If only the Uyghurs had Twitter
A Muslim Uyghur woman walks with her son past security forces (Mark Ralston/AFP-Getty Images)
More than 4,000 Uyghurs have been arrested by the Chinese government since July 5. Hundreds of civilians have been killed. Thousands have been injured. This violence follows the pattern of arbitrary detention, imprisonment, torture and execution that has enraged Westerners when it has occurred in places like Iran. Yet there is little attention being paid to the suppression of the Uyghurs, a Muslim minority, in the western media. The Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) is now concerned that mass executions of Uyghurs will soon be carried out, as promised by Chinese officials.
“We believe that the Chinese government’s spin has influenced the reaction of the world community… causing Uyghur repression to receive less attention than events such as the suppression of the Iranian people,” wrote Amy Reger, a researcher at UHRP, during our email correspondence. The Chinese government has also been successful in cutting access to cell phones and the Internet, including Twitter. The government did this “in order to prevent a spread of citizen journalism such as that which occurred in Iran. We believe that, had this not occurred, news of the mass killing of Uyghurs by Chinese security forces may have been able to reach the outside world more effectively,” Reger added.
UHRP is also concerned that there have been no reported arrests of Han Chinese who have reportedly beaten and killed Uyghurs in two days of violence in Urumchi. In early July, Han Chinese residents of Urumchi took to the streets with clubs, sticks and other weapons to seek revenge on Uyghurs who had injured and killed Chinese people on the previous day. “We condemn the killings and injuries of Han Chinese people. However, we also believe that large numbers of Uyghurs were killed and injured on July 6 and 7, and their deaths have not been reported,” says Reger.
Reger and UHRP accuse the Chinese government of engaging in spin by providing only images of violence instigated by Uyghurs against Han Chinese, in an effort to “fan the flames of nationalism and divert attention from the serious, underlying grievances that drove Uyghurs to protest, at first peacefully.” Reger cautions western journalists to critically analyze any information given to them by the Chinese government and media as it is likely state propaganda.
The two trends of Uyghur coverage in the media are exclusion and suppression. In addition to the deaths of Uyghur activists being almost completely whitewashed from the news, the Chinese government is publicly calling for the censorship and suppression of Uyghur activists. Most recently, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei has called for the U.S. government to “restrict the activities” of Uyghur activist Rebiya Kadeer. The Chinese government blames Kadeer for instigating the violence in one of its most volatile regions, Xinjiang. Kadeer is a human rights activist who spent five years in jail in China and now lives near Washington, and has accused the Chinese government of repressing Uyghurs, destroying their culture and curbing their religious freedom.
The political pressure from Beijing isn’t limited to heads of states. Richard Moore, head of the Melbourne International Film Festival, said two Chinese directors have boycotted Australia’s biggest film festival over the screening of a documentary about Kadeer. The directors pulled their films after Moore ignored political pressure from Beijing. “It makes me feel angry, annoyed and irritated all at the same time, that they would try to interfere with our programme for blatantly political ends,” Moore told the AFP news agency.
Reger stresses that subdued media coverage stifles the possibility of western solidarity movements. It’s not that Americans don’t care about Uyghurs. They just don’t hear about the systematic slaughter of the Uyghur people by the Chinese government. “We ask the Chinese government to allow journalists access to East Turkestan and Uyghurs without any conditions to investigate the unrest in Urumchi and its aftermath. This access to East Turkestan will be critical in the coming days as looming executions of Uyghurs on political charges come ever nearer.” (Urumchi Party Secretary Li Zhi said at a press conference on July 8 that authorities would use the death penalty for crimes connected to events on July 5. “To those who have committed crimes with cruel means, we will execute them.”)
Reger adds, “We fear that a number of Uyghurs are going to be executed unnoticed by the world. In order to prevent such state-sanctioned killing we require the eyes of the world’s media and the world’s governments to remain on East Turkestan and to speak out against a further abuse of the Uyghur people’s human rights.”
The United States government could aid human rights activists by flexing its diplomatic muscle and exerting pressure on the Chinese government to opens its borders to foreign journalists. Only with the presence of a free and open press can a proper western solidarity movement form for the repressed Uyghur people.
