Just a quick update on Ilham Tohti, the Uighur professor who I reported on here
Here is a quick link to an article about Professor Tohti:
There is nothing to update really. The Chinese government still considers him a separatist, and has not revoked its judgement on the economist’s actions. Unfortunate, but not unexpected.
Actually, your blog just confirmed that the separatist sentiment is quite widespread among Uyghurs, further validate Chinese government’s position that Ilham indeed is a separatist.
Like so many nationalists (Chinese or otherwise), I do not think you make sense.
First, I reject the notion that my blog confirms any separatist sentiment. Uighurs in Xinjiang have a large number of grievances with the way they are being governed, but I never heard any saying they wanted to secede, and I do not believe I have suggested that Uighurs wanted to secede anywhere on this blog. Personally, I believe Uighur secession is dangerous and fool-hardy.
Second, even if secessionism was widespread among Uighurs, it would not validate the Chinese government’s position that Ilham Tohti is a separatist. Even if this sentiment was wide-spread, it has nothing to do with whether or not an individual is a secessionist. That should be determined by what that individual has or has not done. Ilham Tohti has been a moderate, pushing for a change in government policy, not an extremist pushing for a new nation.
But the logic that you have followed is part of the problem. China jails moderates because they say Uighurs are becoming separatists. Instead of solving the problem, it merely adds fuel to the fire.
I actually do not agree with the jailing of Ilham because I don’t think separatist sentiment or thoughts should be criminalized.
But he clearly is a separatist. I have been a regular visitor of his Uyghur online forum before his arrest.
His speech and advocacy are unmistakably separatist which I think it’s okay. I do think there should be a distinction between thoughts and action.
So far Chinese state have not proven that he is involved in planning any violence, and that’s why I don’t think he deserves to be jailed.
Btw, you wrote following in your blog:
“As an American, visiting Kashgar left me hearing echoes of Boston in the 1760’s”
You do appear to condone the political violence committed against Han civilians and what you term Uyghur “collaborators”
I have not seen anything Ilham Tohti has written which I would consider that he is a secessionist, though, if you can provide any evidence, I would certainly be willing to reconsider.
As for your comment pointing out that I said, “As an American, visiting Kashgar left me hearing echoes of Boston in the 1760’s,” I reject any claim that my statement condones political violence against Han Chinese civilians (or government officials for that matter). The comment was merely meant to explain to an American audience that the situation is tense and could become a powder keg. Today’s Chinese authorities, like the British of 1760, are growing increasingly paranoid, treating every complaint as a plot and worsening the problem.
This is not meant to approve violence, but to suggest that the best course is to return to a situation where both sides understand each other.
Again, I think this violence is wrong, particularly when directed against innocent civilians.
I agree that the use of the word ‘collaborators’ is sometimes not entirely value-free. At the time I wrote it, I hesitated. I meant it as a neutral term for those who are working with the Chinese government. Just as there were French who collaborated with the Germans, there were also those French who collaborated with MI6. These were also ‘collaborators.’ Collaboration is not necessarily pejorative, it is only a problem if you despise who they are collaborating with. But if you support them, then collaboration is a good thing. Take my use of the term ‘collaborators’ in that way.