Indigenous Eurasian Islamic Populations 287


This blog was defending the human rights of the Uighurs a decade before the neo-conservatives for whom they are now a fashionable cause even knew of their existence. The Uighurs are the closest linguistic and cultural cousins of the Uzbeks, and the populations are contiguous. (China is not contiguous with Uzbekistan but Osh and the eastern Ferghana Valley in Kirghizstan are Uzbek majority areas).

The dynamic spread of Islam northwards and eastwards under the Abbasids, (much less commented that the expansion of its early centuries) and the temporary patronage of Islam by the Mongol Yuan conquerors of China, left very substantial Islamic populations throughout Eurasia, which later became subsumed into non-Muslim polities, including by the expansion of the Chinese and Russian empires. The persecution of the Uighurs is a historic continuation. For decades from the mid eighteenth century they were subjected to one of history’s most sustained and organised campaigns of mass rape of the female population by Chinese occupiers. In a historical perspective, it was the period of comparative tolerance that preceded the current massive attempt at cultural genocide which was the aberration.

I do despair of those on the left who excuse the mass imprisonment of hundreds of thousands and the extrajudicial killing of thousands, because it is China doing it and not a CIA aligned power.

The Uighurs are a people with the right of self-determination. They are not Chinese; their language, culture and religion are completely different. They have a clearly defined territory they have occupied continuously for many centuries. One of the problems with the British is that as an island, we tend to only think of colonies as places you sail to. Colonies you walk to is a concept we have not grasped. That is one of the reasons the left in the UK have such difficulty recognising that China is an Empire and Kashgar is a colony. The other reason is that whole “West Bad, Opponents Good” thing.

It is excellent to recognise that the Western powers have done a huge amount of evil in the world. It is a completely illogical step to assume from this revelation that they have a monopoly on evil. All major governments do evil.

Kashmir is the other pressing issue of a Hindu minority population under pressure. Six years ago I annoyed rather a lot of people when I warned that my personal experience of living among them for some months in India was that it was changing into an an “increasingly oppressive and rabidly conservative Hindu society”. I have viewed the rise of Modi and his Hindu nationalists with great concern, while Western governments have been much more concerned with seeking to benefit from India’s economic boom.

The revocation of the autonomous status of Kashmir and Jammu was a reckless and aggressive act of centralisation that was grossly insensitive to both the population and the history of the region – and I write in full awareness that there have been not only Muslim but also many Sikh victims of intercommunal violence over the years. The incorporation of Kashmir into India was a dreadful British error, semi-apologetically enshrined in its special constitutional position, now destroyed by Modi. It is only the statesmanship of Imran Khan which has averted a hideous war.

The Supreme Court of India’s firmly anti-Muslim ruling in the Ayodhya dispute, and the new immigrant citizenship law excluding Muslims (which has outraged the remnants of liberal India), are evidence of intercommunal policy which is all pushing in an anti-Muslim direction. Modi has been portrayed in the West as a moderniser. This is a fundamental error – he is just a populist in the Trump and Johnson mode who succeeds by stirring up feelings against the “other” in the population. The situation in India is destabilising and I fear more violence against the Muslim population is bound to ensue.

The Muslim populations of Central Asia now live in autonomous republics, none of which has transitioned to effective democracy, all of which have been more or less looted by oligarchs, all have continuing serious human rights problems, and all are increasingly under the economic sway of China (which is not, in itself, a bad thing). China remains something of an enigma. Its economic success continues to be staggering, if severely pollution creating. As I frequently assert, there has never been a power in the world of such economic dominance which has shown such a comparatively tiny appetite for military dominance. If you compare China to the USA in this regard the difference is striking. China has very few military bases outside China, the USA has eight hundred.

But the Central Asian “stans” only contain a minority of the Muslim colonies in Eurasia which Russia acquired in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, simultaneous with the expansion of the British Empire. Many of these colonies, with their overwhelmingly Muslim populations, remain part of the Russian Federation which – make no mistake about it – is still an Empire.

The Tatar are the most widespread of the colonial peoples within Russia. Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Cherkessa, Kabardino Balkaria and Karachai are all areas of Russia where I believe the original Muslim population, absorbed into the Russian Empire by conquest, will in the fulness of time achieve independence, in addition to the better-known Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia. The astonishing brutality of the Russian repression of the perfectly justified Independence movements of the latter countries cannot hold back the tide of decolonisation forever. Crimea, of course, should belong to the Tatars who were deported from their land by Stalin. Not Russia, not Ukraine, but Krim Tatar.

As I said earlier, even though Russia’s colonies were colonised contemporaneously with the British ones, and even though the indigenous populations are Muslim, we in the UK have difficulty perceiving them as colonies because they are contiguous with Russia by land and have been institutionally absorbed into the metropolitan. It is also worth noting that, largely but not entirely as a result of the Soviet period of running its Empire, Russia did a much better job of providing education, health and other public services to its colonies than the British ever did.

It is important to state that these colonised peoples are not Russians but separate peoples in the sense of the UN Charter, with very distinct cultures, histories, languages and religion, and thus they do have the right of self-determination. I do not deny that at present, outside the colonies of Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, there is little evidence of separatist desire. But I expect that to change over historic time.

It is of course a personal irony that I am very often accused of being a Russian agent because I debunk ludicrous anti-Russian scares like the fake Skripal narrative, or the totally unfounded narrative that Russia has any desire to attack Western Europe. These scare stories about Russia are of course essential to the profits of the western military-industrial-security complex, and I debunk them because they are nonsense, and because of their propaganda power in controlling western populations. But while I have a deep-seated love for Russia, its culture and people, I know of no other commentator who calls for the Russian Federation to be divorced of its internalised colonies, an opinion the Kremlin would find outrageous.

The Eurasian Muslim populations were overtaken by history from around the seventeenth century and, Islam having expanded itself in Eurasia by conquest, the Muslims were generally themselves absorbed into larger Empires by conquest. In Central Asia they have in the last thirty years regained a kind of independence, but are still dominated by foreign imposed institutions and the colonial subordinate administrative and political class. In China and India the conditions of Muslims are worsening markedly. In Russia the brutal crushing of Independence attempts in some areas has led to the current position where the colonial status of the Muslim sub-polities within the Russian Federation is shunned by the entire world as a Pandora’s Box.

