Two weeks ago, outspoken Uyghur activist and intellectual Ilham Tohti was prevented from going to Turkey to attend an academic conference on Turkic culture. A quick background on the spat can be found here, at Radio Free Asia, but the best place to learn about what happened is from the words of Tohti himself, posted here, in Mandarin, at the controversial online community Uighurbiz. Tohti’s words are soaked with heavy emotion that is simultaneously weary and energetic; clear is his conviction that “enough is enough,” a merited reaction that I hope will lead readers to forgive his frequent use of the third person. Central to Tohti’s approach, and, in my opinion, vital to providing Uyghur discontent with social legitimacy, is a “law centered” critique which questions the latest refusal in light of China’s own laws and international conventions to which China is party.
The following is our translation of Tohti’s impassioned account into English.
These blacklists are always being used as weapons to trample the law for the sake of protecting “social order,” and so the law itself may as well be “illegal,” but of course the law can’t be illegal, therefore what’s illegal is the legitimacy of the government’s authority. Fairness and justice get flouted and eroded, and that’s a significantly harmful thing.
My name is Ilham Tohti, I am a Uyghur, and a legitimate citizen in possession of a valid People’s Republic of China ID who has for a long period of time conducted research on the “Xinjiang Problem.” At the end of March I received an invitation to the 2nd Turkic Culture Academic Conference to be held in Izmir, Turkey from April 18th to the 24th. I knew from my current situation and past experiences that I had to inform the relevant “harmony” agencies that I was preparing to attend an academic conference. Through unceasing effort and multiple explanations they finally agreed to let me go abroad and attend the 2nd Turkic Culture Academic Conference. They seemed to believe I would not accept any interviews from the media or stay in Turkey… in the remaining time and with the help of a colleague, I sought out the school’s relevant departments, such as the Security Department, the Educational Administration Office, the Human Resources Office, the Organization Department, the Education Office, the college heads and classes at my institution, etc., etc., taking up a whole week’s time. When all was said and done I got them to put 13 red seals on my exit application. I started to worry that perhaps after leaving the country they wouldn’t let me back in. But when I expressed my concerns, they always responded: “How’s that possible? China is a country ruled by law.”
Though at that point all my concerns had not been addressed, I nevertheless went to the Turkish embassy to apply for a visa. At the Turkish embassy’s visa office I met with several other Uyghurs who were also planning to attend the 2nd Turkic Culture Academic Conference. The person in charge of visa applications at the Turkish embassy is Han Chinese, and I unfortunately already had the delight of experiencing his “attitude.” However, this time he appeared to be completely different person from when he completely refused, without reason, to accept my visa application materials back in November of 2009; his attitude was abnormally kind. Perhaps his attitude had something to do with the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs understanding my concerns.
Getting the visa turned out to go quite smoothly. The day I received my visa, someone told me that the secretary of the Central Minzu Preparatory College, Arzigul, was informed that due to work requirements I was unable to leave the country. Learning this made me quite worried, as before I had gotten wind that certain relevant authorities were thinking of not letting me leave. That evening I was speaking with an Asia Weekly [亚洲周刊] reporter about the “Xinjiang Problem” when Domestic Security [国保]1 gave me a call and came over. Could it be that they weren’t letting me leave the country? Two Domestic Security officers spoke with me the whole evening, exhausting me completely! They said I couldn’t go abroad and attend the academic research conference but didn’t show any sort of paperwork, relying just on spoken orders which is an even more preposterous violation of a legal citizen’s right to go abroad. I asked: which ministry is responsible for this? Which article of the PRC Law on Managing Entry and Exit of Citizens is being implemented here? These Domestic Security officers just offered excuses, saying they were informed by their superiors and were not privy to the exact particulars. One of them told me that his higher-ups decreed that I couldn’t leave the country but didn’t explain the reasons, and further suggested that I accept the “vacation” they had arranged for me, to “another place” [in China] until the end of the conference in Turkey (and so two days later I took a plane to the South [of China] and there was “vacationed”2). I asked again: “Did you check and see which ministry this information was approved by?” They answered: “This is how the workflow is within the ministry, this is what the boss ordered, and even he’s not clear on what the relevant situation is, there’s no way to tell you.” When I tried to get him to show some documents and asked about compensation for the financial losses due to not being able to leave the country, I was met only with refusals. To all the relevant parties I express befuddlement at this reckless deprival of a citizen’s fundamental right to leave the country as well as deeply felt helplessness and regret. Analyzing the refusal to let me leave the country, perhaps it has something to do with being scared of someone “speaking the truth.” How is it that “Law Unsurpassed by None” can’t even protect one citizens most basic personal legal right? The last half of last year I received invitations from Norway, Turkey, Sweden and several other countries, and each time I was prevented by the authorities from leaving the country. Perhaps I, Ilham Tohti, have been placed on a no-exit government blacklist? Are the authorities limiting one’s right to exit or enter the country to punish dissenting voices, or isolate them from the outside world?
