Gee, it's so nice to have the comments of an unbiased reporter giving us all the facts about the two terrorists who were gunned down in the street . There is certainly no bias injected into that statement. Also, kudos to Bruce Lee for asking the important question of how such a small group of separatists could provoke such a riot. I mean, it's not like there are any serious, underlying grievances affecting millions of Uyghurs in the region, or anything like that.
Whew! Aren't we lucky to have Hong Kong Cable TV on the scene in Urumchi!

I'm glad to read that Bruce believe's that the government is opening up regarding media freedom. I'm sure (hope) this is the thin edge of the wedge. With that in mind, I'd like to see less obvious propaganda in the 'Shanghai Daily' though. One article I read this week was full of 'Chinglish' and had more references to 'terrorism' that a George W Bush speech. It made me think I was back in pre-SARs era again.

wolf: Bruce said - "I am still confused about how such a small group of separatists could provoke such a riot. What are the internal problems between the ethnicities that allowed the bomb to explode? What can be done?"

did you intentionally not read the second half of the quote?

saying that, HK cable Tv is not to be taken too seriously.

BL sounds sometimes over-cautions, sometimes surprisingly rash, and overall clueless.

The coverage in US is a lot more interesting and sometimes informative. I particularly enoy the conscious-raising pieces here and there about Uyghurs' history, which otherwise has largely stayed off the radar for most Westerners. There has much criticism about China's minority policies, some valid, some purely academic. To the extent that Chinese government and its bureaucrats have often been inept, the criticism is quite justified. There was an NYT article about Wang Lequan being the "go-to man" for the government on Xinjiang issues, which is percisely the problem: here is a Han bureaucrat who has no cultural curiosity of any kind, yet he's supposed to run Xinjiang!

Criticism on moral ground, on the other hand, can get a bit tired, not because of the moral tone but because there is nothing apart from outrage. When the reader of such pieces tries to pinpoint precisely what is wrong with the policy, in order to seek a remedy, he tends to feel disappointed, as I myself did.

Black and white and nothing in between. Then we end up with no line of action. Let's use one example, language study, for illustration.
According to China's White Papers on Regional Ethnic Autonomy (《中国的民族区域自治》白皮书) :

(七)自主發展教育、科技、文化等社會事業民族自治地方的自治機關根據國家的教育方針，依照法律的規定，決定本地方的教育規劃，各級各類學校的設置、學制、辦學形式、教學內容、教學用語和招生辦法。在少數民族牧區和經濟困難、居住分散的少數民族山區，設立以寄宿為主和助學金為主的公辦民族小學和民族中學，保障就讀學生完成義務教育階段的學業。招收少數民族學生為主的學校(班級)和其他教育機構，有條件的應當採用少數民族文字的課本，並用少數民族語言講課；根據不同情況從小學低年級或者高年級起開設漢語文課程，推廣全國通用的普通話和規範漢字。

I wish to call your attention to the language re linguistic education: you may say it's hypocritical, mere lip service paid to a linguistic self-determination, of sorts. And you could be right. But whether the authority means what they say is almost irrelevant. Let's imagine the underlying reality going either way. If Mandarin is INDEED made mandatory, then of course the Hans are hypocrites, and what they do is "cultural genocide"; if, on the other hand, Uyghur's are left to speak their own language at home, at school, and at work, then unless they are particularly gifted, such ease would come at the expense of a Mandarin proficiency; then they would be likely to face a grim job prospect, and Chinese authority will be charged with neglect, or worse.
But before one says "damned if you do; damned if you don't"......what about enabling Uighur-owned businesses that hire Uyghur's and do business with other Uyghur's only? Surely that solves the Mandarin problem.
Then of course China will be charged with racial segregation. You will see Washington Post headlines like "Apartheid in Xinjiang".

I am certainly not defending the grossly failing government policies in Xinjiang: one usually would not expect "ethnic harmony" to produce savage killings like what we saw in early July. But one needs to go beyond "It Sucks". That's where moralistic statements like what we saw so often these days fall short. Yes, the situation is bad. Yes, blame the government or the Hans, if you will, for they are not innocent. But tell them, and tell us, what should be done? Use the subject of language for illustration.

I suspect untlimately, the solution will be a socio-economic one.