Even if, heck, especially if you want to consider China as strategic enemy # 1 and # 1 threat to the new world order, well, you ought actually try to understand their motivation (however you may disagree with it) a little better.
We laugh, (not infrequently, right here on FR), when we see others (China, radical Islam, Hugo Chavez, Euroweenies, take your pick) who make dismissive comments about the U.S. with obvious lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of U.S. policies and motivations, oh, how they mis-read us and underestimate us, we say. But quite a few people seem quite willing to do the same when it comes to how we view THEM. So much easier just to call for blasting the evil commies - and just about as useful as say, radical Islam's call the destroy the great Santan. As we say in Texas, all hat, no cattle.
To somehow trying to make all your argument as if China has only existed as the communist People's Republic and all Chinese actions are to be viewed and interpreted only in the context of the 50 year existence of the PRC is myopic and misleading. Especially on territorial issues which all have roots going hundreds, if not thousands of years back before the founding of the PRC in 1950.
When the Nationalist Republican revolution of 1911 overturned the last Chinese Imperial dynasty (Qing) in 1911, the Republic of China defined its territory as those defined by its predecessor state, the Qing Dynasty. The communist People's Republic, in defeating the Nationalist Republican in the 1945-49 Chinese Civil War, essentially takes the same positions - that the modern boundary of China is defined by the moment of founding of Republic of China in 1911 and the territories controlled by the Chinese government in 1911. See a map of the Qing dynasty as of founding of the Republic of China in 1911 below. (and if you don't like the CNN map, go ahead and search for Qing dynasty map on the net, they are all more or less the same):
Hence stemmed pretty much all of China's territorial claim and disputes - the post 1911 Republican government was weak or practically nonexistent for the decades between 1911 and the 1940's when China was mired in internal strives and territory divisions ruled by various warlords, much of the fringe territories were self-rule, under foreign (Russian, Japanese, British) influence if not outright control, or more or less became de facto independent.
Question is, did that create a permanent fragmentation whereby the 1911 territory, which has defined and recognized as "China" since the 17th Century, was no longer recognized as "China"? Or was the period between 1911 and 1949 merely a few decades of temporary lose of central authority and was "corrected" as soon as there existed a strong enough force to reunify China to the 1911 borders again.
Yes, Tibet was pretty much self-ruled between 1911 and 1950, and Tibet probably come closest to be recognized as a separate soverign state during those years. But Inner Mongolia and Uigherstan? Please, these never even came close to have actually existed as viable, recognized soverign states. Here is another interesting map, from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (from the school's history curriculum), defining what is effectively "China" between 1920 and 1950, it does exclude Tibet, but Inner Mongolia and Singkang (I suppose that's your definition of Ughirstan) are all considered integral to China even during those decades of non-stop civil and foreign war and even lacking a real central government in China.
USMA China 1920 - 1950 map link
On people wanting "independence", fact is, the world as a whole has never been very consistent about it - it's easy to say ALL people have the right to self-determination. But geopolitical and historical reality says so otherwise. Sometime you get it, sometime you don't. Why are we in Iraq trying to hold together the country that was essentially a British imperial invention and not let the Kurds have their Kurdistan? Why won't India let Kashmir be independent? Should an Inner Mongolian activist agitating for Inner Mongolia independence and maybe kicking out the Han interlopers who have moved in during the last hundred years get the same prop as the native Hawaiian activist agitating for Hawaii independence and maybe kicking out the non-Polynesian interlopers who have been moving in and becoming a majority in the last hundred years? The answer to each one of them are going to be complicated and dependent upon a host of varying historical and geopolitical factors. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where everything you want can be achieved on a slogan.