I’ve thought about all these problems. Ilham Tohti, a citizen with a proper ID, apparently does not meet whatever standards there are in the “Exit and Entry Law” that exists only in the mouths of the authorities; it’s plain that this is an extremely outrageous affront against a citizen’s right to leave the country.
What legal basis is there to prevent me from leaving the country?
1. Section 1, Article 15 of the “Regulations for the Implementation of the Law on the Entry and Exit of Citizens of the People’s Republic of China” states, “Under the following conditions, Frontier Inspection officials at the customs checkpoint have the right to prevent exit or entry from the country: 1) one does not possess a PRC passport or other exit document; 2) one possesses an invalid PRC passport or invalid exit documents; 3) one possesses a forged or altered passport or documents, or is using the passport or documents of another person; 4) one refuses to offer documents for inspection.” This is for verifying the identity of those entering or exiting the country. Ilham Tohti has a valid ID and a valid passport, therefore, this regulation cannot be cited as the legal basis for preventing Ilham Tohti from leaving the country.
Section 1, Article 37 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China states that, “The freedom of person of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable,” while Section 3 states, “unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens’ freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited.” As a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, leaving and entering the country is one of the legal personal freedoms of the complainant, and no work unit or individual may illegally deprive or limit this right.
Preventing Ilham Tohti, an ID carrying citizen, from leaving the country without any factual or legal basis is clearly illegal.
2. Section 1, Article 8 of the “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Frontier Inspection of Exit from or Entry Into the Country” states that “Under the following conditions, Frontier Inspection officials at the customs checkpoint have the right to prevent an individual from exiting or entering the country: 1) one does not possess exit or entry documents; 2) one possesses invalid exit or entry documents; 3) one possesses another person’s exit or entry documents; 4) one possesses forged or altered exit or entry documents; 5) one refuses to submit documents for inspection; 6) one enters or exits outside designated transit points; 7) the State Council or Ministry of State Security issues a notice prohibiting an one’s entry or exit; 8) Law or administrative rules and regulations prohibits exit or entry.” Because Ilham Tohti has a valid passport, was leaving through a legal transit point, has not been prohibited to leave by the State Council or the Ministry of State Security, and is not prohibited to leave by any law or administrative rule or regulation, this regulation cannot be cited as the legal basis for preventing Ilham Tohti from leaving the country.
3. When the authorities so brazenly deprive a citizen of his right to leave or enter the country, they seriously violate the 13th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.
Everything I’ve done is what any other reasonable citizen would do, and also is what any citizen with a sense of social responsibility ought to do. I believe that I will spare no effort in advocating my principles, I will continue laboring and appealing for fair, equitable treatment of the Uyghurs. I call on friends who are Uyghur, Han, and of all other ethnicities to respect rule of law and human rights, to respect one’s own personal dignity and the dignity of others!!! Let us strive to become a people with dignity!
