Text of Nur Bekri’s Speech
The full text (in Mandarin Chinese) of Nur Bekri’s recent speech can be found here on Tian Shan Net.
Tags: Links, nur bekri, speeches
Links
The full text (in Mandarin Chinese) of Nur Bekri’s recent speech can be found here on Tian Shan Net.
The text of the speech just proves my point:
“西方敌对势力把“和平演变”的矛头重点指向我国” clearly names “peaceful revolution” as the main tactic of the “Western hostile forces”.
“在西方的“民主化”和宗教极端势力的“伊斯兰化”双重压力下” makes a clear distinction between “Western democratization forces” and “Islamic extremist forces” as separate threats.
“近年来，无论是西方反华势力、境内外“三股势力”，还是其它敌对势力” again differentiate between “Western hostile forces” and “three forces without and within”.
And indeed, there is no mention — direct or otherwise — of any (Western) governments being major parts of the “hostile forces”.
Hrm, I think it’s a little more complex than that. Bekri’s speech is vast. You’ve listed three introductory clauses. You could take three introductory clauses from a lot of speeches and prove all sorts of points.
充分揭露热比娅及“东突”分裂势力煽动、实施民族分裂和暴力恐怖活动，破坏全区社会稳定的丑恶嘴脸和反动本质，不断增强各族干部群众的政治免疫力。
更是以热比娅为首的“世维会”、以“东伊运”为代表的暴力恐怖组织长期以来对极少数无知群众进行反动宣传和欺骗煽动所结下的恶果。热比娅之流才是真正的幕后元凶，是名副其实的罪魁祸首。
Here’s Rebiya Kadeer, whom I’ve mentioned several times in some previous responses to you. I think her placement next to “Eastern Turkestan (Movements)” and allegations that she (as one of the two subjects of this clause) incites ethnic splittism and violent terrorist activities makes it completely unambiguous as to where Nur Bekri is placing her in the scheme of things. As I asked before, if the distinction between Western forces and Islamic forces is so clear, which camp is Rebiya Kadeer in? Pictures of Kadeer giving a doppa to Bush and speechs where Bush praises Kadeer as a peaceful freedom activist are no American state secrets. This is public domain stuff. Nur Bekri is extremely, extremely explicit in his placement of Kadeer alongside East Turkestan terrorists. As I emphasized in my other response to you, Bekri is by no means a high level governmental official whose words should alarm us. Nonetheless, it is worth noting this connection. It would be as if there was a public, mutually approving relationship between a prominent Al-Qaeda lieutenant and Hu Jintao - someone the US claims is responsible for violence inside US borders. That would be a daring claim even if only a low level US official made such claims. And there’s also the second point of whether or not Kadeer is involved in ethnic violence. My contention is no (and again I invite you to prove otherwise). Kadeer has always been the scapegoat for unrest in Xinjiang but this is one of the most unequivocal instances of a link being made between her and violent terrorism.
If we’re going to establish points from introductory clauses here’s a good one:
同时国际泛伊斯兰主义、泛突厥主义活动猖獗
Here Bekri describes Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism in the same breath (and after this clause he discusses the cultivation of training bases and terrorist networks within and without Xinjiang). This is ridiculous. Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism are completely different phenomenon, and often are antagonist to each other yet Bekri hastily lumps them together, because it fulfills an agenda.
My main contention here, contrary to your claims that the the lines between x force and y force are drawn quite clearly, is that actually Bekri’s speech is quite sloppy, for lack of a better word, precisely because it jumbles together and conflates the real and imaginary forces that Xinjiang is facing. You can point to Bekri’s use of “Western forces,” “Islamic forces,” “peaceful rise,” and “violent terrorism,” but nonetheless the fact that all these are being used in the same speech and are consistently referred to back and forth is something in and of itself, as I mentioned earlier, everyone knows that China faces (or believes it faces) “Westernization” by on one hand and “terrorism” on the other hand, but this is a special moment where someone jumbles them together in the same speech. Is Xinjiang really facing Western-style “peaceful rise” anyways? If this problem even exists isn’t this more of an issue on the other side of the country, in the multinational metropoli of Shanghai and Beijing?
