Why Is the United States So Anxious about Xinjiang?
Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 27 January 2014
by Dong Yong (link to original)
(China) on 27 January 2014
by Dong Yong (link to original)
Translated from
by Elizabeth Cao.
Edited by Brent Landon.
On Jan. 25, the Xinjiang Public Security Department issued a press release stating that Central Nationalities University Professor Ilham Tohti and “East Turkistan” forces used the Internet to advocate for independence for Xinjiang and wished to overthrow the government. They took on the identities of teachers and engaged in separatist activities and formed a criminal gang in favor of secession, causing serious damage to national security and social stability.
For a long time the United States has served as an international judge, keen to make irresponsible remarks on the internal affairs of other countries while often ignoring situations in its own country. It tries to sell its so-called universal values but often overlooks or condones terrorist or extremist nationalist behavior. In its double standards of protection, some terrorist or extremist nationalist organizations and individuals, often under the guise of the name of safeguarding democracy and freedom, trample over the law and national sovereignty as well as public opinion. Meanwhile, the United States views these groups as fighters for democracy and human rights.
In fact, in today’s Xinjiang, the vast majority of people are experiencing continuous improvements in their lives and enjoy the freedom and convenience that society has brought about. They cherish the great opportunities state and party policies provide and are disgusted with the violence of the separatist groups, even more so toward those who do so under the guise of human rights activities, publicity, propaganda and agitation. The ethnic separatist thinking and terrorist activities that have occurred are abhorrent and are considered the real driving force behind violence in Xinjiang. This interpretation represents the views of the vast majority of people in Xinjiang but also reflects the reality of the current situation in Xinjiang.
But the United States does not seem to be happy with the reality of the situation. Throughout the series of violent terrorist incidents in recent years, the United States government and members of the media have expressed varying degrees of sympathy and understanding and even have a tendency to enact protection measures contrary to justice for these groups, which is in direct contrast to its attitude towards China, which the United States government charged with unfair accusations when China was just trying to protect innocent victims from these violent outbursts. In short, it seems that the United States wants the world to believe that in Xinjiang, the more chaotic the better.
Back to the issue of Ilham. As a university professor, he is taking advantage of his special status and platform his background gives him by distributing remarks that are illegal, endanger national security and echo the ideology of terrorist organizations. If this were in the United States, it would be difficult to believe that this kind of behavior would be tolerated. But because it’s in China, he is seen as a defender of freedom and human rights, correct?
Previous bloody and violent incidents have signaled that human rights and freedom in any country must be established at the center of a country’s ideals. Otherwise, violence and killings are likely to erupt. In China, people such as Ilham are engaged in illegal propaganda and incite violent secessionist ideology through terrorist activities subject to legal restrictions and sanctions. In regard to these actions, they are the internal affairs of China and do not require the meddling of the United States.
For a long time the United States has served as an international judge, keen to make irresponsible remarks on the internal affairs of other countries while often ignoring situations in its own country. It tries to sell its so-called universal values but often overlooks or condones terrorist or extremist nationalist behavior. In its double standards of protection, some terrorist or extremist nationalist organizations and individuals, often under the guise of the name of safeguarding democracy and freedom, trample over the law and national sovereignty as well as public opinion. Meanwhile, the United States views these groups as fighters for democracy and human rights.
In fact, in today’s Xinjiang, the vast majority of people are experiencing continuous improvements in their lives and enjoy the freedom and convenience that society has brought about. They cherish the great opportunities state and party policies provide and are disgusted with the violence of the separatist groups, even more so toward those who do so under the guise of human rights activities, publicity, propaganda and agitation. The ethnic separatist thinking and terrorist activities that have occurred are abhorrent and are considered the real driving force behind violence in Xinjiang. This interpretation represents the views of the vast majority of people in Xinjiang but also reflects the reality of the current situation in Xinjiang.
But the United States does not seem to be happy with the reality of the situation. Throughout the series of violent terrorist incidents in recent years, the United States government and members of the media have expressed varying degrees of sympathy and understanding and even have a tendency to enact protection measures contrary to justice for these groups, which is in direct contrast to its attitude towards China, which the United States government charged with unfair accusations when China was just trying to protect innocent victims from these violent outbursts. In short, it seems that the United States wants the world to believe that in Xinjiang, the more chaotic the better.
Back to the issue of Ilham. As a university professor, he is taking advantage of his special status and platform his background gives him by distributing remarks that are illegal, endanger national security and echo the ideology of terrorist organizations. If this were in the United States, it would be difficult to believe that this kind of behavior would be tolerated. But because it’s in China, he is seen as a defender of freedom and human rights, correct?
Previous bloody and violent incidents have signaled that human rights and freedom in any country must be established at the center of a country’s ideals. Otherwise, violence and killings are likely to erupt. In China, people such as Ilham are engaged in illegal propaganda and incite violent secessionist ideology through terrorist activities subject to legal restrictions and sanctions. In regard to these actions, they are the internal affairs of China and do not require the meddling of the United States.