http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/956/in3.htm
16 - 22 July 2009
Issue No. 956
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875
Study in contrasts
The US slaughter in Afghanistan makes the Chinese creeping colonisation of
Urumqi look like a picnic, bemoans Eric Walberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to view caption
The Grand Bazaar in Urumqi following fighting between Muslim Uighurs and
Han Chinese (photos: AFP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week's riots in Urumqi, resulting in 180 deaths, recall similar protests
in Tibet last year, though only 19 people were killed there. Both Uighurs and
Tibetans exiles demonstrated during the Chinese Olympics, to little effect.
Both regions, remote from the heart of Han China, were taken over under the
communists, and are important strategically and as storehouses of mineral
wealth to feed the new capitalist China's voracious appetite. They remind us
that old- fashion colonialism is alive and well. Neither the Uighurs nor the
Tibetans have any hope of independence, but they rightly would like the Han to
be less greedy and invasive.
Like Tibet, it is the flood of Han immigrants and the wholescale destruction of
their culture that is the problem. The massive recent influx of Han Chinese,
who now make up more than 50 per cent of the population (70 per cent in the
major cities Urumqi and Kashgar), has reduced Uighurs to a minority in their
homeland, ominously called " Xinjiang" (New Frontier) in Chinese. The use of
"Eastern Turkistan", the traditional name for this region, is outlawed, along
with the blue star-crescent Uighur flag. Ethnic Han Chinese dominate nearly all
big businesses in the region. All Uighurs must study Chinese, and very few
Uighurs can dream of going to university.
Like the Kurds, they have no official state, only a hollow autonomous region,
along with large diaspora communities in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and
the West. They number 8-10 million worldwide. There are Uighur neighbourhoods
in Beijing and Shanghai. Their history is the story of an obscure nomadic tribe
from the Altai Mountains rising to challenge the Chinese empire, founding their
own in the 8th century, which stretched from the Caspian Sea to Manchuria.
Because of their strategic location on the Silk Road, they thrived on trade.
They came under Han sovereignty only in the 17th century, but after numerous
revolts expelled Qing officials in 1864 and founded an independent Kashgaria
kingdom, recognised by the Ottoman Empire, Russia and Great Britain, which even
had a mission in the capital, Kashgar. As usual British support depended on its
imperial schemes and when the Chinese attacked in 1876, fearing Tsarist
expansion, Great Britain supported the Manchu invasion forces. The Brits
(excuse me, the Manchus) "won" and East Turkestan became Xinjiang.
The Soviets established the Revolutionary Uighur Union in 1921, but dissolved
it in 1926 when Stalin abandoned dreams of world revolution. Undeterred, Uighur
independence activists staged several uprisings, briefly in 1933 and and then
in 1944. In 1949, East Turkestan's revolutionaries agreed to form a confederacy
within Mao's People's Republic of China; however, on the way to Beijing to
negotiate the terms, the Chinese plane crash, killed all the leaders. The
Chinese army immediately invaded what is now Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.
As with the Tibetans a decade later, East Turkestan Republic loyalists went
into exile.
Uprisings occurred through the 1990s, supported by exiles in the West and
Western governments, who are happy to use disgruntled expatriates from
countries such as Iraq, Iran, China and Russia as geopolitical pawns, promoting
unrest and calling for independence. The World Uighur Congress (WUC), based in
Munich, and the Uighur American Association work hand-in- glove with the US
government-funded National Endowment for Democracy and the Soros- funded Human
Rights Watch.
The Uighurs and Tibetans have old and unique cultures which the Chinese would
do well to respect and nurture within greater China. But supporting the
independence struggle is part of a cynical geopolitical chess game, and merely
worsens the Uighurs' plight. We are reminded of Britain's scheming there in the
19th century. If Britain had stood by the Uighurs then, there would probably be
an Uighuistan today. Instead, the destruction of Urumqi and the Old City in
Kashgar continue. The latter will soon be a theme park where Uighurs will dress
up and sell Han tourists plastic souvenirs. Classic colonialism.
However, Chinese colonialism -- "Veni, vidi, vici" -- pales in comparison to
the US/ British variant in nearby Afghanistan -- "We came, destroy, and murder
in the name of freedom." It is galling for Western media to take such delight
in exposing China's dirty linen, as it slavishly hails US neo-imperial ventures
in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Uighurs riot, US drones massacre hundreds of
innocent Afghans and Pakistanis, and Obama sends thousands more troops to
Afghanistan in a mission that makes China's arrogant encroachment on Eastern
Turkistan look like an act of selfless generosity.
