By Salih Hudayar
Since the People’s Republic of China invaded East Turkistan in late 1949, the country has been under illegal occupation. Yet for decades, the question of East Turkistan’s sovereignty has been distorted by narratives that echo the language of occupying powers rather than international law. One persistent fallacy claims that East Turkistan’s statehood “disappeared” through great-power bargains at Yalta. Today, this narrative is being expanded through a deliberate misreading of United Nations Resolution 2758, not by Beijing but by an organization that claims to advocate for Uyghur human rights.
Recent commentary published by the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) repeats key elements of Chinese state propaganda under the guise of legal realism. It asserts that the Yalta Conference and Resolution 2758 “erased the very possibility of Uyghur sovereignty.” This claim is false, legally unsound, and politically damaging. It reframes an ongoing struggle for decolonization and national self-determination as a closed question, precisely the outcome China seeks. Publishing such defeatist interpretations, especially on East Turkistan’s Independence Day, undermines solidarity and advances the narrative of the occupation forces. Independence commemorations should reinforce the right to national sovereignty, not negate it.
The historical record is clear. Uyghur statehood in East Turkistan is rooted in a long tradition of self-governance. Across millennia, the ancestors of today’s Uyghurs established independent city-states, kingdoms, khanates, empires, and republics in East Turkistan, including the ancient Tarim Basin polities, the Hun (Xiongnu) Empire, the Turkic Khaganate, the Uyghur Khaganate, the Qarakhanid State, the Idiqut Uyghur State, and the Yarkent and Turpan Khanates. These entities were active participants in Eurasian diplomacy, culture, and trade, establishing a continuous political tradition that long predates Manchu and later Chinese rule.
In 1759, the Manchu Qing Empire conquered East Turkistan and ruled it as a military colony until 1864, without integrating it. Uyghur resistance was constant, with 42 uprisings recorded during this period. East Turkistan briefly regained independence as the State of Yettesheher in 1865, before being reconquered and, in 1884, renamed “Xinjiang,” meaning “New Territory”) —a colonial designation that reveals the nature of Qing rule.
In the twentieth century, Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples twice declared independence as the East Turkistan Republic, first in 1933 and again in 1944. Both republics met the criteria for statehood codified in the Montevideo Convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to conduct foreign relations. Foreign invasion interrupted that sovereignty, but interruption does not extinguish statehood under international law. When the People’s Republic of China invaded on October 12, 1949, East Turkistan met the prevailing legal standards for sovereign statehood under customary international law.
The UHRP’s claims that Uyghur statehood disappeared because of “global choices—decisions made by powerful states and codified in international law,” arguing that the Yalta Conference marked “the moment when the Soviet Union traded principle for pragmatism” and that UN Resolution 2758 “ensured that no global body would ever again question China’s territorial claims.” East Turkistan was not discussed at the Yalta Conference. The conference focused on the Soviet entry into the war against Japan, postwar arrangements in Europe, concessions in Manchuria, and the independence of Outer Mongolia. No agreement at Yalta transferred East Turkistan to China or addressed its claims of sovereignty over East Turkistan in any form.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, adopted in 1971, is equally irrelevant to territorial questions. Its text addresses only which government represents “China” at the United Nations, transferring the seat from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China. It does not define China’s borders, endorse Beijing’s territorial claims, or extinguish the sovereignty of any other nation, whether Taiwan or East Turkistan. Contemporary legal analyses consistently affirm that Resolution 2758 concerns representation alone. Silence on East Turkistan does not negate its legal status; it leaves the question unresolved.
International law is equally clear on the illegitimacy of conquest and occupation. The 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention establish that occupation and annexation do not confer lawful sovereignty and that an occupying power may not transfer its own civilian population into occupied territory. UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) defines military invasion and occupation as aggression and affirms that no territorial acquisition resulting from aggression can be recognized as lawful. Under these standards, China’s 1949 invasion and continuing colonial domination over East Turkistan constitute aggression and occupation, not legitimate rule.
The UN’s decolonization framework affirms the rights of peoples under occupation and colonial domination to independence, not capitulation. UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, affirms that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom and independence, the exercise of their sovereignty, and the integrity of their national territory, and calls for a “speedy and unconditional end” to colonialism in all forms. Resolution 2625 (1970), the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, reaffirms the right of peoples to freely determine their political status and obliges states to refrain from acts that deprive peoples of self-determination, freedom, or independence.
Resolution 3070 (1973) reiterates the inalienable right of all peoples under colonial or foreign domination, or under alien subjugation, to self-determination, freedom, and independence, and calls on states to support national liberation movements. Resolution 45/130 (1990) reaffirms the legitimacy of all available means, including armed resistance, to achieve independence from occupation, colonial domination, and racist regimes. These principles do not expire because an occupier gains international recognition or because time passes.
China’s policies in East Turkistan—settler colonization, forced demographic change, physical and cultural destruction, and genocide—reinforce, rather than undermine, the territory’s status as an occupied country. Labeling Uyghur resistance as “extremism,” “separatism,” or “terrorism” is a political tactic designed to criminalize a people’s lawful pursuit of external self-determination and evade accountability under international law.
The “Yalta to Resolution 2758” argument is not legal realism; it is a rhetorical weapon meant to normalize colonial domination and discourage international support for East Turkistani resistance. International law does not erase East Turkistan’s sovereignty; it affirms it. The conflict between China and East Turkistan is not an “internal affair,” but an international dispute rooted in aggression, colonial occupation, and the denial of self-determination.
To declare the window closed on East Turkistan’s sovereignty is to echo Chinese propaganda rather than international jurisprudence. History, law, and conscience point in the same direction: East Turkistan remains under occupation, and the struggle for decolonization and restored independence continues.
Governments and organizations committed to justice must recognize East Turkistan as an occupied country and support the East Turkistani people’s right to self-determination and independence. Anything less risks legitimizing a colonial status quo that international law itself rejects.
Salih Hudayar serves as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Security for the East Turkistan Government in Exile and is also the leader of the East Turkistan National Movement. He holds a master’s degree in national security studies from American Military University. Follow him on X @SalihHudayar.
