- The US slaughter in Afghanistan makes the Chinese creeping
colonisation of Urumqi look like a picnic, bemoans Eric Walberg
-
- 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
wholesale destruction of the local 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 the organisation in 1926 when Stalin abandoned dreams
of world revolution. Undeterred, Uighur independence activists staged several
uprisings, briefly in 1933 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, killing 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 Uighuristan 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.
-
- 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 this bin Laden
and wants them back.
-
- Both the support of secessionists 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 last week, 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 etc, 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.
-
- ***
- Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/.
You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/
|