Oppression is painful, and not being able to express it increases the pain 10-fold. This level of pain is something that Uighurs, Tibetans and Mongolians understand all too well.
A question often posed to Uighurs in the international arena is: “You say you are facing genocide, but why don’t we see corpses, like in Rwanda and in Bosnia?”
If you were a Uighur, what would you say?
What if you replied: “The source of the problem is your lack of vision. It’s an indication of your weakness and China’s strength, and it is not a matter of our sincerity.”
Such a harsh response would sadden friends who are paying attention to the Uighur situation. To truly answer the question, one should say: “All the killers in the world are hiding their actions. The genocide in Rwanda was committed by the Hutu, who could not firmly establish domination in their own country. The genocide in Bosnia was committed by the successor to the fallen Yugoslavia. China, which has the world’s most advanced technology and communications, and a greater ability to hide its crimes and silence others, was able to hide the corpses.”
Naturally, this answer might be considered a lecture on theory, but it does not go beyond logic.
Another question is: “We have watched the children of refugees from Syria die in the seas and Rohingya refugees were dying on their journey to escape — you do not have such tragedies. How can we believe in a Uighur genocide?”
One could answer: “The Rohingya Muslims have the opportunity and ability to flee their communities and country, but Uighurs must report to the police station to visit their neighbor’s house.”
Such a statement would only make sense to those who have lived under Chinese rule.
What can you say to your religious brethren — those who you expect to help you — when they say: “We have witnessed that you have your own Uighur language TV channel and there is Uighur music playing from restaurants in your cities — no one complains about the government and it looks like you are happier than other Muslims in the world.”
An answer might be that the Uighur channel is a tool of language that has survived, but this is not due to mercy from the government. This channel is waiting in line to be destroyed, along with other cultural formats.
You might also ask: “Have you been able to conduct an independent investigation? Uighurs are being sentenced to 10 years in prison for receiving phone calls from blacklisted people in their neighborhood. Is it possible for them to share their feelings with a foreigner?”
It should be clear to any independent thinker what the fate of local people in this colonial land and under a one-party regime with a dictatorial leadership would be.
As Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has acknowledged, in this case, the problem is not the lack of vision, ignorance or misunderstanding, but rather the need for (or love of) China’s money.
Historically, Uighur leaders have used unique ways to explain this unprecedented oppression. For example, Ehmetjan Qasimi, one of the leaders of the second East Turkestan Republic, established in 1944, said: “The saddest part of our destiny is that we have become slaves of the slaves,” because East Turkestan was occupied by the Manchu in 1876, and governed by Han Chinese soldiers and staff.
Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) put an end to Manchurian rule (the Qing Dynasty), but inherited an empire. With that statement, Qasimi emphasized that the Chinese, who had been living under Manchu rule for 300 years, have a weak sense of human rights and freedoms, and that when it comes to power in East Turkestan, China is more brutal than its predecessors.
Comparing Chinese colonialism to European colonialism, Abdurehim Isa, another Uighur statesmen of the East Turkestan Republic, said: “The motivation of European colonialism was looking for natural resource for its needs for industrial development, but the motivation of Chinese colonialism was looking to shelter its poor population.”
He continued with an extremely rude expression which can be softened to: “It is better to live in a British kennel than a Chinese palace.”
As a Muslim leader, he is not longing to be British, he is expressing what it is like to be part of China.
Today, Uighur leader Rabiye Qadir has warned nations interested in China’s new colonial policy under the One Belt, One Road initiative: “In the world, the goal of all colonists is to be self-sufficient, self-reinforcing and the slogans are basically the same: ‘Unification’ or ‘Exploration.’ The measures are the same as well: to hold cattle (livestock) in your pasture, to make soup, to eat the meat of the soup himself and to leave the bones to you. But Chinese colonialism is much different. He eats the meat, bones and soup, with nothing left for you. When he gets stronger, he starts eating you and your cattle together. The decades long plundering with the brand “Great Western Development Project” in East Turkistan and the ongoing Uighur genocide is nothing more than a scene characteristic of Chinese colonialism.”
Kok Bayraq is a Uighur American.
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou (郭台銘) might be accused of twice breaking his promises and betraying the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), then launching a signature drive for himself to stand as a candidate in January’s presidential election, only to turn around and quit the race. It clearly shows that rich people are free to do as they like. If that is so, then Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) is the perfect example of a political hack who changes his position as easily as turning the pages of a book. Taiwanese independence supporters
Since the rancorous and histrionic breakup of the planned “blue-white alliance,” polls have shown a massive drop in support for Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), whose support rate has dropped to 20 percent. Young people and pan-blue supporters seem to be ditching him. Within a few weeks, Ko has gone from being the most sought after candidate to seeking a comeback. A few months ago, he was the one holding all the cards and calling the shots, with everything in place for a rise to stardom. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was still dealing with doubts
Counterintuitive as it might seem, the opportunist presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), chairman of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), responds to the need for an economic left in the Taiwanese political landscape. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been seen as a left-leaning party because of its advocacy for gender equality, and LGBT and minority rights. However, the DPP has tended toward free-market liberalism under President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) leadership. How did the once grassroots, populist party turn to free-market liberalism? One reason is that Tsai is a cautious, piecemeal reformist. Recall the days when the Tsai administration started with a landslide victory
US think tanks, societies and organizations have recently not been shy or hesitant to get involved in Taiwanese matters; they seem to do so with an apparent purpose. Earlier this month, Simona Grano, a senior fellow on Taiwan at the New York-based Asia Society, penned a lengthy and thorough primer on Taiwan’s elections next month. In her primer, Grano noted that Washington had “reservations” about all four (now three after Terry Gou [郭台銘] dropped out) candidates for the presidency. With these reservations, one senses a clear change and expansion of purpose from the Asia Society. Originally formed in 1956 by John