Home > Analysis, Announcements, News, politics > Op-Ed from Rebiya Kadeer: the Real Uighur Story – How Chinese propaganda obscures what sparked Sunday's riots.

Op-Ed from Rebiya Kadeer: the Real Uighur Story – How Chinese propaganda obscures what sparked Sunday's riots.

I came across an Op-Ed in the WSJ by Rebiya Kadeer regarding the recent violence in XinJiang.  I thought it would be interesting to post them here for our discussion. Ms. Kadeer is the president of the Uighur American Association and World Uighur Congress.  Chinese authorities have accused Kadder of inflaming ethnic tensions in XinJiang and orchestrating the most recent riots.

When the Chinese government, with the comfort of hindsight, looks back on its handling of the unrest in Urumqi and East Turkestan this week, it will most likely tell the world with great satisfaction that it acted in the interests of maintaining stability. What officials in Beijing and Urumqi will most likely forget to tell the world is the reason why thousands of Uighurs risked everything to speak out against injustice, and the fact that hundreds of Uighurs are now dead for exercising their right to protest.

On Sunday, students organized a protest in the Döng Körük (Erdaoqiao) area of Urumqi. They wished to express discontent with the Chinese authorities’ inaction on the mob killing and beating of Uighurs at a toy factory in Shaoguan in China’s southern Guangdong province and to express sympathy with the families of those killed and injured. What started as a peaceful assembly of Uighurs turned violent as some elements of the crowd reacted to heavy-handed policing. I unequivocally condemn the use of violence by Uighurs during the demonstration as much as I do China’s use of excessive force against protestors.

While the incident in Shaoguan upset Uighurs, it was the Chinese government’s inaction over the racially motivated killings that compelled Uighurs to show their dissatisfaction on the streets of Urumqi. Wang Lequan, the Party Secretary of the “Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region” has blamed me for the unrest; however, years of Chinese repression of Uighurs topped by a confirmation that Chinese officials have no interest in observing the rule of law when Uighurs are concerned is the cause of the current Uighur discontent.

China’s heavy-handed reaction to Sunday’s protest will only reinforce these views. Uighur sources within East Turkestan say that 400 Uighurs in Urumqi have died as a result of police shootings and beatings. There is no accurate figure for the number of injured. A curfew has been imposed, telephone lines are down and the city remains tense. Uighurs have contacted me to report that the Chinese authorities are in the process of conducting a house-to-house search of Uighur homes and are arresting male Uighurs. They say that Uighurs are afraid to walk the streets in the capital of their homeland.

The unrest is spreading. The cities of Kashgar, Yarkand, Aksu, Khotan and Karamay may have also seen unrest, though it’s hard to tell, given China’s state-run propanganda. Kashgar has been the worst effected of these cities and unconfirmed reports state that over 100 Uighurs have been killed there. Troops have entered Kashgar, and sources in the city say that two Chinese soldiers have been posted to each Uighur house.

The nature of recent Uighur repression has taken on a racial tone. The Chinese government is well-known for encouraging a nationalistic streak among Han Chinese as it seeks to replace the bankrupt communist ideology it used to promote. This nationalism was clearly in evidence as the Han Chinese mob attacked Uighur workers in Shaoguan, and it seems that the Chinese government is now content to let some of its citizens carry out its repression of Uighurs on its behalf.

This encouragement of a reactionary nationalism among Han Chinese makes the path forward very difficult. The World Uighur Congress that I head, much like the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan movement, advocates for the peaceful establishment of self-determination with genuine respect for human rights and democracy. To achieve this objective, there needs to be a path for Han Chinese and Uighur to achieve a dialogue based on trust, mutual respect and equality. Under present Chinese government policies encouraging unchecked nationalism, this is not possible.

To rectify the deteriorating situation in East Turkestan, the Chinese government must first properly investigate the Shaoguan killings and bring those responsible for the killing of Uighurs to justice. An independent and open inquiry into the Urumqi unrest also needs to be conducted so that Han Chinese and Uighurs can understand the reasons for Sunday’s events and seek ways to establish the mutual understanding so conspicuously absent in the current climate.

The United States has a key role to play in this process. Given the Chinese government’s track record of egregious human-rights abuses against Uighurs, it seems unlikely Beijing will drop its rhetoric and invite Uighurs to discuss concerns. The U.S. has always spoken out on behalf of the oppressed; this is why they have been the leaders in presenting the Uighur case to the Chinese government. The U.S., at this critical juncture in the East Turkestan issue, must unequivocally show its concern by first condemning the violence in Urumqi, and second, by establishing a consulate in Urumqi to not only act as a beacon of freedom in an environment of fierce repression but also to monitor the daily human-rights abuses perpetrated against the Uighurs.

As I write this piece, reports are reaching our office in Washington that on Monday, 4,000 Han Chinese took to the streets in Urumqi seeking revenge by carrying out acts of violence against Uighurs. On Tuesday, more Han Chinese took to the streets. As the violence escalates, so does the pain I feel for the loss of all innocent lives. I fear the Chinese government will not experience this pain as it reports on its version of events in Urumqi, and it is this lack of self-examination that further divides Han Chinese and Uighurs.

  1. Shane9219
    July 11th, 2009 at 15:23 | #1

    @Admin

    My apology for my one liner #106, if it deleted out of the political correctness of US culture.

    I was responding to an earlier question about “being poor, should do anything”

    What I was saying is simple that Muslin faith has a very restrictive diet and daily ritual. In comparison, people from other backgrounds are more tolerant.

  2. JXie
    July 11th, 2009 at 15:25 | #2

    Hemulen, would you mind others taking a run at it with what you found?

    Alessandro, a few things about the history:

    * First there are a lot of debates even among the academics, so nothing is really final here…

    * It’s pretty much a consensus among the Chinese academics that the 6th to 9th century 回纥 (Hui He) were the progenitors of modern-day Uighurs, with other infusions along the way. Hui He at one point controlled the area north of Turfan to a part of today’s Russia. It was a combination of some proto-Mongol to proto-Turkic tribes. After it was defeated by some other proto-Turkic tribes, it moved further southwest. Historically it started as an ally of Tang and eventually became a suzerainty of Tang. But if you read some wikipedia entries now it was made as the overlord of Tang, with the famous “citation needed”.

    * In Yuan, 回回 (Hui Hui) and 畏兀儿 (Wei Wu Er) were considered two different groups in the 色目 category. A school of thought (presumably di Cosmo belongs to) is that Hui Hui were Muslims, and Wei Wu Er were those who were not Muslim (likely Buddhists) and lived to the north of Tibet. Another school of thought is that Hui Hui and Wei Wu Er were more about where they came from, because Yuan also called Jews and Christians Hui Hui (with qualifications). If you believe the 2nd school of thought like I do, Uighur designated as a distinctive ethnic group really started by Mongols in Yuan, not indirectly by Stalin.

    * This point is more about the history of Hui as an ethnic group. By some account, Mongols took some 100,000s mostly Arabic and Persian Muslims from the west and settled them to today’s China. Probably the vast majority of today’s Hui can trace their ancestries to them.

    * This you probably will agree. In Qing Xinjiang was a province. Calling Xinjiang a Uighur Autonomous Region was plainly wrong. There were way too many Huis, Hans and Mongolians in North Xinjiang in 1955. Heck I highly doubt since Urumqi (Di Hua) became a city in the 19th century, it was ever populated with majority Uighurs at any point in time.

  3. Alessandro
    July 11th, 2009 at 15:40 | #3

    @Jxie…

    I know Xinjiang (and central Asia’s) history is very complex and full of “hand changes”, migrations, fusions and so on (and also that having something really “final” in historic debates is also a quite difficult task), but what I wrote (and I specified what my source was) is the opinion of probably the leading scholar on the history of that area of Asia even if, of course, nobody says it’s “god’s truth”, so maybe u should check with him, not with me:) I personally tend to be more in agreement with Di Cosmo’s view….
    Anyway I was just and quickly anwering to the historically false statement of Hemulen

    On your third point, u’re right, I completely agree with u….:)

  4. July 11th, 2009 at 15:43 | #4

    @Hemulen – “The comparison the Uighurs in Xinjiang to the situation of illegal immigrants in Italy is one of the most stupid comparisons I have ever come across, really. I am at a loss for words.”

    I don’t think the comparison by Alessandro was bad. Coincidentially in conversation last night we were comparing the situation with the riots in Paris in 2005, mostly caused not by illegal immigrants, but by French nationals of African descent, who felt discriminated in their own country.

    Those rioters had exactly the same right to protest as any other French citizen, or as the president Sarkozy himself, who is also son of immigrants. The point being here that today in a modern society the “land of your ancestors” does not give you any special right, and I don’t see why Uygurs should receive any different treatment for their crimes just because they are in “their country”.

    One more remark: in those long riots in France, long and violent as they were, I don’t remember any hundreds of dead from either side. Something weird happened in Urumqi, isn’t it?

  5. JXie
    July 11th, 2009 at 16:02 | #5

    For those who defend “只限汉族” — you are defending the indefensible. So what if some other countries in your interpretation are the same. The goal is making China better, not making it as crappy as some others.

    Adijiang (阿迪江) was once a guard in the Chinese national basketball team. He became the assistant and head coach of men’s national basketball team. He is a Uighur, and speaks perfect Han Yu. His teenage daughter is a friend of China’s basketball stars such as Yao Ming, Yi Jianlian, etc — I think she has a blog somewhere. Do you really want the job posts explicitly rejecting the type of Adijiang and his daughter? There have been quite a while since the starting of 民考汉 and a lot of minorities from the west nowadays speak Han Yu quite well — if the job requires Han Yu proficiency then say so. Reject the candidates by their skills, if you need, but please not by who they are.

  6. Shane9219
    July 11th, 2009 at 16:13 | #6

    @JXie #156

    You made an in-cohesive argument here. No one defended a practice when it involves a real situation of discrimination, considering various degree of tolerance among people and cultures.

    You ignored a simple fact that every job has its inherent requirement. There are situations such as this one do have a genuine requirement on ethnic background or others on sex background.

    You may also think about an hiring Ad for Jewish Abby (assume there is such thing). How are you going put it?

  7. Raj
    July 11th, 2009 at 16:29 | #7

    I agree with Steve and miaka that it has been counter-productive to give profile to Kadeer. She had a fairly low international profile (compared to the Dalai Lama at least) before, so the best thing would have been to ignore her. Now she’s had significant air-time on the TV and the written media. Being condemned by the Chinese government is a great way to get noticed in the world.

    Zepplin’s (133) is wrong that it’s a good tactic not just because of the above reason but also because the anti-foreigner tactic will just increase xenophobia in China, which was already somewhat significant in part due to the Tibet riots. That is not in the CCP’s best interests, unless it’s run by a bunch of nasty individuals who want hostility to outside countries and will try to use it to its benefit.

    Plus blaming foreigners won’t necessarily stop Han resentment towards Uighurs. It may well increase it, because they’ll be seen as easily manipulated/led, stupid, disloyal, traitors, etc. By pretending they have nothing to complain about they’re also increasingly seen as soft, lazy people who probably need to be taught a lesson to realise how “privileged” they are.

    Whereas if the CCP said that actually they did have legitimate grievances and they needed to be addressed, Han people would probably have more tolerance for Uighurs as a whole and stop thinking that they have it easy, maybe seeing things from the Uighur perspective.

    Blaming foreigners is a short-term tactic for the CCP to get support, but in the long-term it will just cause far more problems.

  8. Shane9219
    July 11th, 2009 at 16:37 | #8

    @Raj #158

    >> “Blaming foreigners is a short-term tactic …”

    I heard too much about such habitual argument. Surely, China should not blame foreigners for 1840 Opium War and Japanese invasion and occupation during earlier 20th century. You may say, like quite a few I read, that it was Chinese made foreigners angry, or it was Chinese who could not defend themselves.

    Habitual generalization like yours is a simple absurdity. One matter is one matter, another is another. You can NOT jump to a broad conclusion with your disconnected argument.

    Look at facts and let facts tell the truth.

  9. Shane9219
    July 11th, 2009 at 16:43 | #9

    ‘I asked them to find my husband, but no one dared to go outside’

    Dong Yuanyuan was a happy newlywed until ethnic hatred spilled over into bloody street violence in China’s far west. She is recovering: her husband is still missing”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/11/urumqi-uighur-violence-victim-story

  10. July 11th, 2009 at 16:49 | #10

    @90,

    Here is a revised question:

    Assuming ETIM really is a militant Muslim separatist group that harms the core interest of the Chinese State – that it regularly launch attacks against government targets but never directly against Civilian targets per se within China – should foreign powers who have diplomatic relations work to promote the ETIM?

  11. Charles Liu
    July 11th, 2009 at 16:57 | #11

    Shane @ 159, “Habitual generalization like yours is a simple absurdity”

    You are absolutely right, poor Raj is simply looking for ways to justy/rationalize the violence.

    All the evidence commenters have found in these few threads proved Kadeer/WUC called the 7/5 protest under false accusations against the Chinese government – mischaracterize incentivized minority works program as slavery, twist the Guangdong factory brawl into massacre of over 100 Uyghers.

    These false accusation inflammed the crowd her organization gathered, is it any wonder they turned violent? Either way she is largely responsible for what happened to the illegal protest she organized, not the police who rightfully enforced law and order.

  12. raventhorn4000
    July 11th, 2009 at 17:42 | #12

    Allen,

    “Assuming ETIM really is a militant Muslim separatist group that harms the core interest of the Chinese State – that it regularly launch attacks against government targets but never directly against Civilian targets per se within China – should foreign powers who have diplomatic relations work to promote the ETIM?”

    *
    Of course not, it would be state-sponsored terrorism.

    Realistically, they wouldn’t sponsor ETIM openly, but they do funnel money to ETIM indirectly, and look the other way when money do go to ETIM.

    Sooner or later, this is going to turn into a giant pissing contest.

  13. Nimrod
    July 11th, 2009 at 17:43 | #13

    JXie wrote:

    For those who defend “只限汉族” — you are defending the indefensible. So what if some other countries in your interpretation are the same. The goal is making China better, not making it as crappy as some others.

    +++++
    Since I made a comment on this earlier, I’ll say some more about this. Keep in my that none of what I say is contradictory to what you say. First, I’m not sure what the restaurant’s reasons were for that restriction. As I said, this and similar job ads in China seem very open about discriminatory restrictions. In this one, they also only want people aged 18-30. Maybe it’s just an image issue or something else, who knows. Nothing that a little sensitivity education can’t solve hopefully.

    I’m not so worried about these cases — these are the “easy” ones. I’m more worried about the insidious and unstated discriminations. If somebody really wanted to discriminate, they would find a way to do it. If they don’t want Uighurs they can put up a set of innocuous restrictions that would exclude most Uighurs without ever mentioning “no Uighurs”. If people have closed doors in their hearts, no amount of law can solve that — in fact the laws would only make the problem more difficult to see and address.

  14. Charles Liu
    July 11th, 2009 at 17:44 | #14

    Hemulen @ 112, 114, which part of the citations you referenced forbid fasting during Ramadan?

    I think you misunderstood. This article give some clue on how China celeberates Ramadan, in accordance to their child safety law protecting children and pregnant women from forced fasting:

    http://www.scnjw.gov.cn/shangwu/jxtf/msfq/2008080415530031.html

    今年穆斯林的斋月根据中国伊协印制的三历表(公历、农历、伊历),定为公历11月6日(农历十月初二)入斋,12月6日(农历十一月初三)为开斋节。按伊斯兰教法规定,成年健康的穆斯林(除孕妇外),“见月儿封斋,见月儿开斋”。也就是说从这个月的新月出来到下月的新月出来的一个月时间里,穆斯林都要封斋,从黎明到日落

    - Ramadam is celebreated in accordance to schedule stated by Chinese Islamic Association
    - According to Sharia, healthy adults (except pregnant women) should fast from dawn to dusk

    The above article also states, fasting period ends at 4pm, which makes the school rule that moved dinner up to 4pm, and study hall for muslin student to 6:30, after they’ve eaten – completely reasonable. For Western Hemisphere Mecca’s approximate near-eastern time zone issue does not exist.

    Even outside of China, children, pregnant women, elderly or the ill, are not required to fast during Ramadan. If the Chinese government doesn’t educate their citizens on this, and scores of children sicken/die during Ramadan, it is going to be another field day for a lot of human rights people.

    it’s just like those redneck Southern Baptist Convention people crying about not able to hold Sunday schools in China and touch Chinese children for Jesus (Chinese law forbid organized religious indoctrination of minors.) China doesn’t even outlaw Christian prostelization like Israel and Saudi Arabia; all they have to do is give Sunday school lessons for the parents to take home.

    But instead we cry “religious oppression” and other human rights trigger phrases to denigrate China.

  15. July 11th, 2009 at 17:48 | #15

    Wahaha#148
    Shane9219#152

    I did not delete any comments. Most likely one of the site moderators did. I usually don’t second guess them. However, if you think the deletion is unfair, send me an email and I will investigate.

    @moderators
    If you decide to delete, please just replace the original content of the offending post with the reason of deletion so the numbering of the comments will not change and readers know the criteria being applied.

  16. rolf
    July 11th, 2009 at 18:11 | #16

    The Uighurs have a right to decide their fate

    Wu’er Kaixi in The Age, July 10, 2009

    [Wu'er Kaixi was a leader of the 1989 Tiananmen protests and is now living in exile in Taiwan]

    The world is ignoring another example of Chinese oppression.

    AS AN ethnic Uighur, I am horrified by the riots, deaths, injuries and arrests in Urumqi, the city my parents call home. I have lost contact with them, and rely on reports filtering out of Xinjiang. I have to accept the Chinese Government figures of 156 people dead, more than 1000 injured and more than 1400 arrests.

    Of course I am sceptical about such figures. I was a student leader in the 1989 protests; I am still waiting for reliable government figures as to how many people died at the weekend. It makes me wonder why today — when so little has changed politically in my homeland and I, like many others, remain in exile — the numbers are so high and so exact.

    The only conclusion I can come to is that the Government wants to send a brutal zero-tolerance message to the Uighur people of Xinjiang, to the greater Chinese population and to the outside world that Uighur dissent will be met with force. Beijing also no doubt expects that, when it releases statistics on the civilians it has shot in the streets, it will have the support of China’s predominantly Han population. The broad consensus is that the Han Chinese occupation of formerly Uighur and Tibetan territories has brought prosperity and liberty from feudal regimes to the subjects of “liberation”. In this sense, all opposition to Chinese cultural dominance and rule is viewed as a kind of betrayal.

    The dominant Han culture of China is quick to react to any perceived attack on national pride, which is often conflated with ethnic notions of what it means to be “Chinese”. Despite this, average Chinese have a patronising attitude to the “minorities” to whom they bring enlightenment and prosperity.

    There is very little sensitivity about minority ethnic groups who feel politically oppressed and squeezed out by the mounting numbers of Han “immigrants” who, in cities such as Urumqi and Lhasa, have come to outnumber indigenous populations.

    I live in exile because I stood up for political reform in 1989. I regret I am not able to be with my parents in this difficult time. But I still believe democracy is an eventual means to gain freedom from political oppression. I also believe democracy should not serve the interests of nationalism. I do not argue that independence for Xinjiang or Tibet is the answer to our problems. But I do say ethnic self-determination is. By this, I mean a fundamental right: that the ethnically distinct Uighurs have the right to decide if they want to be part of China.

    People in Xinjiang have never been offered this choice. Those in Urumqi now live in a city that is 70 per cent Han Chinese. They were in hiding on Tuesday as thousands of armed Chinese roamed the streets crying, “Exterminate the Uighurs.” The Government response to the Uighur explosion of frustration that sparked this crisis was to label them “separatists” and “terrorists” and to shoot them.

    I am of China. But I cannot be a nationalist in a country where nationalism trumps democracy and is an excuse for brutal suppression of protest and dissent. The Uighur people are a politically oppressed minority and, from that political oppression, cultural and economic oppression follows. I cannot help but think that the prompt release of casualty numbers reflects an official attitude that the indigenous people of Xinjiang are not entitled to even the rights of regular Chinese citizens — or, to put it more simply, the domestic outrage they deserve.

    I can only hope the world understands that China has, in effect, declared war on an oppressed minority group within its own borders.

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/07/09/1246732425586.html

  17. Steve
    July 11th, 2009 at 18:13 | #17

    @ Zepplin #133: I don’t agree with your reasoning but that’s fine; these are just opinions anyway and one isn’t any better than another. Only time will tell how effective the policy is. My reasoning is simply that using this same tactic in Tibet hasn’t worked so I don’t see why it’d work here. I’m no expert on Xinjiang, never been there and never heard of Kadeer until last week. Therefore, all I know is what I read in the media or on this site and that is all secondhand information. I think most are in the same boat as I am. We compare similarities when it suits our argument, and stress differences for the same reason. “Xinjiang is like this other country or region”… “no it isn’t, it’s completely different” or “you can’t compare Kadeer to this person”… “oh, yes you can”.

    I think it’s pretty universal what we can agree on: Murder was committed and there is no excuse for it, regardless of the circumstances. Therefore, the Uyghurs who murdered innocent Han should be punished, and the Han who murdered innocent Uyghurs should be punished. Both should receive the same punishment. After that, no one seems to agree.

    Were China’s minority policies ineffective in Xinjiang and a major cause of the discontent? Yes/No
    Were outside influences directly responsible for the riot and murder? Yes/No
    Are foreign media reporting on the riot in a more evenhanded manner? Yes/No
    Is Chinese media reporting on the riot in a more evenhanded manner? Yes/No
    Should Kadeer be targeted as the main reason for the riots? Yes/No
    Do Han in Xinjiang engage in racist hiring practices? Yes/No

    At this point, the real question would be, “How can incidents like this one best be avoided in the future?” You can’t excite the “rabble” if the “rabble” are prosperous. From the three videos Allen presented, the “rabble” are not prosperous and trapped in a permanent debt cycle. The local government is corrupt. Fixing that is a good place to start. Finding ways to integrate the varied cultures is an obvious solution. From everything I’ve seen and read, the cultures live segregated lives. If it can be shown with positive proof that various individuals were planted in the crowd with orders to begin murdering Han and inciting others in the crowd to also do so, and that these planted individuals received training and money from outside the country, then a diplomatic battle should be waged to bring the perpetrators to justice in the countries where they live.

    @ Allen #161: No, because it would not be in the best interest of those countries to do so. But isn’t this a moot point? I thought the ETIM was on the list of international terrorists organizations. Doesn’t it mean that promoting them is in violation of this international accord?

  18. Steve
    July 11th, 2009 at 18:20 | #18

    @ Wahaha #148: Wasn’t me. I never delete posts entirely. I always leave a reason why I deleted them and I do so in capital letters.

    @ Shane: I deleted #106 for the reasons cited. It wasn’t a politically incorrect remark, it was a racist slur preceded by an ad hominum attack. I probably would have overlooked the ad hominum attack but the racist slur definitely crossed the line.

  19. Wahaha
    July 11th, 2009 at 18:36 | #19

    Hemulen,

    I post again.

    In New York, the boards of buildings often reject Indian buyers, even very rich indian buyers, because the smell of their cooking is so intense and sometimes you can smell it even you close the door. So once an Indian family move in, other buyers have less interest in buying the apartment in the building, hence the value of building drop significantly.

    Is it discrimination ? hardly, in my opinion. People usually have great trouble working and living with other people who have different life style and habits.

    Han businessmen went to XinJiang try to make money, the life style and the way of working of Uighur dont fit Han chinese’s habit.Simple as that, so dont try to generalize your hatred to chinese people.

    Yes, the way CCP to achieve its goal is very questionable (rarely pay attention to how people feel and following consequence), you can bash it, no problem, but dont make a big fussy like Han chinese hate Uighurs. They did that not cuz they are Uighur If CCP thinks there is potential danger of religious activity by Han people, ti will do that same, you know that.

    Like the police violence in Tibet, police violence is all over China, people hate it. Why do people like you always try to make it look like a regional problem ? (and What is funny is that some people are also very violent, there are lot of case people kidnapped other people who they believe are responsible for something bad.)

  20. Charles Liu
    July 11th, 2009 at 18:40 | #20

    Steve @ 168

    Were China’s minority policies ineffective in Xinjiang and a major cause of the discontent?
    - No, as the reason Kadeer/WUC called the protest was slavery of Uyghurs in Guangdong, and Chinese governemnt not holding anyone responsible for 100s of Uyghur massacred in Gangdong factory. Discontent manifested in the riot were caused by these false accusations, not any well-intended but ineffective mionority policy.

    Were outside influences directly responsible for the riot and murder?
    - Yes, as the protest was called by Kadeer and WUC, entities hosted and funded by foreign governments

    (undecided on the media questions)

    - Should Kadeer be targeted as the main reason for the riots?
    Yes, I presented my reasoning in comment 162.

    - Do Han in Xinjiang engage in racist hiring practices?
    Indictment of entier group of people, based on one picture? No.

  21. Shane9219
    July 11th, 2009 at 18:47 | #21

    @Steve #169

    First of all, I am NOT asking you to restore the original post, and secondly, if you decided to delete, it is probably a good idea just to delete the whole item, instead of masking out with your own words. Since that can be perceived as a personal attack, because of the application of your own emotion and standard. I hope you can see my point is fair here.

    Again, my one liner was responding to a direct question “being poor, should do anything”, and I said

    “the question showed you still lack of understanding on Muslin faith. Muslins are not like MMMM, willing to do anything”

  22. Shane9219
    July 11th, 2009 at 18:51 | #22

    @rolf #167

    I can read his POV and where he came from. Wu’er Kaixi is a guy who has long been discredited. You may want to check out his personal behavior in Taiwan. That said a lot about this person.

  23. Steve
    July 11th, 2009 at 18:58 | #23

    @ Charles: Thanks for your summary. For every one of your answers (except #3 of course) there have been opinions taking the opposite side. My point was that unless more facts are presented that can change minds, none of these points will reach common consensus. That’s why I tried to concentrate on what can change to prevent it from happening in the future. Having just read DJ’s report of his phone conversation, what he learned might provide new clues on why this happened but we still need to wait until the discovery process is complete.

    Jumping to conclusions can be satisfying but it is mostly reasoning based on guesswork. We can only work with what we have available and when no all the information is available or contradictory statements are issued, it’s natural for differing opinions to emerge.

  24. Steve
    July 11th, 2009 at 19:02 | #24

    @ Shane #172: Everyone else seems to prefer having a reason given for deletion. I’m going to continue to do so. If you don’t like that method, my best recommendation is to stay within the posted rules. The standard I use is stated in the posted rules.

  25. Charles Liu
    July 11th, 2009 at 19:03 | #25

    @ Steve, what I said are based on facts. If you want them cataloged I’d be happy to do the homework for you.

  26. Steve
    July 11th, 2009 at 19:18 | #26

    @ Charles: I’m not arguing with you or disputing anything you said. I was stating the positions taken by various commentators in this post. Are you saying that everyone on this blog has reached common consensus on every point I raised?

    I’m not asking for facts, I’m asking for proof. I’ve read all sorts of accusations but have seen very few proofs. (Note: I said “very few”, not “none”) Someone accusing someone else of something isn’t a proof, it’s an accusation. It’s a fact they were accused. I can already catalogue a bunch of those from different sides and viewpoints so no, I don’t need your help on that one.

  27. Shane9219
    July 11th, 2009 at 19:30 | #27

    @Steve

    No question here. I support your moderation. But it may be a good idea just to put a simple word “deleted” there.

  28. Steve
    July 11th, 2009 at 20:33 | #28

    @ Shane: I could do as you say but then the complaint would be, “Why was my post deleted?” That’s what we’ve found in the past. I’m open to suggestions about this but so far we’ve been going with what most people have commented they preferred. I’ve tried to keep it as consistent as I can and hope I’ve succeeded. If you ever feel I’m being arbitrary, please let me know.

    It’d actually be much easier for me to use the one word. You may want to read the comments in the “open thread” section to see other’s reactions. In fact, this conversation really needs to take place in that forum.

  29. raventhorn4000
    July 11th, 2009 at 21:18 | #29

    Speaking of discriminations in Europe and China,

    The Hui People are actually traced back to Persia, and have shared genetic ancestors as the European Gypsies.

    http://lanzhou.china.com.cn/english/China/143738.htm

    The Hui people arrived in China some 200 years before the Gypsies set foot in Europe.

    Yet, Hui People assimilated into China, but their ethnic cousins in Europe endured a long history of ethnic cleansing by various nations of Europe. Even today, racial discrimination against Gypsies (Roma/Sinti) goes on in Europe.

    http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22529,458aa8ef2,49749d1b2d,0.html

    Between 200,000 and 1.5 million Sinti and Roma from Germany and German-occupied countries were killed in the concentration camps, in mobile gas chambers and by firing squad in villages and towns. Over 25,000 of the 40,000 officially registered German and Austrian Sinti and Roma were killed by May 1945.

    Current issues
    The criminalization of Roma and Sinti by the state and federal authorities continues despite denials.

    21 November 2008 – Two United Nations human rights experts today expressed grave concern over the recent rise in anti-Roma sentiment and violent incidents in several European countries, calling for a stronger response from governments.
    “Effective action is required to stem the growing tide of hostility, anti-Roma sentiment and violence across Europe,” UN Independent Expert on minority issues Gay McDougall said in a statement.

    *
    *
    *
    One should wonder why is it that Europe with its well-established principles of human rights, continue to discriminate against the Gypsies, even though Gypsies were clearly victims of racism during the Holocaust as well as the Jews?

  30. Nimrod
    July 11th, 2009 at 21:39 | #30

    rolf #167:

    Wu’er Kaixi’s article in The Age is disappointing. I also understand the news in Taiwan has been pretty one-sided on these issues so I suppose it’s understandable, especially if he wants to seek that kind of attention in Taiwan. Here is another one on Wu’er Kaixi’s views.

    http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/wuerkaixi-07072009144343.html

  31. raventhorn4000
    July 11th, 2009 at 22:21 | #31

    UK Times online, reports/speculates “secret Taxi window signals” that coordinated the planned protest in Xinjiang.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6689733.ece

    Several days before Uighur demonstrators gathered in the streets of the northwest city of Urumqi last Sunday in a protest that began China’s bloodiest bout of civil unrest for 20 years, secret signs started appearing in taxi windows.

    Local security chiefs missed the signals. The clues were important because they were alerting Uighurs in the capital of Xinjiang province to demonstrate against the Han Chinese.

    The signals told the Uighurs to avenge the racially motivated killings of two Uighur migrant workers that had occurred last month in a toy factory in southern Guangdong province, triggered by rumours that they had raped several women.

    As a result the authorities were caught off guard when the protests erupted, amid erroneous stories that the killers of the Uighurs had been allowed to go free.

    The taxi signals suggest that the rioting by the Uighur minority was not entirely spontaneous. Having suppressed the violence by flooding the city with tens of thousands of troops and police, China’s authorities are hunting for a fringe of extremists who they accuse of organising the rioting. They have promised the ringleaders will be executed.

    ….

  32. raventhorn4000
    July 11th, 2009 at 22:34 | #32

    This includes a very very detailed historical tracing of people in Xinjiang and Chinese claim to the territory, documented by several Western Historians.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/weekinreview/12wong.html?pagewanted=all

  33. raventhorn4000
    July 11th, 2009 at 23:09 | #33

    Here is a very detailed and personal blog of an American Teacher’s life in Xinjiang.

    (unfortunately, she has not updated much on the recent riots). Hope she’s OK.

    http://blogs.princeton.edu/pia/personal/schristmas/2009/06/

  34. Hemulen
    July 11th, 2009 at 23:43 | #34

    @Wahaha

    Your post about smelly Indian is just amazing. You are my secret weapon.

  35. Shane9219
    July 11th, 2009 at 23:45 | #35

    Here is a TimeOnline report showed the event was organized and promoted in secrete days before it broke out. It is good now that foreign media started to dig deeper. If this is from a Chinese source, it would be immediately discredited by the West. Just look how those self-appointed “human rights watchers” jumped up immediately to contest and dispute the human death toll after China released it.

    ============================

    “Security chiefs failed to spot signs calling for Uighur revolt”

    “Several days before Uighur demonstrators gathered in the streets of the northwest city of Urumqi last Sunday in a protest that began China’s bloodiest bout of civil unrest for 20 years, secret signs started appearing in taxi windows.

    Local security chiefs missed the signals. The clues were important because they were alerting Uighurs in the capital of Xinjiang province to demonstrate against the Han Chinese.

    The signals told the Uighurs to avenge the racially motivated killings of two Uighur migrant workers that had occurred last month in a toy factory in southern Guangdong province, triggered by rumours that they had raped several women.

    The taxi signals suggest that the rioting by the Uighur minority was not entirely spontaneous. … ”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6689733.ece

  36. Steve
    July 12th, 2009 at 00:54 | #36

    @ R4K #180: Interesting about the Hui originally being Gipsies. Even before Persia, they were from northern India, same as the Aryans. When they came to Europe and people asked where they were from, they said Egypt and that they had come to see the holy places. That kept them from being thrown out. “Egyptians” eventually morphed into “Gipsies”.

  37. Wahaha
    July 12th, 2009 at 01:06 | #37

    Hemulen,

    Tell me : is it discrimination ? if it is, then anyone who have troubles to work with people people of different habits are racist.

    Tell me : if you had an apartment in the building, would you mind if board sold one of the apartments to them ? I know most of them mind, White, black, chinese.

  38. raventhorn4000
    July 12th, 2009 at 01:06 | #38

    1 interesting note about Uighur Gitmo detainees:

    US reports that the only trouble they experienced with the Uighurs in Gitmo was when on 1 occasion, they saw a woman’s bare arm on TV, and they immediately threw and broke the TV set.

    Now, as noted by many Wester Journalists, a lot of Uighur women and girls do not cover themselves up, have a lot of bare arms and midriffs.

    *There seems to be an inconsistency. Why would Uighur Gitmo detainees be offended by images of a woman’s bare arm, when they must have seen plenty of that in Xinjiang?

    1 explanation would be that they are not Uighurs. Why would they lie, and who would they really be? Perhaps by pleading that they are Uighurs, they hoped to get out of Gitmo? But they couldn’t have known that US would let them off and resettle. So that explanation is rather illogical.

    2nd explanation is that these Uighurs in Gitmo have already gone through extensive radical Islamic indoctrination, and now embrace a much more intolerant form of Islam, one which would require women to cover up themselves.

    *it would be not surprising that some Uighurs would turn to more radical form of Islam, through contacts with terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

  39. raventhorn4000
    July 12th, 2009 at 01:22 | #39

    Steve,

    Yes, I find it interesting too. Though I think the author implied that only 1 branch of Hui might have been gypsies, since Hui was a large category.

    Though I am shocked to find that persecution of Gypsies is still on going in many EU member nations.

    It seems that EU is not beyond sweeping HR problems under its proverbial rugs.

  40. Shane9219
    July 12th, 2009 at 03:28 | #40

    A few what-if questions can be asked here:

    What if a few Koreans got killed by a riot in Korea?

    What if a few Japanese got killed by a riot in Japan?

    What if a few white Americans got killed by a riot in US?

  41. Shane9219
    July 12th, 2009 at 03:29 | #41

    also a few white Australians get killed by riot in Australia?

  42. kui
    July 12th, 2009 at 14:11 | #42

    I finally got back on my feet after sufferring the worst flu of my life. Returning to work today, I found that most of my colleges do not even know the riot. A Registered Nurse from Hongong seems to be the only person knows what had happened in Xinjiang. According to her, it was “oppressed minorities seeking justice”. Not really a surprise. I think I have better understanding of the so called “free media” now after Tibet riot, torch relay, and Xinjiang riot. It is a media in which the journalists can freely ignore mountaining facts, hard evidence, and the whole picture. It is a media where the reporters can freely use hear-says as “evidence” as long as it helps with the reporters’ agenda and meet the audiences’ needs. It looks like the Uhigers are now being seen as the victims, the Hans are the aggressors and the Chinese government is certainly doing every thing wrong. Their language skills are amazing! They can really turn white into black!

  43. raventhorn4000
    July 12th, 2009 at 14:47 | #43

    Just another opportunity for NED to recycle their old propaganda material.

    It’s actually kinda of funny that NED conducts regular “training sessions” for WUC on “Chinese Oppressive Rule in Xinjiang”.

    Well, Why would Uighurs need “training session” on that, if supposedly they witnessed all that 1st hand in Xinjiang?

  44. Shane9219
    July 12th, 2009 at 20:52 | #44

    A short article on World Journal discussing the the historic background of Uighur separatism.

    The article’s coverage is pretty complete, except Uighur also has a connection with the Muslin riches in the Gulf region, there are more Uighur separatism factions then the three mentioned in the article.

    “疆獨的歷史情結”

    A partial translation (mostly by google translation with minor modification)

    “”The history complex of Xinjiang Separatism ”

    “Historically, Xinjiang separatist movement goes back to ancient times. So-called “East Turkestan ” launched several volts, continued throughout near modern history try to establish an independent state. In the second half of the 19th century, GB and Russia, two great empires launched “big game” rivalry in Central Asia for spheres of influence. British invasion of Afghanistan from the north India and Tibet, and Russia after the annexation of West Turkestan, coupled with the gradual decline of the Qing Dynasty rule in Xinjiang, the establishment of the East Turkestan soil; continued since the Soviet Union, did not forget this old history and repeatedly tried the re-establishment of East Turkestan.

    1960s of the hostile relationship between China and the Soviet Union, many Uighurs fled to the Soviet Union from Xinjiang, got trained there, then returned to stir up trouble in Xinjiang. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, various Turkis republics of Soviet Union became independent one after another in Central Asia.. Similarity on the Turkic-like language, longing for a revival of the old pan-Turkism, ethnic Uighurs again become motivated for independence.

    During the 19th century, the promotion of the “Pan-Turkism” hoped that all of the Turkic-like peoples (Turkey, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Uygur, Kazak, etc.) join together to set up a “big Turkestan.”

    During the same period, Ottoman Empire sent a lot of imams and religious teachers to Xinjiang and had a far-reaching influence there. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the independence of many Central Asian Turkic languages Islamic countries, the idea of a restoration of the Turkish Empire gained traction inside Turkey.

    Uygurs exile established “Eastern Turkestan Liberation Organization” in 1996 in Turkey. It advocates the use of violent means to establish East Turkestan. Through those effort, exile Uighurs reestablished strong connection with Turkey for independence cause due to their historical links. The Turkish Government, under pressure from China , has to ban a number of Uighur extremist groups inside its territory.

    There are also a large number of Turkish immigrants in Germany. In 2004, “East Turkestan National Congress” and “World Uyghur Youth Congress” merged into “World Uyghur Congress.” in Munich, Germany. Kadeer became the permanent President of this organization.”

    http://www.worldjournal.com/pages/full_news/push?article-%E7%96%86%E7%8D%A8%E7%9A%84%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2%E6%83%85%E7%B5%90%20&id=2937704-%E7%96%86%E7%8D%A8%E7%9A%84%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2%E6%83%85%E7%B5%90&instance=m2b

  45. raventhorn4000
    July 13th, 2009 at 00:44 | #45

    I think it’s time that China leveraged Kurdistan to make a point to Turkey.

  46. July 13th, 2009 at 05:55 | #46

    Here is story from the New Dominion on how Turkey’s media is slandering China.

    http://www.thenewdominion.net/1016/1016/

  47. July 13th, 2009 at 06:38 | #47

    @Allen – One of the alarming things about this website has been the progressive radicalisation of many of the contributors.

  48. kui
    July 13th, 2009 at 13:24 | #48

    Can anyone translate this article?

    http://www.popyard.com/cgi-mod/newspage.cgi?num=3606.18&r=0&v=0

    新疆暴乱,美国之耻。

  49. July 13th, 2009 at 23:32 | #49

    @FOARP #198,

    I am traveling and haven’t had the chance to get caught up reading all the comments. I won’t be able to regularly check for at least a week.

    But quickly to your point about “radicalisation” – can you describe in more detail what you mean if you have time – for everyone’s benefit.

    According to wikipedia, “political redicalism” can be described as a “political orientation that favors fundamental, drastic, revolutionary changes in society, literally meaning “changes at the roots”.”

    According to wikipedia, “fundamentalism” relating to “a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.”

    If I have to guess what you mean by “radicalisation,” perhaps you mean the practice of an ideology (perhaps nationalism) at such a “fundamentalist” level that it produces intolerant and militant type attitudes?

    In any case, if you point out the details of what you mean for everyone – I am sure those who come here with an open mind will pick up your points…

  50. raventhorn4000
    July 13th, 2009 at 23:43 | #50

    FOARP:

    “progressive radicalisation of many of the contributors.”

    You are exaggerating. We have not gone to the extent of using fake photos to report news, nor have we advocated any sort of violence.

  51. Steve
    July 14th, 2009 at 00:55 | #51

    @ R4K: As Allen suggested, why don’t we let FOARP describe what he means in more detail before we respond. How can you say he’s exaggerating before you know what he meant?

  52. raventhorn4000
    July 14th, 2009 at 01:21 | #52

    Steve,

    you are right. I have no idea why the “contributors here are” radicals by any meaning of the word.

  53. raventhorn4000
    July 14th, 2009 at 01:34 | #53

    Latest news update: (on the true radical front).

    Al-Qaeda declares war of revenge on Chinese civilians for Xinjiang.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a_dopeH2Mcbs

    Al-Qaeda Group Vows to Avenge Uighur Deaths in China

  54. Steve
    July 14th, 2009 at 06:40 | #54

    @ R4K: I just ran across the same sort of article, this one from the Times Online and written by Jane Macartney.

  55. raventhorn4000
    July 14th, 2009 at 10:34 | #55

    This one more interesting, regarding yesterday’s police shooting of 3 Uighurs in Urumqi,

    http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_402959.html

    Uighurs called for ‘jihad’

    BEIJING – THREE Uighur men tried to incite other Muslims to launch a ‘jihad’ and attacked a mosque security guard before police shot and killed two of them, state media reported on Tuesday.

    The incident began when around 150 Muslims were praying in a mosque in Urumqi, the capital of the northwest Xinjiang region on Monday, Xinhua news agency said, citing an unnamed imam who was giving a service at the time.

    One man stood up and tried to take over the prayers but was stopped, the imam told Xinhua. A few minutes later the man reportedly stood up holding a green banner and started calling for a ‘jihad’.

    The imam then ended the prayers, adding: ‘We will definitely not follow you. Get out!”, according to Xinhua.

    As the man was being ordered from the mosque, two other men took out three 50 centimetre long knives from a bag, Xinhua said.

    Security guards then tried to stop the men. One of the guards, aged in his 40s who did not want to give his name, said the group chased him out of the mosque wielding the knives where they met patrolling police, Xinhua said.

    Police fired warnings shots to try to stop the men before shooting at the three, killing two and injuring one.

  56. raventhorn4000
    July 14th, 2009 at 10:53 | #56

    These information may be “post event validation” but I think they are still increasing the evidence of terrorist groups in Xinjiang.

  57. Shane9219
    July 14th, 2009 at 17:47 | #57

    China demands other countries to stop funding “East Turkistan terrorists”

    “China on Tuesday strongly demanded that unnamed “relevant countries” stop their support for “East Turkistan terrorists” in the wake of the Urumqi riots.“

    “Qin did not elaborate on the “relevant countries.”

    But U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly confirmed at a press conference on Monday that a U.S. organization had provided funding for the World Uygur Congress led by Rebiya Kadeer, which the Chinese believe was behind the Urumqi riots and a series of protests at Chinese embassies worldwide.

    “I do know that her organization does receive funds from the National Endowment for Democracy, which receives its funds from Congress,” Kelly said. “”

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/14/content_11708335.htm

    This is first time that I knew openly demand US Congress and NED to stop funding terrorist organization.

  58. Steve
    July 14th, 2009 at 17:55 | #58

    @ Shane: Is the WUR listed as a terrorist organization? I thought the only one was the ETIM.

  59. Shane9219
    July 14th, 2009 at 18:00 | #59

    @Steve

    Should US be the only country with legal right to define terrorist organizations ?

  60. Steve
    July 14th, 2009 at 18:09 | #60

    @ Shane: If the US declares an organization terrorist and no one else does, then it only applies to US soil. If many countries declare an organization terrorist, then it applies to all of those countries’ soil. If only China declares the WUR as a terrorist organization (have they already done this?) then it would apply only to China.

    The declaration of an organization as terrorist isn’t legal, it’s political and occurs through negotiation.

  61. raventhorn4000
    July 14th, 2009 at 19:37 | #61

    Steve,

    US routinely demand that other countries stop any group that “have ties” with listed terrorist groups.

    http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/RegionalAnalysis/AsiaPacific/AnAl-QaedaAssociateGroupOperatinginChina.pdf

    this article is interesting, relating to the funding of ETIM.

  62. Steve
    July 14th, 2009 at 20:17 | #62

    @ R4K: Listed by whom?

  63. raventhorn4000
    July 14th, 2009 at 22:21 | #63

    Steve,

    It’s fine if US doesn’t wish to honor other country’s lists, but that would define the limit of “cooperation” that it will receive in the future.

  64. Steve
    July 14th, 2009 at 22:35 | #64

    @ R4K: The US has already accepted the ETIM as a terrorist group, so there is already cooperation. However, you did not answer my question. Listed by whom? The Chinese government? When did they list it? Where is this list? Can you find a list of everyone the Chinese government considers terrorists? I have never seen one before. I have heard the Chinese government say that WUR was behind the riot, but not that they were listed as a terrorist organization. I’m not disagreeing with you, just trying to get confirmation.

    Now that Al Qaeda has announced they are targeting overseas Chinese, especially in Algeria, I’m sure the Chinese government is glad that Al Qaeda is on everyone’s list.

  65. raventhorn4000
    July 14th, 2009 at 23:54 | #65

    Steve,

    I don’t know if you can find a complete list of terrorist groups in US. Many groups are determined on case by case basis.

    Bottomline, China considers WUC to be behind the riot, and it is 1 of the funding sources for ETIM.

    *

    Regarding the al-Qaeda group in Africa, it goes by a different name than Al-Qaeda. Its own name is actually “Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat” (SGPC).

    Now, “Al-Qaeda” is actually a network of similar groups, all with different names.

    Do you want to run down the list in US and see if all of the “Al-Qaeda” “branches” are on the list?

  66. Steve
    July 15th, 2009 at 00:27 | #66

    No, I was interested in seeing China’s list of terrorist organizations. You mentioned “listed terrorist groups” in your earlier comment #212 and I had just never seen a list from China.

  67. raventhorn4000
    July 15th, 2009 at 00:34 | #67

    I think you are taking the word “list” too literally.

    China has a set of groups that it considers as “terrorist” in nature and as threats to Chinese national security. Whether China list them 1 at a time, or in 1 laundry list, is really irrelevant to the categorization of these groups.

  68. raventhorn4000
    July 15th, 2009 at 01:21 | #68

    Here a very detailed Western analysis of NED ties to WUC and recent riot.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00161.htm

  69. Steve
    July 15th, 2009 at 15:40 | #69

    @ R4K: Ok, if “list” isn’t literal, then when did China decide that the WUC was a terrorist organization and where did China list the WUC, either by itself or on a laundry list? How can the WUC be a terrorist organization if China never declares them to be a terrorist organization? How is the rest of the world supposed to know this? Was it a state secret?

    #220 is an opinion piece. I don’t think it makes a definitive case at all. Was it just a coincidence that the riots occurred shortly after the murders of the Uighurs in Guangdong province? Or was that just an excuse? Either way you look at it, it’s all speculative.

  70. Nimrod
    July 15th, 2009 at 16:16 | #70

    Since terrorism (except for the anarchist kind) is merely politics with guns, it’s difficult to pin down what role the WUC plays and its relation with ETIM. (Isn’t WUC just the umbrella organization after all the Xinjiang separatist groups merged?) After all, you also hear that only the militant branch of Hamas is terrorist, while Hamas itself is some humanitarian organization, and even now, a political party…

    Suffice it to say, WUC or ETIM are all unwelcome/banned by China, so I agree with raventhorn4000, international “cooperation” on terrorism is political, and as such it makes sense to request cease and desist any unfriendly behavior to you and calibrate your own relationship and level of cooperation based on the response.

  71. Steve
    July 15th, 2009 at 19:02 | #71

    @ Nimrod: I agree with your assessment. If China believes the WUC is a terrorist organization and is tied in with ETIM, they need to provide evidence and request they be put on an international terrorist organization list. It’s a political issue.

  72. raventhorn4000
    July 15th, 2009 at 22:39 | #72

    Steve,

    You ask for a level of proof that US and EU never had to go before. 9/11 ties only to Bin Laden. 100′s of the umbrella groups that are tied to Al-Qaeda network, have they all been “proven” by US? In what court? Where are the evidence that you speak of?

  73. Nimrod
    July 16th, 2009 at 00:24 | #73

    Steve,

    In an ideal world, there is a set of rules you can check to see if something is evidence like in a court of law. In politics much like in life, it’s more about trust and alliances. If an ally says some body is a terrorist organization, it is not about the evidence provided, but whether you will back up your ally. In any case you can always “find” the evidence you need and stretch it to fit the bill. If it is a strategic competitor like China, on the other hand, even evidence may not be enough political capital to move you.

  74. raventhorn4000
    July 16th, 2009 at 00:32 | #74

    In which case, I guess China should demand some proof from US for its rather long list, otherwise, let’s all get selective about our “favorite” terrorists.
    :)

  75. Steve
    July 16th, 2009 at 01:27 | #75

    @ Nimrod & R4K: As Nimrod suggests, this isn’t a “court” issue but a political one. However, neither the US nor China are going to accept each other’s lists without some sort of valid reasoning since the two countries, though not enemies, are also not allies. Also, with the change of US administrations, I’m not sure if the Obama people would be as apt to accept the Chinese reasoning as the Bush administration was. I think the Bush people were more pragmatic and less ideological when it came to relations with China.

    @ R4K: I don’t know which terrorist organizations China and the US have in common or even where to find such a list. It’d be interesting to see it.

  76. raventhorn4000
    July 16th, 2009 at 21:09 | #76

    I’m not disputing that, Steve,

    I’m saying that if US holds China’s “proof” to a higher standard than the one that US got in the past, then I think it’s time for “renegotiations”.

  77. raventhorn4000
    July 18th, 2009 at 00:01 | #77

    Jakarta Indonesia just got bombed by “terrorists”.

    Time for WSJ to go dig up some “persecution stories”?

    Or sticking to US and Indonesian government briefings?

  78. Ted
    July 20th, 2009 at 02:09 | #78

    @Allen # 93: Very interesting clips, thanks for the post.

    @ Raj: “Whereas if the CCP said that actually they did have legitimate grievances and they needed to be addressed, Han people would probably have more tolerance for Uighurs as a whole and stop thinking that they have it easy, maybe seeing things from the Uighur perspective.”

    Couldn’t agree more. Blaming the whole thing on outsiders underestimates people’s capacity for understanding and, in my opinion, casts Uighurs as outsiders in their own country. I think labeling the riots as an act of terrorism rather than a tragic outpouring of discontent is also a pretty immature way of handling the situation and works against resolution.

    @Hemulen #144: “I’m just saying that it’s outrageous that an ethnic group that was the overwhelming majority in Xinjiang only fifty years ago now are openly discriminated against in their own region/country or whatever you may want to call it. People who have lived in Kashgar for generations are unable to obtain employment because they are Uighurs and the government tolerates it. If that is not a scandal, I don’t know what is.”

    Thanks for that and your earlier posts.

  79. Wukailong
    July 20th, 2009 at 04:28 | #79

    @Steve (#226): I’m not sure but it seems that the US and China agree on several of the Uighur separatist organizations as being “terrorist.” I’m not sure if it’s just the two of them scratching each other’s backs with the terrorist listings, but anyway I’ve heard they agree on them.

    Btw, a couple of days ago it was said that the national security level in the US is “orange”, which means a high risk of terrorist attack. I wonder how they measure this. Sorry, this is off topic, but an interesting read:

    “When Attorney General John Ashcroft came to Minnesota recently, he said the fact that there had been no terrorist attacks in America in the three years since September 11th was proof that the Bush administration’s anti-terrorist policies were working. I thought: There were no terrorist attacks in America in the three years before September 11th, and we didn’t have any terror alerts. What does that prove?”

    http://www.schneier.com/essay-059.html

  80. Steve
    July 20th, 2009 at 06:56 | #80

    @ WKL #230: Are there several they agree on? I had only heard of the ETIM but I’ve never researched it much. I figured if there were more, Charles would have mentioned them already. ;)

    I have never been able to figure out the terrorist alert color scheme warnings. I think they just raise and lower them arbitrarily to justify their bureaucracy’s vapid existence. I’d be willing to bet all my money that considerably less than 10% of the American public knows the current terrorist alert color or what risk factor is involved. Until you told me, I had no idea it was orange or even what orange meant.

    It’s hard to quantify how many terrorist attacks the US government has thwarted but I’d guess it’s a few, so I think you have to give them some credit. But it’s all guesswork. My guess is that the FBI has discovered most of them and Homeland Security virtually none. I think Homeland Security is a huge waste of money.

  81. raffiaflower
    July 20th, 2009 at 18:45 | #81

    Ugh. this woman is really horrible…it’s hard to see how she can be regarded as “genuine”. She had a similar China-bashing editorial in The Times which basically spewed the same lies and I almost pucked over it….just so blatant. But then The Times has had an anti-China policy well since the early 20th century

  82. Charles Liu
    July 21st, 2009 at 06:06 | #82

    Boy Ted, I thought we had agreed “legitimate grievances” do not justify the killing of innocent people.

    I think some of you need to just be brave and say what you really think – those 130 Hans deserved it.

  83. raventhorn4000
    July 21st, 2009 at 22:03 | #83

    “which basically spewed the same lies”

    And Western Media have the nerve to accuse Chinese media of “recycling old propaganda”.

    Duh, because you brought back Kadeer’s old face to recycle her old tired justifications, and Dalai Lama’s old “genocide” accusations.

    Always, “genocide”, genocide, genocide.

    can’t come up with something a little more original?

  84. Ted
    July 23rd, 2009 at 02:45 | #84

    @ Charles # 233: “I think some of you need to just be brave and say what you really think – those 130 Hans deserved it.”

    Grow up.

  85. July 24th, 2009 at 06:07 | #85

    raventhorn4000 Says:

    “Always, “genocide”, genocide, genocide.”

    Tell you what when the Chinese government tries something more creative that mass murder to solve their political strife we will think up new criticisms.

    The chinise court arrested Mr. Kadeers youngest son in 2006. On Mrch 25,2006 they begon torturing him. He confessed. Evidently he has no appeal becasue the fact that one is tortured is not grounds for dismissal in China.. Yet I am supposed to take as Gospel causalty figures by the lying thug trash that rule China. The countries government is filth which is why protestors in Nanking on the other side of China are overturning cars to protest furniture taxes. The Uighurs are giving the chinese slavocracy problems you say! GOOD!

    http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com/2009/07/by-individualist-theindividualistcomcas.html

  86. raventhorn4000
    July 24th, 2009 at 20:47 | #86

    “Tell you what when the Chinese government tries something more creative that mass murder to solve their political strife we will think up new criticisms.”

    Tell you what, when you actually manages to convict/prove a few more “genocide” in the world, perhaps we will believe you. Boys crying wolf.

  87. beat down terrorism,separatism and extremism!!!
    July 27th, 2009 at 07:41 | #87

    you have all dicussed in a wrong way!!!
    a china including han chinese and all the other ethnic groups ,including tibet,xinjiang and taiwan,is now and will forever be one and inseparable!!! because the real and only law of the world is the jungle law!!!
    we chinese(chinese of 56 ethnic groups) and our incomparably superior communist party will never let an extremely minimum number of separatists achieve their illegal and evil goals even at the expense of blood!!!
    have i and my warnings been inhuman?absolutely not,just the truth!!! what i have proclaimed is full of liberal and democratic values because it protects and is consistent with the peace and benefits of all the chinese people of 56 ethnic groups.if such stabilizing actions are wrong,then ask usa people why Abraham Lincoln has been recognized as the greatest president ,who ordered the civil war that had killed hundreds of thousands of southerners instead of giving enough respect and recognition to the south’s withdrawal and independence from the union?
    and i want to warn an extremely minimum number of foreigners with evil purposes to interfere with china’s domestic affairs to constrict their actions. because we chinese have our own values of state over individual,entirety over part,long-standing peace over temporary pain!!!
    anyone,any country,any organization that dares to separate china by means of inflaming ethnic hatred,is sure to be wiped off the map by heroic chinese people with the strength of only a little finger!!!

  88. Wukailong
    July 27th, 2009 at 08:23 | #88

    Hmm, the last entry is a Rorschach test for everyone to think about. I don’t know if it’s real or not.

  89. July 28th, 2009 at 07:04 | #89

    In its August 2 issue, the Hong Kong newsweekly Yazhou Zhoukan interviews Heyrat Niyaz, a Uyghur journalist, blogger, and AIDS activist. In the interview, Heyrat tells of how he tried to warn officials that “blood would flow” in Urumchi on July 5 and gives his thoughts about the background to the ethnic rioting.

    http://siweiluozi.blogspot.com/2009/07/heyrat-niyaz-on-july-5-riots-in-urumchi.html

  90. Steve
    July 28th, 2009 at 15:32 | #90

    Thanks for that article, admin! What Niyaz wrote made more sense to me than anything I’ve yet read on the subject.

  91. Jason
    August 1st, 2009 at 00:15 | #91

    Oh God! Rebika “Liar and no-evidence” Kadeer claims 10,000 Uighur are missing.

  92. raventhorn4000
    August 1st, 2009 at 01:07 | #92

    China should respond: “10,000 Uighurs have been kidnapped and smuggled by Kadeer into terrorist camps in the West.”

    Explain that, Kadeer! :)

  93. Wukailong
    August 1st, 2009 at 03:47 | #93

    @admin: So Hizb-ut-Tahrir has something to do with this. That’s interesting. That organization, while not exactly keeping a high profile, have caused controversies in the UK and Denmark by making remarks on killing of kafr/kuffar (Arabic for infidels) as well as threatening critics. I recommend everyone interested to have a look at their webpage:

    http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/index.php

    Of course, most of the people above only seem to be interested in this Rebiya Kadeer… Sigh.

  94. Steve
    August 1st, 2009 at 04:35 | #94

    @ Wukailong #244: You and I both had the same impression after reading what admin linked to. I wonder if they acted too quickly in naming a culprit since in the long run this one looks more dangerous, at least to me.

  95. August 1st, 2009 at 08:41 | #95

    @admin #240 -

    Very interesting interview. How credible is this Heyrat Niyaz? At any rate, most of what he says makes sense. Actually it is not surprising at all that islamist groups like that one had a role in the violence. Like in neighbouring refions, young muslim Uygurs become frustrated and turn to radical islam. This is happening already in Xinjiang for a long time, no doubt.

    When the Chinese governent have decided to focus all their attacks on Kadeer, I think this is just part of their image war against the Western media. Behind the scenes, I am sure the CCP is aware that the real danger are the islamists. The question of whether Kadeer is in contact and financing these groups, or whether she is just completely clueless about them, is certainly important – if contact is proven it might lead to discrediting once and for all the American NED.

    But in the long term, the really important question for China is not to beat Kadeer (that should be easy!) but rather to understand why those Uygurs turn to radical Islam, and what can be done to control the situation from the roots now that it is still not completely out of control. Perhaps simple things like not destroying the old buildings of Kashgar, or like ensuring that there is no job discrimination, can go a long way to achieve this.

    Finally, China should be very careful now. I have heard many opinions from proud Han saying that radical Uygurs are a tiny fraction of the total population, and they can never beat China. This is true, but still, if things turn really bad, the potential they have to harm China is enormous, just look at Chechenya, Palestina etc. where the strongest armies in the World cannot control the situation for decades. (China is still far from these examples, but worst case scenarios need to be considered).

    I always thought that China has been very clever in the international scene, not getting mixed up in the whole crusade against islamism and managing to be the only Security Council country that was untouched by large-scale terrorism. If the CCP leaders are intelligent (and i think they are) they will manage to sort thngs out in away to avoid Al Qaeda complications.

  96. August 1st, 2009 at 19:03 | #96

    @WKL,

    Thanks for the link, I went there and found their most recent article about urumqi riots
    http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/news-watch/muslim-countries/is-ethnicity-a-threat-to-chinese-society.html

    @Uln,
    I fully agree with you. I think no matter what the external factors are, the most important thing for Chinese government is to re-examine its own policies, which are clearly not working well.

  97. Chops
    August 3rd, 2009 at 07:23 | #97

    The Chinese govt blamed the Urumqi riots on external influence from Kadeer and her WUC.

    “She was sentenced to an eight-year imprisonment in 2000 on charges of illegally disclosing state secrets, and was released on bail in 2005 to seek medical treatment in the United States.”

    But the govt was responsible for her release to go for “medical treatment”, knowing full well she will not return to China. It appeared to be a US political deal and PR stunt ahead of the Beijing Olympics.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44393-2005Mar17.html

  98. August 3rd, 2009 at 17:33 | #98

    Hi chops, #248,

    If you look at all the U.N. votes related to “human rights” – the U.S./U.K looses basically most of the time. The world knows such votes are always politically motivated. I am sure the Chinese government is aware of this.

    Washington needs to win political points domestically, so my guess is such releases are to trade for something else. When you are in your 50′s or 60′s, you will certainly always be sick of something. Anyways, we will just never know what the trade was for.

    HRW etc needs to claim victory, and if you are to ask them directly, they’d tell you its their awesome work which allowed Kadeer to be set free.

  99. Steve
    August 4th, 2009 at 15:08 | #99

    @ Chops & Huaren: Sometimes I think US foreign policy is determined too much by freeing dissidents in other countries rather than based on US national interests. It’s foreign policy based on lobbyist influence than our own strategic needs.

    Chops, those “illegally disclosing state secrets” were, if I remember correctly, her mailing of newspaper articles out of the country. If they were state secrets, why did they appear in newspapers? Let’s face it, the “state secrets” charge is the catch-all phrase the government uses to arrest dissidents they don’t like. Having said that, I still don’t think it’s wise for a country to base its foreign policy decisions on the internal matters of other countries short of something atrocious like Jewish genocide or the Killing Fields in Cambodia.

    Needless to say, at the time the Chinese government felt that what they were getting in return was worth the release of Kadeer from prison and her subsequent deportation.

  100. August 4th, 2009 at 16:26 | #100

    @Steve #250 – I agree, the accusations against RK are not to be taken very seriously. But it remains that she was released, and from the perspective of the CPC this could only be a miscalculation. I mean: if the party had realized just how fast we create heroes in the West, they surely wouldn’t have released her.

    The thing now is that, with the facts we have in hand, I can only imagine 1 of 2 possible positions for RK, and neither of them is very flattering: 1- She is actually in contact with the radical islamist groups that organized the killings, 2- She is just an opportunist who jumped at the chance to get a name for herself after she saw the radical Uyghurs on TV go berserk (which was perhaps a surprise even for her).

    Sincerely, from the way she spoke I fancy it is more like number 2. Also because a lady with her personal history can hardly be accepted by radical islamists as a leader (and have you ever seen any such group led by a woman?)

    I have no new facts in my hands and I openly admit that this is speculation. But really there is something weird about this new Dalai Lama who is not Dalai and is not Lama.

    By the way, I just wrote a bit about the media and the Xinjiang conflict. I try to look at it from a different point of view, check it out here:

    Excuse the self-promotion.

  101. August 4th, 2009 at 17:12 | #101

    Hi Steve, #250,

    I concur.

    Hi Uln, #251,

    Thx for your article and link to it. Its a great article and I would encourage FM readers to visit your blog. And thx for your plug at the end of your article for FM.

    I agree with your characterization of the “Western” media. That London Evening Standard article claiming the Han Chinese woman with bloody nose as a victim of the police brutality – insanity! A lot of people take swipes at anti-CNN, but facts are facts and thx to anti-CNN for exposing it.

    I recall CNN actually doctor’ed an image during their 3.14 reporting – they cropped an image to remove rioters with bricks on hand – resulting picture was a vacant street with two police trucks and debris all over the road. The meaning of the image got altered completely, by 180 degrees.

    Btw – as you have noted, at least the XJTV is sticking with their long term goal of harmony. Can you count on “Western” media to think about society first? I think the “Western” media (not all, but many) have failed their societies miserably on many fronts. I think China’s media is vastly superior today – until if they change for the worse, of course.

  102. Steve
    August 4th, 2009 at 18:47 | #102

    @ Uln: No problem at all with the link. We prefer to see links rather than just re-posting the same article. Incidentally, the link was an excellent post.

    My personal opinion about media reporters is that they are trained and knowledgeable in how to write, but not in what they report. They don’t have much theoretical knowledge of their subjects and I think they get most of their information talking to fellow reporters in pubs over beers. One question I always ask friends is whether the news articles about their own professions are accurate, and the answer is always the same: No, not at all. That’s also been my experience.

    I’m not as positive as you are concerning Chinese media. We should be able to expect more from them. For western media, they have the opportunity to report on what actually happened but are obligated to actually research it and know their subject material. The ones who fail, fail because of their own laziness, incompetence and bias. Chinese media has no opportunity to report the truth, only the truth as the party sees it. That to me is more of a mindless kind of reporting since your story is essentially pre-written before you even start it. As a reporter, you just take what you’re given and spice it up a bit to make it more readable. You don’t actually investigate since you’re using the investigation as supplied by the government. I think that’d be a frustrating job to hold. If a government creates restrictive rules and then follows those rules to the letter, I’m not sure that can qualify in my book as good reporting.

    @ Huaren: I’d think someone could develop scan technology that could look at a photo and trace its authenticity, even if it’s been altered. I find it inexcusable with today’s technology for these photos to be misused by any media. It’s comparable to using manual Royal typewriters to write your articles. Oops, that might be true with a few of these guys! ;)

    To be fair, China should be more interested in Chinese news than foreign countries would be. Typically, most media report foreign events when they happen but forget about the follow up in favor of national or local news. Foreigners should not care about Xinjiang as much as the Chinese people, since this riot was Chinese against Chinese. It’s a big deal to us since we all care about China, but we’re a small minority in today’s world.

  103. JinghengTan
    August 5th, 2009 at 01:29 | #103

    I hate this sort of people

  104. August 5th, 2009 at 03:34 | #104

    @Steve – My bit about watching XJTV was meant to be tongue in cheek, please do not try this at home or face the risk of irreversible brain damage after 10 minutes exposure…

    I completely agree the Chinese media’s reporting was not good reporting. Actually that is the point: it was not even Reporting, and it was not even Media. In times of crisis the Chinese media goes completely under control and becomes a mere instrument of the State.

    It is only from THIS point of view that I think they did a very good job.

    I can feel it coming now, very soon I am going to be accused of commy-panda-hugger again…

  105. Steve
    August 5th, 2009 at 04:19 | #105

    @ Uln: Do you mean I just wasted three hours of my time trying to bring in XJTV on my satellite??? ;)

    Actually, your tongue in cheek argument kinda reminded me of the same argument about bringing people to court in China. Rulings aren’t made per the law, they’re made per the party. My friends in China all acknowledged this, though I think many outside China just assume that it’s the law that matters and not the party decision.

    When Kadeer was convicted for revealing state secrets, it wasn’t really for revealing state secrets but actually for being in violation of party discipline. As long as you stay away from certain subjects, the amount of freedom in China right now is pretty decent. But if you cross certain boundaries, you’re going to jail regardless of the law.

    It’s almost like a play where the actors all play their parts, recite their lines and the script goes according to plan. Conviction rate is almost 100% and when it’s not, it’s because the party decided not to convict. I’m not trying to be critical, just acknowledge that their system is different from our system and so when in Rome, it’s wisest to play by Rome’s rules, just as the media rules are different from ours. I read Chinese media so I know the official government position on various issues.

    BTW, why are you a commie panda hugger???? :P

  106. Chops
    August 5th, 2009 at 05:31 | #106

    @ huaren & Steve -
    Kadeer is more of an annoyance than a real threat to the Chinese government, and the government is still holding the cards, since her children are still in China.

    “2. Also because a lady with her personal history can hardly be accepted by radical islamists as a leader (and have you ever seen any such group led by a woman?)”

    Kadeer is definitely not fundamental enough, not covered from head to toe in burqa, and she appears to have some Chinese features in her looks, thanks no doubt to some distant ancestor.

Comment pages
1 2 4628
  1. No trackbacks yet.
You must be logged in to post a comment.