Update: The original article read that 200 Uyghurs have been killed. This Chinese government’s figure is made up mostly of Han Chinese people. UHRP believes that hundreds of Uyghurs were killed in the unrest of Urumchi, and their deaths have not been officially reported.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I don’t think it’s the Chinese government’s strategy that is keeping the media quiet about Xinjiang. Remember, they actually opened up Xinjiang to journalists (it is normally closed) right after the riots. And I think the media see those clumsy moves you describe (bullying Kadeer and the film festival) as the thuggishness that they are.
The Uighurs’s problem is that they are not sympathetic victims. They are Muslims and generally poor and uneducated and so hard to relate to from a western perspective; this is the big difference with the Iranian protesters.
The Chinese government also detained journalists that were reporting from Xinjiang, and journalists faced numerous restraints, such as not being allowed to conduct interviews on their own, away from government officials.
Very true. Wealth buys access, not just to the government, but to technology such as those handy, small wireless devices that make Twitter accessible. The poor need journalists to be their voices. Unfortunately, the Chinese government is implementing their familiar information-control strategies to make that impossible.
In response to another comment. See in context »Why would the US government interfere with the Chinese? If we make them angry, they may stop buying billions of dollars worth of treasury bonds. If that happens, we will not be able to pay for universal healthcare, corporate bailouts, and wasteful military spending.
We could actually pay for universal healthcare (the good thing in your list) if we didn’t waste money on the remainder of your “bad” listed items (which I agree are wasteful): the bloated military budget, corporate bailouts, etc.
Also, it appears as if the Chinese are tired of buying our debt, anyway. Now would be the time to radically rethink government spending, but of course the government will probably just find a new way to kick the stone down the road and put off reform for another decade.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not sure they will be able to find another way to prolong it. It is frightening to think of what will happen as the dollar loses value and we are not longer able to borrow. What has happened to our economy is a microcosm of what could happen on a global level. In fact, we’re already seeing that.
The problem is that the current administration has no intention of cutting spending. Unfortunately, they have made it very clear that they intend to “spend” their way out of it. That doesn’t even make sense. The good news is that Americans seem to be cutting their personal spending and increasing their savings. The bad news is, those savings are going to eventually be depleted when we are called upon to foot the bill for our government’s fiscal irresponsibility.
History has proven that the worst way to handle a recession is to cut spending, and economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have been repeating that mantra ad nauseam. That was the whole thinking behind the New Deal (the government had to make a massive investment in the economy in order to stimulate growth and spending). Krugman explains it this way:
Part of that public investment would be universal healthcare, which entails a large initial investment, but will ultimately save the U.S. money via preventive care.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t buy that. How can that spending stimulate the economy when it is borrowed money? There are plenty of economists who would argue that government spending and artificial inflation will prolong recovery. Many economists and historians insist that the depression could have ended 10 years earlier if the government had not artificially inflated wages and prices. How did we get into this mess? A big part of it was the artificial inflation of housing prices and other malinvestment.
Because borrowed money is still money, nonetheless. It effects the economy just as “American money” would. I’m not sure those economists are very credible. I know they exist, and they’re out there, but I don’t think they have either Stiglitz or Krugman’s resume (Stiglitz is the most cited economist in the world and winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and Krugman won the 2008 Nobel Prize for economics.) I’m sure there are “very serious scientists and economists” out there that claim all kinds of crazy things, but that doesn’t mean we should dismiss actual historical evidence, and believe them.
In response to another comment. See in context »Credit and wealth are not synonymous. I think about it in terms of personal finance. Anyone can get a credit card and accumulate lots of goods, but what happens when it comes time to pay for it? They can’t afford to pay it. We are seeing a first-hand look at what happens right now. The bill comes due which leads to more borrowing and the debt is merely transfered. It never goes away until it is payed back. What happened to us is that the bill never got paid. And it will never get paid until banks and companies are willing to liquidate that debt.
