China’s Terrorism Narrative Emerges for June 26 Incident

Post image for China’s Terrorism Narrative Emerges for June 26 Incident

by Kendrick Kuo on 6/27/2013 · 4 comments

Yesterday, a “knife-wielding” mob attacked a police station, government offices, and a construction site in Lukqun township, Xinjiang. The mob killed nine security personnel and eight civilians before police gunfire killed ten of the assailants. In my commentary of the crisis, I may have spoken too soon. Comparing it to another violent clash in April 23 near Kashgar, I wrote, “April 23 was part of the terrorism narrative, whereas June 26 looks like it will need to find another narrative.” I was wrong.

As I described yesterday, the coverage of these violent incidents by the foreign media always comprise of summarizing the state media explanation and push back from the the Uyghur diaspora community. So after many reports in Western media began coming out summarizing state media accounts, the Uyghur American Association (UAA) urged the international community to be cautious about taking official accounts at face value. The UAA indicates in their press release that there might be “an information blackout in the area” and tension in the locality might stem from the killing of a seven-year-old Uyghur boy last month in a neighboring village.

While this cautionary narrative was being disseminated, the state media structure was also on the move. Photos of the scene that I linked to yesterday were taken down. A new narrative was in the works. Xinhuanet ran the headline “SCO defense chiefs vows to maintain regional peace, combat terrorism” after a one-day meeting of defense officials from China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. There was nothing newsworthy about the meeting–formal approvals of cooperation plans for 2014-2015 and the usual reiteration of resolve to counteract separatism, extremism, and drug-trafficking. Though the June 26 incident is not mentioned, the SCO press release was so well-timed that it is hard to believe the two are unrelated.

Then another “coincidental” press release went live. The report describes an explosion in Ghorachol township in Awat county earlier this month. The story goes as follows. Police were conducting a house-to-house search (whether for this specific group of Uyghurs or with another objective remains unclear) and cornered this group of Uyghurs. Some groups members were arrested while others killed themselves by triggering explosive devices. Twelve of the Uyghurs were killed, five of whom were allegedly connected with the July 2009 clash in Urumqi, having been previously arrested but then released. This incident occurred “earlier this month,” but only became publicized now. Curious. I don’t mean to question the accuracy of this explosion report, merely to proffer it as an example of maneuvering to write a specific type of narrative for the June 26 incident.

Finally, the actual use of “terrorism” to describe June 26 began in state-controlled media. In the Global Times article “Riot kills 27 in Xinjiang,” the authors interview Li Wei, an anti-terrorism expert, who explained the reason for the violence in such a remote location with no history of violence as “terrorists sought to launch attacks in areas with relatively weak anti-terrorism measures.” A second interviewee, Pan Zhiping from the Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences, explains “that the attack was a bid by terrorists to show that they are ‘willing to do anything anywhere’ by starting chaos and panic in ‘peaceful’ eastern Xinjiang, and exhibited the logic of ‘jihad’.”

In a similar vein, this morning China Daily ran an opinion piece titled “United against terrorism,” where the author links the April 23 incident with June 26. The opinion piece reads, “The strikingly similar manner of the latest terrorist attack [June 26] tot he previous one [April 23] means it is difficult to see them as isolated incidents.” The author describes July 2009, April 23, and June 26 (perpetrated by “terrorists, separatists, and extremists”) as part of a larger metanarrative, a more sinister plan, “to sow the seeds of hatred and fear among local residents in order to facilitate their own selfish goals.” The piece concludes with a call for “[l]ocal people of different ethnic groups…to take a firm and untied stand to crush the sinful brutality of those who seek their own gains at the cost of harmonious coexistence.”

This concluding sentence sounds eerily like the party line I described yesterday. Han and Uyghurs should unite together against this looming terrorist threat. Such a motto underlines the premise: the violence is motivated by religious extremism and separatists rather than Han-Uyghur ethnic tensions. I say again, this security policy does not seem to be working and these violent incidents should promote self-reflection rather than a tightening grip.

So I was wrong. The June 26 incident will likely go the way of April 23. The Chinese government will add June 26 to its database of evidence of a terrorist threat that justifies its current security policies. Much like April 23, when jihadist materials emerged in connection to the violence, we can wait and see if evidence will surface for this “act of terror” on June 26.

Subscribe to receive updates from Registan

This post was written by...

– author of 20 posts on 17_PersonNotFound.

Kendrick Kuo is a China specialist pursuing graduate studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. You can follow him on Twitter at @KendrickKuotes.

For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use


wolf June 27, 2013 at 9:50 am

well written article.

wolf June 27, 2013 at 10:02 am

calling those incidents riot is not very correct. it should be called insurgency or rebellion.
in Chinese media reports, you can see they always describe like “stabbed police and civilians in the building.” they want to make international community think that they killed civilians , so they are terrorist.
attack happened 6.00AM, all targets are symbols of Chinese government, police station , other government buildings as report said.
at that early morning, people work in those building most likely police and security guards, so only people who represent chinese authority in those buildings. it is impossible civilians go to there at 6.00am.
another point, if it is terrorist attack, why not report it immediately to people in china and to world. why the block the news? it is already two days, still not clear explanations. chinese delaying to tell whole story , because they are preparing so called Jihad materials, extremist books and other proofs which is going to find by police in those attacker’s home. at meantime, they are on meeting to how to label this and announce to international community.
this will labelled as originazed, well planned, blabla…., terrorist attack. attckers house full of Jihad books, some stuff like that. and end story by saying Uyghur people firmly against those terrorist, han-uyghur relationship is getting better than ever.

Yolvas Tiger June 27, 2013 at 11:47 am

“Where there is repression there is resistance!” – Mao Zedong

Ubuntu June 27, 2013 at 7:21 pm

The knife-wielding mob thing reads like an NRA advert.

If only there was someone there, with a gun, to prevent a slaughter. Hold it! There were people there – with guns, the Chinese security forces, who promptly opened-up killing 10 of the ‘knife-wielders’. It sort of echoes the old cowboy adage about ‘not bringing a knife to a gunfight’.

And, of course, the necessity of more, better, armed security with an apparatus to track down terror before it starts.

If it wasn’t in China, you’d swear …..

Previous post:

Next post: