Connect with us

East Asia

World Uyghur Congress: Our position

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] T [/yt_dropcap]he World Uyghur Congress (WUC) would like to address some serious mischaracterizations of our organization in recent days, namely in an article by Giancarlo Elia Valori that appeared in Modern Diplomacy – an online news and commentary website. We wish to confront a number of the claims made by the author considering that we have encountered disingenuous allegations in the past and we find it necessary to respond clearly and openly in what follows.

The piece begins with the author’s assessment of what the four primary geopolitical goals of what he refers to broadly as the “Uyghur political movement in Europe” – as well as in Latin America, Europe, Australia, United States. Despite referring to an ostensible movement in Europe and elsewhere, the piece quickly draws its focus squarely on the WUC and attributes each of these goals to the organization itself.

Valori suggests that the first goal has been to “’cover up’ and distort the intelligence signals of the Chinese anti-jihadist network”, a suggestion that warrants little attention given its absurdity. The WUC has neither the means nor the desire to play any kind of role in these affairs and has been consistent in its condemnation of violence in all forms.

Secondly, the author argues that a further goal has been to, “isolate and separate the People’s Republic of China from the Western world”. On the contrary, the WUC believes that a more-integrated China would lead to progress in terms of the protection of human rights. Integration and participation with the rest of the world through channels like the UN Human Rights system in particular have proven to lead to positive outcomes for all concerned.

What is more, the author goes on to suggest that a third priority has been to, “raise funds for the Uyghur internal and external terrorism in Xinjiang” – a further outrageous claim that contradicts all of the work centred on peace and non-violence performed by the WUC since its inception.

Similarly, the author then suggests that the WUC works to create favourable media coverage to “creat[e] positive climate and feelings – as freedom fighters – for the Uyghur jihadists operating in China” – another claim that would be amusing if it were not so serious.

The article also makes problematic assertions about the General Secretary of the WUC, Mr. Dolkun Isa, and raises questions about his work in Europe. Mr. Isa now works from Munich, Germany and has been a German citizen since 2006, but was forced to leave China because of political persecution following his work as a student democracy leader.

With regards to the INTERPOL red notice that is also raised by Valori, many states have been known to take advantage of the system for their own ends, as was demonstrated in a report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists[1]. Isa has, however, lived in Germany since 1996, demonstrating the clear reluctance of democratic states to take China’s claims seriously.

Mr. Isa continues to travel freely to states that respect human rights and are not burdened by undue influence from China – political influence that led to his visa refusal to India earlier this year (after initial approval) and his brief arrest in South Korea in 2009. Political pressure has been felt by countless human rights activists and bears no resemblance to any legitimate legal proscription.

Furthermore, the author also asserts that WUC president, Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, was imprisoned because she was convicted of selling military secrets to the United States. Kadeer, however, was initially arrested in 1999 while on her way to meet with the Congressional Research Service in Urumqi for speaking more openly about the deteriorating human rights conditions in East Turkestan.

Within the body of the article, the author also makes further claims regarding funding and relationships between the WUC and other actors. Perhaps the most incredible claim suggests that the WUC receives funding, “totalling $340 million US dollars a year” from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – an assertion that has absolutely no basis in reality. Although the WUC has been funded by the NED since 2006, the dollar comes nowhere close to the number stated by the author, considering the NED received just over $100 million for FY 2016.[2] Grants from 2015 for the WUC can also be found here.[3]

With regards to budget considerations, the NED funds specific programs operated by the WUC each year, rather than merely providing blanket funding. Furthermore, the WUC does not simply ‘accept’ money from the NED, rather, each year our organization goes through a rigorous grant application process that is meticulously assessed by the NED’s Board of Directors. The NED explicitly and transparently supports only those organizations which espouse values embracing non-violence, democracy and human rights – an approach that demonstrates the consistent support since 2006.

Pivoting towards WUC’s own ostensible support for Uyghur groups in China, the author then goes on to suggest that funding for the WUC stands as a basis for, “ […] future operations of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM)” – a group that has been found to be either non-existent or operating nowhere near the capacity that is suggested by the Chinese government.[4]

Towards the end of the article, the author then goes on to conflate the work of the WUC and violent groups, a truly serious claim that we wholly condemn. The WUC has made it clear time and again of our support for non-violent resistance to the conflict in East Turkestan. At no point in our history as an organization has the use of violence or intimidation factored into to any of our work around the world.

It is truly concerning that the author has taken clear steps to distort or otherwise prevaricate on the genuine work performed by the WUC. What is more, the claims made by the author do not hold up to even mild scrutiny. Any close observer would recognize the valuable work that the WUC continues to conduct as a means to promote democracy and human rights for the Uyghur people and to peacefully resolve the Uyghur conflict. Likewise, any serious writer would communicate first with the organization in which one is making such baseless claims.

Despite the tendency of our organization to ignore such outlandish assertions that have arisen in the past, the WUC feels it necessary to make clear our position and to anticipate articles that may be published in the future on similarly baseless grounds. Truth will inevitably win out in cases that require careful consideration.


[1] Lewis, L. (2011, July 20). Interpol’s Red Notices used by some to pursue political dissenters, opponents, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Available at: https://www.icij.org/project/interpols-red-flag

[2] US Department of State (2015). Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/9276/FY16CBJStateFORP.pdf

[3] National Endowment for Democracy (2016). China (Xinjiang/East Turkistan) 2015. Available at: http://www.ned.org/region/asia/china-xinjiangeast-turkistan-2015/

[4] Roberts, S. (2012). Imaginary terrorism? The global war on terror and the narrative of the Uyghur terrorist threat (PONARS Eurasia Working Paper). Retrieved from: http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/RobertsWP.pdf

East Asia

Who would bell the China cat?

Published

on

If the G-7 and NATO china-bashing statements are any guide, the world is in for another long interregnum of the Cold War (since demise of the Soviet Union). The G-7 leaders called upon China to “respect human rights in its Xinjiang region” and “allow Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy” and “refrain from any unilateral action that could destabilize the East and South China Seas”, besides maintaining “peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits”.

China’s tit-for-tat response

The Chinese mission to the European Union called upon the NATO not to exaggerate the “China threat theory”

Bitter truths

Amid the pandemic, still raging, the world is weary of resuscitating Cold War era entente. Even the G-7 members, Canada and the UK appear to be lukewarm in supporting the US wish to plunge the world into another Cold War. Even the American mothers themselves are in no mood to welcome more coffins in future wars. Importance of the G-7 has been whittled down by G-20. 

Presumptions about the China’s cataclysmic rise are unfounded. Still, China is nowhere the US gross National Product. China’s military budget is still the second largest after the US. It is still less than a third of Washington’s budget to be increased by 6.8 per cent in 2021.

India’s role

India claims to be a natural ally of the G-7 in terms of democratic “values”. But the US based Freedom House has rated India “partly free because of its dismal record in persecution of minorities. Weakened by electoral setbacks in West Bengal, the Modi government has given a free hand to religious extremists. For instance, two bigots, Suraj Pal Amu and Narsinghanand Saraswati have been making blasphemous statements against Islam at press conferences and public gatherings.

India’s main problem

Modi government’s mismanagement resulted in shortage of vaccine and retroviral drugs. The healthcare system collapsed under the mounting burden of fatalities.  

Media and research institutions are skeptical of the accuracy of the death toll reported by Indian government.