This is of course not in any sense a comprehensive survey. But sometimes it is useful to step back and try to see current events in a broader perspective, both historically and geographically. I do hope this gives some food for your own thoughts. I do hope that some of those thoughts are more profound than the notion that Russia and China, as diplomatic opponents of the West, are beyond criticism.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


287 thoughts on “Indigenous Eurasian Islamic Populations

1 2 3
  • Richard Colvin

    As far as I’m concerned, until Islamist extremism and Islamic fundamentalism is completely dead and buried, and incapable of reemerging I would probably rather things just stayed as they are right now. At least this would be a consideration I would have before I supported any attempts to redraw national boundaries.

    • Laguerre

      Jihadism and Islamic terrorism in general only exists because of poorly thought out Western interventions in Muslim countries. Provoke the beast, and it’ll bite back. Not that easy to put back in its box either. The US and UK planners who thought they were being so clever in exploiting Jihadism, as in Afghanistan, were simply ignorant of the consequences of what they were doing, and cared less.

      And of course we support the Father of All Jihadis, Saudi Arabia – a state that was founded on Jihadism, and has since tried to pretend it had nothing to do with the Jihadi militias that created the state.

      So you have to suffer the consequences of what your very own government did.

      • pretzelattack

        no greater consequence from supporting the mujahedeen in afthangistan than earlier interventions, like supporting the shah or hussein. the brits have been at it for over a century.

        • Laguerre

          My point was that supporting jihadism is different in kind from supporting secular politicians whom no-one cares about once they’ve left the scene. Because it involves personal religious belief, in the countries being attacked. Israel made a big mistake in getting rid of the Palestinian nationalist politicians, and seeding Hamas in the 1980s

      • Antonym

        The Eurasian Muslim populations were overtaken by history from around the seventeenth century and, Islam having expanded itself in Eurasia by conquest, the Muslims were generally themselves absorbed into larger Empires by conquest

        You want to argue Islamic imperialism with Craig Murray himself?

        • Giyane

          Antonym

          The prophet God ‘s Peace be upon him was not an emperor who had an empire. He was a teacher, general and politician in God’s guidanxe who therefore brought a completely different understanding to all these aspects of life to what was normal now or then in terms of teaching , politics , war or faith..

          In other words if anybody Muslim or non Muslim tries to view Islam in the normal concepts of teaching etc , they have completely missed the point of Islam. Authority in Islam derives from obedience to the ways shown us by our prophet SAW. Not executing teenagers for thinking , like the Saudis, nor raping women who are living under the protection of the state like Erdogan.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    Wow, Belle & Sebastian as the headline act, that’s quite a coupe. Congrats to family Murray.

  • gcarth

    “All major governments do evil.”
    Absolutely agree. The Western governments disguise their evil by calling their illegal wars humanitarian interventions.
    Where power is concentrated in the hands of the unaccountable few it is an affront to democracy in whichever nation wherever it appears.

  • David

    Craig , I’d always considered the Uighur side of the Tian Shan mountains (where the apple was discovered in antiquity) as embroiled in a color revolution[1,2,3] since 2103/2014 or so. (about the same time as the first HK recent troubles)

    Both the externally-funded foreign intervention side from *whoever* and the Chinese state reaction/over-reaction such to such remains a possibility as it does explain the need for massive re-education/re-alignment “schools” [Xinjiang Vocational Education and Training Centers] or internment camps as we might more simply view them.

    Otherwise why should the world’s second biggest economy spontaneously imprison a million citizens? I do think we are getting, as usual, about half-the-story.

    color revolutions do exist [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/topics/Colour_revolutions

    color revolutions do exist [2]
    https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/hk-protests-show-signs-of-colour-revolution-experts

    color revolutions do exist [3] quarter of a million scholarly articles here:-
    https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=color+revolutions&btnG=

    • Stonky

      Otherwise why should the world’s second biggest economy spontaneously imprison a million citizens?

      You might think you’re a real clever clogs with your ‘good point’ there David, but in fact there’s a very simple answer to your question.

      They do it for the same reason Putin tried to assassinate the Skripals with Novichok in Salisbury and Assad carried out these chemical weapons attack in Syria.They do it because they’re eeevil. We know they’re eeevil because we know they do it, and we know they do it because we know they’re eeevil…

      • Kempe

        How about racism; or Islamaphobia? Or have you programmed yourself into believing that only white people can be racist? The Chinese have had centuries of telling themselves that they’re racially and culturally superior and the rest of us are nothing but barbarians.

        China is still an oppressive, one party, communist state and such states have a record of exporting their ideology, by force if necessary.

      • David

        In the information war, your circular answer gets the “Highly Unlikely” award, just as likely is “sock-puppet on duty” supported by no-evidence and wishy-washy rumours.

  • Stonky

    In China… the conditions of Muslims are worsening markedly…

    Couple of points Craig:

    1. The Uyghurs aren’t the only people in Xinjiang.
    If I were a member of one of the non-Moslem ethnic groups of Xinjiang – some of whom have been there a good deal longer than the Moslems – I don’t know that I’d be all that keen on living in the delightful Islamist paradise that the place would become under Moslem rule.

    2. The Uyghurs aren’t the only Moslems in China.
    In Jilin City in Northeast China, which I know well, there is a population of tens of thousands of Moslems, making up a substantial minority among the city’s 1.5 million inhabitants. The biggest mosque in Jilin is much bigger than anything I’ve ever seen in the Middle East.

    I’m not aware of them suffering any discrimination or oppression at all, either from the locals or from the evil Chinese State. If they are they do a remarkably good job of hiding it as they go about their daily work, lives and worship. I know several of them, although I probably know more than I realise, as one of the things they don’t do is insist on ‘othering’ themselves as ostentatiously as possible by means of their garb – they’re largely indistinguishable from the rest of the populace.

    For some reason their condition doesn’t seem to be worsening markedly along with all the other Moslems in China you refer to. I can’t be absolutely certain, but this might be because:

    1. They’re not in thrall to the second most barbaric sect of their stone-age cult (I think there’s one worse than the Wahhabists, although I can’t think who off the top of my head…)
    2. They don’t send teams of people off to provincial railway stations to butcher helpless students and migrant workers…
    3. They haven’t sent a couple of thousand of their fellows off to Syria to slaughter the actual locals they encounter there and be trained by the CIA in the fine arts of terrorist murder, before bringing their new skills back to China…
    4. They’ve managed to avoid becoming another witless tool of America’s demented defence of its brutal hegemony…
    5. Even if they do teach their four year-old daughters and five-year old sons that Allah hates all disbelievers so much that he’s going to burn their skins off, and then keep giving them new skins so he can burn them off too, they do it in a manner that’s reasonably discreet…

    • Laguerre

      ” some of whom have been there a good deal longer than the Moslems ” Frankly b*ll*x, as they say on the Guardian. The Uyghurs have been there since at least the 9th century, and more probably the 7th, as an identifiable people. That’s quite long enough to call out your Islamophobic prejudices, to put it mildly.

      “The Uyghurs aren’t the only Moslems in China.” Of course not, there are the Hui, who are ethnic Chinese, but defined nevertheless as a minority ethnic people. You may not have seen any discrimination against them, but that’s probably because you don’t know what goes on in the country you apparently live. The government has become increasingly nationalistic with regard to the Hui, insisting that they become more chinese than the chinese.

      The end of your post is just unpleasant.

      • Stonky

        The Uyghurs have been there since at least the 9th century, and more probably the 7th, as an identifiable people…

        Is it the impenetrable lead blinkers of faux-progressivism that render you unable to understand that there might have been other people in Xinjiang prior to the 7th century? Or are you genuinely so stupid that you believe it? (I trust you’re aware that the world was created more than five thousand years earlier)

        You may not have seen any discrimination against them [the Hui], but that’s probably because you don’t know what goes on in the country you apparently live…

        I’ve never seen any discrimination against the Hui because I’ve never been anywhere near any of their ethnic minority areas. That’s why I didn’t mention them in my post, which was about Moslems in Jilin. But while you’re busy making your point, which Moslem areas in China are you familiar with?

        The end of your post is just unpleasant…

        Let’s suppose that I was to start gathering together groups of British children from the age of four upwards. And let’s suppose I was to start teaching these children that Santa Claus hates people who don’t believe in him so much that he’s going to burn their skins off, and then he’s going to keep giving them new skins so he can burn them off too. And let’s suppose that somebody points out to you that this is what I am doing.
        Are you going to describe that somebody as “just unpleasant…”

        I’d love you to try to give an honest answer to that question without ending up with your head so far up your backside that you can see your tonsils.

        • pretzelattack

          ok who was there prior to the 7th century, and what do they have to do with this discussion?
          and while we’re at it what makes this stone age cult any worse than any of the other stone age cults like christianity and judaism?

          • Stonky

            ok who was there prior to the 7th century, and what do they have to do with this discussion?Google is your friend! The answer to your questions can be gleaned in a matter of two or three mouseclicks, and perhaps twice as many seconds. Alack, I am not your googleslave…

            …while we’re at it what makes this stone age cult any worse than any of the other stone age cults like christianity and judaism?

            While you’re at it, I think the choo-choo train to whataboutery station is over that way —>

            But should Craig ever publish an article on the relative merits of the Abrahamic religions, I will happily discuss with you such questions as “Do Judaism and Christianity still uphold stone age precepts like My women are my property…”

          • Piotr Berman

            Early Iron Age. In Bronze age there was one recorded attempt to institute monotheism (a pharaoh of Egypt). In retrospect, monotheism is not such a good idea, at least, hard to assign any improvements to it. That said, any fervent combined with faulty logic and disregard for realities is dangerous. Recently, I was quite sadly impressed by this paragraph:

            Until the presidency of Donald Trump, the United States served as both Ukraine’s protector and its ethical conscience. In the years after the Iraq War, amid a global turn toward illiberalism, Ukraine was perhaps the place where American idealism burned brightest. Under the pressure of the State Department, and prodded by a restless and dissatisfied public, the Ukrainian government fitfully traveled in the democratic direction that Washington guided it in.

            Donald Trump has gravely threatened this trajectory. 🙁

            The Betrayal of Volodymyr Zelensky, Franklin Foer, The Atlantic, DECEMBER 3, 2019

            ,,, where American idealism burned brightest. [but why the travel was “fitful”?]

            Deus Vult! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mobtxEJHhY4

        • Laguerre

          “there might have been other people in Xinjiang prior to the 7th century?” Of course there were, but they’re not there today.

  • Mr V

    Craig, may I ask on what basis you include Crimea there? Leaving aside the region’s vast Russian majority, you seem to have forgotten the Tatars are not natives, in fact they were extremely brutal aggressors who genocided local population by murdering half of it, then selling the rest into slavery. Local population that funnily enough was Russian (of Kievan Rus), with admixture of Greeks and Italians (colonizers from Greece and Genoa). So, if anything, by your standards, conquest by Imperial Russia was in fact decolonization and returning to native rule, with Russians showing the Tatars vastly greater mercy than the Tatars shown anyone else. Or does decolonization not apply to Russians?

      • Piotr Berman

        Reminds me “66 and all such” (highly recommended book, still very timely)

        Despite the confusion of dates the Roman Conquest is the first of 103 historical events in the book characterised as a Good Thing, “since the Britons were only natives at that time”.

        It that vein, Scotland is a very good country as a coalesced result of conquests by Anglo-Saxons and Scots (from Ireland).

      • Tom Welsh

        “No-one is aboriginal or indigenous in Crimea”.

        Nor anywhere on Earth. Five million years ago there were no human beings at all.

        That said, if you take any part of the world it should be possible to find out which people first “colonised” it – by moving in and becoming the first human settlers.

        The fact that we can’t always say who that was merely reflects the limits of our knowledge.

    • lysias

      If Crimea belongs by right to the Crimean Tatars, what does say about to whom the southwestern states of the United States by right belong to?

      • Tom Welsh

        Er, lysias, you are not allowed to question the USA’s right to anything – or everything.

        They are exceptional and indispensable.

    • Tom Welsh

      “Leaving aside the region’s vast Russian majority, you seem to have forgotten the Tatars are not natives, in fact they were extremely brutal aggressors who genocided local population by murdering half of it, then selling the rest into slavery”.

      While I agree, Mr V, this line of reasoning has distinct limitations. If you go back far enough, everyone’s ancestors were extremely brutal aggressors.

      Otherwise we would not be here.

  • Brian c

    This learned take on the Uighurs is welcome because it does unfortunately signal a red flag these days when the mob who pretended concern for the Iraqi people, the Libyan people, Syrians, Afghans and so on start effecting compassion for another group in the developing world. Tbf the allegations about Uighur suffering always had a ring of truth because Han Chinese are also pretty supremacist in their worldview.

    It remains healthy though to be somewhat sceptical when bombarded with ‘West good, China bad’ by a political-media class that treats its own war criminals like rock stars.

    • Tom Welsh

      “This learned take on the Uighurs is welcome…”

      To some, for specific reasons.

      “… because it does unfortunately signal a red flag these days when the mob who pretended concern for the Iraqi people, the Libyan people, Syrians, Afghans and so on start effecting compassion for another group in the developing world”.

      You arrogantly (and wrongly) claim that I and others only “pretend concern” for people who have been savagely attacked, murdered, maimed, rendered homeless and plunged into anarchy so that very rich people could become still richer. My concern for Iraqis, Libyan, Syrians, Afghans, Somalis, Yemenis, Yugoslavs. South-East Asians, Koreans, and Latin Americans (pretty much all of them) stems from my human capacity for empathy and my (somewhat vestigial) sense of decency.

      And, by the way, the word you were looking for is “affecting”.

      “Tbf the allegations about Uighur suffering always had a ring of truth because Han Chinese are also pretty supremacist in their worldview”.

      Says who? On what evidence? Your unsupported say-so. If the Chinese are “pretty supremacist”, it might possibly be because they appear to be significantly more intelligent than Europeans (including Americans and other European colonists), they have by far the longest record of uniterrupted civilisation in the world, their philosophy is notably tolerant and unwarlike, and they now have the largest and most prosperous economy in the world. (Without using hideous weapons to invade, slaughter, rape and plunder other nations).

      “It remains healthy though to be somewhat sceptical when bombarded with ‘West good, China bad’ by a political-media class that treats its own war criminals like rock stars”.

      I’m glad we agree about something.

      • Brian c

        The mob I referenced as pretending concern for those peoples are the neocons who inflicted hell on them. I did not claim the Chinese were colonists and imperialists on the European and American model. I simply said Han Chinese are pretty supremacist in their worldview. If you knew any you would have to acknowledge they are startlingly racist too. My impressions from having worked in Shanghai for a spell, but it does seem universally recognised. Have a read of Martin Jacques’ When China Rules the World, for example. A hugely empathetic book by an ardent Sinophile.

  • giyane

    The West’s main intention is to colonise as far towards China as it can and deny China its rightful place in the diplomatic world. Trump’s trade war with China puts China as an unfair opponent, a point of view that deliberately masks USUKIS aggression in supporting Islamist proxies in the region, such as the Saudi and Turkish training of Myanmar Islamists which sparked off the Rohinga repression or genocide , Chenya, and Afghnistan CIA recruitment for jihad against Russia and China. Trump’s lying attracts the loyalty of the Republicans and the utterly fake offence taken by the Democrats who want to impeach him for a much lesser misdemeanor than their Fuck the EU bitchon heat in the area.

    IMHO in all these cases Western aggression by proxy madmen is a perfectly good justification for China and Russia’s self-defence in Grozny Syria, and with the re-education of the Uighurs. The reason I take that view is because other Islamists have stolen , persecuted, spied on ,hated and politcially manoevred against me for not agreeing with them, when they have been encouraged in their extremism and brainwashed to it by Western powers. So I am prejudiced. However, like the Syrians who experienced the savagery of the Islamists at first hand and my own Kurdish family who died resisting Daesh. even though their own government had assisted Daesh against their own citizens, I will never take the side of the Western-backed Islamists who have wrought so much evil in the Muslim world.

    I include in that spectrum of terror, the Muslim Brotherhood and NATO’s Erdogan. Anybody who uses the name of Islam which is the true appointed religion for our times, replacing Judaism and Christianity etc, to serve the interests of Western colonialism is doing something categorically forbidden in the Qur’an.
    The reason for that is that presenting Islam as a violent, inhumane and unlawful force simply gifts all forces of Imperial power from USUKIS to Rusiia or China the full justification to persecute Muslims.
    The root of the problem is the Islamists and the Isalmists have sole responsibility for disobeying the guidance of our prophet and the Qur’an. They should not take the enemies of Islam as allies because it will bring a catastrophe to the Muslims. They know that better than anyone. They are the ones who must back down.

    USUKIS has powerful links to Russia and China, through banking, through trade and through ethnic connections like Russian links to Israel. China and Russia are Westernised countries united by opposition to the simplicity of Islam. Of course China is going to belch out coal smoke and chemicals because it is an offshore factory for Western consumerism. What the world actually needs right now is a screeching U turn from Western ideas in order to survive as a planet. I’m afraid that assisting the superpowers by being military proxies for them has made a wasteland of the oil-rich countries of Somalia, Iraq, Syria and soon Iran.

    • Tom Welsh

      “The West’s main intention is to colonise as far towards China as it can …”

      Actually, the West’s intention remains exactly the same as it has been since before 1800: to dismember, overrun and plunder the whole of Asia just as it did North America – exterminating all inconvenient “natives” as it did the Native Americans.

    • Tom Welsh

      “Great to read your nuanced explanations Craig. All governments do evil – too right!”

      Yeah. Recalling Logic 101, however, it strikes me that some governments do more evil than others.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Hard to determine which is more noxious, the UK reliving the past with the Queen’s Speech or the US minimizing its impeachments.

  • Eric Zuesse

    Though I know of no one with whose political and ideological views I agree more than I do with yours, Craig, I disagree with some of the views that you have expressed in this article. Your idea that any Tatars in Russia who descend from Tatars in Crimea should be forcibly relocated to Crimea strikes me as stupid. “Crimea, of course, should belong to the Tatars who were deported from their land by Stalin. Not Russia, not Ukraine, but Krim Tatar.” What about Russian Tatars who don’t want to, and refuse to, relocate to Crimea? Just consider: https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/aljazeeraworld/2012/05/2012517132318999379.html says “In 1944, Stalin deported 218,000 Crimean Tatars to Central Asia .” The entire 2013 population of Crimea was 1.967 million. You want all descendants of the 218,000 Crimean Tatars of 1944 to be forced to relocate to Crimea and to take control of Crimea’s government and of the existing two million Crimeans? That’s just one example of the low intellectual level of this article from you, and I was shocked to read it. While I agree with some of the allegations in this article, the thought-processes it displays stunned me.

    • Eric Zuesse

      Furthermore: The October 2011 Gallup poll of Crimeans showed 8% self-identifying as “Crimean Tatar,” 28% as “Crimean,” 14% as “Ukrainian,” and 45% as “Russian.” In Gallup’s May 2013 poll, the percentages were 15% as “Crimean Tatar” (pehaps because oif the hea vy pressures then in Ukraine to join the EU and leave association with Asia), 24% as “Crimean,” 15% as “Ukrainian,” and 40% as “Russian.” ( See page 8 of this for both poll-results: https://web.archive.org/web/20190726020220/http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf ). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars says that “The number of Crimean Tatars is estimated by UNPO to be between 240,000 and 300,000[40]. The Crimean Tatars emerged as a nation at the time of the Crimean Khanate (1441–1783). The Crimean Khanate was a Turkic-speaking Muslim state that was among the strongest powers in Eastern Europe until the beginning of the 18th century.[41]”

      • Eric Zuesse

        I therefore ask you, Craig: Would you really want the roughly 10% of Crimeans who consider themselves to be “Tatar” to be ruling over the roughly 40% of Crimeans who consider themselves to be “Russians” and over the roughly 25% who consider themselves simply “Crimeans” and over the roughly 15% who consider themselves to be simply “Ukrainians”?

        • Eric Zuesse

          The more that I think about this article from you, the more you are seeming to me to be a liberal (placing inter-ethnic conflicts above inter-class conflicts) and the less you are seeming to be a progressive (placing inter-class conflicts above inter-ethic conflicts) in determining your recommendations for governmental (political) policies. So, I now doubt whether I agree with your basic view, because I am progressive, not liberal..

    • craig Post author

      That is a peculiar and deliberate mischaracterisation. I have nowhere advocated moving anybody compulsorily. Unlike you, I know quite a lot of deported Tatars personally and many are very keen to return to their ancestral lands.

      It amuses me that people who are very keen that the British should, for example, restore the Chagos islanders to their land, are opposed to restoring the Krim Tatars to theirs. Such people do not actually care about human rights, they have just chosen a different big government to cling to..

      • Stonky

        Unlike you, I know quite a lot of deported Tatars personally and many are very keen to return to their ancestral lands…

        As a point of reference Craig, and no snark intended (I mean that honestly as a financial supporter of your site) how much do you know about China, and which Moslem areas are you familiar with there?

      • Eric Zuesse

        I therefore again ask you, Craig: Would you really want the roughly 10% of Crimeans who consider themselves to be “Tatar” to be ruling over the roughly 40% of Crimeans who consider themselves to be “Russians” and over the roughly 25% who consider themselves simply “Crimeans” and over the roughly 15% who consider themselves to be simply “Ukrainians”? and: What about Russian Tatars who don’t want to, and refuse to, relocate to Crimea? Since Tatars never were anything close to being a majority of residents of Crimea, how do you operationalize your “Crimea, of course, should belong to the Tatars who were deported from their land by Stalin. Not Russia, not Ukraine, but Krim Tatar.”? Wouldn’t that necessitate ALL of the descendants of Stalin’s 1944 relocated-to-Siberia Tatars to be relocated into Crimea? If not, then in what way would your plan NOT demand that the two million Crimeans would be ruled by just a very tiny minority of Crimeans who are Tatars?

      • lysias

        Your words, I see now, are ambiguous. “Crimea should belong to the Tatars who were deported” can just mean that they should be allowed to resettle in Crimea, and apparently that is what you meant. But I took those words to mean — and I think they are more naturally taken to mean — that Tatars should rule over Crimea, leaving the non-Tatars either as a subject population in Crimea or expelled.

      • Tom Welsh

        “It amuses me that people who are very keen that the British should, for example, restore the Chagos islanders to their land, are opposed to restoring the Krim Tatars to theirs. Such people do not actually care about human rights, they have just chosen a different big government to cling to”.

        Unless, of course, the merits of the two cases are entirely different.

        The Chagos Islanders were forcibly uprooted and removed from their homes, and are not allowed to return because that would upset the Americans and their huge death-dealing military base.

        Whereas many of the people who identify themselves as Krim Tatars are already living perfectly happily in Crimea; and any others who are elsewhere are welcome, as far as I know, to settle there. (Unless they are presently in Ukraine, whose regime would prevent them from going there).

        The works of Stalin are over 60 years in the past – two whole generations – and most of the actual people affected are now dead. While that is not to say they were forgivable, there has to be a statute of limitations on such matters.

        Incidentally, of course, the state of Israel is only 70 years old…

        • craig Post author

          Tom,

          The Krim Tatar had their lands and homes stolen from them, were uprooted and deported mostly to Central Asia by Stalin. They were not provided with alternative homes and left in great poverty. Untold numbers died. Many are still in Uzbekistan and surrounding countries where they are generally still in poverty. They do not have Russian passports. How precisely are they to return to Crimea and who is going to give the their homes back if they do?

          • craig Post author

            The deportation of the Krim Tatar was only about ten years before the founding of the state of Israel, Tom. If you believe in justice and restitution for the one, you should for the other. In neither case do I advocate, nor have I ever advocated, forced removal of any population. These schemes need to be properly funded, with real financial compensation for those displaced. That would include both financial payments to those who lost their property reflecting full value plus damages, and financial inducements to later occupiers to give back to those returning (on a voluntary basis).

          • Tom Welsh

            Everything you say is quite true, Craig, and I do not dispute it. I merely pointed out that the Nazis would have treated the Krim Tatars even worse. had they won WW2, I doubt if a single member of that population would be alive today.

            While one can argue interminably and inconclusively about who was responsible for WW2 and, specifically, the German invasion of the USSR, it was a time of unimaginaly terrible events in which tens of millions were killed.

            Stalin presumably moved the Tatars to prevent them collaborating with the Nazis. I have no idea whether they would have done so on a large scale, although there is evidence that many of them actually did. Relocation seems at least slightly better than shooting people and burying them in mass graves, which might have been the alternative.

            At the present day, I appreciate your explanation of the plight of Tatars who do not have Russian passports. That is obviously unjust, but only one of the many huge injustices that followed from the hasty dissolution of the USSR. It’s hardly the fault of the Russian government or people that the Uzbek politicians rushed to declare independence the moment they thought they could do so without being shot.

    • Tom Welsh

      “Crimea, of course, should belong to the Tatars who were deported from their land by Stalin. Not Russia, not Ukraine, but Krim Tatar.”

      Just as the Native Americans should be given back the entire continent of North America – and the Austrlian aborigines the whole of Australia.

      Oh wait…

      • Tom Welsh

        And, of course, all the people who have immigrated to the UK – or whose ancestors did since 1883 – should be forcibly sent back “to where they came from”.

        I think your line of argument is leading you astray, Craig.

  • Paul

    Good food for thought as always Craig.

    Philosphically, I think though that we have a very fundamental difference of view…

    Your view seems to be that everyone should have the right to live in a society defined somehow by a mixture of race, religion or history and that the world would be a better place if this were so.

    I feel quite the reverse – we should push for as much mixing and interbreeding as possible so that within a few generations the whole concept of different types of humans is gone and we are all just one vaguely coffee-coloured people. I have a real problem with the concept of a state based on race or religion (Japan, China (mostly), all the “Islamic republics”, and so on). The sooner the human race gets through this phase the better. The death of religion as a concept cannot come soon enough.

    • Tom Welsh

      “I feel quite the reverse – we should push for as much mixing and interbreeding as possible so that within a few generations the whole concept of different types of humans is gone and we are all just one vaguely coffee-coloured people”.

      I used to think exactly that way when I was younger. (Influenced, among others, by the SF books of Larry Niven who convincingly portrayed exactly such a world centuries in the future).

      Reality often conflicts with our aspirations, and thus here. It turns out that culture (including religion and government) is a lot tougher and more resilient than many liberals think. You can, of course, deracinate people by re-educating them, and by teaching children to think quite differently from their parents and grandparents. If you look around a bit with an open mind, though, I doubt if what you see will support that policy.

      The USA was of course the classic “melting pot”, and after nearly 250 years it is showing distinct signs of blasting itself apart under the stresses of accommodating radically diverse people and their beliefs.

      Perhaps we ought to pay a little more attention to our “roots” – our biological nature and deep-seated instincts – and stop trying to change in one or two generations minds that took millions of years to form.

      • Paul

        Well I’m in my late 50s, so I guess if I was going to grow out of that point of view then I would have done so by now! But I recognise that I am quite unusual amongst people of my age.

        The USA was far from a “melting pot” for the first 200 of those 250 years! Education was racially segregated (in practice) until within my lifetime!

        It seems to me that the internet and all that comes with it has brought about a rapid acceleration of the “melting pot” amongst younger people in many countries (perhaps excluding some of th more extreme theocracies where people are still suppressed). I foresee greater changes in this respect in the next 50 years than in the previous 250.

        For me Trump and Brexit are the last hurrahs of “pre-internet” people who are extremely resistant to change and new experiences. They will be gone soon, and the world can move on productively. Let’s hope that Trump and his like don’t completely fuck up the world for those who will come afterwards.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    ” This is of course not in any sense a comprehensive survey. But sometimes it is useful to step back and try to see current events in a broader perspective, both historically and geographically.”
    E.G. Taino indigenous natives > European visitors/colonialists > African unwilling compelled migrants > indentured East Indian labourers > Chinese migrants > Middle Eastern migrants > and onwards = Caribbean
    P.S. ” This is of course not in any sense a comprehensive survey” ( chuckle Craig).

  • Peter

    “I do despair of those on the left who excuse the mass imprisonment of hundreds of thousands and the extrajudicial killing of thousands, because it is China doing it and not a CIA aligned power.”

    Unfortunately, those claims might be nothing more than the typical USA inspired propaganda against any regime that the USA does not like. Remember 250 000 – that is the number that Saddam Hussein was said to have incarcerated and or subsequently killed, the same number appears in allegations against Assad, the same accusation is leveled against Gaddafi.
    I have over many years following the tempts of the USA empire to control the narrative to distrust any of those numbers.

    There are about 10 million Uighur Muslims living in Xinjang, and according to statistics by Pew about 10% of Muslims worldwide support violent jihad, which means that about 1 million Uighurs could potentially turn to violently support the overthrow of the present government there. In light of this, one can understand the concerns of the Chines central government regarding the safety of the rest of the population.
    Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but most terrorists worldwide adhere to Muslim beliefs.
    The same was true for the second Cechnian war that was fought on both sides with brutality including the Beslan Massacre. Now one of their own – Khadyrov – is in charge and a semblance of normality is achieved.

    As to Crimea – Russian population is the majority at present (Ethnic Groups: Russian (58.3%), Ukrainian (24.3%), Crimean Tatar (12,1%) Belarussian (1.4%), Armenian, Bulgari, German, Greek, Karaim https://unpo.org/members/7871), a result of a historical wrong but that does not justify the rather undemocratic suggestion by you the now minority can overrule the Russian majority population.

      • Peter

        It must be a relief to have such useless terms that are however excellent to stifling any discussion and devalue the arguments of your opponent like: Islamophobia, Anti Semite, Nazi, Russian Troll etc…
        And I take it you still believe all those stories about the Hun piercing Belgian children with bayonets and the Iraq forces throwing out the babies of the incubators – because none of those surely could have been propaganda?

        • Antonym

          That’s one reason Labour & co lost the last GE. Same thing for many continental European parties: going soft on Islam is a must as the Anglo-Arab oil-dollar protection racket is paramount for US Rambo Gambino.

    • Baron

      Good points, Peter.

      Whatever the ethnic mix of Crimea, no Russian leader could have sat idly do nothing after the feb 2014 putsch in Kiev. Crimea, or rather the Sevastopol port facilities are essential for Russia’s security, it’s the only deep water port this side of the Urals that doesn’t freeze, who controls it controls the European chunk of Russia, which is essentially Russia.

      For Ukraine or, as Craig seems to think, the Tatars hoping to get the peninsula back – well, pigs will fly before that happens. Only a full destruction of Russia, with or without Putin, could see the country losing Crimea.

  • Johny Conspiranoid

    Given that America would like to destabilise central Asia with a view to destabilising Russia and China we could wonder what hand they are playing with the Uighurs and how accurate the information we are recieving about them is. Reports of millions in detention, for example, could be false;
    https://thegrayzone.com/2018/08/23/un-did-not-report-china-internment-camps-uighur-muslims/
    Western controlled jihadist proxies are reportedly being shipped into Afghanistan to help mount an invasion mascerading as a rebellion as in Syria. The situations in Chechneya et. al. could be manipulated in a similar way so while Russia and China might be the bad guys, the West may be ready to cook up something worse and call it “humanitarian intervention”.

    • craig Post author

      There are massive internment camps. Not millions, certainly but definitely into six figures. This is not a CIA psyop. That the CIA tries to exploit the situation goes without saying. But that does not justify Chinese treatment of the Uighurs.

      • Tom Welsh

        Where exactly are those camps, Craig? Do they have names – or are they close to settlements that have names?

        You write that, “This is not a CIA psyop”. How on earth can you possibly be sure of that?

  • J

    Craig, open question. Is anyone working behind the scenes to get hold of the election data. Do you have it?

  • Billy Brexit !

    All well and good but what will the West do about it ?
    Nothing of course like they will not intervene in the affairs of Saudi Arabia.
    China produces around 28% of world greenhouse emissions, do you the Chinese are going to change their industrial ways because of some Swedish school girl who has become the poster child for global warming who thinks we should do away with hydro-carbons? Not a chance.

    • pretzelattack

      they seem to recognize the dangers of using fossil fuels, if they do change their ways it will be because of self interest, in surviving as a country.

      • Billy Brexit !

        I think you’re correct and in some places they are cleaning up but away from the cities, human life is cheap and the world’s press are not allowed to report on the damage to health and environment. However they are not interested in World opinion, evidenced as their instruction to the UK to mind their own business in relation to Hong Kong. Ultimately it will only be international trade sanctions that may change their world view and I applaud Trump in thumping the drum. I always thought it was a grave error for the world to trade with a communist country with a very poor human rights record.

        • Tom Welsh

          “…away from the cities, human life is cheap…”

          Unlike in Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco…

          “I always thought it was a grave error for the world to trade with a communist country with a very poor human rights record”.

          Said the person who never had to buy necessities from a pound shop because he didn’t have enough money for anything better.

          Without Chinese products, about a third of Americans would be even more grotesquely poor than they are today. Forty per cent of US citizens could not raise $400 in an emergency – do you think that making them pay far higher prices for Western products will help that situation?

  • pasha

    Craig, one of the few articles of yours with which I disagree substantially.
    Are you party to information that the repression of the Uighurs is actually happening on the scale reported by the NYT and other lying MSM organs? That the unrest reported in the Uighur region, Hong Kong and elsewhere in China is NOT largely supported, if not caused by, CIA meddling? One clue would be if the Uighur ‘rebels’ are as bizarrely confused as to their goals and desires as the Hong Kongese, who apparently want, variously, the British back, the USA in, and ‘democracy’, the actuality of which they have no clue whatsoever about.

    • Paul

      “the Hong Kongese, who apparently want, variously, the British back, the USA in, and ‘democracy’, the actuality of which they have no clue whatsoever about.”

      As, I guess, the only Hongkonger here (albeit an immigrant of 20+ years), although I would love to be proven wrong on that…

      No HKer want “the USA in” in the sense of the USA colonising or running HK. What many do recognise is that in the current situation between the USA and China it may well be possible to use pressure from the USA to cause the Communist Party to back off from their increasing control in a region which is, by international treaty, supposed to have a high degree of autonomy.

      As an aside, very, very few HKers have a problem with China per se. What they have a problem with is the Communist Party’s rule. In the big scheme of things this is really quite recent (70 years) so the hope is that it will fall as all the other authoritarian regimes in China have done previously.

      There are indeed many HKers who yearn for the days of British rule, now realising that things were indeed much better then. This is evidenced by the rapid re-uptake of British National (Overseas) passports and the big push to get the British government to grant these 3 million or so British Nationals the right of abode in the UK (as Portugal did with all Macanese citizens before its handover).

      And we do have a pretty good understanding of democracy: we just had a 70% turnout in the district council elections (the only genuine democratic election we have) and the “pan-democrats” (i.e. loosely, those who are opposed to Communist Party oppression) won control of 17 of the 18 districts (and won the popular vote in the 18th, but not control because of arcane rules imposing “village elders” on the council, like some sort of third world country). It will be interesting to watch how the elected councillors step up to the challenge of making a difference through their office.

      • Billy Brexit !

        I think a similar thing could be said about the relationship between the UK and Europe. It is not Europe Brexiters have a problem with, it is the Eu !

      • PhilW

        “This is evidenced by the rapid re-uptake of British National (Overseas) passports and the big push to get the British government to grant these 3 million or so British Nationals the right of abode in the UK (as Portugal did with all Macanese citizens before its handover).”

        Do HKers really think there is a snowball’s chance in hell of this happening? In the days of ‘hostile environments’ and rabid brexiteers? Is there a disinformation campaign suggesting it is a possibility?

        • Paul

          Well, it was in the LibDem’s manifesto (which isn’t worth much I grant you), and there are quite a few supporters of it in both houses of parliament. Some people of conscience feel that the UK rather immorally left ethnically Chinese HKers in the lurch after the handover. And it took a few years and acts of parliament to get British Citizenship for non-ethnically Chinese HKers (of whom there are many, often descended from Gurkhas and South Asians recruited for the HK police force) who were left almost stateless otherwise.

          As to what chance it has of happening, I feel the future is ever harder to predict – both Brexit and Trump were thought highly unlikely not long before the relevant votes.

  • Antonym

    Craig Murray’s predictions were wrong about these democratic processes:
    the US presidential elections;
    the Indian general elections;
    the UK general elections;
    100% echoing the Anglo-Arab oil dollar deep states line (while acting to be anti-Establishment): always defend Islam whatever violence it causes.

    Better stick to Uzbekistan the land of his In-law family: easy to predict dictatorial regime. Pakistan or Baluchistan are a bridge too far though.

  • Stephen Liss

    The Tatars are now a minority in Crimea, which is majority ethnic Russian. I can’t see that changing.

      • lysias

        According to the 1939 Soviet census, Tatars made up 19.4 percent of the population of Crimea, Russians 49.6, and Ukrainians 13.7. In other words, at the time of the 1944 deportation, Tatars were only a large minority of the population of Crimea.

