As China’s influence and ambition both grow in the global arena, its mode of authoritarian politics as manifested in both domestic and international dimensions has drawn growing scrutiny from scholars, observers, and policy makers. On the one hand, increasingly sophisticated forms of information control, the rising tide of nationalism, and recent institutional changes are the focus of a growing literature on China’s domestic politics. On the other hand, China’s ambitious global projects, including the Belt and Road Initiative, exportation of digital authoritarianism, shifts in foreign policies, and challenges to the liberal international order, are being closely watched around the world. Given the heavy-handed domestic state apparatus and being at the forefront of China’s competition for global influence, Xinjiang is a perfect place to observe both dimensions of China’s authoritarian politics.
Philip B. K. Potter and Chen Wang’s new book, Zero Tolerance, focuses on authoritarian repression and political violence in Xinjiang, uncovering both the causes of this vicious cycle of repression and violence and their implications for both China and the world. The authors carefully assess the scale of political violence in Xinjiang and identify four phases of violence and repression (chapter 2). They use state media’s coverage of violent attacks to examine the regime’s moving between suppressing and promptly releasing information in the face of domestic political violence (chapter 3). Chapter 4 analyzes the securitization of Xinjiang and the recent intensification of assimilation and de-extremification efforts. The authors argue that this strategic shift was largely driven by three key factors: frustration with the prior carrot-and-stick approach that failed to deliver absolute stability, domestic challenges caused by economic slowdown and political transitions that led to the regime’s shift toward fostering ideological unity for legitimation, and deteriorating international conditions that heightened the regime’s fear of foreign interference (pp. 108, 127–40). As China expands its political and economic influence globally, its concerns about regional stability and security prompt it to elevate the role of counterterrorism in its foreign policies, especially along China’s New Silk Road. China prioritizes military cooperation in counterterrorism in places with both substantial Chinese investment and a significant risk of militant violence (chapter 5). The authors wrap up their compelling analysis with a gloomy prediction of the path ahead: China is unlikely to cease its excessive measures in Xinjiang, and the international outcry is unlikely to alter the regime’s calculus of legitimacy and survival (chapter 6).
Zero Tolerance presents at least two important and broad contributions to the study of ethnic conflict and authoritarian politics through the case of China. First, building on earlier works by specialists on Xinjiang, including Gardner Bovingdon, James A. Millward, and Michael Dillon, more recent research has focused on the plight of the Uyghur people and the securitization of the region (for instance, see James A. Millward, Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang, 2021; and Stefanie Kam and Michael Clarke, “Securitization, Surveillance and ‘De-Extremization’ in Xinjiang,” International Affairs, 97, 2021). However, relatively less attention has been focused on the political violence in the region, which is an essential link in the chain of repression, grievance, and violence (pp. 13–16, 132–33). The authors’ approach differs from the existing literature by emphasizing the importance of understanding the reality of political violence and how this is linked to the regime’s perception of its own interests and the risks to its survival.
The authors use the comprehensive data they collected on Uyghur-initiated political violence in China from 1990 to 2014 to systematically analyze both the relationship between the timing of violence and the international environment facing China (pp. 49–53) and that between violence and securitization (pp. 129–33). They find that militants, attempting to maximize engagement with international audiences and to delegitimize the regime, are more likely to initiate violence when the regime is confronted with a more hostile international environment. The surge in violence then prompts the regime to increase its public security spending. However, even though heightened securitization generates a rapid decline in violence, it quickly gives way to an increase in violence when control is loosened but underlying grievances remain unaddressed. The reemerging violence again triggers more repression.
Zero Tolerance reveals both the importance of the international environment and the effect and limit of domestic securitization measures in shaping the trend toward violence. Both factors are closely related to the regime’s perception of international and domestic environments and its core interests, including regime survival. The security of Xinjiang is increasingly intertwined with regime legitimacy, because the regime considers itself to be the ultimate guarantor of sovereignty and territorial integrity and as having uncontested authority. Zero Tolerance brings our attention to the regime’s logic in dealing with political violence. It also sheds more light on the complex dynamic in other modern autocracies confronted with political violence that arises from tensions between dominant ethnic groups and minorities. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the book’s analysis suggests that repression can actually boost regime legitimacy and popularity under certain circumstances, because repression of an ethnic minority in the name of stability can appeal to the majority’s sentiments (p. 194).
The second contribution of the book lies in uncovering the information dilemma faced by autocracies and the mechanism of information control at work in the context of political violence. Autocrats often use information control to foster regime support and deal with threats to the regime (see Gary King, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret Roberts, “How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression,” American Political Science Review, 107, 2013; and Haifeng Huang, Serra Boranbay-Akan, and Ling Huang, “Media, Protest Diffusion, and Authoritarian Resilience,” Political Science Research and Methods, 7, 2016). However, autocrats in information environments made increasingly “leaky” by media diversification and technological advancement, as is the case in China, are confronted with the dilemma of choosing between suppressing information and promptly releasing information about violent incidents.
Zero Tolerance suggests that being transparent can serve to legitimize the regime’s policies in front of international audiences and boost long-term domestic support. However, acknowledging episodes of violence can potentially undermine the very stability the regime has eagerly sought and invite international pressure, both of which are deemed detrimental to regime survival (pp. 78–85). The analysis of Chinese state media coverage of violence between 1990 and 2014 reveals that the regime consistently prioritizes short-term stability by suppressing information unless both domestic and international environments are favorable to the regime’s standing and legitimacy (pp. 91–101). The ultimate goal of information control is to maintain regime legitimacy. In the same light, the regime’s concerns with stability, escalating securitization measures and targeted repression, increasing emphasis on nationalism and ideological unity, and sensitivities to deteriorating international conditions are best explained in the framework of regime maintenance and survival. In this sense, Xinjiang has not only become “a laboratory for authoritarian repression” (p. 15) but also a laboratory for regime maintenance, including information control and other forms of digital authoritarianism. There is evidence to suggest that digital authoritarianism has spread to other parts of China and around the world (pp. 180–81; see Freedom House, The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism, 2018). The methods used in one authoritarian setting may be copied by other autocrats. Zero Tolerance offers another important lesson about authoritarian regimes: their political calculus is centered on caution and risk avoidance, but information control surrounding political violence can be turned into a legitimation strategy, especially among a regime’s targeted audiences.