The New York Times dated June 13, 2021 reported (Tracking Corona virus in India: Latest Map and case Count) “The official COVID-19 figures in India grossly under-estimate the true scale of the pandemic in the country”. The Frontline dated June 4, 2021 reported “What is clear in all these desperate attempts is the reality that the official numbers have utterly lost their credibility in the face of the biggest human disaster in independent India (V. Sridhar, India’s gigantic death toll due to COVID-19 is  thrice  the official numbers”, The frontline, June 4, 2021). It adds “More than 6.5 lakh Indians, not the 2.25 lakh reported officially are estimated to have died so far and at best a million more are expected to die by September 2021. The Seattle-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that actual Indian casualties may be 0.654 million (6.54 lakh), not the official count of 0.221 million (2.21 lakh as on May 6 when the report was released. That is a whopping three times the official numbers, an indicator of the extent of under-reporting”.

Epidemiologist Dr. Feigl-ding told India Today TV on April, 16, 2021 that “actual number of COVID-19 cases in India can be five or six times higher than the tally right now” (“Actual COVID-19 cases in India may be 5 to 10 times higher, says epidemiologist. India Today TV April 16, 2021).

Concluding remarks

India’s animosity against China is actuated by expediency. There is no chance of a full-blown war between China and India as the two countries have agreed not to use firepower in border skirmishes, if any. Modi himself told the All-party conference that not an inch of Indian territory has been ceded to China. In May this year, the Army Chief General M M. Naravane noted in an interview: “There has been no transgression of any kind and the process of talks is continuing.”

It is not China but the Quad that is disturbing unrest in China’s waters.

History tells the USA can sacrifice interests of its allies at the altar of self interest. India sank billions of dollars in developing the Chabahar Port. But, India had to abandon it as the US has imposed sanctions on Iran.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Xinjiang? A Minority Haven Or Hell

Published

on

While the G7 meets under the shadow of Covid 19 and the leaders of the most prosperous nations on earth are focused on rebuilding their economies, a bloodless pogrom is being inflicted on a group of people on the other side of the world.

In this new era, killing people is wasteful and could bring the economic wrath of the rest of the world.  No, it is better to brainwash them, to re-educate them, to destroy their culture, to force them to mold themselves into the alien beings who have invaded their land in the name of progress, and who take the best new jobs that sprout with economic development.  Any protest at these injustices are treated severely.

Amnesty International has published a new 160-page report this week on Xinjiang detailing the horrors being perpetrated on Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.  Amnesty has simultaneously announced a campaign on their behalf.

Persecution, mass imprisonment in what can best be described as concentration camps, intensive interrogation and torture are actions that come under the definition of ‘crimes against humanity’.  More than 50 people who spent time in these camps contributed first-hand accounts that form the substance of the report.  It is not easy reading for these people have themselves suffered maltreatment even torture in many instances.

The UN has claimed that 1.5 million Muslims (Uighurs, Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks) are in these internment camps and China’s claims of re-education camps made to sound as benign as college campuses are patently false.

People report being interviewed in police stations and then transferred to the camps.  Their interrogation was frequently conducted on ‘tiger chairs’:   The interviewee is strapped to a metal chair with leg irons and hands cuffed in such a manner that the seating position soon becomes exceedingly painful.  Some victims were hooded; some left that way for 24 hours or more, and thus were forced to relieve themselves, even defecate, where they sat.  Beatings and sleep deprivation were also common.

Activities were closely monitored and they were mostly forbidden to speak to other internees including cell mates.  Trivial errors such as responding to guards or other officials in their native language instead of Mandarin Chinese resulted in punishment.

Amnesty’s sources reported the routine was relentless.  Wake up at 5am.  Make bed — it had to be perfect.  A flag-raising and oath-taking ceremony before breakfast at 7 am.  Then to the classroom.  Back to the canteen for lunch.  More classes after.  Then dinner.  Then more classes before bed.  At night two people had to be on duty for two hours monitoring the others leaving people exhausted.  You never see sunlight while you are there, they said.  That was because they were never taken outside as is done in most prisons.

The re-education requires them to disavow Islam, stop using their native language, give up cultural practices, and become Mandarin-speaking ‘Chinese’.

