DOĞU TÜRKİSTAN, UYGURLAR VE ÇİN: BİR GÜVENLİKLEŞTİRME ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti’nin 1949 yılından bu yana kontrolü altında bulunan Doğu Türkistan bölgesindeki Uygur toplumunun hedef alan güvenlik politikalarını eleştirel bir şekilde analiz etmek amacıyla güvenlikleştirme teorisine post-Kopenhag yaklaşımını benimsemiştir. Çalışma bu noktadan hareket ederek Doğu Türkistan’da Uygurlara karşı uygulanan ve güvenlik ile ilişkilendiren Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti uygulamalarını analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yine bu kapsamda makale, Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti liderliği tarafından kullanılan güvenlik ve tehdit dili arasındaki ilişkiyi ve bunun 1990’ların başından bu yana Uygurlara karşı uygulanan günlük ve istisnai güvenlik uygulamalarını meşrulaştırmadaki rolünü incelemektedir. Makale iki önemli iddiada bulunmaktadır. Öncelikle, Uygurların güvenlikleştirilmesinin ters sonuçlar doğurduğunu ve bir meselenin güvenlikleştirilmesinin önlemesi beklenen güvenlik tehdidini potansiyel olarak kendisinin üretmekte olduğunu savunmaktadır. İkinci olarak, makale, Çin gibi otoriter ve totaliter bir devlette bile hem iç hem de uluslararası kamuoyunun, güvenlikle ilgili süreçte ve Uygur topluluğuna karşı uygulanan güvenlik önlemlerinin meşrulaştırılmasında kilit bir rol oynadığını, bu noktada Çin’in uyguladığı politikalara meşruiyet kazandırmak için bu konudaki tasdik konusuna özel önem verdiğini iddia etmektedir. Bu argümanı ortaya koymak için analiz şu şekilde yapılandırılmıştır. Makalede, öncelikle güvenlikleştirme teorisini açıklamaktadır. Bu yaklaşım ‘post-Kopenhag’ olarak tanımlanabilir. Ancak bu konuda da öncelikle, Kopenhag Okulu’nun güvenlikleştirme çerçevesinin temel argümanları tekrar hatırlanmaktadır. Aşağıda geliştirilen çerçeve, güvenlikleştirme sürecindeki söylemin önemine odaklanmaktadır. Güvenlikleştirme teorisinin temel taahhütlerinin gevşetilmesi ve güvenlikleştirmelerin nasıl mümkün kılındığını anlamada bağlamın ve pratiğin rolüne de dikkat çekilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra, güvenlikleştirmeye yönelik Kopenhag Okulu’nun yaklaşımının sınırlamaları da incelenmekte ve özellikle Çin gibi Batı dışı bir ülke söz konusu olduğunda, güvenlikleştirmeye dair hem dilbilimsel hem de sosyolojik açıklamalardan analiz yapmanın gerekçesi açıklanmaktadır. Analizin ilerleyeceği çerçeve özetlendikten sonra, makale 1990’lardan bu yana Çin’de Uygur topluluğunun çeşitli şekillerde nasıl güvenlik adı altında baskı altına alındığını, bu güvenlikleştirme sürecinin Uygurlar için siyasi ve sosyal etkilerini de kapsayan bir analizle ele almaya yönelmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Güvenlikleştirme
• Kopenhag Okulu
• Çin
• Doğu Türkistan
• Uygurlar

EASTERN TURKESTAN, UYGHURS AND CHINA: A SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS

Öz

This study adopts a post-Copenhagen approach to securitization theory to critically analyze the security policies targeting the Uyghur community in East Turkestan, a region under the control of the People's Republic of China since 1949. From this point, the study aims to analyze the practices of the People's Republic of China against the Uyghurs in East Turkestan that are linked to security. Within this scope, the article examines the relationship between the language of security and threat used by the leadership of the People's Republic of China and its role in legitimizing the daily and exceptional security practices applied against the Uyghurs since the early 1990s. The article makes two important claims. First, it argues that the securitization of the Uyghurs has counterproductive results, and that securitizing an issue potentially generates the very security threat it is supposed to prevent. Secondly, the article argues that even in an authoritarian and totalitarian state like China, both domestic and international public opinion plays a key role in legitimizing the security process and the security measures implemented against the Uyghur community, with China placing particular emphasis on this validation to legitimize its policies. To present this argument, the analysis is structured as follows: The article first explains securitization theory, which can be described as ‘post-Copenhagen.’ However, the fundamental arguments of the Copenhagen School’s securitization framework are reiterated. The framework developed below focuses on the importance of discourse in the securitization process. It also attempts to highlight the role of context and practice in understanding how securitizations are made possible, and to loosen the basic commitments of securitization theory. Furthermore, the limitations of the Copenhagen School’s approach to securitization are examined, and the rationale for analyzing securitization from both linguistic and sociological perspectives is explained, especially when dealing with a non-Western country like China. After outlining the framework within which the analysis will proceed, the article aims to examine how the Uyghur community in China has been suppressed in various ways under the guise of security since the 1990s, through an analysis that also includes the political and social impacts of this securitization process on the Uyghurs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Securitization
• Kopenhagen School
• China
• Eastern Turkestan
• Uyghurs

Kaynakça

1. Amnesty International (2002). China’s Anti-Terrorism Legislation and Repression in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. New York: NY: Amnesty International.