Then there’s Rebiya Kadeer - if she’s a terrorist, then you’ve got the problem of the leader of the free world openly fraternizing with someone directly responsible for violence in Xinjiang, of which there is no analogy in China - Hu Jintao hasn’t met with Bin Laden, and even in the contentious case of Sudan, Hu doesn’t endorse the genocide in Darfur as Bush endorses Kadeer’s activities. So what’s going on here? What is Kadeer? The line indeed is not clear.
Finally, I gotta ask, when was taking the value of CCP officials at complete face value a good strategy? China is an information-control state. You have to simultaneously look at the surface value of the words and any implications that could be lurking underneath. And frankly, this could be said of my country, and probably yours, too. There are election campaigns going on in the US right now. I’m not listening to every introductory clause that McCain, Biden, Obama, and Palin are throwing out there and nodding my head with an imagined understanding of their positions. Or take Bush, for that matter. He has made a lot of speeches similar to Bekri’s about “threats to the nation.” At times, American politicians draw “lines” between terrorism in Iraq, terrorism in Afghanistan, between Islam in general and extremist Islam, between WMDs that are there and WMDs that are not there. However, a lot of mistakes that the US has made in foreign policy recently results from mashing these together, even with tactics as mundane as mixing them around in the same speech. It’s absolutely sloppy, regardless of who’s doing it.
Bush hasn’t met with Bin Laden, but Ramsfeld has met with Saddam Hussein (with a smile, as we all know), and that hasn’t cause any significant damage to the US’s position as the leader of the “international community” and its anti-terrorism campaign, has it? So, again: What’s the big deal?
In case of Dalai Lama, considering his connection to the Tibetan Youth Congress and the Tibetan People’s Uprising Movement (I assume you read the China Matters blog — if you don’t, you really should), I find it highly likely that he is informed about — and therefore tacitly approve by not intervening — the violent activities of those organizations. Therefore, I don’t find it ridiculous at all when the Chinese government calls him a backer of terrorism.
Wgj,
I do remember that. And allow me to say that in some ways, it certainly has caused significant damage to the US’ position as the leader of the international community. On one hand, that was decades ago in a completely different complex (the Iran-Iraq war), and the further one goes back from the present, one must wonder how many reversals of friendship one is allowed to bring up as talking points. China has had its fair share of reversals, too, the most historically dissected one being the Sino-Soviet split - an important event many historians could argue still plays a role in modern Xinjiang.
But furthermore, the US’ rash decision to go to war with Iraq and ultimately get Hussein was so ill-informed and illogical (in light of many things, including Rumsfeld’s previous visit with Hussein) that I would say the US’ status as the leader of the international community is at an all-time low and that its anti-terrorism campaign has lost much credibility most of the world (except, incidentally, in China, where it has strategic capital). That, I feel, is a big deal.
As for the Dalai Lama, he actually threatened to step down if violence by Tibetans against Chinese continued. That was actually big news when it happened, I’m surprised it slipped by you. During the riots there was actually a pretty visible rift in the leadership of Tibetan exiles, one which advocated a more violent route (like the Tibetan Youth Congress) and those which have become more moderate and are vying for a more realized autonomy within the PRC himself, including, quite clearly, the Dalai Lama. As the spiritual leader of all Tibetans its quite easy to blame the Dalai Lama for the violence, but the Tibetans in exile are not one monolithic force with the same opinions and tactics (and on a side note, neither are the Uyghurs outside of China). But that would be like saying the Pope himself is responsible for terror attacks against protestants in Northern Ireland. He’s not, but the violence there was partly religious and the pope is the spiritual leader of Catholics across the world.