That is the very mindset that got us into this problem in the first place. Everyone went crazy and just started treating debt like it was actual wealth, but then the bill came in the mail and nobody had the money to pay it back. That’s what led to the bailouts. They are trying to artificially pay off that debt in order to fill in the hole. Creating money out of nothing in order to make the books look better. That is not good business, it is deception. Like you said, it is our government’s way to “kick the stone down the road” The only problem is that the road will eventually come to a dead end. That is what we haven’t seen yet, but if we do it will be tragic.
That’s part of the idea behind stimulus. Stimulus (even credit-provided stimulus) can help build or expand real businesses that build real products and employ real people thereby creating some of that much-coveted “real wealth” you’re talking about. You can’t get there by cutting taxes. Additionally, providing universal health care would relieve the burden of healthcare from businesses that could then pass along the savings to consumers and employees, who then inject more capital into the economy.
Stimulus isn’t how we got into this problem in the first place. We got into this problem because of massive deregulation at the highest echelons of Wall Street, who exploited the Capitalistic system for their own benefits. We’ve been busy bailing out a very small group of Capitalist cronies whilst depriving the majority of the American people of aid. That’s not a good solution. That’s just a way to guarantee maximum suffering to the most amount of people.
In response to another comment. See in context »No doubt. Completely agree that the bailouts were a complete waste and they did absolutely nothing but increase debt. I also agree that deregulating the banking industry (a large part of that under Clinton) was a major source of the problem.
However, I totally disagree that deficit spending is a solid form of stimulus. That will not alleviate any of the burden that has already been placed on us. Why does the government have to spend our money to stimulate the economy? Why can’t we be the ones who decide what to do with our money? The market determines prices. Supply and demand. Does corruption and abuse of the system lead to recessions? Yes, obviously. Does that mean that the government has the right to artificially inflate prices and wages in order to “save” the economy? Absolutely not. This is all going to cost us down the road. And you’re right, we cannot cut taxes now because we are in way too deep.
As for the healthcare issue, proposals stated that companies be required to provide healthcare for their employees. If that holds up in future proposals (and it’s likely that it will), companies will not have more money in their pockets to spend on production. Also, what about the proposal that people be REQUIRED to pay for healthcare coverage? I have a major problem with that. If someone does not want or does not need health insurance, why should the government force them to buy it? Current proposals say that people will be monetarily penalized if they do not pay for health insurance.
I don’t believe the market is a perfect force of nature. It’s manmade, and as such, it benefits a very small percentage of the population (namely the players responsible for building and regulating said market.) I believe the government occasionally needs to step in and — the most dreaded of phrases — “redistribute the wealth” before the serfs, say, starve.
That’s the public-private hybrid option, which I don’t support. I support universal healthcare, which is government-provided healthcare that would theoretically be paid for by cutting the bloated military budget (which is only one of many places the U.S. gov’t could find money to pay for the system. They could also crack down on corporate tax havens.) I believe the public-private option won’t work precisely because the private insurance companies will be part of the “solution,” which of course will do nothing to curb price inflation, and won’t provide widespread coverage to the people who really need it.
In response to another comment. See in context »But the government is often part of that small percentage benefiting from that market. Namely, individual representatives and candidates running for office. I guess I just tend to have more faith in individual citizens more than government when it comes to the economy. I know that people occasionally tweak the system for the sake of profit, but overall I think that most of what government does tends to fail over the long run. It is usually individual citizens or groups of citizens that bring about change and prosperity. Overall, I like the idea of earning what you work for. Believe it or not, some people are going to lose in life and that is not my problem. It could happen to me and if it does, I will do my best to come out of it. I just feel like society sometimes confuses luxuries with rights.
I hear you on public/private vs. universal. I was collapsing the two. As for healthcare, I am for reform, but I just don’t think that we should give government too much control over it. If they want to start their own insurance company, then they should. But they shouldn’t do it to the point where it limits our choices. Nor do I feel like I should have to pay for it if I am not going to use it. That is just a matter of principle.
Before government was gutted in the name of privatization, America enjoyed some of the most egalitarian periods in its history (usually because of strong unions and high minimum wages). People used to be able to buy a house on minimum wage. Imagine that! The key is regulation. Throwing a bunch of power and money at the government and private industry does nothing without strong regulation that guarantees some of that wealth will filter down to the vast majority of the population that actually needs it, and not just a handful of Goldman Sachs CEOs.
When government had enough power and money (and regulation,) we got the New Deal, which is still the flagship of liberalism and government working for (and not against) the American people.
In response to another comment. See in context »“I don’t buy that. How can that spending stimulate the economy when it is borrowed money?”
Sorry Briano history just doesn’t bare that out, the recession is a prime example of why you are wrong. History also shows us that it doesn’t really matter where the money comes from, but where it ends up.
I meant to say the “recession of 1937″ in my last post.
Joshua, I hate to be the one to break the news, but…the Iranian protesters are Muslims, too.
Let us also not forget that having a lot of foreign debt is very much the norm for all developed countries. And it’s easy to overstate the problem with regard to foreign debt and investment, not least because the two are often conflated.
The fact that the U.S. has the most foreign debt is also somewhat misleading. It’s mainly because of how much bigger our economy is than every other country. In fact in terms of percentage of GDP, the U.S. is like 25th in foreign debt (according to the CIA World Factbook, and when has their intelligence ever been wrong?). There are plenty of countries whose foreign debt is many times over their GDP. And these are all developed countries with relatively strong economies. It’s mainly the poorest, least developed countries, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, who have little or no foreign debt.
Especially when debt is bought and sold like any other commodity these days. (Not that this is necessarily a good thing, rather just a fact of reality.)
In response to another comment. See in context »It is government intervention in the economy and Federal Reserve monetary policy that causes the super boom and severe bust cycles. Capitalism works when government keeps its hands off of monetary policy. We may need some laws in place to regulate business and to ensure that people are not taken advantage of, but too much government control of the economy causes it to go haywire. You are all pointing to New Deal policies and how they saved the US from the depression, but none of you talk about the government intervention prior to the Great Depression that caused the bust. Also, none of you have been able to clearly state how those policies helped. Why did it take so long for the recovery? How can you say that New Deal policies were actually what helped the economy recover? When I look at that era, I see a free market that worked itself out in spite of government intervention.
As far as debt goes, I understand that it is OK to borrow money and I realize that debt is a part of economics in general. However, I’m talking about the kind of debt that will eventually be paid back or that is currently being paid back. When I buy a house or a car, I borrow the money to buy it and then I pay it back over time plus interest. That is debt that I don’t mind having because I want a house and I want a car. I could rent if I wanted to or I could ride my bike, but I chose to buy those things and I will eventually pay off those debts. When banks gave loans to people who were not qualified, the economy went to pieces. Why did banks give loans to people who did not qualify? They were forced to do so when government passed the Community Reinvestment Act under President Carter. I believe Clinton took it a step further in the 90’s.
What I do mind, however, is when our government wastefully spends money and then we have to pay it back in the form of taxes. We do not need two wars and we did not need to spend billions of dollars to bail out banks that got us into this mess in the first place. I just don’t see how people can stand for this. We entered an era under W. Bush of outrageous spending and it will continue under the current administration. There is no end in sight. The value of the dollar is at stake and when that crashes, it is over for us.
Right, via deregulation and handouts to their cronies on Wall Street, not via public stimulus plans. I can suggest an excellent book about this: William Black’s The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is To Own One.
No, that’s actually called deregulation and it led to the speculative bubble market and subsequent busts.
Well, true. There’s good intervention and bad intervention. No one is suggesting to repeat Hoover’s bad intervention (raised taxes with no public spending). That obviously didn’t work and made the depression worse. The case can be made that the Great Depression occurred in part because there wasn’t enough government regulation. For example, one of the recognized causes of the GD was that the banks weren’t insured. The banks busted and reduced lending, which started the cycle of depression. That’s why we have the FDIC today (more of that cursed government intervention.)
I trust economists that have won Nobel Peace prizes.
Widespread deregulation permitted a subprime loan market that grew into a bubble. More regulation could have prevented that. I agree that the goal shouldn’t have been to give shady loans to poor people and push the burden of payment down the road. The goal should have been to raise the minimum wage and provide education programs to better citizens’ chances of making a living in order to buy a home they can actually afford. Unfortunately, the financial echelon wanted to make a lot of money really fast, and so they worked in concert with the government to deregulate the mortgage system and circumvent preexisting safeguards that had been put in place precisely to avoid the kind of calamity we find ourselves in today. See: Clinton’s approval of Glass-Steagall.
Couldn’t agree more. For the price tags of the Iraq and Afghanistan war and the financial bailouts, we could have healthcare for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Shameful.
In response to another comment. See in context »Like I said, some government regulation is needed in order to protect the general public. I would not put my money in the bank if not for the FDIC. But that kind government regulation and government spending are obviously two different things.
Public stimulus spending only adds to the debt that will never be paid back. None of that answers the question of how can the United States have a sustainable future with the current amount of debt that we currently have. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want half of my salary to be taken out in taxes to pay back debt that was unnecessary. Even if we didn’t have the wars, didn’t have the bailout, and didn’t have the stimulus package, we would still have an enormous amount of debt.
Also, government has a large role in Federal Reserve monetary policy which was one of the factors that led to banks becoming overleveraged. The president appoints committee members, that is all I need to know in order to confidently claim that the government has too much involvement in monetary policy.
If you haven’t already seen it, there is an interesting video dealing with US debt called “IOUSA”. Check it out if you ever have a chance.
It also creates jobs, and new jobs means more money is added to the economy.
No model is based on the sustained current debt. In other words, no one is saying, “Let’s inject a trillion dollars into the economy every fiscal year until the end of time.” The idea was a one-time, huge investment that would get the ball rolling. Now, the amount of that stimulus was up for debate. Krugman thinks the government didn’t invest enough, and the result will be lukewarm.
Over-leveraging is another symptom of deregulation. There used to be regulatory guidelines in place to prevent the insane kind of 1000:1 we saw in the subprime market. But the “high-rollers” in the derivatives industry got to sidestep those regulations. So said economist Robert Kuttner before the Committee on Financial Services back in October of ‘07:
In response to another comment. See in context »So we agree that the spending needs to stop? Of course the amount of money is up for debate, they treat the economy as if spending is the answer to everything. I agree that a stagnant economy spells trouble, but that brings us back to the argument of credit vs. wealth. I just don’t see how this can continue.
Also, will it really create new jobs, or will it just act as a bandaid for rising unemployment? The market will do what the market will do, there is no amount of money that can be injected into the economy to solve everything. Especially when it is borrowed and/or created out of thin air. So what if it does create more money for the economy, by the time that takes effect we will be paying higher taxes in order to pay back all of that debt. There is no way around it, the debt will never go away until it is paid back. Should we just say “screw future generations, they will figure it out”? You said it yourself, it is kicking the stone further down the road. We can only do that for so long before it comes home to roost. We will first see it in the form of price inflation and if that is combined with a devaluation of the dollar, we are in big trouble. Something that Krugman claims will never happen.
As for Krugman, he always presents his argument in terms of Keynesian economics. That is not the only perspective. Also, he is as fiscally liberal as they come, so of course he thinks that the stimulus package was too small. I respect his work and I sometimes even agree with him, but his word is not economic scripture. I guess I am a sinner in the world of this Krugman economic holy land.
No, I meant the spending needs to help the majority of Americans and it needs to be regulated. I agree with your points about irresponsible spending (not the amount, but that it needs to be regulated). Simply throwing money at these giant banks without regulating it has led to rampant corruption (surprise, surprise.)
Yes, it will create real jobs. Funding the building of public roads needs real-life workers to build real roads.
The market isn’t a force of nature. It’s a manmade creation with manmade rules that, unfortunately, favor a very small coterie. Deregulation and cronyism have led to corruption, and a handful of Wall Street executives running off with taxpayer money.
Some debt is normal and quite manageable. I don’t think the US needs to shrink to zero in order for things to “normalize.” If a serious public stimulus was implemented, we could probably obtain manageable levels of debt, which would be fine. This is complicated, but Krugman explains how a large deficit actually may have saved the US economy from a full-blown Depression this time around:
I guess you and I are going to continue to fundamentally disagree on the issue of stimulus. I think history has proven that stimulus and job-creation is the only way to reverse a recession and/or depression. Unfortunately, I think the government is also being incredibly wasteful and misdirecting a lot of taxpayer money to bank bailouts and the already bloated military budget (I think we’re in agreement there.) I would like to see less government intervention for the sake of deregulation and corporate handouts and more regulation to guarantee this kind of speculative bubble/pillaging of the Fed doesn’t happen again.
However, I simply don’t agree with the rest of your argument.
Now, time for bed.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses, though. It was nice chatting/debating!
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ll just say these final words in closing because I am tired and I have been in front of this computer for way too long. I enjoyed and appreciate the exchange of ideas:
GOOD: A reasonable amount of government regulation of banking industry to protect us from things that caused the current crisis, some regulation of business to protect workers.
BAD: Government spending, government borrowing, debt, deficit, politicization of monetary policy, politicization of federal reserve, government pandering to big money corporate campaign contributors.
Allison,
You got all the facts wrong. The majority of riots victims are han. It is the uyghurs mobs who are killing, burning, beheading innocent Han people. There are the facts which already confirmed by on the on-site independent reports, check timeonline.co.uk or telegraph.co.uk on the ground report.
The Chinese government open the region right after the riots happens, western reports with deep-bias against China can’t find anything which can confirm what the uhrp said. The so-called police-brutality-against-uyghurs photo Which Mts Kadeer used in press conference is fake. They already issued an apology. There is not a shred of evidence from international observers to support any of uyghurs casualties in UHRP’s outrageous claim
Western journalists are so easily jumping on any charge against China because their deep-biased belief that China is one big/bad monster. They are so willing to believe any lies against China.
While hundreds of Han were killed (a fact I included in the initial post,) UHRP believes that hundreds of Uyghurs were killed in the unrest of Urumchi, and their deaths have not been officially reported. Naturally, the Chinese government isn’t terribly concerned with keeping an official record of how many Uyghurs have been killed.
Media outlets’ (including the Telegraph) reporting abilities are significantly limited by the limits placed on them by China. The Chinese government has detained journalists that were reporting from Xinjiang, and journalists faced numerous restraints, such as not being allowed to conduct interviews on their own, away from government officials.
It’s not enough to say allegations of Uyghur and journalist abuse is “fake.” Independent sources need to verify those claims. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to know what’s going on because the Chinese government is behaving in an incredibly repressive fashion. If you’re right and human rights abuses are not occurring (although even The Telegraph reports China admits to killing Uyghurs,) an easy way for the Chinese government to prove their innocence would be to fully open their borders to journalists and allow them to interview Chinese residents without the presence of government officials.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Naturally, the Chinese government isn’t terribly concerned with keeping an official record of how many Uyghurs have been killed.” There is a detail breakdown of victims from different race. Just simple google, you can find it.
“Media outlets’ (including the Telegraph) reporting abilities are significantly limited by the limits placed on them by China.” How?
Please check peter foster’s blog. He is on the site at Urumqi.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/peterfoster/
Another on-site interview. Uyghuer mobs beheaded a 13 year old and his father, 84 grandma is beat to death and family are burnt.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6695212.ece
There are many more bloody images and videos from Chinese web-site. Do you want more on site report?
Can you find one reliable image or videos to support uyghuer’s site of lies?
In response to another comment. See in context »Again, I would caution readers to adopt a generous amount of skepticism when reading “on site” reporting right now, especially the Chinese government is heavily shielding reporters from conducting independent interviews. In an earlier piece, Foster writes about how the Chinese government has “corralled the large international media presence in a single hotel,” which seems an odd way to conduct independent journalism. Short of repeating some government-issued numbers, I really can’t find many places where Foster appears to independently surmise the Uyghur repression.
“On site reporting,” is severely compromised when the government dictates where journalists can and cannot go, and who they can and cannot speak to. Groups like the UHRP and UAA are non-profit human rights groups, so I don’t see what they gain from disseminating “lies,” as you have accused them of doing.
In response to another comment. See in context »So the the UHRP’s claims without any evidence are more liable than on-site reports from various source with photos, interviews?
This again just reinforce what I said before. Western medias are deep-biased again China. They want to believe whatever lies against china. The main purpose of china report is to bash china with lies, rumors, fact twisting.
In response to another comment. See in context »hi, Allison,
Can you tell us what you feel the US government will react if blacks or latino beheaded, burnt, killed 150 whites in this country?
Not sure how accurate the comparison is, but I would hope they wouldn’t conduct extrajudicial assassinations, although these days, that may be giving the government too much credit.
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course, those who committed brutal crime against innocent people will be executed.
People and law system has different belief toward death penalty in China. Don’t use US legal system and criminal law to interpret other countries.
People in China don’t enjoy as much human rights as american. That doesn’t justify the brutal killing of innocent han people by the Ughyurs.
If you are pro-human beings, I don’t see any sympathy in your words toward innocent han victims. I only see that you are so eager to jump the gun blaming Chinese government.
Do you know that the whole thing started from an unconfirmed internet post which rumored that ughyuer workers rapes two han girls in far away guangdong?
Therefore, it’s okay to kill them. Strange logic.
That’s only because you’re willfully ignoring it. It’s there in the first paragraph: “More than 4,000 Uyghurs have been arrested by the Chinese government since July 5. Hundreds of civilians have been killed.” Note: Not “Uyghur” civilians, but civilians, in general. I then specify in an update that the “200″ figure is comprised mostly of Han citizens. I don’t then add, “so who cares?” Any civilian deaths — Han or Uyghur — should be reported by the media.
In response to another comment. See in context »allison,
my while sentense is “People in China don’t enjoy as much human rights as american. That doesn’t justify the brutal killing of innocent han people by the Ughyurs.”.
You TWISTS THE FACT again.
yeah, one sentence “Hundreds of civilians have been killed.” in your article FULL of UHRP charge against china really shows your sympathy toward innocent Han victims.
In response to another comment. See in context »So twisting the facts now entails copying and pasting what you wrote. Interesting. You’re logic is even stranger when expanded. “People in China don’t enjoy as much human rights as american. That doesn’t justify the brutal killing of innocent han people by the Ughyurs.” But it does somehow justify the brutal killing of Uyghurs by Chinese police. I see.
My article is about the Uyghurs, which probably explains that strange focus on the Uyghurs you noticed in the article.
In response to another comment. See in context »The fact is that ugyhurs brutally killed han in a racial riot. The world paid little attention to the innocent han victims. Most western journalists like this Allison are so happy to ignore Han victims, focusing on Uyghurs and blame Chinese government.
In response to another comment. See in context »kRebiya Kadeer lying on Al Jazeera with fake photo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsy1AJLKVM
I heard about that, but I don’t see how this one discredited photo somehow reflects upon the independent observation of various international human rights groups. I didn’t reference the photo in my article. It’s a shame this single incident is besmirching Kadeer’s reputation, since she was formerly a celebrated human rights activist.
In response to another comment. See in context »Kadeer also said ughyurs were having a peaceful protest. All the victims are ughyurs gun downed by police. And the number of dead ughyurs are in thousands.
Yeah, of course what she said must be true since they are all against evil China.
In response to another comment. See in context »You act as though Kadeer is the only person saying the protests were peaceful. Even if she was entirely discredited, there are numerous other groups that claim the same thing.
Again, you’re preoccupied with me labeling China as “evil.” I never did that. I think the killing of innocent civilians is evil. Until China lets the press cover the unrest freely, we won’t know exactly how many civilians are being killed. That is what I’m calling for — a free press that is permitted to gather all the facts.
Surely, you can’t be “anti” freedom of the press.
In response to another comment. See in context »yes. kadeer is only person saying the July 5th protest is peaceful. Since there are 200 dead bodies, nobody else is stupid enough to say the protest is peaceful.
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course not. UHRP’s central problem with the Chinese government is that access is limited to exact casualty numbers, so they can’t know how many have been killed. Again, I stated this in my article. I’m not anti-China. I’m pro-human beings, and I’m not concerned with “who died more,” the Han or the Uyghurs. My concern is that people are dying. As for UHRP’s claims, most come directly from the Chinese government. For example, Li Zhi, the Urumchi Party Secretary’s statement made at a press conference on July 8 that authorities would use the death penalty for crimes connected to events on July 5 (“To those who have committed crimes with cruel means, we will execute them”) was reported in the New York Times. Other reports come from other human rights groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, who again are more concerned with documenting human rights abuses than discrediting the Chinese government.