2. Amnesty International (2016). Amnesty International Report 2015/16: The State of the World’s Human Rights. Londra: Amnesty International.
3. Ang, Jennifer (2016). “Sinicizing the Uyghurs”. Peace Review, 28(4): 399-406.
4. Aris, Stephen (2009). “The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: ‘Tackling the Three Evils’. A Regional Response to Non-Traditional Security Challenges or an Anti- Western Bloc?” Europe-Asia Studies, 61(3): 457-482.
5. Baker-Beall, Christopher ve Clark, Robert (2021.) “A “Post-Copenhagen” Analysis of China’s Securitization of the Uyghur: A Counterproductive Securitization?” Democracy and Security, 17(4): 427-454.
6. Balzacq, Thierry (2010). “A Theory of Securitization: Origins, Core Assumptions, and Variants”. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. (Ed. Thierry Balzacq). Abingdon: Routledge, 1-30.
7. Balzacq, Thierry (2010). “Enquiries into Methods: A New Framework For Securitization Analysis”. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. (Ed. Thierry Balzacq). Abingdon: Routledge, 31-54.
8. Bigo, Didier ve Tsoukala, Anastasia (2008). “Understanding (in)Security”. Terror, Insecurity and Liberty: Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes after 9/11. (Ed. Didier Bigo ve Anastasia Tsoukala). Abingdon: Routledge, 1-9.

9. Blanchard, Ben (2014). “Almost 100 Killed During Attacks in China’s Xinjiang Last Week”. Reuters.
10. Booth, Ken (2007). Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Branigan, Tania (2009). “Ethnic Violence in China Leaves 140 Dead”. The Guardian.
12. Broad, Matthew ve Daddow, Oliver (2010). “Half-Remembered Quotations from Mostly Forgotten Speeches: The Limits of Labour’s European Policy Discourse”. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 12(2): 205-222.
13. Buzan, Barry ve Wæver, Ole (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press.
14. Chung, Chien-peng (2002). “China’s War on Terror-September 11 and Uighurs”. Foreign Affairs, 81(4): 8-12.
15. Ciutǎ, Felix (2009). “Security and the Problem of Context: A Hermeneutical Critique of Securitization Theory”. Review of International Studies, 35(2): 301-326.
16. Croft, Stuart (2012). Securitizing Islam: Identity and the Search for Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1993). “Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of US Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines”. International Studies Quarterly, 37(3): 297-320.
18. East Turkistan Information Center (1999). Three Uyghur Political Asylum Seekers Deported from Kazakhstan to China. Münih.
19. Foster, Peter (2009). “Han Chinese Mob Takes to the Streets in Urumqi in Hunt for Uighur Muslims”. Daily Telegraph.
20. Friedrichs, Joerg (2017). “Sino-Muslim Relations: The Han, the Hui, and the Uyghurs”. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 37(1): 55-79.
21. Gladney, Dru C. (1996). Muslim Chinese: Ethnic Nationalism in the People’s Republic, No. 149. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center.