Such are the freedoms in Xi Jinping’s China.  If China’s other leaders prior to Mr. Xi effected moderate policies in concert with advisers, it is no longer the case.  Mr. Xi works with a small group of like minds.  He has also removed the two-term or eight-year limit on being president.  President for life as some leaders like to call themselves, then why not Mr. Xi.  His anti-democratic values make him eminently qualified. 

An enlightened leader might have used the colorful culture of these minorities to attract tourists and show them the diversity of China.  Not Mr. Xi, who would rather have everyone march in lockstep to a colorless utopia reminiscent of the grey clothing and closed-collar jackets of the Maoist era. 

Continue Reading

East Asia

Looking back on India-China ties, one year past the Galwan incident

Published

on

modi xi jinping

Two nuclear-armed neighbouring countries with a billion-plus people each, geographically positioned alongside a 3,488-km undemarcated border in the high Himalayas. This is the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China’s Tibet Autonomous Region. Differences in perception of alignment of this border for both sides have contributed to a seemingly unending dispute.

Chinese unilateral attempt to change status quo in 2020

One year back, on 15 June 2020, a clash between Indian and Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley of eastern Ladakh turned bloody, resulting in the death of 20 soldiers in the former side and four in the latter side. It was an unfortunate culmination of a stand-off going on since early May that year, triggered by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops encountering Indian troops who were patrolling on their traditional limits.

It was followed by amassing of troops in large number by China on its side and some of them crossed the line over without any provocation, thereby blocking and threatening India’s routine military activities on its side of the traditionally accepted border. It was a unilateral attempt by the Chinese Communist Party-run government in Beijing to forcefully alter the status quo on the ground.

The LAC as an idea

Over the years, the LAC has witnessed one major war resulting from a Chinese surprise attack on India in 1962 and periodic skirmishes along the various friction points of the border, as seen in the years 1967, 1975, 1986-87, 2013, 2017, and the most recent 2020 Galwan Valley incident, the last being the worst in five decades. Post-Galwan, the optics appeared too high on both sides.

The LAC as an idea emerged with the annexation of Buddhist Tibet by Chinese communist forces in the early 1950s, bringing China to India’s border for the first time in history. This idea just emerged and was taking shape through the Jawaharlal Nehru-Zhou Enlai letters of correspondence that followed.

In 1962, while the world was engrossed upon the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Chinese inflicted a huge military and psychological debacle on unprepared and outnumbered Indian soldiers in a month-long war along this border.

Even to this date, there is still no mutually agreeable cartographic depiction of the LAC. It varies on perceptions.

What could’ve led to 2020 stand-off?

One of the reasons that led to the current new low in India-China ties, other than differing perceptions, is the improvement in Indian infrastructure capabilities along the rough mountainous terrains of the Himalayan borders and its resolve to be on par with China in this front. This has been a cause of concern in Chinese strategic calculations for its Tibetan border.

The carving up of the Indian union territory of Ladakh with majority Buddhists from the erstwhile Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 has indeed added to Beijing’s concerns over the area.

For the past few years, India has been upfront in scaling up its border infrastructure throughout the vast stretch of LAC, including in eastern Ladakh, where the 2020 stand-off took place. There is a serious trust deficit between India and China today, if not an evolving security dilemma.

Post-Galwan engagement

Several rounds of talks were held at the military and the diplomatic levels after the Galwan incident, the working-level mechanisms got renewed and new action plans were being formed before the process of disengagement finally began.

The foreign ministers of both countries even met in Moscow on the side-lines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meet in September, which was followed by a BRICS summit where Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping came face-to-face in November, although virtually.

By February 2021, the process of disengagement of troops gained momentum on the ground around the Pangong lake area. So far, eleven rounds of talks were held at the military level on the ground at the border. But, the disengagement is yet to be fully completed in the friction points of Hot Springs and the Depsang Plains.