[1]:^国保 is shorthand for 国内安全保卫支队, or the Domestic Security Protection Unit. Activists and intellectuals in China are familiar with Domestic Security as they are the individuals within the Public Security apparatus sent to monitor and police dissidents.
[2]:^ Literally, 被旅游, “to be vacationed.”The particle bei renders a verb into the passive voice, so wherease 旅游 normally is means “to go on vacation” 被旅游 means “to be vacationed” (outside one’s will). The use of “bei” to describe actions of the government against individuals, websites, and organizations has become a common, snarky way to cynically express the helplessness in the face of governmental restrictions or imperatives. Other notable examples include 被和谐, “to be harmonized,” 被自杀 “to be suicided,” and 被自愿 “to be volunteered.” This usage was honored as the 2009 Character of the Year and one of the Top 10 Neologisms in China by Chinese newspapers. See this translation at China Digital Times for more background.
Comments 20
Ilham Tohti’s case simply indicates that there is no basic human rights in China, especially for minority nationalities. It is clear that the country is not ruled by law but run by secret societies.
Posted 27 Apr 2010 at 7:30 am ¶I can’t even begin to imagine his frustration. I wouldn’t have held back as much as he did, although I’m sure he did for his future well-being.
I’m assuming he wrote this during his “vacation”? I’m 99% certain that Uyghurbiz is blocked in Xinjiang.
Posted 27 Apr 2010 at 9:43 am ¶Well, it is right to say China’s law is mostly on papers and this is not a country ruled by law. So talking about rule of law and referring to several Articles doesn’t change the gray areas in which those agents are operating. The existence of those Guobao is illegal, so what’s point of talking about law with them? I guess in his position, he could have called someone higher than those agents to get things straightened out.
Posted 27 Apr 2010 at 10:16 am ¶Jon Stewart recently did a hilarious segment where he defended his criticism of Fox Network, saying, as long as Fox claims to be “fair and balanced,” he’s going to keep on telling them to go f* themselves.
I think the principle is similar here. China clearly isn’t under rule of law. However, government officials, government documents, and agencies claim, both domestically and internationally to other countries, that China either is under rule-by-law or at the very least is attempting to establish rule-by-law. Even in this article, when Tohti voices his concerns:
So, in a nutshell:
As long as the Party, the government, and people in position of power are making pious utterances about rule of law in China … it’s fair to call them out on it.
Posted 27 Apr 2010 at 10:54 am ¶The day the Party and the government come out and say, “You know what? We don’t need to pretend anymore. We’ll just come out and say it. Our policies are driven by the whims of technocrats bounded only by our desire to stay in power and the need to keep popular discontent under certain levels” is the day I’ll stop complaining about the wording and stipulations of Chinese law. :)
Posted 27 Apr 2010 at 10:56 am ¶To me, it’s a pity that Ilham Tohti has focused on the “legality” of his treatment.
Governments throughout the world create and manipulate the law as needed. In its drive to gain international respect, China will certainly enact new laws that can be used to muzzle free movement of ideas and persons.
Bluntly put, in all likelihood the man has been prevented by the Chinese authorities from attending a conference in Turkey where his presence, and perhaps his words, could potentially serve to emphasize the shared culture between the Uighurs and various Turkic peoples. Official Chinese policy, on the other hand, seeks to strengthen control over Xinjiang and its non-Han ethnic groups, and to de-emphasize these links.
This is what needs to be said and discussed–not the pseudo-legal excuses put forth by the flunkies who enforced the travel ban.
Posted 28 Apr 2010 at 7:46 am ¶Bruce, some thoughts of mine:
You’re right about governments manipulating laws to meet their own ends. Though this may be a fact, a given government’s abuse of law is not restricted to a binary “abuses law/does not abuse laws” distinction. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask, rather, how much rule of law is in effect in a given country and whether or not that degree can be increased; for example, the Civil Rights movement was just as much African Americans demanding their rights within existing legal frameworks (as basic as the Constitution) as it was affecting a change of mindset in the majority population of the US.
As far as my (yes pithy) experience and education regarding Xinjiang goes, as polemical as I can get sometimes I personally believe that improved rights and self-determination for Uyghurs *must* at this point involve some sort of voluntary participation from Han Chinese. That being said, appealing to greater respect for legal institutions and frameworks, something that Han Chinese are doing elsewhere in the mainland without any ethnic factor, is one of the most unambiguous and logically sound ways to gain legitimacy in the eyes of Han citizens and social actors. Sadly, up to this point the “Uyghur” human rights movement has been puzzlingly disjointed from the larger human rights narrative that’s developing across China, though there is much common ground between them – one of the most important shared points being a greater demand not just for rule of law but for enforcement of laws that already exist to protect individual rights.
Also, note that Tohti wrote this in Mandarin. This says something about his intended audience. I completely agree with you that the goal of PRC policy is to de-emphasize outwards ethno-national links in minority populations, but as true as that assertion may be it’s not something that will gain any sympathy or support from Mandarin-reading audiences. The legal framework is something anyone can relate to, especially in the wake of the whole Tokyo Feng Zhenghu fiasco which is basically what happened to Tohti in reverse.
The government most certainly is afraid of Tohti’s presence in Turkey fanning some sort of pan-Turkic solidarity or sentiment, but I have two observations in response to that: first, according to the RFA article, other PRC passport holding Uyghur citizens *were* permitted to go to the conference in Izmir, second, Tohti himself notes that he’s not barred just from Turkey, but also from Norway and Sweden. Tohti is a feared social force not only because he’s Uyghur but because he’s a (if not the only) link connecting Uyghur grievances with the larger, pan-China human rights/rule of law movement in China. The PRC has a vested interest in pigeonholing Uyghur discontent into the whole reactionary/Islam/Terrorist narrative (hence the rather eyebrow-raising media drive to portray Rebiya Kadeer as some terrorist mastermind) and Ilham is a clear monkeywrench in that story-writing.
Also, you say this:
But that’s not what happened in this situation. There were no pseudo-legal excuses – there just weren’t any excuses, period. The guobao just said “orders are orders” and didn’t bother to provide any paperwork or even the flimsiest of legal justifications. That being said, Tohti’s legal criticisms are the ban are all the more telling because they’re arguing with uncomfortable silence. China’s not making laws to justify their egregious actions here, they’re just “doing it” and questioning the legality seems to be a good place to start since China’s rise as a legitimate player on the international stage came with the implicit understanding that China would “play by the rules.”
Lastly, you say what needs to be discussed is the implicit goals of policy towards Uyghurs rather than the legal excuses (or, as I pointed out, the utter lack thereof). I respond that the two are joined together at the hip. The one thing that China at least says it will respect that also is the one thing that can check assimilatory policies is law. That’s where “China values” and “Western” values intersect. Without having some sort of basis that the PRC government at least on paper agrees with, any discussion on Uyghur issues will simply be dismissed in provectus by the PRC as Western moralizing and pontificating.
Posted 28 Apr 2010 at 9:37 am ¶Have you seen the website ”true Xinjiang”?
Posted 28 Apr 2010 at 4:08 pm ¶A few months ago I was watching a press conference for the NPC/CPPCC and a reporter (I think from CNN) asked Wen Jaibao a question along the lines of “Why is it that foreigners misunderstand China? What don’t we get?” Wen answered this question with an analogy, saying that foreigners made the fallacy of using eyes accustomed to appraising the aesthetics of oil-painting to judge an ink painting. I think Wen was inviting us to look at China as a entity that should be judged on the merits of its own unique historical trajectory.
When Western foreigners talk about “law,” they assume – as in their home countries – that laws must be written and implemented in a uniform manner. In China, it is better to understand “law” as “suggested and recommended principles and regulations.” The semantic difference between “law” in Western and Chinese PRC contexts demands qualification. Just like the adjectives “oil” and “ink” are used to qualify different types of paint, we should keep in mind that “PRC” law differs in both material and substance from “Western” law.
Posted 28 Apr 2010 at 8:18 pm ¶I believe Porfiriy is right. It is no use being a martyr, and the only hope is to link up with Han chinese. Thanks be to god that there are also some, who are not completely poisoned by jingoism. It is to us in free countries to call a spade a spade and it is to Ilam Tohti to talk the language of inner Chinese law.
Posted 28 Apr 2010 at 10:03 pm ¶I can’t agree with Porfiriy more due to his more nuanced understanding of the Uyghur situation IN China.
Porfiriy is right that overseas Uyghur human rights discourse is “disjointed”. It is focusing too much on political agenda and ignoring the daily life of ordinary Uyghurs. Those guys are all outside China, but this is also a continuation of the gap and misunderstanding between Uyghur nationalists/intellectuals and peasants/merchants.
Bruce, I kinda understand you flowing around those beautiful ideas like free speech. In reality, if Tohti said things like that, it could be interpreted as a challenged to Party rule. He might be thrown in jail, let alone going to Turkey. Also, PRC is not the only country that is wary of Pan Turkish sentiments. Russia, I believe, fears it more. So saying PRC rejects Tohti’s application out of the fear of Pan Turkism is not well founded.
The purpose of Tohti’ article is to get himself to Turkey, rather than toppling a regime.
Posted 29 Apr 2010 at 1:20 am ¶More on Tohti’s travel ban from RFA published today:
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/ban-04282010124306.html
Posted 29 Apr 2010 at 3:04 am ¶Uyghur Scholar Slams Exit Ban
2010-04-28
A leading economist says he is saddened that China bars scholars from traveling.
RFA
Ilham Tohti in France, February 2009.
HONG KONG—An ethnic Uyghur scholar based in Beijing has lashed out in an open letter and an interview at Chinese authorities for preventing him from traveling to Turkey to deliver a lecture.
Ilham Tohti, an outspoken economist who has often clashed openly with Chinese authorities, accused Beijing of operating “in flagrant violation of the law to maintain ‘social order.’”
But by eroding what is fair and just, Chinese authorities are causing greater harm to the country’s social fabric, he said in the letter, published on his Web site, http://www.uyghurbiz.net, which is blocked inside China.
Tohti had received a visa and permission from Central Nationalities University in Beijing, where he teaches, to attend an April 19-25 academic conference in Turkey, along with four other Uyghur academics from the Xinjiang regional capital, Urumqi.
But Chinese authorities accompanied him on a “vacation” to the resort island of Hainan, in southern China, and prevented him from leaving the country days ahead of the event, he said.
They feared what he might tell the foreign media about how the government has treated him, Tohti said.
The conference was an international panel on Turkic culture at Ege University in Izmir, Turkey. The identities of the other four Uyghur scholars barred from leaving the country weren’t available.
‘Very sad’
“I’m very sad—not only because I am unable to attend the meeting to present my article, but because the Chinese government does not trust scholars,” Tohti said in an interview.
“Even [majority] Han Chinese scholars are refused the right to travel outside of the country to present their work.”
Tohti, who holds a valid Chinese passport, said in his open letter that according to China’s Law on Civil Rules of Exit and Entry, authorities may refuse exit or entry only to Chinese citizens who hold invalid, altered, or forged travel documents.
The Chinese Constitution prohibits “unlawful detention and other means of illegal deprivation or restriction of personal freedom of its citizens.”
“I am a citizen in possession of proper identification, and the government has no factual or legal basis to prohibit me from leaving the country—this is clearly illegal,” Tohti said.