22. Gladney, Dru C. (2003). “Islam in China: Accommodation or Separatism?” The China Quarterly, 174: 451-467.
23. Guo, Rongxing (2015). China’s Spatial (Dis)integration: Political Economy of the Interethnic. New York: Elsevier.
24. Gutmann, Ethan (2012). “‘Bitter Harvest: China’s’ Organ Donation Nightmare”. World Affairs, 175(2): 49-56.
25. Hansen, Lene (2000). “The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School”. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29(2): 285-306.
26. Hansen, Lene (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
27. Hastings, Justin V. (2011). “Charting the Course of Uyghur Unrest”. The China Quarterly, 208: 893-912.
28. Howell, Anthony ve Fan, C. Cindy (2011). “Migration and Inequality in Xinjiang: A Survey of Han and Uyghur Migrants in Urumqi”. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 52(1):119-139.
29. Human Rights Watch (2005). “Devastating Blows: Religious Repression of Uighurs in Xinjiang”. Human Rights Watch, Hric Special Report, 17(2).
30. Human Rights Watch, (2009). “We Are Afraid to Even Look for Them: Enforced Disappearances in the Wake of Xinjiang’s Protests”. New York: Human Rights Watch.
31. Human Rights Watch, (2018). “Eradicating Ideological Viruses: China’s Campaign of Repression Against Xinjiang’s Muslims”. New York: Human Rights Watch.
32. Kellner, Thierry (2002). China: The Uyghur Situation from Independence for the Central Asian Republics to the Post September 11 Era. UNHCR Emergency&Security Service, Writenet Paper No. 2.
33. Knudsen, Olav F. (2001). “Post-Copenhagen Security Studies”, Security Dialogue, 32(3): 355-368.
34. Kurban, A. ve Tatlı, İ. (2022). Doğu Türkistan’daki Hak İhlalleri ve BM’nin Uygur Raporunun Değerlendirilmesi. İHH/İNSAMER Rapor.
35. Lisheng, Bao (2001). “Chinese Officials Say Not Much Terrorism in Xinjiang”. Ta Kung Pao.
36. Lipman, Jonathan N. (2011). Familiar Strangers: A History of Muslims in Northwest China. Seattle ve Londra: University of Washington Press.
37. Madsen, Richard. (2010). “The Upsurge of Religion in China”. Journal of Democracy, 21(4): 58-71.
38. Pomfret, John (2001). “China Censors Anti-U.S. Reaction”. International Herald Tribune.
39. Potter, Philip B. K. (2013). “Terrorism in China: Growing Threats with Global Implications”. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 7(4), 70-92.
40. Roberts, Sean (2018). “The Biopolitics of China’s ‘War on Terror’ and the Exclusion of the Uyghurs”. Critical Asian Studies, 50(2): 232-258.
41. Roberts, Sean ve Clarke, Michael (2018). “The Narrative of Uyghur Terrorism and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Uyghur Militancy”. Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in China: Domestic and Foreign Policy Dimensions. (Ed. Michael Clarke). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 99-127.
42. Salter, Mark B. (2008). “Securitization and Desecuritization: A Dramaturgical Analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority”. Journal of International Relations and Development, 11(4): 321-349.
43. Smith, Joanne (2000). “Four Generations of Uyghurs: The Shift towards Ethno-Political Ideologies among Xinjiang’s Youth”. Inner Asia, Special Issue, 2(2): 195-224.
44. Smith Finley, Joanne (2019). “Securitization, Insecurity and Conflict in Contemporary Xinjiang: Has PRC Counter-Terrorism Evolved into State Terror?” Central Asian Survey, 38(1): 1-26.
45. Snetkov, Angela (2017). “Theories, Methods and Practices-A Longitudinal Spatial Analysis of the (de)Securitization of the Insurgency Threat in Russia”. Security Dialogue, 48(3): 259-275.
46. Stritzel, Holger (2007). “Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond”. European Journal of International Relations, 13(3): 357-383.
47. Stritzel, Holger (2012). “Securitization, Power, Intertextuality: Discourse Theory and the Translations of Organized Crime”. Security Dialogue, 43(6): 549-67.
48. Stritzel, Holger ve Chang, Sean C. (2015). “Securitization and Counter-Securitization in Afghanistan”. Security Dialogue, 46(6): 548-567.
49. US Congress, (2019). “Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019”. US House of Representatives. Wæver, Ole (1995). “Securitization and Desecuritization”. On Security. (Ed. Ronnie D. Lipschutz). New York: Columbia University Press, 46-87.
