Reposting the top comment on the article, was wondering what HN thought about this: ------------------------------------------------------ Godfree Roberts: We created terrorists in Xinjiang, just as we did in Afghanistan. They murdered thousands of Chinese and, now that China has them under control, we make up stories about them. US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman, Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of S…
For those of you who are downvoting this comment, it would be much more productive if you just reply and speak your mind here.
This argument is made in bad faith given the author's statements below. In any case, the Xinjiang had attempted to get out from under China's thumb for centuries. Does that "murdered thousands" suddenly give moral permission to imprison, torture, and sell the organs of millions -- especially millions who's only "crime" in this argument is having the wrong ethnicity. Finally, the red revolution in China killed millions and then famine killed millions more.
> I do believe that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones applies here. I am part American Indian and those people are not here (in the US) in the numbers they once were because of severe genocidal policies on the part of the European majority
Nobody alive today is rounding up American Indians (instead SCOTUS is giving back half of Oklahoma). Can someone's children be held accountable for their parent's actions?
That said, if the Chinese gave the Xinjiang and Tibet the same level of autonomy that the US gives reservations today, I doubt anyone anywhere would be complaining about anything. Once again, this is a bad faith argument.
> US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman, Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981: "The CIA programs in Tibet, which were very effective in destabilizing it, did not succeed in Xinjiang. There were similar efforts made with the Uyghurs during the Cold War that never really got off the ground. In both cases you had religion waved as a banner in support of a desire for independence or autonomy which is, of course, is anathema to any state.
The whole point of a banner is to serve as a rallying point for like-minded people. If some random person on the street starts waving a nazi flag, does that suddenly mean everyone turns into nazis?
A banner can only rally people who think they hold the position that banner represents. The US could wave a religious banner, but unless the people already agreed, it wouldn't build up support (it's not possible to parse whether Xinjiang didn't rally because they didn't want to join or the rallying cry was not heard).
If anything, the fact that the US tried to empower people to fight for their independence from a despotic, racist regime who hated them should at least be neutral if not morally just.