With huge new bases in Afghanistan and 90,000 troops, the death toll on both
sides is skyrocketing as Afghans prepare to "elect" the hated -- by both
Afghans and Americans -- Hamid Karzai on 20 August. The new US strategy is
designed to reduce civilian casualties, according to General Stanley
McChrystal, the new commander of NATO forces in the country, though a price
worth paying, he assures us.
But civilian deaths are increasing. 22 Afghans were killed in the central
Ghazni province in an air strike last week. And crime knows no borders, as 59
"militants" were killed just last week in neighbouring South Waziristan by US
drones, just days after a US missile strike there killed 16. The airstrikes are
said to be aimed at militants, but Pakistani media say only one in six have
target Taliban insurgents in the country. More than five hundred Pakistanis --
most of them civilians -- have been killed over the past year in the US drone
strikes. In any case, the terms civilian and militant are meaningless, as most
so-called militants are local boys fighting the infidel invader, as they have
every right to do. It would be more accurate to call them resistance heroes or
martyrs. Their deaths are just as criminal as the deaths of little girls and
women.
McChrystal's boys are also dropping like flies with his new strategy. There
were 82 Taliban attacks in June, compared with 24 in June 2007, killing 23
troops. On one day -- 6 July, seven American troops were killed, the highest
casualty rate recorded since the invasion. British fatalities since 2001
reached 184 last week when eight British soldiers were killed in 24 hours,
surpassing the new US record. This compares to the 179 British deaths during
the six-year military campaign in Iraq. Over 200 NATO troops have died in the
past six months alone.
There are a few voices of sanity, if retired and hence powerless. Drones are
described by retired British lawmaker Lord Bingham as "so cruel as to be beyond
the pale of human tolerance" and should be outlawed along with cluster bombs
and landmines. But current Western "leadership" stands firmly behind the Bush
wars. Despite whatever good intentions Obama may harbour, the slaughter is in
fact accelerating under him.
What unites China and the US these days, is how they justify their respective
crimes by blaming them on Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, a bogeyman that was
created by the US itself during its earlier anti-communist phase, and who many
commentators argue is still an extension of US covert operations. Uighur
"terrorists" at Guantanamo were finally released, but China insists they are
devotees of bin Laden and wants them back.
Both the support of sessionists and the creation of the likes of bin Laden are
examples of the infiltration of the enemy to subvert it from within - - an
age-old tactic. And bin Laden is not the only terrorist accused of being in
league with the West. The Pakistani Taliban leader Mehsud's ex- comrade Qari
Zainuddin, critical of Mehsud's policy of blowing up mosques and schools,
accused Mehsud of being an American and Mossad agent. "These people are working
against Islam," he said shortly before he was assassinated. Where does Mehsud
get his sophisticated arms?
Afghanistan's unending torment is very useful to the US, bringing Europe and
Russia into line, as Obama's triumphal summit in Moscow revealed. Initially
after 2001, all of Central Asia and Russia were in thrall to America's
"Operation Enduring Freedom" though there have been snags. Under Obama, things
are back on track. Now even isolationist Turkmenistan has agreed to allow US
military to use its airbases. With its new lease to the US of Manas airport,
Kyrgyzstan is back on board the US gravy train to Afghanistan.
Is all this part of a new Great Game, this time directed not against Russia,
but even using Russia as part of a long-term strategy to contain the rising
powerhouse China? The Chinese point the finger for the recent unrest at the
WUC, Washington-based Rebiya Kadeer and the spread of rumours over the internet
to incite and coordinate riots. President George W Bush lauded Kadeer more than
once as an "apostle of freedom". Whatever its claims to be supporting the cause
of freedom etal, the US clearly assists the expatriates to foment unrest and
destabilise China. This was and is being openly done in the case of Iraq and
Iran. It most certainly will backfire for the poor Uighurs, who can only expect
more repression. Any sincere attempt to help preserve Uighur culture and civil
rights -- in particular the destruction of the Old City of Kashgar -- should be
carried out through, say, UNESCO, not covertly to incite civil war. The best
scenario for an easing of the Uighurs' plight of course would be if the US
operated on a policy of promoting peace and of not threatening and intriguing
against other nations. Alas.
Perhaps the Chinese and Russians are tolerating US meddling in Central Asia in
line with the age-old strategy of playing off your enemies against each other
-- in this case, the Americans and the Taliban. This strategy was used by the
US in the 1930s, building up both the fascists and communists to fight each
other in Europe. Recall Truman's famous quip: " If we see that Germany is
winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help
Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want
to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances." It can just as well be used
against the Americans today.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
