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.