Let us remember that the race riot was in response to years of the majority, the Han, repressing the Uyghurs. Uyghurs are inhibited in the practice of their Islamic faith. They are limited in their access to economic opportunity. And they are denied basic freedoms of expression and assembly. Of course, the Han have also faced repression. The issue is a complex one — one that could probably be explored in numerous books. Since my blog is called “Unreported,” I approach stories from a minority viewpoint. The minority in this case are the Uyghurs. Hence, I focused on them in this article. That is not to say I excluded the Han. I didn’t. Perhaps I didn’t explore them as thoroughly as you would have liked, but you can go do that in your blog. That’s the beauty of the internet.
Just because the crackdown resulted in 200 deaths doesn’t mean the initial protest wasn’t intended to be peaceful.
Do you know that there is a big difference between “it is a peaceful protest” and “it is intended to be peaceful.”?
Yes, that’s what I meant. “Intended” meaning parties went with the intent of being peaceful, and the ensuing crackdown resulted in violence. Hardly a surprise.
I know it.
You will bring up the years of majority repressing Uyghurs. All those bullshits from UHRP.
People in the US can’t understand that the racism in China is actually reverse racism. Government initiates the whole bunch of affirmative benefits toward minorities.
Most of UHRP’s claims of minority repressing are complete lies.
Again, this bloger will of course believe those lies without any hesitation.
For future reference: ranting, raving, and swearing about “affirmative action racism” (a cute term,) and lies without providing a modicum of proof isn’t the best way to be taken seriously. I’ll let you have the last word, since I need to run to a meeting.
kadeer said it was a peaceful protest. she didn’t say it was intended to be a peaceful protest.
Again, this bloger will happily believe the brutally killing of innocent han are result of crackdown of peaceful protest.
I wonder what those 20 something ughyuers caught in taliban camp are doing there. They must be accepting training of peaceful protest.
And of course, 911 could very will be the result of crackdown of peaceful protest, right?
Sorry, this was too crazy not to address. Are you talking about the Uyghurs that were illegally held in GITMO for eights years even after being cleared of any acts of “terrorism,” and about whom Gregory Katsas, Assistant Attorney General filed a “notice of status,” stating that they were no longer classified as “enemy combatants”?
Suddenly, we’re on to ranting about 9/11. Interesting. You’re slowly revealing yourself to either being very miseducated or very dishonest.
Okay, now I’m really off this time. Happy ranting!
You want proof. let me give you proof.
1. One child policy. Everybody knows the famous one child policy of family planning in China, right? While every Han must follow this rule, the minority are not. The minority will receive rewards and benefit if they stopped at 3. Allison, your beloved kadeer had 11 children while The premier and chairman of China only have one each. Han made up 95% of population 10 /20years ago, now it is only 92%. All minorities have much greater population growth in China than Han. Uyghurs, for example, grows its population more than 3 times compared 50 years ago.
2. The “two less one loose” (Criminals from ethnic minority get less imprisonment, less punishment, and treated loosely by law) . There are so many ugyhurs thefts in big cities such as Beiing and Shanghai in China. Police usually don’t put them in jail. They kept an blind eye to them so that most of them are repeated criminals.
3. University admission standard. Minority gets preferential treatment in their scores in national university admission test , like SAT in US, but much harder. Minority got 50 points lower admission score out of total 700 points. Most people score less than 600 points.
4. Government hiring quota. Government jobs in xinjiang and Tibet has hard quota for Tibetan and uyghurs. In xinjiang, the quota is that 60% must be uyghurs and 40% others.
5. Uyghurs can ware big knifes everday as a decoration purpose of their nomad traditions while others can’t. So in street fight, they can use these big knifes. People don’t like them.
6. Every university and government agency has special dining room dedicate to Muslims
yeah. I am talking about them. Because they are getting trained in taliban camp to perform terrorism in China, they are not qualified to be “terrorist”. Only terrorist against US is terrorist. Others are “freedom fighters”.