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        Think that you are overlooking the sacrifices that the Russians, especially their women, made to prevent Hitler from conquering Crimea which slowed the German troops down enough for the defense of Stalingrad to succeed. There wouldn’t be much of the Krim Tartars left if Stalin hadn’t moved them.

        Just another example of your Russophobia and insults.

        • lysias

          The Germans eventually took Sevastopol in the summer of 1942, but only after a siege of several months that greatly slowed the German offensive that year.

  • Alexander

    So little journalism comes out of Crimea that I can’t provide any links, but from what I have everywhere heard, and believe, is that Crimea has greatly benefitted by being re-absorbed by Russia and the population as a whole very much welcome the current situation. No wonder – under the Ukraine there were only competing robber barons – no investment in infrastructure, or anything. Now there is fast track development in many sectors.

    Similarly there are many in the Muslim republics who miss the structured world of the USSR, education, health care etc. Many families in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan etc survive on remittances from family members who work in Russia (and without whom Russia would struggle).

    IMHO what all these regions need is peace, stability and good government, not new borders.

    • Tatyana

      You can visit and see with your own eyes 🙂 we’ve just finished the railway on the Crimean Bridge, it’s now easy and relaxing to travel there. Come, see and add to journalism 🙂

      • Alexander

        Thanks! I have always wanted to visit Crimea but never had the chance – maybe 2020. But I do know the lovely coastline from Abkhazia to Sochi and the mountains behind. I recommend it to anyone.

    • Kempe

      Well you would get a good impression from the Russian media. What independent reports have come out speak of widespread oppression and human rights abuses, especially of free speech and a free press, and the UN have recorded 42 enforced disappearances since 2014.

  • Tatyana

    Mr. Murray, thanks for the new topic to think about.
    And what are your thoughts on the fact that some ex-USSR republics became independent states, while others stayed with Russian Federation, and their decisions seem to have no connection with religion, language or culture? I mean independent muslim Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan together with independent christian Ukraine, Belorussia, Georgia and Armenia.

    • craig Post author

      Tatyana,

      I think you are wrong. All the Soviet socialist Republics became independent states. Those areas remaining within Russia were part of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic.

      • Tatyana

        I see now, thanks for your answer. So, the parts of Russia with different culture and religion stayed because they had no proper status to separate during USSR breakage? Sorry for bad wording, I’m trying to say it was dissolvation of the Union and Chechnya etc. held no status of Recognised Parties of the Union.
        And you think that those nations will inevitably look for separation and sovereignty?
        It’s sad really. I only hope Chechnya and Ingushetia would abandon the idea of Imarat Caucas and will not turn into another radical Islamic state.
        I like the way Armenia and Georgia go today, they seem to be civilized secular states. I much respect how Kazakhstan is doing.
        I don’t like the way Ukraine develops with its nationalism and religion-ization of the population.

  • lysias

    While China and Russia are the principal obstacles to further expansion of the American Empire, a serious weakening of either or both of those states would greatly assist such expansion. Is that what we want?

    • craig Post author

      The idea that the right of self-determination is subordinate to the interests of whichever superpower Lysias happens to approve of is crass.

      • lysias

        The interests that are uppermost in my mind are those of the common people in the United States, which happens to be my country. Ending the American empire would, I believe, have a liberating effect on those common people.

        I believe it would also have a liberating effect on many other people around the world, including in the United Kingdom.

      • Tom Welsh

        “The idea that the right of self-determination is subordinate to the interests of whichever superpower Lysias happens to approve of is crass”.

        So, once again, when is North America going to be handed back to the surviving Native Americans? And please don’t say it can’t happen because of the interests of the superpower based in Washington DC.

  • Peter

    Peter
    December 19, 2019 at 16:14
    For a more nuanced view of the Uighur problem in Xinjiang – from sources that cannot be labelled just simply pro or con:

    https://www.eastwestcenter.org/system/tdf/private/PS006.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=32006The author states that at the time of his report the violence has decreased (2004) but that it flared up again in at around 2009.
    “Taking these reports of Uyghur involvement in political violence in Central Asia at face value, then, gives a picture more of expatriate Uyghur fractiousness than of any serious threat to Chinese interests. It is, however, perhaps not wise to take these reports at face value. Economic factors, organized crime, rivalries over market turf, and the like seem as probable an explanation in manycases as Uyghur political terrorism. Likewise, many of the Central Asian incidents may not have been the work of Uyghurs at all. Both
    Kyrgyz and Kazakh governments have good reason to discover Uyghur perpetrators behind these crimes—both to satisfy the Chinese and to put blame for unrest in their countries on an inconvenient and unpopular minority.”
    One can say that unfortunately based on the politics of “harmonic relationships” that China overreacted to a violence that not necessarily is only political or religious.

    https://ctc.usma.edu/uighur-dissent-and-militancy-in-chinas-xinjiang-province/

    “The nature and scope of the violence in Urumqi in July 2009 and the increasing international interest among Muslims and non-Muslims alike in the Uighur question will impact the future of the region. By all accounts, China will continue to treat the Uighur question as a vital security matter. In doing so, it will go to great lengths to root out all forms of dissent, peaceful or violent, under the guise of counterterrorism. Meanwhile, al-Qa`ida’s foray into the politics of Xinjiang should remain cause for further observation. Yet it is unlikely that the group will set their sights on China in the near future when there are far more pressing issues at hand, such as striking their primary targets: the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests abroad.”

    And then sacrilege of sacrileges – a view from China, surely nothing but pure propaganda as in contrast to the truth telling of unbiased western sources:
    “Thus, while the West is not likely to change its views based on this argument, this subject must be discussed more carefully without emotions and appeal to inflammatory discursive imagery. Nevertheless, it should be apparent that Washington is using this issue opportunistically, and their own position lacks moral credibility.

    The United States has been responsible for the deaths of millions of Muslims around the world through wars, regime changes, bombing missions, and sponsored conflicts. U.S. President himself has decreed a “Muslim ban” that prohibits citizens of numerous countries from even visiting the U.S., including refugees. Yet, China is being claimed as a threat to Islam.”

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-06/Critiquing-western-narratives-on-Xinjiang-Kpi769OKeA/index.html

1 2 3

Comments are closed.