My question aims to know what kind of procedures did the Chinese government (allegedly) take since 2014 in Xinjiang, and why to begin with. And what can we know about the region in the current time, like can a random tourist go and see with their own eyes the truth, and maybe film it ?
There are Youtube videos and a Wikipedia page documenting human rights infringements, while China and the Marxist forums deny anything harmful. Now that almost nobody is bringing it up, I want to know what was legitimately documented. Investigating the origins and later developments of the case on my own would be so hard.
Xinjiang is a large, multicultural region with millions and millions of people living there. There are many different experiences there, different industries, different ways of life. There are factory workers, industrialized farmersquitell-scale shepherds, nomads, tech workers, artists, performers, etc etc and often speaking different languages (though most speaking a good amount of Mandarin as well).
Regarding the state, I believe you are speaking specifically to the anti-terrorist policies (with wide applications) taken up in response to repeated deadly attacks by separatist extremists, primarily those influenced by a form of politicized islam not in any way native to the region, but imported from Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. Hundreds were killed, repeatedly, targeting transit centers, public events, markets, etc. Civilians were targeted, widely.
The state’s response to this was, broadly, to:
Invest in economic “modernization” in Xinjiang. Namely, to raise thr economic floor in the region and change economic relations so as to be less amenable to these kinds of activities. Greater prospects for the people of Xinjiang and greater integration into China as a whole, i.e. moving away from economic isolation and personal experiences being isolated.
Increased monitoring of social media and movements to track down potential radicalization. Focused on that imported form of politicized idlam, again quite different from Uyghur traditional islamic practices.
The creation of hybrid deradicalization/vocational centers, sometimes with mandatory attendance. Those who attended learned civics, Mandarin, base skills for getting modernized jobs, and the opportunity for better job placement in or out of Xinjiang. They would attend on weekdays and generally did not actually live at these centers. When attendance was required it was sometimes due to flagging for radicalization, for which the justifications varied from attending meetinga with separatists to posting separatiat or violent rhetoric online to quoting Wahhabists or putting up Wahhabist pictures in their homes or just being a family member of someone who did such things - your social network could flag you.
This program has largely worked and the vocational centers have been wound fown as they do not have nearly as many people attending them anymore. Xinjiang’s economy has modernized and industrialized to a larger extent and is increasingly integrated with both the rest of China and the world.
The West’s response to this, which is to say, the imperialists who fund and arm people like those whose who did the terrorist attacks in the first place and who have repeatedly destrpyed entire Muslim nations, has been to cook up a host of faux-intellectual bullshit through its NGO pipelines, and to try and reverse China’s approach to economic improvementa by sanctioning or boycotting Xinjiang products. They fundamentally agree that improving material conditions in Xinjiang will address this form of radialized, but they actually want to stoke it by making people there poorer. The NGO apparatus is actually wuite small and is full of charalatans that do not visit China, let alone Xinjiang, do not speak the relevant languages, and insulate themselves from criticism while promoting their work politically - to justify policies against China, against Xinjiang, against Uyghurs.
For one example, you may have heard about claims of the destruction of ancient mosques. None of this is ever verified, it comes exclusively from someone looking at blurry satellite images and making guesses. This comes from ASPI, part of Australia’s equivalent of the state/war department, and has mostly been done by an amateur whosr published work was mostly done as a teenager. That’s right, a random Australian teenager making things up is a large part of the basis for these claims and is published in the so-called UN human rights “report”, itself just a laundering of these fmcharacters’ work, as they were aware that only citing Zenz and ASPI was becoming conspicuous. And where is this “work” handled critically? Nowhere professionally, I can tell you that. It is not part of any real critical academic domain, it is only in the political, and you have to go find people who do speak the languages or otherwise expose this grifter behavior to tease it apart.