As I wrote before, I’m not holding the DL responsible for the violence because he’s the “spiritual leader of all Tibetans” (which he is actually not, even so this is his standard title used by the Western media — the Dalai Lama is actually the second-highest leader of a particular sect of Tibetan Buddhists — please wiki “Gelug” for details), but because his ties to those organizations is so close that he’s most probably in the loop on their actions. I don’t think the Pope, on the other hand, knows the plans of the IRA.
As of DL’s threats of stepping down, of course I remember that, I just don’t think it was sincere, as it wasn’t accompanied by any concrete actions, and also because as the same time he was busy telling excuses for the rioters.
If wiki is our standard, the first sentence of wikipedia’s entry for the Dalai Lama is:
“The Dalai Lama is the spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people according to Tibetan Buddhism.”
Interesting. But wikipedia is wikipedia, after all - you can go and edit this sentence if you perceive it to be incorrect.
And there you have it. You consider the Dalai Lama to be privy to planned violence in Tibet and believe that Rebiya Kadeer is a terrorist sympathizer. I respectfully but completely disagree with you on both accounts. If your stance is the presence of sympathy and support for violence on behalf of these two individuals and my stance is the absence, then the burden of proof is on your side. Frankly speaking, I think making spurious links among completely different and fragmented sections of the Tibetan and Uyghur diaspora, and by proxy erroneously weaving them into a single and single-minded movement, isn’t solid reasoning, and doesn’t compare to asking what kind of ideological links exist between members of the Communist Party which, unlike an ethnicity group such as the Uyghurs or Tibetans is a social institution based on membership instead of accident of birth which is specifically designed, more so than even other created social institutions, to create and strive on ideological consistency across the Party. Which is why I wrote the post that started this all.
I’m absolutely not trying to weaving the Free Tibet and the East Turkestan movements into a “single and single-minded movement”. DL only came up during this discussion as an example of someone with possible links to terrorism while enjoying public support by Western governments — an example to demonstrate that Rebiya Kadeer is not singular in her (alleged) role.
Also, I’d like to know on what ground you disagree with my characterization of Kadeer as a terrorist sympathizer. Do you disagree with my assessment that the WUC is publicly excusing and sympathizing with ET terrorism, or do you think Kadeer as its president shouldn’t bear responsibility for the official position of the WUC (or maybe both)?
In the context, 西方敌对势力 doesn’t have its mere literal meaning as only “forces.” It refers to sovereignties, although in his speech he never listed the names of those Western sovereignties. Furthermore, 和平演变 is a policy carried out by sovereignties. Upon reading this sentence, a reasonable Chinese would clearly get the message that the hostile policy is carried out by some Western sovereignties who shall not be outrightly named. If you press them to name the 西方敌对势力, most of them will give you several names of Western countries. Very few will give you the names of some individual senators or organizations.
Wgj, I’m waiting for you to prove that WUC is publicly excusing and sympathizing with terrorism. Again you’re conflating things and not keeping your boundaries clear. It’s absolutely ridiculous and wrong-minded to equate “sympathizing with terrorism” to “believing terrorism stems from oppression.” I believe the Boxer Rebellion, where many foreigners were brutally murdered, was in part caused by the sense of oppression and violation brought about by Western powers plus Japan carving up China and exploiting it - but by believing that am I excusing and sympathizing with the violence? I believe that what Osama Bin Laden ultimately decided to do against America stems in part from the way many Saudi Arabians were and are treated by the current monarchy. Does that make me a sympathizer and excuser of Osama Bin Laden? I believe that a lot of Afghan terrorism and discontent was stirred up by the Soviet invasion and occupation. Does that make me a sympathizer and excuse of Taliban violence? It’s utter nonsense. The reasons for Uyghur discontent are diverse and many. I do not necessarily agree with every point that Uyghur diaspora organizations like WUC holds. However I know that the WUC believes that the Uyghurs in Xinjiang are an oppressed people and thus when it sees terrorism in Xinjiang it believes that the oppression and treatment of Uyghurs is the source of these desperate actions. This does not constitute approval, and I’ve heard Rebiya Kadeer disapprove of violent resistance while explaining what she believes to be its source. Like I said, the burden on proof is on your side - to prove that WUC is somehow more involved in the violence and terrorism than mere explanation (not excusing, not sympathizing. That is a step beyond explaining). That’s going to be impossible, because, frankly, the WUC is not sympathizing with terrorism, and furthermore the PRC is not even presenting persuasive evidence for the more probable case of there being some organized terrorist movement called the “East Turkestan Islamic Movement” that receives funding and training from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Furthermore, if in your eyes believing that Uyghur discontent is the source of Uyghur violent action, as Kadeer and the WUC do, is “sympathizing and excusing terrorism,” then what do you think are the causes of the events that occurred before and during the Olympics? You said in a different post that the Ramadan crackdown is ridiculous - are actions like these driving religious Uyghurs into religious extremism? Is believing that “sympathizing and approving” their actions? Or, are Uyghurs just nasty, violent people? A lot of well-intentioned Han friends of mine warn me about this when I tell them I’m going to Xinjiang.