Tohti said he had received invitations to seminars in Hungary and the Netherlands during May, but his requests for permission to travel have gone unanswered.
“For now, I am continuing to work on a paper about Chinese policies towards the Uyghurs, and I hold lectures each week. But I am restricted to speaking at my own university and I am being carefully watched by [plainclothes] officers,” Tohti said.
“I have tried to do what any moral citizen can do—what any socially responsible citizen can do. I will spare no effort to uphold my beliefs for the fair and just treatment of ethnic Uyghurs,” he said.
“I call on Uyghurs, Han Chinese, and our friends in other nations to respect the rule of law and human rights, and to respect themselves and others. Do your best to be dignified citizens!”
According to Qeyser Ozhun, president of the International Uyghur PEN Center, Tohti was also blocked last October from attending a PEN International conference in Norway, when police stopped him from obtaining a Norwegian visa in Beijing.
Detained and freed
In August, soon after deadly clashes between majority Han and minority Uyghurs in Urumqi, Tohti was released without charge after he was detained for allegedly promoting separatism, but he said police then visited his home to warn him he could still be tried and executed.
Tohti’s blog, Uyghur Online, publishes in Chinese and Uyghur and is widely seen as a moderate, intellectual Web site addressing social issues. Authorities have closed it on several previous occasions.
Uyghur Online was specifically targeted, along with exiled Uyghur leader Rebiya Kadeer, in a July 5 speech by the governor of Xinjiang, Nur Bekri, as an instigator of the clashes.
Tohti has said he was interrogated repeatedly and accused of separatism after he spoke out in March against Chinese policies in Xinjiang, particularly the disproportionately high unemployment there among Uyghurs compared with Han Chinese.
Millions of Uyghurs—a distinct, Turkic minority who are predominantly Muslim—populate Central Asia and the XUAR in northwestern China.
Ethnic tensions between Uyghurs and majority Han Chinese settlers have simmered for years, and erupted in July 2009 in rioting that left some 200 people dead, according to the Chinese government’s tally.
Uyghurs say they have long suffered ethnic discrimination, oppressive religious controls, and continued poverty and joblessness despite China’s ambitious plans to develop its vast northwestern frontier.
Chinese authorities blame Uyghur separatists for a series of deadly attacks in recent years and accuse one group in particular of maintaining links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Original reporting by Mihray Abdilim for RFA’s Uyghur service. Uyghur service director: Dolkun Kamberi. Translated by Mihray Abdilim. Written for the Web in English by Joshua Lipes. Edited by Sarah Jackson-Han.
Copyright © 1998-2010 Radio Free Asia. All rights reserved.
Posted 29 Apr 2010 at 5:42 am ¶Good to hear everyone’s views.
Neat web site. Keep it up!
Posted 29 Apr 2010 at 10:28 am ¶It is not only Ilham Tohti, Chinese government has collected all the passports belong to Uyghurs in Xinjiang – which is against any law on the earth. Only Uyghurs living places other than Xinjiang can hold hold their passports in hand. (Ilham Tohti is living in Beijing). There are many thing in Xinjiang against law of China for example one can not go to pilgrim on his own way, he/she has to join a government organized pilgrim group which is strictly controlled/monitored during all the travel/stay in abroad, furthermore it is extremely hard to get into the group as the numbers are limited people applying are much more than the allowed group size, which forces people to try all the means to get into the list, most effective way is to bribe officers who approves the list.
The list of illegal activities opted by government is numberless – like fining, detaining, torching… most of the people get used to it , some other people opted to going abroad while very few people like Ilham Tohti trying to communicate with Han Chinese people and Chinese government in an intellectual way to make them to understand the hardships that Uyghurs faced , and improper handling of issues regarding Uyghurs.
I am not sure how much can they change the situation but at least they can clarify one thing: are the central government has authorized Xinjiang government to mishandle Uyghurs or its merely actions taken by local government in Xinjiang???
