Thursday
Jul092009
Video: Blood Flood Stopped in China?
Thursday, July 9, 2009 at 6:21
Local communist officials have said that the riots in Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang region, are now under control after thousands of Chinese troops arrived in the city and suppressed all protests. Although ordinary life has resumed both for Han Chinese and Uighurs, people are not feeling safe yet, and many are still carrying sticks or knives.
Li Zhi, the party chief of Urumqi, said, "The small groups of the violent people have already been caught by the police. The situation is now under control." However, Chinese President Hu Jintao cut short a visit to Italy where the G-8 Summit started on Wednesday.
According to the state news agency Xinhua, Meng Jianzhu, state councilor and public security minister, stated that Urumqi residents who led the violence should be punished “with the utmost severity”. Meng added that evidence proved that the riot was masterminded and remotely controlled by overseas separatists. Li Zhi vowed that all those found guilty of murder during the riots would be put to death:" To those who have committed crimes with cruel means, we will execute them."
Li Zhi, the party chief of Urumqi, said, "The small groups of the violent people have already been caught by the police. The situation is now under control." However, Chinese President Hu Jintao cut short a visit to Italy where the G-8 Summit started on Wednesday.
According to the state news agency Xinhua, Meng Jianzhu, state councilor and public security minister, stated that Urumqi residents who led the violence should be punished “with the utmost severity”. Meng added that evidence proved that the riot was masterminded and remotely controlled by overseas separatists. Li Zhi vowed that all those found guilty of murder during the riots would be put to death:" To those who have committed crimes with cruel means, we will execute them."
Reader Comments (8)
I just wonder why with all of the number of the killed and injured in china the western media doesn't pay even one tenth of the attention it gave to iran to this recent turmoil in china. another double standard i see.
m.- As I see it there are a few reasons for this:
1) There was a big build up to what happened in Iran- the world was already interested in the election. This also meant there were lots of journalists in Iran at the time. The situation in Xinjiang came from nothing as far as media coverage is concerned.
2) As far as I can tell the protests in China weren't anywhere near as large as some of those in Iran.
3) I wonder if the Chinese government is more experienced in dealing with this kind of unrest (eg shutting down of communications and protest seemed to happen within hours in Urumqi). It's hard to make headline news out of quiet streets.
4) I hate to say this, but in many ways we've seen it all before in China (eg in Tibet last year, almost daily uprisings and protests in rural areas, even Tiananmen Square 20 years ago). Sadly, it's nothing new in the eyes of the press so the story fades quickly.
Mike,
Ok, less coverage may be justified by the points you mentioned but what about the reaction from the political leaders of the world? Why do they condemn Iran's suppression of its own people repeatedly but express little, if any, concern over the recent situation in China? Were are those human right activists who have asked for investiagtion over turmoil in Iran, Isn't it true that more people were killed in china than in iran? and many more questions...
m.- I read http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/07/journal-chinese-exceptionalism.html" rel="nofollow">this blog post not long after my first comment, which I think it touches on some of the issues we both mentioned:
Sadly I suppose trade with China is an important factor in whether or not to condemn what's happened/happening in Xinjiang.
I should point out that I don't think this is justified.
Regarding the human rights activists, I'd be very surprised if there was no involvement from them. Both http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18301" rel="nofollow">Amnesty and http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/08/china-president-should-ease-tension-acknowledging-grievances" rel="nofollow">HRW have released statements on this in the past few days.
In addition to the importance of trade with China, politics also played a big role, I think. The increasing threat of North Korea and the process stuck in the Middle East are sufficient enough not to put pressure much than China would not bear. Unfortunately, both Chinese and Uighurs were forgotten this time.
By the way, yes Mike, facebook and sms sytems were shut down by the Chinese government during the turmoil.
The mayor of Urumqi told yesterday that the ones found guilty were going to be sent to death. So, let's "wait and see" how many will be executed out of more than a thousand arrested people.
M, Mike, and Ali,
I've got a couple of rambling responses...
Re: "China reacts like a spoiled child when chastised, which makes it not worth the hassle."
That's a very provocative thing to say without providing any substance. You know who else reacts like a "spoiled child?" Everybody! Would you expect the Swiss to say "you're right guys, we're huge jerks, we'll go ahead and change our whole policy now." Of course not! So, why would we expect a great power like China to be any different? They want you and your "human rights" to stay out of their business same as anyone else.
Re: "Chimerica" Trade as stifling of international condemnation
This is a misunderstanding of the China-US trade relationship and, possibly, a misunderstanding of how business works. China needs the United States as a customer just as much as the US needs China as a manufacturing base. Put plainly, it takes two to tango. Militarily, it's the same thing; the US has the power to flatten the factories that supply all of its consumer economy, and China has the ability to wipe out most of the industrialized economies in southeast Asia. Who the hell wants to have that fight?
Let's turn it around - Did China, or anyone else, sever relations with or even condemn the United States for its domestic human rights transgressions like the Hurricane Katrina response (orders to shoot looters) or the last two Republican conventions (unconstitutional political repression)? Nope. Would it have done any good? I doubt it.
This may be too cynical for some tastes, but let's face it - the leaders of the United States and China don't really care that much about human rights. They care deeply about their national security interests however, none of which are remotely threatened by race riots in China's wild west.
Re: "the western media doesn’t pay even one tenth of the attention it gave to iran to this recent turmoil in china. another double standard i see."
(We'll set aside the fact that it took the "western media" 3 days to begin covering #iranelection and move on to some bigger points...)
If the "western media" is defined as the multinational corporations commonly referred to as the "Mainstream Media (MSM)," then I'm not sure what the surprise or disappointment is. They are loyal to their stockholders and boards of directors, not to whatever idea it is we have about journalism or ethical responsibility. They are above all a business that sells advertising bandwidth, and the "news" you think you're seeing is just a flashy trick to hold your attention until the next commercial can be queued up. Furthermore, they assisted the United States in its most brutal endeavors including the aggression against and occupation of Iraq, yet now they're supposed to be the siren call for human rights in China? Not a chance. Put simply, they are not your friends. Stop asking them for stuff.
If, on the other hand, we expand "western media" to include independent media and citizen journalism (commonly called New Media) then our issue with coverage all but disappears. There are innumerable sources dutifully and expertly covering, compiling, and analyzing the situation in China, with Enduring America being one of, if not the, best examples of this.
We have to break ourselves of the expectation that with the flick of the television remote we can be educated and informed of everything we need to know. Sorry, but it's just not that easy. If you want instant enlightenment, try LSD, not CNN. If you want solid, trustworthy data, use the internet.
Support your local citizen journalist. That is all. ;)
A couple of quick responses to Josh:
Firstly, yep, the "spoiled child" thing by Robb probably isn't the best analogy. Since it didn't really serve to help my explanation I probably should've left that part of the quotation out ;) But I think the point about trade (which you also refer to in your 'Chimerica' paragraph) is still important. You're right- neither the US or China is so concerned about human rights that they'd let these issues stand in the way of trade- not by a long way. That important link isn't there in the US-Iran relationship, which makes it that little bit easier to be concerned about human rights.
Secondly, the western MSM (at least here in the UK) did, I think, cover the Iranian election before the protests began. Not as much as it did after the protests, and not as well as some fine online journalists did, but the coverage was there.