The other day, I spoke with a compatriot who lives in China, who asked what I had against the “actor” Tuniyaz. His use of the word “actor” was sarcastic. When I said I did not understand, he asked: “Do the British not appreciate the arts? What would happen with one more show in London? Do British lawmakers not appreciate actors?”
At this point, I realized he was referring to Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Chairman Erkin Tuniyaz and his canceled visit to the UK.
Tuniyaz performed in a “theatrical production” at the UN in 2019, orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). As the keynote speaker, he had announced the closure of camps that China had long denied even existed and later said were “vocational training centers.”
He also said at the time that “all trainees of these facilities will have graduated by October 2019.”
The camps were not closed. They were turned into prisons. More than 3 million Uighurs who had been detained indefinitely were sentenced to imprisonment without trial. This is how the CCP protected itself from international criticism, by changing the Uighurs’ illegal detention to “legal” detention. The name of the camps had changed, not the reality.
Tuniyaz described the situation further during his staged production by insisting that all the trainees had stable jobs and lived normal lives.
In reality, millions of families were torn apart by incarceration in the camps. For three years, an entire nation was held hostage.
The birthrate of Uighurs declined vertically in Hotan and Kashgar. Tuniyaz made this hell out to be heaven, waxing lyrical about unity in the regions, saying the people in Xinjiang were “united as closely as the seeds of a pomegranate.”
His predecessor, Shokret Zakir, who was appointed to the same task in Beijing, had more difficulty concealing the underlying falsity of his words. He was tense, nervous and sweaty while answering reporters’ questions.
By contrast, Tuniyaz has successfully played the role he assumed with a relaxed demeanor, never losing his composure, even on the UN stage.
According to information former president of the World Uyghur Congress Rebiya Kadeer allegedly received from an insider, Zakir was dismissed because he did not fulfill his historical duties well; he could not play the game and could not convincingly suggest that the camps in Xinjiang were closed.
Tuniyaz was promoted to chairman for fulfilling this role beyond China’s expectations.
Given that Tuniyaz only studied at a college level, was not a prominent figure before 2017 and had no major public involvement before speaking at the UN meeting, it seems that the above speculation is not unfounded.
Of course, his role in the establishment and management of concentration camps was also prominent, but he was not alone in this project of the century.
The uniqueness of his role, with the testimony of his ethnic identity in defense of the camps, is one of the most important tools of the Uighur genocide.
Puppets are known for their soft necks and obedience to Chinese authorities and, conversely, for their stubbornness, arrogance and brutality toward Uighurs.
Therefore, Uighurs see these puppet officials as traitors. Since these views are general and uncontroversial, there are no critical articles or books written about them — only sarcastic nicknames are given.
For example, former Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region chairman Tomur Dawamet was nicknamed “Tomur Texse.” Texse means “iron plate.” This nickname refers to the term “platter bearer,” which refers to sycophants in Uighur. His successor, Ablet Abdurishut, is called “Ablet Omaq.” Omaq, meaning “cute,” refers to babies who always smile and do not upset their parents. He was given this nickname because of his record of not complaining about any unreasonable demands or orders from the Chinese.
The next chairman, Ismail Tiliwaldi is called “Ismail Beqiwaldi,” which means “to be adopted” by Chinese authorities. His successor, Nur Bekri, is referred to as “Wang Bekri” because he did not stray an inch from former Xinjiang CCP secretary Wang Lequan’s (王樂泉) line at any time.
Zakir’s surname, being incompletely pronounced as shokret za (“coal dust”), means that he is unnecessary and useless for Uighur society.
Prior to 2017, while serving in Hotan and elsewhere, Tuniyaz was known for his shyness with Chinese officials. He was nicknamed “slave Tuniyaz” at that time, mocking that this attitude contradicted his real name, Erkin (“freedom”). In the past few years, his nickname has changed to “Ertis Tuniyaz” due to his role in the UN. Ertis in Uighur comes from the term “artist” in English and also means “actor.”
Therefore, British lawmakers’ attempt to block Tuniyaz’s visit to the UK and the US’ sanctions against him are a true representation of the voice of Uighurs and a sign of genuine sympathy for their suffering. It is a fitting slap in the face of anyone who supports the oppressor who covers up Uighur genocide and all crimes against humanity.
Kok Bayraq is a Uighur-American observer.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past