Xinjiang: Where the Truth Goes to Die

| September 29, 2009
International Voices forum

Believe it or not, Rebiya Kadeer is not the enemy.

She is not some omnipresent, stalwart leader of separatist forces. She does not single handedly lead terrorists with her every whim. She does not walk on water, nor does she breathe fire.

Actually, she is a mother of 11; she is also a Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, and philanthropist. Rebiya Kadeer is one who seeks peaceful anonymity for the Uyghur people. She has written that she “advocates for the peaceful establishment of self-determination with genuine respect for human rights and democracy.” She is not the problem.

The problem is that Chinese officials are tacticians when it comes to directing the discourse. Rather than talking about the real issues, we are here debating whether or not Ms. Kadeer is a liar.

In all honesty, we cannot tell the difference between a lie and the truth in Xinjiang. How can we?
 
Some have said social media will advance human rights, but it cannot when China has turned off the internet and silenced every cell phone. Today the news comes out of a sparse secondary account, or the all-reliable Chinese media. 
 
International Voices forumHuman Rights Watch reports that, “Domestic news content in China is painstakingly filtered through outright censorship of material deemed objectionable by the Communist Party and a web of rules and regulations that strictly limit the reporting scope of journalists.”
 
We do know that there is an existing tension between the Han and Uyghurs living in Xinjiang. We also know that inexcusable events occurred on and around July 5th, although we are yet to know the depth and scope of every detail. Rather than casting stones, and creating villains from what we do not know, we should be able to rely on political dialogue that advances the rights of all of China’s citizens. This, however, is where we run into another problem.
 
Political freedom does not exist in China.
 
Just this week the Chinese government passed a new law that bans locals from using the internet in any way that undermines national unity or harms social stability. There is no specific guideline for what “harms social stability” means, so one could assume that the law will be applied liberally. In China, if a Uyghur made a post like this, it would be illegal, and the author would face a prison sentence.
 
Amnesty International notes that, “In China an estimated 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their grievances.” The frustration that is felt by the Uyghurs becomes glaringly obvious after dissecting the documented missteps of the Chinese government.
 
So, where do we go from here?
 
China has the oldest continuous civilization on earth, not to mention that the Communist Party is soon to embark on their 60th anniversary. The process of human rights and development is indeed slow, and China is a substantial ship to right.
 
Yet, there is immediate action that can be taken in China that would bring meaningful change. This would include the lawful adherence to treaties and agreements in regards to the freedom of press, such as: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and UNESCO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles.
 
Xinjiang, like Tibet, is not going to go away. It is not going to fix itself, and it is not going to heal its own wounds. China must start the process by allowing a free media, and until it does, Xinjiang will continue to be a place where the truth goes to die.
 
 
Erland is a human rights activist and editor of UyghurBlog.com
 
SHARE WITH:

0 Comments

  1. Henry

    October 5, 2009 at 5:12 am

    1. the reason why she’s a

    1. the reason why she’s a Nobel for peace is that she is the barking dog elected by capitalism to crush communism. she’s only nominated for only after she seemed to be another person daring fight against communist.

    2. do u reallly think that the riot causing over hundred of innocent people dead was because the rioters voluntarily gathered to show their will of right? simply answer me: no matter what she’s been say around, just tell me who’s to blame for the death of hundred?