After brainwashed for many many years significant number of people believe the central government is quite good , it is the local government who is cheating the higher authority and pressing the people in Xinjiang, there are some reasons made them think like that.
1. many good policies announced by central government took years to get implemented in Xinjiang. Partly this may because of the bureaucracy in China partly because local government is just delaying the implementation of those policies as many policies requires local government to spend from their oven expenses, which may create difficulties for the local government and reduce share of corrupted government officers can get.
2. almost everyone knows that statistics which local government feeds to central government is false such as improvement of the life standard, income, spending on education and improving peoples life.
3. each time when high officials from central government come to Xinjiang due to crises in Xinjiang such as earthquake, the ethnic clash happened last year, they express their concern and surprise of the economical and political situation of Xinjiang, and they promise to improve something or give something to people of Xinjiang, this makes people think central government does not really understand the hardship people are facing in Xinjiang, and local government is just feeding good news to Beijing and hiding bad ones to show their ability.
4. When a person tries to go to Beijing for appeal their cases, local government tries very hard to get hold him in Xinjiang using all means such as fining, threatening , forbidding him travel or even even detaining or arresting him with any fabricated crime such as “destroying harmony of society”. So many people think local government is hiding these things from central government, central government might give a fair deal if the case can reach them. When the traditional houses demolished in Hotan and Kashgar many people stand up against it initially, later on they have compromised with local authority after number of people detained, arrested, beat….
To me, obviously its a “white face and red face” game, central government plays a “white face” – always polite, helpful and soft, local government plays “red face” – arrogant, ignorant and cruel, with combination of cheating and beating they rule the people in Xinjiang.
What Ilham Tohti doing is useful for unmasking this dirty game and getting attention of those Chinese officials who might have some soul say “look we might have a look to Xinjiang from diffirent angle”.
Besides Ilham Tohti is trying his best to open channels to the Han Chinese to understand Uyghurs and situation in Xinjiang.
Most of the Chinese people say Uyghurs (the same goes to Tibetans)are uneducated, rude and un-thankful to the minority-friendly policies and huge investment Chinese government has done in Xinjiang, half of those saying so are just doing it because they are irresponsible and inconsiderate as long as they can have better life, half of those saying so are just doing it because they are lack of knowledge of the real situation. There should be a person who tell them the truth, this is where Ilham Tohti fits in.
I have visited his website and found many useful facts and glad to know whatever he said is based on facts and statistics, many Uyghurs say he is mediocre and soft, but maybe thats why he can stay out of prison telling the truth that others in Xinjiang cannot say.
Posted 29 Apr 2010 at 2:13 pm ¶Wow, Halida. Thanks a lot for this comment. very interesting. Please keep writing.
Posted 30 Apr 2010 at 6:28 pm ¶In considering Tohti’s response to this travel ban, it should be kept in mind that he is a member of the Chinese Communist Party. I did not see that mentioned in the comments. This also explains his willingness to work within the confines of the current political/legal system. He has thrown his lot in with that system.
By the way, excellent response by Porfiriy above….very eloquently put.
Posted 01 May 2010 at 1:20 am ¶Blame it on the Uyghurs for being hell-bent for creating problems in their own country. It’s not arecent fact that Uyghurs are trouble makers but throughout history, Uyghurs like Tibetans are barbaric normads who constantly waged war against China for centuries. Pity them, haha, pity my foot.
Posted 01 May 2010 at 9:31 am ¶@Beway 大汉主义？
Posted 02 May 2010 at 4:58 am ¶Beway, for what i know, Tibetans waged some wars against China in Tang Dynasty. But since when had Uyghurs wage wars against China and for “centuries?” Regardless how many times Turpan Uyghurs assisted Beijing quelling rebellions.You must know the Emin Hoja Tower. Just tell me history.
Posted 08 May 2010 at 1:41 am ¶Post a Comment