New Delhi, July 24 : US policymakers have long identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as the primary threat to America’s national security and the international order. Yet China’s greatest vulnerability lies not within the Party itself, but in the colonial empire it has forcibly built by conquering East Turkistan, Tibet, and Southern Mongolia. These are not “provinces of China” or "secessionist movements".

They are captive nations whose continued occupation sustains Beijing’s imperial control and fuels its ambitions for global dominance. A serious U.S. strategy for a post-CCP China must support the decolonization and restoration of independence for these nations. The Hudson Institute’s China After Communism: Preparing for a Post-CCP China envisions a future beyond the CCP, but it fails to confront the imperial structure that will remain if Chinese colonialism goes unchallenged.

Before their conquest by the Manchu Qing Empire, East Turkistan, Tibet, and Mongolia were sovereign, independent nations with distinct languages, religions, and political systems. They were never part of China.

Even the Great Wall of China, whose westernmost gate at Jiayuguan marked the traditional boundary of China, excluded these lands. Everything beyond the Wall was seen as foreign territory, a reality that contradicts modern Chinese imperialist narratives of so-called “historical unity”.

The Manchu Empire subjugated these nations through military conquest, and the 1911 revolution failed to dismantle this colonial empire. Instead, Chinese imperialists sought to preserve the Qing’s imperial borders, and Western powers accepted these illegitimate claims for the sake of stability.

The CCP later completed this project by forcibly occupying former Qing colonies, many of which had already declared independence, while falsely presenting their conquest as "national unification".

Contrary to flawed assumptions in the Hudson Institute’s report, the struggle of East Turkistan, Tibet, and Southern Mongolia is not about reforming the regime in Beijing; it is about dismantling the imperial structure that has subjugated them for over seven decades. Many articles in the report envision a “democratic China” inheriting the colonial empire.

This is a profound mistake. Replacing one imperialist regime with another does not resolve the problem rooted in Chinese colonialism. Preserving the Chinese empire’s borders while replacing the CCP with another Chinese regime will not end the oppression of non-Chinese nations, nor neutralize China’s threat to global stability.

True freedom and security demand the complete restoration of these nations’ independence and the dismantling of China’s imperial framework.

The Hudson report mischaracterizes these anti-colonial national liberation movements by framing them as seeking “Xinjiang independence” or “independence from China,” which distorts the historical and legal realities.

The people of East Turkistan, Tibet, and Southern Mongolia are not seeking to secede from China, as they were never legitimately part of China to begin with. Instead, they are calling for the restoration of their rightful independence and sovereignty.

These nations were sovereign prior to their conquest by the Manchu (Qing) Empire. East Turkistan briefly regained its independence in 1933 and again in 1944, before being annexed by the newly established Chinese Communist regime through military occupation in late 1949. Tibet also reasserted its independence from 1913 until it was invaded and occupied by the Chinese Communist regime in 1950.

The Chinese term “Xinjiang,” which translates to “New Territory,” is a colonial label imposed to erase East Turkistan’s distinct identity, history, and rightful claims to sovereignty.

Proposals for “autonomy” mirror the deceptive strategies of both the Kuomintang and the CCP. Such proposals aim to pacify anti-colonial resistance while advancing Chinese colonization under a different banner.

Since 1955, East Turkistan’s so-called autonomy has masked systemic genocide, forced sterilization, cultural and physical erasure, and mass enslavement of Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other Turkic peoples. Suggesting that “autonomy” can safeguard the East Turkistani people is not only misleading but also dangerous.

One particularly troubling suggestion in the report is that Uyghurs be confined to a “southern autonomous zone” while the north remains under Han control, effectively partitioning East Turkistan. This reflects an imperialist mindset designed to entrench Chinese colonial domination and facilitate the construction of a “secondary Chinese capital” in East Turkistan.

The only just solution is complete decolonization and the restoration of national sovereignty.

The report also undermines its credibility by using the colonial term “Xinjiang” and arguing that U.S. support for independence should depend on strategic interests. This approach reduces fundamental rights to geopolitical bargaining. By stating that several Uyghur diaspora groups “advocate for peaceful democratic transition,” it inaccurately and dangerously implies that Uyghurs would accept continued Chinese rule under “democratic reforms.”

In reality, informal surveys and preliminary polls among the East Turkistani diaspora consistently show that over 90 percent support complete independence rather than incremental reform or so-called “autonomy.” As a people facing decades-long systematic racism, genocide, and colonization under the Chinese, it is a factual and reasonable conclusion that the overwhelming majority of East Turkistan’s native peoples want nothing to do with China. They would not accept any form of continued Chinese rule, including rebranded or nominal autonomy.