Comments on: Xinhua Version of Kashgar Attack Addresses NYT Doubts

By: magn

magn — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 04:38:13 +0000

The question is, why didn’t the NYT say that Xinhua has stated/alleged that one of the perpetrators was wearing a uniform? Why did it skip this part?

By: michael

michael — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:06:29 +0000

Another mystery solved… or is it?

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA.

By: Kashkarlik

Kashkarlik — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:37:07 +0000

I second Weeger’s comments that you have provided a very thoughtful and somewhat thought-provoking analysis of the August 4 attacks in Kashgar.

I would go further and say that Weeger brings up a good point about the photographs and your response to Weeger on this point merely highlights the lack of clarity surrounding the case. The apparent lack of definitive evidence means that two men have been sentenced to death on some very shaky grounds.

I understand that questioning the New York Times article is important in terms of free speech, but the New York Times article also raises serious questions regarding the official version of events – questions which have not been sufficiently answered by the Chinese authorities, which then proceeded to hand down its harsh sentences.

I believe that the scrutiny being cast on the New York Times story by your post was never exercised on the official version of events during any hearing Kurbanjan Hemit and Abdurahman Azat may have received. It is also very clear that the Chinese media, XInhua in this case, never presented any of the doubt surrounding the case. Of course, in its role as government mouthpiece, Xinhua would not have raised any questions, but to compare the New York Times story to Xinhua’s appears to be not comparing like for like. There is simply a more robust editorial process which takes place when the New York Times releases a story than when Xinhua does.

Weeger also raises a point about the wearing of uniforms by the attackers. Although the point is speculation, it does seem unnecessary for the two attackers to be wearing PAP uniforms if the attack happened as the Chinese authorities say it did.

Lastly, and I realize that your post specifically addresses the events and not the sentence, but I’d like to add that the sentences appear to be a show of force and intimidation against Uyghurs. Surely, this was a key motivator in Kurbanjan Hemit and Abdurahman Azat’s sentencing and not the possible lack of clarity in the questions raised by the New York Times about the official version of events.

By: Porfiriy

Porfiriy — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:19:02 +0000

Hi Weegur,

Without more details from the photographer himself, we can speculate in all sorts of directions about the photos – and unfortunately there’s no way we can get in touch with the guy. The underlying assumption behind the scenario you put forward is that the people wielding the weapons in the pictures are the attackers – but that shouldn’t be taken for granted, I think. The eyewitness admits he started taking pictures as the incident was subsiding; the individuals wielding the weapons could easily be police officers who had confiscated the weapons from the attackers; after all, in one of the pictures there’s another soldier sitting on the curb quite unalarmed, which is understandable if the two people with weapons are compatriots who had disarmed the attackers. As to people who look Uyghur – the individual carrying the two machetes does indeed look very Uyghur to me; as for my own opinion the person with the rifle does not strike me as definitively Uyghur. But I want to point out that even if these individuals are Uyghur (which as you mentioned is an unprovable point) it doesn’t establish anything, simply because Uyghurs can be members of the People’s Armed Police. One of these guys being Uyghurs is not the automatic equivalent of him not being a member of the jogging officers.

Finally, I still call bad journalism on the part of the NYT. You’re right – they didn’t release details when the New York Times wrote the first article. But the purpose of the second New York Times article was to report on the press release, which it did, but it omitted one of the new pieces of information that came from the press release. In that capacity, I think Wong really fell short in the task of reporting on this new development on the case. Non-Chinese readers deserve to know at least that the government claims one individual was uniformed, but they would not get that from reading this article. And I think if we are going to evaluate the Times article, whether or not an English speaking reader would know this fact is a good criteria.

But overall, we come to the same conclusion. There needs to be more transparency, otherwise, there’s no way to be sure the state isn’t making this all up.

By: wgj

wgj — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:54:03 +0000

It’s “permanent deprivation of *political* rights”, not “legal rights”.

By: Weeger

Weeger — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:50:24 +0000

Thank you for your thoughts on the Kashgar incident- your postings always provide some of the best insight around into Uyghur/Xinjiang happenings. Your dedication to objectivity in this and other instances is admirable, as are the questions you have raised regarding all available accounts of the Kashgar incident. However, I think there are a few important points that you missed. For instance, in one of the photos that were released in the NYT report that detailed the witnesses’ accounts of the attack, there were clearly two men standing side-by-side wearing PAP uniforms, wielding machetes (at least one of them is wielding machetes, and the other appears to be holding at least one machete or another type of weapon on his left-hand side). The man closer to the camera appears to be the same one from an earlier photo, and appears to be Uyghur (though I’ll concede this is impossible to confirm). The other man in the photo I mentioned first also appears to be Uyghur (again, impossible to confirm, of course.) But if we presume that either one of these men is Uyghur and is probably one of the alleged attackers, and the man standing next to him is also one of the alleged attackers, then it wouldn’t make sense to say that Azat was a non-uniformed individual who fell out of the truck after it crashed. Even more questionable to me is the premise that, assuming one of the alleged attackers drove the truck and was one of the aforementioned two men who was wearing a uniform, would bother to put on a uniform in an attempt to blend in with the PAP officers if he had just revealed himself to be an attacker by running people over with a truck. Of course, yesterday’s Xinhua report does not say both attackers were wearing uniforms, and Chinese embassy spokesman Wang Baodong explicitly said in October that only one of the alleged attackers was wearing a uniform (listen to this NPR interview for his remarks: http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/10/21.php). Granted, I’m making assumptions here, but I think this is an important point.
I also don’t think it is bad journalism for the NYT to have omitted the fact, in its latest report, that Xinhua said at least one of the men was wearing a uniform, when the official Chinese press did not make this claim in its original reporting. Surely THAT was the time that the Chinese press should have made such a claim, and not months later when it was convenient to do so. And the NYT rightly pointed this out at the time. Of course, it would be easy for Xinhua to tailor its claims to address the doubts put forth by the NYT- nobody can prove this is the case, but I think the very possibility renders Xinhua’s December 17 statement on this point rather moot.
But the most important thing to keep in mind is not piece-meal discrepancies or conflicting accounts, but rather the Chinese government’s complete lack of transparency, its track record of failing to report the truth, and its lack of credibility, which you have also referred to. The NYT may be motivated by “greed”, as you say, but the Chinese government’s motivations may be much more ominous. Serious questions remain about the official allegations made against the two alleged attackers, who will now be executed, and these questions must be explored, even if we will never know for certain what happened in Kashgar.

By: Ralphie

Ralphie — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:27:45 +0000

Transparency will never come from the government alone. In a criminal case, transparency comes from the constitutional right to counsel, impartial jury, the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the fact that most of the motion hearings and trials are open to the public, and the court opinions are published. Oh, I forgot to mention also that the media is free to comment or doubt the court’s rulings. In a country where the government controls both the legislature and judiciary, and what media can and cannot say, there is no need and no possibility for transparency. Even the very meaning of transparency can be defined by the government. Remember, there are dissidents jailed for leaking “national secrets.” The “secrets” they leaked are things like the statistics of HIV positive cases, and instructions from the government to the media on how to (and mostly how not to) cover anniversaries of Tiananmen massacre. Clearly the government can get away with those interpretations of “national secret.” I would be very surprised if this time, the government somehow fails to define “transparency.”