflict and the death of around 200 people between the Muslim Uighurs and the majority Han was ugly and violent by all accounts. The frustration of the Uighurs had boiled over into violence. Beijing acted very differently from the past behavior of hiding the truth, repressing the media, like it had done during the Tienanmen Square uprisings, the various Tibet protests and Uighur treats just prior the Beijing Olympics.

Protest in Washington demanding the release 17 Uighur detainees at Guantanamo Bay - Gitmo. The fact of having such a big number of "terrorist" Uighur Chinese nationals at Gitmo helped the Chinese Government win the public opinion war against its own citizens.

China knew that the western media and the international public opinion would be won over by pushing a few sensitive "buttons": Describing the Uighurs as "anti China separatists" and "Islamic extremists" or "Al Qaeda operatived" was a sure bet. The much publicized detention of more than 15 Uighur Islamic militants at the Guantanamo Bay prison did not help the reputation of the Uighurs and hence greatly facilitated Beijing's game-plan for a concerted heavy handed crackdown without losing the international propaganda war.

Beijing easily labeled the protesting minority and maintained that the attacks were coordinated acts of subversion that must be dealt with vigorously. Therefore it was a relatively easy case to win and Beijing played the cards perfectly. The Chinese authorities were confident and therefore open, approachable and even actively invited the media to go to Xinjiang and report from there with almost no official control or censorship.

Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in far western China has a population of 18 million which includes numerous Turkic-speaking, Muslim ethnic groups. The Uighurs, at 6 million, are the largest group. This non-Han Chinese population does not like being controlled by the Chinese and there are several pro-independence groups mostly articulated along ethno-nationalist lines rather than religious ones. These movements are supported by Uighurs living in the adjacent countries of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and those governments also fear the establishment of another East Turkestan as existed briefly from 1944-1949. Xinjiang is rich in natural resources including oil and is therefore important to the Chinese. A policy of Sinicization has been practiced since 1949. Many people from crowded, eastern China were forcibly moved into the region. Today, incentives and opportunities are given to those who "volunteer" move there. In 1949, ethnic Han Chinese made up 6 % of Xinjiang's population, 40% in 2007.

On the other hand, Iran's Presidential election result was obviously a foregone conclusion even before the first vote was cast. The Islamic Republic, led by Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, carefully selected all the candidates and voters to ensure President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected. Ahmadinejad may have really won the elections, but something was fundamentally wrong with the process. The results were announced within hours after the ballot boxes closed and no one could explain how the tens of millions of votes were counted and processed so rapidly and a winner declared with so much certainty by the Ministry of Interior. Iran is not particularly renowned for a sophisticated computerized votes counting system instantly linking all the regions, cities, towns and villages to Interior Ministry in Tehran!

The tsunami of protests came in with surprising speed and intensity. Millions of Iranians openly defied not only the results, but also the whole Iranian Government. The legitimacy itself of the regime was questioned and ridiculed by millions inside and outside the country. The Government was simply not ready for all that. The magnitude of the spontaneous protests took everybody by surprise. Even the defeated opposition candidate Mousavi himself was overwhelmed by the turn of the events and found himself at the centre of all currents opposition forces. Even the powerful and charismatic cleric and ex president Hashemi Rafsanjani took some time to react but eventually made clear that basically he supports the opposition forces.

Tehran therefore could not act with as much acumen, diplomacy, finesse and openness as the Chinese did. The cracks within the pro government rank and file were dangerously exposed by the rather heterogeneous opposition masses. The non elected religious authorities and their military and paramilitary organisations, like the Basj Militia and the Guardians of the Revolution were basically taken by surprise and reacted in a very ugly way. Mass arrests are going on to this day.

A young Iranian girl holds up photos comparing the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Adolf Hitler during a protest against the result of the recent Iranian elections (Los Angeles). The Hitler comparison is surely not accurate by any stretch of imagination, but illustrates very well the deep polarization within the Iranian society.

Iran's turmoil was expected sooner or later, and they exposed the monolithic approach of the Government. The heirs to the Islamic revolution of the late Ayatollah Khomeini were deeply shaken but remain resolute. The blow was more direct, more severe and took everyone by surprise. Dealing with dissent is always easier when it is expected and understood. Repressive methods show a lack of preparedness and clear mandates.

Members of Iran's pro-Conservative paramilitary Basj militia. How far will they go to protect the ruling theocracy?

Neither Iran nor China claim to be democratic nor do they practice ''democracy'' the way the Western world defines it. But it can be safely assumed that nominally communist China seems to have understood a few notions and selectively applies them when the circumstances allow. This selective approach is of course better than the open repressions and cover ups of yesteryear. But it does not guarantee a long term policy change under different givens and circumstances.

Has Beijing learned the appropriate lessons? And will the sudden openness exercised by the Government usher a new era for China in terms of Human Rights and Democracy? Probably the answer is "No", but at least China proved that it has learned a thing or two. China is strong and getting stronger. The troubles in Xinjiang are at best peripheral to the central government and present no threat.

Iran, meanwhile, has huge challenges and struggles with any sort of open opposition. Much more openness and inclusiveness is expected from the Tehran government, even though it may turn out to be suicidal for the current leaders and system. The Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah is showing its age and is seemingly running out of ideas.

The Shah was accused of being a non legitimate and a egocentric repressive ruler who did not care or listen and that he had lost all touch with the realities on the streets. Teheran's present rulers should know better than just the occasional Friday Sermons and open repression on the street and in the private bedrooms of the opposing masses.

Iran is a great nation and surely deserves better.

© Krikor Tersakian July 2009