Diplomacy is gone with the wind

All the bilateral border agreements and protocols for confidence-building that were signed between the both countries in the years 1993, 1996, 2005, 2012 and 2013 were rendered futile by the Chinese PLA’s act of belligerence in Galwan.

The spirit of two informal Narendra Modi-Xi Jinping summits to build trust after the 2017 Doklam standoff, one in Wuhan, China (2018) and the other in Mamallapuram, India (2019) was completely gone with the wind. This is further exacerbated by the Chinese practice of ‘wolf-warrior diplomacy’, which is clearly undiplomatic in nature.

India’s diversification of fronts

Coming to the maritime domain, India has upped the ante by the joint naval exercises (Exercise Malabar 2020) with all the Quad partners in November, last year. Thereby, New Delhi has opened a new front away from the Himalayan frontiers into the broader picture of India-China strategic rivalry. Australia joined the exercise, after 13 years, with India, Japan, and the United States, a move indicative of militarisation or securitisation of the Quad partnership.

Recently, India has been consolidating its position over the union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, lying southeast to the mainland, and close to the strategic Strait of Malacca, through which a major proportion of China’s crude oil imports pass through before venturing out to the ports of South China Sea.

Economic ties, yearning to decouple

Last year, India’s external affairs minister S. Jaishankar remarked that border tensions cannot continue along with co-operation with China in other areas. In this regard, the Narendra Modi government has been taking moves to counter China in the economic front by banning a large number of Chinese apps, citing security reasons, thereby costing the Chinese companies a billion-size profitable market. The Indian government has also refused to allow Chinese tech companies Huawei and ZTE to participate in India’s rollout of the 5G technology.

Moreover, India, Australia and Japan have collectively launched a Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI) in 2020 aimed at diversifying supply chain risks away from one or a few countries, apparently aimed at reducing their dependence on China. In terms of trade, India is still struggling to decouple with China, a key source of relatively cheap products for Indian exporters, particularly the pandemic-related pharmaceutical and related supplies in the current times.

But, the Indian government’s recent domestic policies such as “Self-Reliant India” (Atmanirbhar Bharat) have contributed to a decline in India’s trade deficit vis-à-vis China to a five-year low in 2020, falling to around $46 billion from around $57 billion in 2019.

The broader picture

The border dispute remains at the core of a range of issues that define the overall India-China bilateral relations. Other issues include trade and economics, Beijing’s close ties with Islamabad, the succession of Dalai Lama who has taken asylum in India since 1959 and the issue of Tibetan refugees living in India, educational ties, and the strategic rivalry in India’s neighbourhood, i.e., South Asia and the Indian Ocean Region, among others.

Chinese belligerence has led India to find its place easily in the evolving ‘new Cold War’

The more China turns aggressive at its border with India, the more it will bring India close to the United States and the West. Despite India’s traditional posture of indifference to allying itself exclusively with a power bloc, in the recently concluded G7 summit, India referred to the grouping of liberal democracies as a ‘natural ally’.

India has been raising the need for a free, open and rules-based Indo-Pacific in as many multilateral forums as possible, a concept which China considers as a containment strategy of the United States. Possibly, India might also join the G7’s newly announced infrastructure project for developing countries in an appropriate time, as it is initiated as a counterweight to China’s multi trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative.

There was a time in the past when the former Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru sought to lead Asia by cooperating with China. Considering today’s changed geopolitical realities and power dynamics, nowhere in anyone’s wildest dreams such an idea would work out. Prime Minister Modi’s muscular foreign policy imperatives are aligning well with the Joe Biden-led Western response to the looming common threat arising from Beijing.

Today, encountering Xi Jinping’s grand strategy of Chinese domination of the world (by abandoning its yesteryear policy of ‘peaceful rise’) is a collective endeavour of peace-loving democracies around the world, to which Asia is particularly looking forward. Most notably, it comes amid an inescapable web of global economic inter-connectedness, even among rival powers.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending