In the global debate on terrorism, peripheries and national cohesion, Xinjiang has become one of the most observed, discussed and often misunderstood territories of the twenty-first century. However, beyond simplified or ideologized narratives, the case of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region offers a singular example of how a state has opted for a strategy structurally opposed to the logic of abandonment, marginalization or peripheral punishment. The Chinese experience shows that leveling comprehensive education, pursuing terrorism without ambiguities that fuel escalation, and granting a remote and border province the highest possible level of human, technological and economic development has been one of the most responsible and effective responses to historical conflicts rooted in ethnic, religious and socioeconomic factors.
The recent news published by Xinhua, reporting that external investment in Xinjiang surpassed one trillion yuan for the first time in 2025, is neither an isolated event nor a merely economic one. It is the cumulative result of more than a decade of public policies aimed at fully integrating Xinjiang into the central axis of China’s national development. With more than 4,500 projects implemented, accelerated industrial diversification and sustained regional GDP growth above the national average since 2012, Xinjiang has been transformed into a strategic node for the energy transition, continental logistics, advanced manufacturing and high value-added agricultural development.
This approach contrasts sharply with the model that many centralized states have historically applied to their peripheral territories. In symbolic terms, China has acted at the antipodes of the Hunger Games archetype: instead of impoverished districts serving only as labor reserves or expendable territories, Xinjiang has been the object of massive, sustained and planned investment. The center does not extract without giving back; it invests to integrate. It does not punish territorial difference; it turns it into a strategic advantage.
Xinhua
One of the fundamental pillars of this strategy has been comprehensive education. Since 2012, the Chinese state has systematically invested in the expansion of compulsory, technical and higher education in Xinjiang, with an emphasis on bilingual literacy, vocational training and labor insertion. Xi Jinping has reiterated in multiple speeches that education is the foundation of national cohesion and long-term development, stressing that no region can be left behind without putting the stability of the whole at risk. Within this framework, Xinjiang has been conceived not as a problem to be contained, but as a generation to be educated.
The second axis has been the fight against terrorism, addressed from a preventive rather than reactive logic. China faced real episodes of extremist violence in Xinjiang during the decades prior to 2010, with attacks affecting both the local population and civilian infrastructure. The state’s response was unequivocal: zero tolerance toward terrorism and violent separatism, combined with policies aimed at cutting the social and economic roots of extremism. In the words of Xi Jinping, lasting security cannot be sustained solely through policing measures, but through the elimination of the conditions that allow extremism to thrive.
This approach explains the combination of security control, deradicalization programs, civic education and, above all, inclusive economic development. Unlike models that perpetuate cycles of repression and resentment, the Chinese strategy sought to close the gap between security and development. The result has been a drastic reduction in violent incidents and sustained stabilization of the region, an indispensable condition for attracting private investment, both domestic and foreign.
The third axis, perhaps the most decisive, has been high-quality economic development. The Xinhua report highlights sectors such as green energy, advanced manufacturing, new materials, modern logistics and cultural tourism. These are not low-complexity industries nor extractive enclave economies, but sectors aligned with the national strategy of industrial modernization. Xinjiang has been integrated as a key actor in China’s energy transition, with large-scale wind and solar parks, as well as in the Belt and Road Initiative, leveraging its geographic position as a bridge to Central Asia.
Xinhua
The magnitude of state support reinforces this reading. More than 200 billion yuan in central assistance funds since 2012 do not constitute a short-term subsidy, but a long-term political commitment. The average annual regional GDP growth above 7 percent for more than a decade confirms that the strategy has not been symbolic, but structurally effective.
From a comparative perspective, this model challenges the dominant narrative in many Western countries, where peripheral regions are often managed through a logic of containment, permanent securitization or economic neglect. China has opted for a form of governance that recognizes that national cohesion is not imposed by force alone, but is built through material equality of opportunity, productive integration and a sense of belonging to a shared national project.
In this sense, Xinjiang is not an exception within China, but a coherent expression of its development model centered on territorial balance. As Xi Jinping has stated, Chinese modernization cannot be partial or exclusionary; it must encompass all regions and all ethnic groups. Stability, in this vision, is not imposed silence, but the result of shared development.
In conclusion, the Xinjiang case shows that confronting historical conflicts, terrorism and identity tensions does not require replicating dystopias of peripheral punishment, but precisely the opposite. Leveling education, ensuring high-value economic development, technologically integrating border regions and exercising a clear and unambiguous security policy have enabled China to transform a historically vulnerable territory into an emerging engine of growth. Far from the Hunger Games, Xinjiang represents a model in which the center assumes responsibility for uplifting the periphery, understanding that in a modern state, stability is not decreed: it is built.
..