All terrorism is caused by oppression — that’s why it’s always cited by terrorists as the justification for their actions. The question is not whether or not oppression is the cause, the question is whether or not oppression is justification enough.
I’m not considering the WUC a sympathizer of terrorism because it tries to explain to the world the reason why violence exists in XJ, but because that explanation is their sole response to those attacks. It completely failed to publicly condemn the violence (like the Dalai Lama did — I do give him credit for that) and distance itself from the terrorist — it even refuses to recognize there is organized ET terrorism at all. That is simply laughable.
And again, “the Chinese government carries the main responsibility for those attacks”? Really? If someone says: “The US government carries the main responsibility for the 9/11 attack”, would you also consider it unfair to call him a terrorist excuser and sympathizer? (To be clear, if the statement were “the Chinese/US/whatever government *shares* the responsibilities for the attacks”, I would have no objection.)
Since you’ve demonstrated the belief that the leader of a movement or exile government speaks on behalf of all its members, I present this quote:
WASHINGTON - THE exiled leader of China’s Uighur Muslims condemned on Monday the reported killing of 16 policemen in a suspected terrorist attack in the country’s Xinjiang region, but urged Beijing not to wage a crackdown on ‘peaceful Uighurs’.
‘We condemn all acts of violence’, Ms Rebiya Kadeer said in Washington, where she has been living in exile since 2005 after spending six years in a Beijing prison.
‘The Uighur people do not support acts that engender bloodshed’.
The Uyghur people and their situation both as portrayed by the Chinese and as portrayed by angry Uyghur exile organizations are not very well known at all on the global public stage. That you did not hear in whatever information networks you browse through that Rebiya Kadeer condemned the pre-Olympic violence doesn’t mean she didn’t. Most sites and news organizations will have deemed that not newsworthy (in contrast to the celebrity of the Dalai Lama). That’s why we sort of started this blog, we sensed an information gap. The WUC condemned the violence. It’s mission statement on its website is “to promote the right of the Uyghur people to use peaceful, nonviolent, and democratic means to determine the political future of East Turkestan.” Granted that mission statement may be a lie but I say for the third time the onus is on you to prove that the WUC is lying about its opposition to violence and is somehow more deeply involved, but so far all you’ve come up with are completely incorrect guesses about what the leaders of these movements said or didn’t said - which anyways is based on the assumption that these leaders by virtue of being leaders can exert some form of control over people using violence within PRC borders. It seems your opinions about the WUC and minority diasporas in general are based on some sort of pre-fabricated assumptions about their agendas and abilities… rather than actual research into what they are.
Many exile Uyghur organizations dispute that there is a high level organization and coordination between the hard realities of violence committed by Uyghurs in Xinjiang simply because the government hasn’t been public about the evidence they supposedly hold. This lacks credibility. The US presented its evidence to the world and invaded Afghanistan with international approval. The US presented crappy evidence or no evidence at all and invaded Iraq to the world’s scathing criticism. The US has created an atmosphere where making claims about terrorist capabilities without providing convincing evidence immediately draws skepticism. If it’s so “laughable” then PRC has nothing to lose by providing a “9/11 Commission” style document to the world, transparently detailing the results of its investigations and the personalities, networks, and timelines to create overarching, integrated, and complex proof that there is “ET terrorism.” In fact, I’m sure if it did this it would win praise as it did with its transparency in response to the Sichuan earthquake and even actual support. It hasn’t done this. It makes claims in vacuums about how many grenades they found in houses they raid. The story even changes over time, as was detailed in analysis of one violent event that happened a few months ago. You don’t seem to be grasping the concept of burden of proof. In legal terms, the “complainer” has to provide the evidence. Making a positive claim about something - claiming that something is there - requires evidence. The violent events that happened in Xinjiang are a cold, hard facts. The level or coordination, sophistication, and organization behind them are not. These require evidence, as do your claims about the level of involvement and approval on behalf of Tibetan and Uyghur exile groups with violence inside China’s borders, but everything you’ve come up with has been spurious or just plain incorrect.
As for the one quote you made (you seem to be fond of pulling single sentences out of things), I disagree with the WUC’s reasoning there and agree that if someone said the same thing about the US government I would think it was a dumb statement - though I wouldn’t call him a terrorist sympathizer, I would call that “expressing one’s opinion” which is a cornerstone ideology in my country and is something which in many instances distinguishes a Western worldview from a Chinese one (wantonly accusing people of being sympathizers with the enemy actually constitutes one of the most embarassing and shameful episodes in American history, this is actually discussed in American classrooms, wiki McCarthyism). Furthermore, the cases aren’t analogous, the ability and capacity to produce oppression in Xinjiang by the Chinese government is a lot more clearer and better recorded than the American government’s ability to produce oppression in Taliban-era Afghanistan. If you want a better analogy, then you can say “The US government carries the main responsibility for increasing violence in modern Afghanistan” which wouldn’t be completely incorrect, since our vaunted over reliance on air strikes and our completely incompetent nation-building efforts has pissed off a lot of people. Both situations would be cases where a particular government is exercising control over an ethnically, culturally, and historically distinct population. And finally, who cares if the WUC places a logically questionable sentence on their website? This is a far cry from the evidence needed to prove that Rebiya Kadeer and the WUC are actively implementing and controlling violence in Xinjiang, which would in turn validate Nur Bekri’s otherwise sloppy speech.
Which brings me back to the original topic - I love how you came in protesting rather enthusiastically about me being haphazard with Nur Bekri’s words, but now that the discussion has flowed to the “other side,” that is, exile organizations, you have been demonstrably and repeatedly sloppy with the words of the Dalai Lama and Rebiya Kadeer. And I’m still scratching my head about your tangent post on not being a CCP lap dog - who accused you of that? Why so defensive? Strikes one as insecure - to preemptively defend against accusations no one made or intended to make…
I’m not at all holding Rebiya Kadeer accountable for the craziness of ET terrorists — it’s outrageous that you claim I do.
I’m holding her accountable for being the president of the WUC which has repeated failed to clearly distant itself from violence (”clearly” means persistently, as in not just in its “Mission Statement” but whenever the topic comes up). The quote you’ve shown above was unknown to me (where is it from, BTW?), and now I’ve seen it, I give her credit for that. Bus still, she should have either urged the WUC to be more forceful in its stance against violence, or if that’s not possible, she should have resigned. Just like Dalai Lama should resign as the head of the exile Tibetan government as long as complete independence is still its official goal. Not doing it puts serious doubt about the sincerity of DL’s “no longer independence” stance.
Condemning violence on occasion is certainly better than nothing at all, but the negative side of refraining from doing so at times when it’s required outweighs the positive side.
As for my “insecure preemptive defense” — I just wanted to let you know I don’t disagree with everything you criticize about the Chinese government.
Now here is something you might find interesting:
http://time-blog.com/china_blog/2008/09/only_in_china_department_ii_sh.html
Porfiriy, you are awesome!