|
|
First and foremost, we want to say that we are glad to be back blogging. After a little sabbatical, we are re-energized and ready to get back on top of all of the things happening in China. Below is a blog post that we started brainstorming some time back, and we feel like it could be critical to the human rights movement in China in 2010.
As you may have read, Google recently stated on their blog that “in mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property.” This attack included the confirmed accessing of two human rights activists’ Gmail accounts in China, as well as the infiltration of Gmail accounts in the United States and Europe.
This post set off a firestorm when they stated that Google will no longer filter its content via China’s policy, and if that is not acceptable, it will bow out of the Chinese internet market completely. This unprecedented news brought great shock (and joy) to us here at the Uyghur Blog, but unfortunately, some people weren’t so impressed. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying unsympathetically, “People are always trying to break into other people’s data. There’s always somebody trying to break into Microsoft.” On the other hand, Jon Talton with the Seattle Times thinks, “A la Ballmer, Google’s stand seems like an irrational business decision. But history doesn’t often show business decisions as the sole compass for a good or free society.” We feel like Google’s announcement is worth taking a closer look at.
First, it should be noted that as of today, the search engine is still censored in China, and there have been no more announcements on when/if Google will be taken off the Internet. Amnesty International published an article on the 14th of January emphasizing the fact that it is easy for Google to talk the talk, but much harder to walk the walk. AI points out that there have been many opportunities for Google to pull out of China, yet it took an infringement on their rights to balk at the injustices happening in China. We feel that this is the first item that should be brought up in this discussion, as words and intent are grand, but action and results are necessary for progression to occur. We do, however, remain hopeful that Google will choose the side of human rights.
The second theme, or question, is, “Who was behind the attack on Google?” What many people don’t know is that it wasn’t just an attack on Google, but actually an attack on over 34 companies, many of which hold sensitive and private information. Gregg Keizer, with Computerworld, quoted Carlos Corrillo, a consultant and Internet security expert, as saying that he thinks the sophisticated code was produced in support with Chinese authorities. When asked if the code quality pointed toward Chinese state support, Carrillo answered, “I would say so.” In addition to this, news portals in China were asked to downplay the coverage of the Google withdraw, many of which ignored it completely, or posted the short piece written by the government run People’s Daily that did not address the cyber-attacks.
Lastly, and most importantly, is whether or not Google can be a catalyst for change. We know that they haven’t done anything yet, besides inspiring conversations like this. We also know that they are considering walking away from a country that has the largest Internet using population as well as the second largest economy in the world. What we don’t know is if a bold action can start a movement that will bring change to China’s restrictive Internet policies. Google currently only holds 30% of China’s search engine market share, and the Wall Street Journal reports that their relationship with China has been rocky since the beginning of their relationship which started in 2006. Google has the opportunity to make a stand against the restriction of information on the web and the security of cyberspace, or they can fold under the pressure, and continue the status quo like Apple and Yahoo!. We understand that the removal of Google from China would be a great burden to the citizens of China, but it takes massive change to create massive change.
Our hope is that this conversation is happening all over the world. The conversation that a government has no right to withhold information from its citizens, while determining for them what is and is not acceptable. Can you imagine what it would be like if you couldn’t investigate a matter for yourself, but have to take the government’s word for it?
After Google theoretically steps away from China (because there is no way China will allow them to run uncensored), we need to push for the passage of H.R. 2271 in the United States. This is the Global Online Freedom Act of 2009, and is intended to, “prevent United States businesses from cooperating with repressive governments in transforming the Internet into a tool of censorship and surveillance, to fulfill the responsibility of the United States Government to promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to restore public confidence in the integrity of United States businesses, and for other purposes.” If these two things happen, and happen in quick succession, Google will be a catalyst for change, a change that could quite possibly transform China as we know it.
We cringe. Within 24 hours, four major media outlets have picked up the story of the Uyghur murder in southern China. What’s going to happen, we ask? Is this going to be another Guangdong type incident that sparks more turmoil throughout Xinjiang? And while we hold our collective breath, we wonder if it’s a good or bad thing that this story has spread, a story that has certainly enraged many. Is this going to spark another July 5th type incident?
The Communist Party is wary of any more violence that may threaten their strength. They have spent the last 60 years maneuvering and jockeying, while the people of China have felt the rope tightening. The government has overlooked and neglected the Muslims, Christians, the Falun Gong and the Buddhist, the Uyghurs, Tibetans, the Mongols and the Bai. The list of the condemned is not selective, and encompasses all in China in one way or another. Does this type of governance, a type that rules by fear and strength, have bonds tight enough to outlast the “flattening” of the Earth? Will it last through an era of iPhones and youtube? What happens when the world is watching? And with the world watching, will officials continue to suckle at the teat of the Communist Party? Can the view from the top be so good that in a generational transition, the newly appointed individuals are willing to look the other way?
We ask these questions as we wait to see what China will do next. We hope that they choose to open the airways of the people and allow the freedom-filled air to fill the lungs of all of those who have had their rights taken from them. The killing of a Uyghur should not make us all cringe with the thought that it might start a protest that will lead to another deadly crackdown by the Chinese government. China should allow its citizens the truth; allow them to get to know one another, both their differences and their similarities, so that they can live in an environment and a country that is accepting and flexible. Until then, we will continue to live with unanswered questions.
___________________________________
While we used this story as an opportunity to question the Chinese leadership, we want to send our condolences to the family of the man killed. Any violence is unacceptable, and the loss of the life burdens us greatly. If you’d like, you can read the story here.
Ilham Tohti is a man who has been to the edge and back. He is a professor, he is an economist and he is a Uyghur. Mr. Tohti teaches at the Central Nationalities University, and he doesn’t shy away from the complex and very sensitive topics that exist in Xinjiang. Mr. Tohti openly criticizes the discriminatory Chinese policies, yet he navigates within the Communist system to work for Uyghur rights, even though his openness has brought him time in prison. He says that Uyghurs should not look to the West for help, but work with and engage the Han in Beijing.
We have attached below an AP article that details the work and thoughts of Mr. Ilham Tohti. Here is a link to the article in the Washington Post.
_____________________________________
By ALEXA OLESEN
The Associated Press
Sunday, January 3, 2010; 10:24 PM
BEIJING — Young men climb a railing at the back for a better view, while a woman in a Muslim head scarf snaps photos on her cell phone.
Every Friday afternoon, students pack a college classroom in Beijing to catch a glimpse of the sharply dressed professor punching the air as he speaks with surprising candor about the travails of his ethnic group, the Uighurs.
“We are not descendants of the dragon but of the wolf,” Ilham Tohti shouts, drawing a clear line between the creation myths of the Han Chinese and the Uighur minority. “We were not created by the Chinese Communist Party. Our history stretches back much longer than 60 years.”
The weekly lectures are a kind of high-wire act for the 40-year-old economist from Xinjiang, a predominantly Muslim region in China’s far west. He has been put under house arrest dozens of times over the past decade for criticizing how China runs his homeland and treats his people.
The fearlessness so admired by his students, a Chinese ethnic mosaic of Hans, Uighurs, Kazakhs and others, is exactly what the government fears.
Yet Tohti is not a separatist or even a political dissident. He’s a Communist Party member and a teacher at a top Chinese university who sees himself as a bridge between Hans and Uighurs. That the government has so far refused to endorse his middle road and work with him shows how difficult it is to resolve differences between the party and its restive Uighurs and Tibetans.
“Tohti stands out for his commitment to working within the established Chinese political order,” said Rian Thum, a Uighur history researcher at Harvard University. “He is an outspoken and articulate critic of many discriminatory Chinese policies, but his writings do not challenge the ideological foundations of the People’s Republic or the legitimacy of Chinese rule in Xinjiang.”
China’s Uighurs, about 10 million, make up less than 1 percent of China’s population and inhabit a region rich in oil and gas deposits that abuts Central Asia. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of militant Islam revived nationalism among some of the region’s mainly Muslim Uighurs for a separate Xinjiang, or what they call East Turkistan.
An influx of Han Chinese settlers embitters Uighurs who say it is costing them jobs and threatens to swamp their culture. The resentment exploded in riots July 5 in Xinjiang’s capital, Urumqi. Han-owned shops were vandalized and torched, and many Han were beaten and even burned to death.
The government has tried dozens of Uighurs and executed nine of them.
Tohti was kept in a Beijing hotel for three weeks of police questioning and released without charge. A Web site he founded in 2006, Uighur Online, had to shut down after authorities said it contributed to inciting the violence. He relaunched it on a U.S. server but it remains blocked in China.
Tohti is an animated speaker, more preacher than teacher. A slideshow running behind him in a continuous loop flashes images of Urumqi in the days after the riots: burned-out cars, police and soldiers patrolling the city, weeping Uighur women begging Chinese security forces for information about their detained relatives, angry Han marching in protest against the violence.
He uses the classroom to build ethnic pride.
He reminds his many Uighur students that they have to speak two radically different languages – Mandarin and the Turkic-based Uighur tongue- and yet are mocked for their accents.
He asks why stewardesses on flights to Xinjiang speak English but not Uighur, and why staff on trains into the region only speak Chinese.
In China, these are topics not usually talked about in public. Hearing them in class is exhilarating for young Uighurs who say discrimination is a daily fact of life. Uighurs are often barred from hotels and Internet cafes because they are assumed to be criminals or terrorists. Many say they are watched with suspicion by Han security guards in shops.
“He represents us,” a Uighur undergraduate says of Tohti. “It would be hard for us to speak out the way he does, to talk about how the Han Chinese should not be so prejudiced against Uighurs, how they should respect us.” He asked not to be identified by name lest it damage his job prospects.
After two rousing hours in the stifling lecture hall at the Central Nationalities University, Tohti pauses and asks the students if he should keep going.
“Keep talking,” they shout back in unison, and he does.
“His students really worship him,” said Huang Zhangjin, a Chinese journalist who befriended Tohti after interviewing him about Uighur street kids. “When he came back to class after being detained for questioning about the July 5 incident, he got a standing ovation.”
Tohti’s comments and the slideshow are provocative, but he treads carefully, never advocating independence or violence and never questioning outright whether China is entitled to rule Xinjiang.
Instead, he urges students to use Chinese law to protect themselves, and to avoid overseas Uighur rights activists.
“I tell them, ‘You need to engage with the Han in Beijing. Stop looking to the West,” Tohti said with a barking laugh during an interview in his Beijing apartment. “The West isn’t going to send troops to fight a war against China for you.’”
Yet officials lump him together with the overseas activists and accuse him of inciting the July riots.
“If they make even someone like Tohti their enemy, how can they ever expect to improve relations with this minority group?” says Wang Lixiong, a Chinese intellectual who petitioned for Tohti’s release when he was detained this summer.
Tohti has never been charged with a crime, but he’s prepared for it. In 2007, he and his wife divorced for her own legal protection. The couple are still together and expecting their second child.
“The police have been after me for so long that I am used to it,” he said. “It doesn’t stop me from doing what I do and as long as I am living I am going to keep at this.”
We were fortunate enough today to conduct an interview with a Uyghur who lives outside of China’s borders. Because we were fairly short on time, the interview is not long, but quite thought provoking. In casual conversation, even with a slight language barrier, we could tell very quickly that this person was very intelligent. This person’s view on the future of China is quite unique, and unfortunately, this person’s stories of injustice are not. We want to thank everyone who is willing and able to tell their story so that the rest of the world might know what is actually happening inside of China’s borders.
The Interviewee will remain anonymous.
_________________________________
Uyghur Blog: Thank you for agreeing to do this interview. Because we are limited in time, let’s go ahead and get started.
UB: Where in Xinjiang were you born, and do you currently still have relatives living there?
Interviewee: I was born in Gulja. My brother, my uncle and other relatives are still living in Xinjiang.
UB: When was the last time you were able to contact them?
I: When I was in the 3rd grade I went to Gulja with my family. Since that time, I have never been back to Xinjiang. We call our relatives via internet and we were able to make contact with them, but last summer due to events happened in Xinjiang, we could not talk with anyone.
I: My last call was 1 month ago.
UB: Were you able to get a hold of anyone when you called a month ago?
I: No, some of my relatives went to prison for my calls, after investigation they let them go.
I: I was in New York 2 years ago, and wanted to buy some gifts for my brother. But I did not buy because other Uyghurs told me that if I sent these gifts from the USA, a strict investigation would occur and my brother would have problems about it, because Chinese police ask why they are receiving packages and they ask if my relatives are agent of the USA.
UB: So, let me go back for one second. Are you saying that because of your recent phone call, your relative was detained for questioning?
I: Not exactly.
I: My brother studied in Turkey and went back to China. When he arrived to China, police took him into a cold room and took his passport. They tortured him for 3 days because they wanted to know why my brother was in a foreign country. They thought that it is not logical and they suspected that my brother is an agent of Turkey. For now, my brother is forbidden to go to other countries, they don’t give back his passport.
UB: Okay. So when he received a call from you, they (the Chinese authorities) thought he was going to be doing something illegal?
I: Yes, exactly.
I: So, I could not call him because after every call they went to ask why my brother receives such number of calling.
UB: Thank you for explaining.
UB: How does this type of authoritative monitoring make you feel? If you went back to your own country, would you be questioned? Do you think you could leave?
I: I am fearful about it. Despite that many Uyghur students are trying to say something and protest against China, I try to keep away. I was born in China and therefore I can get my Chinese citizenship. Many people are trying to get citizenship because they know that China is becoming more powerful and in the future this citizenship will be a profit for them. But I decided to reject my right to get citizenship because I learned that an Uyghur student who also has Turkish citizenship, when he went back to China he acquired his Chinese citizenship. But when he was trying to go back to Turkey, they don’t let him go because they said “it is an under control and you can’t go back to Turkey until we authorize you because you are Chinese citizen now!” They took his passport and now he can’t leave China.
I: When I go there, I will reject my right to get citizenship, therefore they cannot do everything to me.
UB: What do you see in the future for Uyghur relations with China? Will the Uyghurs ever forgive the Chinese and live peacefully? Do you think that there is any way that the Uyghur culture, traditions and religion can be preserved?
I: I am hearing that Chinese government is giving free houses to poor Uyghurs to shut their mouths up and not to protest government. It is very genius.
I: I don’t think so.
I: Uyghurs never forgive Chinese.
UB: Can you ever forgive the Chinese?
I: I never forgive because my other brother killed by Chinese when he was 25 years old.
I: And there has also been many of Uyghurs killed as well as tortures made to my other brother.
UB: If you don’t mind sharing, how was your brother killed?
I: They never told us. He was living in Urumqi and one day they called and said that he died.
I: We never believed because he is 25 years old and my mother and sister went to check out what’s happened.
UB: Were your relatives able to see the body? Was your brother politically active on behalf of the Uyghurs?
I: No, he was very naïve.
UB: So, it could have just been an accident, but they still wouldn’t tell you how?
I: My mother learned that he fell in the toilet and before he fell and broke his head, other people saw 4-5 Chinese guys entered and some discussions may have happened.
I: They may hit him and crushed his head.
UB: We are sorry to hear that story about your brother.
I: We cannot be sure because we can’t have report or something. Police were never interested in what happened exactly.
UB: Time is running short, so we have a few last questions for you.
UB: As a fairly young Uyghur living outside of China, do you have any hope for the Uyghurs that live within Xinjiang? Is there anything that the International community can do to help? Is there any way that the Uyghurs inside of China can live a peaceful and happy life again?
I: I believe strongly that any international community cannot help us, because China is very powerful. I saw Gordon Brown’s desperation in the news that was telling a British citizen had death penalty in China. Gordon Brown tried to save him, he called many times to China government but today China killed the guy. Even England’s Prime Minister can’t save a man, how can an international community have influence to China?
I: I believe that for today, China’s main power is communism, but for future, there will be other parts (I mean other people who would want more democratic government) and they will fight against them. A Chinese civil war will occur. My prediction is in near the next 30 years.
I: There are many Chinese who don’t like the government and system, I believe that they will get the power. If this happens, Uyghurs can live free, because a liberal system will set the whole country free.
I: So my conclusion is only one who can help Uyghurs, could definitely be only China itself.
UB: That is a very thought provoking statement.
UB: Your stories are quite comparable with the accounts that we hear coming out of Xinjiang every day. We want to thank you for taking the time to interview with us, and we wish you the best of luck in everything you do.
I: You are welcome.
I: I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk about my country’s situation.
 - Image of the peaceful stage of the July 5th incident
The border of the Xinjiang province is more than a line that separates political divisions and indicates a geographic region, it actually represents an abyss where emails and phone calls go to die. Since the July 5th riots, the people living within Xinjiang’s borders have been unable to send text messages, make international calls, or access the Internet. The Chinese government claims that the restrictions played an important role in stabilizing the situation.
Today, the Xinhua news agency quoted a regional official as saying, “…according to relevant circumstances, (the government) will gradually restore access to other websites and Internet services, and open up mobile text messages and international long-distance phone services.” The official went on to say that “the overall situation in the region is stable, and the regional party and government decided to gradually restore communication services from December 28 after careful consideration and the central government’s approval.” Currently, the only two websites available (definitely not the Uyghur Blog) in Xinjiang are the primary propaganda mouthpieces for the Chinese government, both the People’s Daily and the Xinhua news agency.
This blackout has disrupted the lives of millions. Not only have merchants been crippled by the inability to access the Internet, but families living outside of the region have been unable to contact their loved ones. With rumors swirling about the detainment and death of innocent Uyghurs, the family members that we have spoken with have been stricken with the unknown. We hope that this is the first step in restoring communication and removing a burden from the hearts of many.
**UPDATE
Liu Xiaobo’s sentence of 11-years in prison is both discouraging, and a bit of a wake up call. We want to share this short analytical piece written by Times Online . The article looks at what this sentence indicates for future Chinese behaviors towards intellectuals and human rights activists, as well as other international powers.
Here is the article link; Analysis: Liu Xiaobo case reveals a more assertive China.
______________________________________________________________
China just sentenced intellectual and human rights activist Liu Xiaobo to 11-years for the serious crime of subverting state power. Mr. Liu also spent 20 months in prison for joining the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Mr. Liu obviously has a track record of “inciting the subversion of state power”.
It must be alarming for China to have professors writing documents like Charter 08, which called for the political liberalization in China, as well as an end to Communist dominance and an urge for human rights reform. Some of China’s top intellectuals were signees of Charter 08.
Gregory May, a member of the U.S. Embassy said today that, “We are deeply concerned by the sentence of 11 years in prison announced today,” and that the “Persecution of individuals for the peaceful expression of political views is inconsistent with internationally recognized norms of human rights.” In addition, Asian researcher Phelim Kine said, “This verdict is also an explicit warning from the government to China’s intellectuals, civil society activists and human rights defenders that the state will severely punish those who the government perceives as a threat to its monopoly on power.”
It is disturbing that someone can get an 11-year prison sentence for writing a book. We wonder what might happen to us here at the Uyghur Blog if we were Chinese living in Mainland China? Mr. Liu, we will continue to fight for your release.
So, it’s Merry Christmas for now and maybe we’ll get an appeal for a Happy New Year.
Here is an article on MSNBC about the story. You can also read a story in the Washington Post here.
China is acting in heinous disregard to any sort of acceptable action in regards to the Uyghur population. As a person not living in China, it is hard to know what is truly going on in Xinjiang, and with the decisions that China is making, I am frightened as to what may eventually come to light.
Radio Free Asia just broke the story that one of the 20 deported Uyghurs legally held a Cambodian Visa. While the Cambodian authorities must have been under intense pressure, it is absolutely mindboggling that China was able to deport a Uyghur who was legally in Cambodia, and had done nothing wrong. When will China be forced to act in accordance with standard international law? What are they trying to hide? What did Aikebaerjiang Tuniyaz do wrong?
I want to thank RFA for doing such intensive work, and bringing to light the atrocious actions of the Chinese government. Attached below is the RFA article in its entirety.
____________________________________________
WASHINGTON—One of 20 ethnic Uyghur asylum-seekers deported from Cambodia to China as illegal migrants entered the country legally and on the advice of U.N. refugee officials, Radio Free Asia (RFA) has learned.
Aikebaerjiang Tuniyaz, 27, left China in March 2009 after serving a one-year jail term in Liudawan prison in Urumqi for allegedly “leaking secret information abroad.”
Tuniyaz, born in Aksu and a graduate of Shanghai Jiaotong University, spoke in 2007 with RFA’s Uyghur service about the shooting of a Uyghur man by Chinese security forces in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).
Tuniyaz entered Thailand in early 2009 and sought asylum through the Bangkok office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), where a staff member suggested he might expedite the process by approaching the UNHCR office in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh, instead, he said in an earlier interview.
He obtained a visa through the Cambodian embassy in Bangkok and entered Cambodia legally, he said. Tuniyaz was in Cambodia legally when deadly ethnic rioting erupted in Urumqi on July 5 this year.
The 20 Uyghur Muslims deported Saturday under intense Chinese pressure had fled to Cambodia in search of asylum after witnessing and documenting violent ethnic riots in the restive western Chinese region of Xinjiang this summer that left nearly 200 dead.
They had warned the UNHCR that they feared long jail terms or even the death penalty if they were sent back to China, according to statements obtained by The Associated Press.
Passport and visa
Tuniyaz had been translating for and staying with the group of 21 Uyghurs in Phnom Penh—two are said to have fled—when the group was detained.
Cambodia said it expelled the Uyghurs because they had illegally entered the country. It has since been sharply criticized by Washington, which said the deportations would harm bilateral ties with the United States, though they may have strengthened relations with Beijing.
On Monday, China signed off on more than U.S. $1.2 billion in aid to Cambodia during a visit there by Vice President Xi Jinping. The assistance, including 14 agreements for grants and loans, ranges from help in building roads to repairing Buddhist temples.
More protests
The European Union said Monday it was “deeply concerned” about Cambodia’s decision to return the group of Uyghurs to China and urged Beijing to respect the rights of the returnees.
On Tuesday, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak slammed the deportations.
“This is a blatant violation of Cambodia’s obligations under the principle of non-refoulement as stipulated in Article 3 of the U.N. Convention Against Torture,” Nowak said in a statement.
Nowak said that he had reports of “severe torture” in Xinjiang following the unrest and that recent executions there violated “the most basic fair trial guarantees.”
“I am calling on the Chinese authorities to treat the 20 persons humanely upon return in accordance with international standards, to grant access to them in case they are detained and to afford them due process guarantees, if charged with criminal offenses”, he added.
U.N. Independent Expert on Minority Issues Gay McDougall called on Beijing to allow U.N. rights envoys to examine ethnic tensions in Xinjiang after the deadly violence there.
Original reporting by Shohret Hoshur for RFA’s Uyghur service. Uyghur service director: Dolkun Kamberi. Written in English by Sarah Jackson-Han.
UPI released an article today that contained quotes from Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu. While the Cambodian deportation case will likely fade in the minds of many, comments like Ms. Jiang’s will only give motivation for those of us who are fighting for Human Rights reform within China.
Here are a few paragraphs from this morning’s UPI article;
China says the deportation of the 20 Uighur asylum seekers from Cambodia is an internal matter which should not concern the outside world.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said the 20 are Chinese citizens and that they were sent back as per immigration law, Xinhua news agency reported.
“Any country facing such circumstances is entitled to make its own decision in accordance with its domestic laws,” Jiang said. “How to handle with these people is the internal affair of China, and the outside world shall not make irresponsible remarks.”
The Uyghur Blog is committed to the fair and just treatment of all of China’s citizens, and unfortunately for Ms. Jiang, we (the outside world) will continue to make “irresponsible remarks” until the people who make decisions in China’s world start listening.
You can read the full UPI article here.
***UPDATE
The 20 Uyghurs have been deported back to China.
Ms. Rebiya Kadeer published an editorial in the WSJ which made the claim, “Phnom Penh’s decision was no doubt influenced by enormous Chinese pressure, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and a reported $1 billion in foreign direct investment. Prime Minister Hun Sen has labeled China as Cambodia’s “most trustworthy friend,” and Cambodian officials were loathe to disappoint Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping on the eve of his Dec. 20 visit to Phnom Penh.” You can read her full article here.
This is a sad time for everyone involved including the International Human Rights community. __________________________________________________________
**Update
Today, Radio Free Asia reported Cambodia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying, “All 20 [Uyghurs] illegally entered Cambodia, because they have no immigration papers, no visa. Therefore they violate Cambodia’s 1994 immigration law. They have to be deported, because they are illegal immigrants.” The commercial flight that was supposed to carry the Uyghurs back to China left without them on boad.
Rebiya Kadeer said today that, “The Cambodian government knows that China is already executing people who took part peacefully in the July 5 demonstrations in Urumchi, and now they are deporting these 22 asylum-seekers from Cambodia,” she went on to say that, “I urgently and strongly call upon every democratic country in the world to stop this ongoing tragedy.”
Read the full RFA report here.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In mid November, with the help of an underground network of Christian missionaries, 22 Uyghurs made it to Cambodia to file for refugee status. These individuals fear for their life as a consequence of baring witness to the atrocities that happened during the July 5thriots in Xinjiang. The New York Timesreports that in addition to the 22 Uyghurs, two members of the group never made it and were detained in Vietnam, and another five disappeared en route.
Of the 22 Uyghurs who did make it, they still face an uphill battle. The process is fairly complicated in filing for refugee status, but we can give you the basic steps. First, the individuals applying must be physically present in whichever country they wish to seek refugee status in. Second, they must apply through the United Nations refugee protection system. Fortunately, the Uyghurs have been given the status of ‘persons of concern’ in Cambodia so they will be protected by the Cambodian government while this process is going on. Third, it must be decided that the asylum seekers meet various requirements on why they felt they had to leave their country (click here to read the US’s requirements). This is where it gets serious, because Chinese officials are now making the statements that, “the international refugee protection system shouldn’t become a shelter where criminals stay to escape legal punishment,” and that the system, “should not be a haven for criminals to avoid sanctions.” The Chinese are making assertions that the Uyghurs who fled to Cambodia are criminals, and should be returned to China. Cambodia, however, cannot legally do this because of the principles of non-refoulement. Non-refoulement prohibits the return of persons to a country where they are at risk of execution, torture or other serious human rights violations.
China has been cited for unfairly punishing asylum seekers that were returned. Sam Zarifi, the Asia-Pacific director of Amnesty International said that, “Since September 2001, Amnesty International has documented cases in which Uyghur asylum seekers who were forcibly returned to China were detained, reportedly tortured and in some cases sentenced to death and executed.” After doing the necessary reviews, Cambodia is legally obligated to grant the 22 Uyghurs refugee status, which is the fourth and final step in the process.
We will be following this story carefully and updating this post as more information becomes available.
Below we have attached a useful excerpt out of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights report on the principles of non-refoulement.
The principle of non-refoulement is a cornerstone of international law. This principle is set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention, article 33 (1) of which states that “No Contracting State shall expel or return (”refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”. The convention does list a number of grounds on which a person may be refouled. According to article 33 (2), the ban on forcibly returning refugees to a country where they may face persecution does not apply to a refugee “whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”. However, this provision is only valid under highly exceptional circumstances: for it to be applicable it must be proved that there is a direct link between the presence of a refugee in the territory of a particular country and a national security threat to that country.
Thank you, Obitod, for this compelling and sobering piece. You can view Obitod’s Blog here.
Why I write about China or a series of unfortunate events.
First they raped the woman who washes feet, but I am not a woman, so I did not say anything; they fished for more registration fees, but I have no car, so I did not say anything; they killed the prisoners Hurry & Scurry, I am not a prisoner, so I did not say anything; they beat the journalists who expose the truth, but I am not a journalist, so I did not say anything; they arrested the people who petition the government, but I did not petition, so I did not say anything; they demolished houses to make way for the Olympics, but I do not own a house, so I did not say anything; They arrested human rights activists, but I’m not willing to sacrifice myself to help someone else, so I did not say anything; they arrested scholars who criticize the government, but I am not a scholar, so I did not say anything; they gang raped a female high school student, and then let her transfer, but I have no daughters, so I did not say anything; they took away the cooking utensils of the man who sells baked potatoes, and beat this poor lame old man, but I do not sell potatoes, so I did not say anything; they caused housing prices to skyrocket, I do not buy houses, so I did not say anything; they suppressed the Uighurs and the Tibetans, I am neither Uighur, not Tibetan, so I said nothing; they arrested those young people who dared go to Tiananmen to bring flowers, I didn’t think of going, nor would I dare go, so I said nothing; they arrested Zhao Lianhai who had the baby who drank contaminated milk and got kidney stones, but my family didn’t have a baby with kidney stones, so I said nothing; they arrested the house church members, but I don’t believe in religion, so I said nothing; they arrested those political folk who talk online, but I’m not interested in politics, so I said nothing; they arrested Huang Qi and Tan Zuoren who spoke out for the victims of the earthquake, but there wasn’t any earthquake here, so I said nothing; They arrested the eldest son of the Liu family, the stutterer, who was just playing around, but I neither play those games, nor am I a stutterer, so I said nothing.
Then for no reason that I can explain they arrested me, and I discovered that there was no one left beside me who would say anything.
(Credit for this post goes to the German Pastor Martin Niemoller, who first wrote, “First they came for …” and to one of my friends in China who posted this series of events, but shall remain anonymous. The translation is my own *Obitod*.)
|