50. Wilkinson, Claire (2007). “The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe?” Security Dialogue, 38(1): 5-25.
51. Wilkinson, Claire (2011). “The Limits of Spoken Words: From Meta-Narratives to Experiences of Security”. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. (Ed. Thierry Balzacq). Abingdon: Routledge, 94-115.
52. van Nieuwenhuizen, Simone. (2014). “China May Regret ‘Free Riding’ in Iraq”. The Diplomat.
53. Vuori, Juha A. (2008). “Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the Theory of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders”. European Journal of International Relations, 14(1): 65-99.
54. Zenz, Adrian ve Leibold, James (2017). “Chen Quanguo: The Strongman Behind Beijing’s Securitization Strategy in Tibet and Xinjiang”. The Jamestown Foundation China Brief, 17(12): 16-24.
55. İnternet Kaynakları: URL-1: “China Bans Xinjiang Officials from Observing Ramadan Fast”. BBC Online.
56. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-28123267 (Erişim: 20.03.2026).
57. URL-2: “Foreign Ministry Regular Press Conference by Spokesman Zhu Bangzao”. PRC. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/topics_665678/3712_665976/t19011.shtml (Erişim: 20.03.2026).
58. URL-3: “The East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM)”. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.akademiye.org/ug/?p=157865 (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
59. URL-4: “Frequently Asked Questions About U.S. Policy in Central Asia”. US Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/15562.htm (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
60. URL-5: “China Steps up Surveillance in Xinjiang”. BBC News Online. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10485129 (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
61. URL-6: “China Mass Stabbing: Deadly Knife Attack in Kunming”. BBC Online. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-26402367 (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
62. URL-7: “China Separatists Blamed for Kunming Knife Rampage”. BBC Online. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-26404566 (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
63. URL-8: “Xinjiang’s Party Chief Wages ‘People’s War’ Against Terrorism”. China Daily.Com. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-05/26/content_17541318.htm (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
64. URL-9: “Repression Stalks China’s Uighurs, 10 Years After Urumqi Riots”. Al-Jazeera Online. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/repression-stalks-china-uighurs-10-years-urumqi-riots-190705045804805.html (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
65. URL-10: “China’s War on Terror Becomes All Out Attack on Islam in Xinjiang”. World Uyghur Congress. https://www.uyghurcongress.org/en/chinas-war-on-terror-becomes-all-out-attack-on-islam-in-xinjiang/ (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
66. URL-11: “Ambassador Cui Tiankai’s Interview with the Foreign Policy”. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zwjg_ 665342/zwbd_665378/t1208141.shtml (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
67. URL-12: Shuning, Yu. “Minister-Counselor to the People’s Republic of China’s Embassy in the Republic of Lithuania, Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post”. http://lt.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/jpflg/t125342.htm (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
68. URL-13: Seytoff, Alim. “China’s Uighurs Claim Cultural “Genocide”. Al-Jazeera Online. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/06/china-uighurs-claim-cultural-gen-20146165946224857.html (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
69. URL-14: Bernstein, Richard. “When China Convinced the U.S. That Uighurs Were Waging Jihad”. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/03/us-uighurs-guantanamo-china-terror/584107/ (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
70. URL-15: Saidazimova, Gulnoza. “China: Officials Say Uyghur Group Involved in Olympic Terror Plot”. Radio Free Europe. https://www.rferl.org/a/1109560.html (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
71. URL-16: Martina, Michael. “China’s Xi says Xinjiang is Front line on Terrorism, Hails Police”. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-xinjiang/chinas-xi-says-xinjiang-is-front-line-on-terrorism-hails-police-idUSBREA3S03D20140429 (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
72. URL-17: Spegele, Brian. “Shades of George W. Bush in Xi Jinping’s Anti-Terror Campaign”. Wall Street Journal. https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/04/29/shades-of-george-w-bush-in-xi-jinpings-anti-terror-campaign/ (Erişim: 21.03.2026).
73. URL-18: Rauhala, Emily. “China Now Says Almost 100 Were Killed in Xinjiang Violence”. Time Magazine. https://time.com/3078381/china-xinjiang-violence-shache-yarkand/ (Erişim: 21.03.2026).