Shortly after the September 3, 2004, hostage tragedy at a school in North Ossetia, Beslan, Russia, Xinhuanet, the official website of the state-owned Xinhua News Agency of the Chinese government, published a series of articles as “Comments From Readers,” which accused western countries, particularly the United States, of protecting terrorists under the pretext of “human rights” and blamed western countries for the hostage tragedy, where hundreds of school children were killed.
Articles from Chinese Government News Agency Calling on the United States to Stop Applying Double Standards in Anti-Terrorism
[Editor’s Note: Shortly after the September 3, 2004, hostage tragedy at a school in North Ossetia, Beslan, Russia, Xinhuanet, the official website of the state-owned Xinhua News Agency of the Chinese government, published a series of articles as “Comments From Readers,” which accused western countries, particularly the United States, of protecting terrorists under the pretext of “human rights” and blamed western countries for the hostage tragedy, where hundreds of school children were killed. The following are excerpts from these comments.]
“Double Standards in Anti-Terrorism Should Stop Now!”
Source: Xinhuanet, September 7, 2004
“One after another, distorted corpses were carried out from the school. The young lives ‘fell down from the sky.’ They were too young to know what death means. The parents, accompanying the remains of their lost children, were brokenhearted. This was the hostage scene on September 3 at North Ossetia, Beslan, Russia. That scene would move anyone with even a little conscience, the deaths of several hundreds of innocent people. How can those western politicians, who try to protect the terrorists in Chechnya with the excuse of ‘human rights’ and who keep pointing at the Russian actions against that terrorism, still feel at ease and justified? They should find a little responsibility or guilt in themselves, shouldn’t they? They should ask themselves what the consequence is for the applying double standards to terrorism.
“There is an old saying that ‘all crows are black.’ There is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘kind’ or ‘evil’ terrorists. They are all bloodthirsty terrorists. However, some westerners looking through ‘rose-colored glasses’ believe terrorists can be classified as good or bad. In their eyes, those who harm the interests of western countries by via violent means are terrorists. They even regard those countries having different values as terrorist countries and have imposed sanctions. With no evidence on hand, they can initiate a preemptive strike via military operation against a country, just based on their belief that that particular country may be supporting terrorism. All at the cost of the lives of large numbers of innocent people. However, when terrorists attach a country that these western politicians perceive as a ‘potential enemy,’ these politicians show a different face. They waive the flag of ‘protecting human rights’ to point fingers and even support the terrorists clandestinely. The attitudes of some western countries on the Chechnya conflict, once again, show their double standard on anti-terrorism.
“Although the unresolved issue of Chechnya has its own deep reasons, the ambiguous attitude of western countries towards Chechen terrorists is an important factor. Although after the Soviet Union dissolved, Russia has been weakened and its economy keeps falling, Russia still owns a powerful military force. For western countries, Russia remains a potential threat. The issue of Chechnya becomes a powerful weapon for them to contain and weaken Russia.
“When the Chechen conflict first started, western countries led by the United States lashed out criticism that Russia used excessive military force in Chechnya. They pressured Russia in the name of ‘protecting human rights.’ They even met secretly with the head of the illegal Chechen armed forces. As a result, the illegal Chechen militants thought they had strong backing and acted more viciously. NATO and OSCE even threatened to impose sanctions against Russia for causing ‘a disaster for humanitarianism.’ Under pressure, Russia compromised and withdrew the army from Chechnya, making it a free kingdom. However, Russia did not win peace. Chechen terrorists fought back by conducting terrorist attacks in various places in Russia, causing large numbers of deaths and casualties.
“Even so, western countries still have not acknowledged that those who have engaged in bloody carnages are terrorists, and have been unwilling to list them on their blacklists. After the ‘911’ terrorist attack, the United States took military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan and arrested many Chechen persons who had joined Al-Qaeda. Russia provided significant support to the United States in the military action in Afghanistan. When Russia sought extradition of those people, the United States refused to do so on the grounds that they would be treated unfairly if returned to Russia.
“The head of Chechen armed forces, Kadyrov, attended a Chechnya conference in Denmark in 2002. Russian asked to extradite him then, but Denmark released him due to lack of evidence. Later, when Kadyrov visited Britain, Britain rejected Russia’s request for extradition for the same reason. In 2003, Britain even approved Kadyrov’s application for political asylum. Kadyrov is not the only Chechen outlawed warlord currently in hiding in countries outside Russia. Russia has requested several times for the extradition of these people but all have been rejected. Without the support of weapons, manpower and money from western countries, the Chechen terrorists could not have become as out of control as they are today.
“As it has been proved, the double standards on anti-terrorism applied by the western countries have caused deep sufferings to other countries. Today at a time when terrorist attacks have been spreading all over the world, and terrorist groups have worked together even closer, those countries that connive and protect terrorists are just ‘rearing a tiger to court calamity,’ and will eventually ‘eat their own bitter fruits.’”
“An International United Front Is Needed in Anti-Terrorism” [2]
Source: Xinhuanet, September 8, 2004
“Terrorism has been in existence since ancient times. It is rampaging today and has become a major public threat to mankind in the 21st century.
“Currently the criteria to define ‘terrorism’ are somewhat confusing; hence it is necessary to set a clear standard for it. The norm shall be: whether it has harmed innocent people. ‘There is a cause for the injustice just as there is someone responsible for the debt.’ [3] If the party attacked is someone who owes you something, the attack will not be labeled as a terrorist attack. For example, Iraqi suicide bombers attacking US military troops are not the acts of terrorism but acts of war. Without invitation or ‘consent’ by the legitimate Iraqi government and without authorization by the United Nation, American and British troops broke into the home of Iraq and killed countless innocent civilians in Iraq. How could the Iraqis not be allowed to fight back? (It is not unreasonable at all for the Islamic countries to say that what the U.S. has done is state-run terrorism.) However, it is labeled as terrorist acts when workers from other countries sent by their employers to Iraq to make livings were often kidnapped and some even brutally killed. These two examples can be transformed into one another and sometime the line may be blurred. But there is still a line between them. It is just not right to mix them up.
“Even though all the countries around the world condemn terrorism, out of concern for their own interests, their true position is often hidden. When the Russian citizens were massacred on numerous occasions by the Chechen terrorists, western countries expressed their condemnation but what was really on their mind was something different. Due to Chechnya’s strategic position and the desire to weaken Russia, western countries, led by the United States, would naturally expect to see Chechnya separated from Russia and under their control. Therefore, they make frequent contacts with the Chechen rebels and even offered shelter to the leaders of the terrorists’ organization. They have always been sympathetic to the Chechen separatists whenever the Russia government launched military attack on them. But this time, when Russia is mourning over the massacre of over 300 innocent people of North Ossetia, someone even raised the issue of negotiation between the Russian government and the Chechen separatists. President Putin broke into a rage and asked: ‘Why don’t you negotiate with Bin Laden? Why don’t you invite him to Brussels or the White House to have a negotiation, and ask what he wants, give him what he asked for and ask him to leave peacefully?’
“Going back to the time after ‘911,’ the speech given by U.S. President Bush was unequivocal in officially announcing a ‘preemptive strike’ as an anti-terrorism strategy. He aggressively imposed his own will on the world and challenged the world to take either the U.S. side or the terrorists’ side. His firm stance was in sharp contrast to his ambiguous position toward the Russians’ anti-terrorism struggle and was consistent with the typical ‘self-centered’ behavior of the U.S.
“Many events in the world are hard to predict. In the era of contesting for world supremacy between the United States and the Soviet Union, the United States has generously supported Taliban and Arabic volunteers to battle with the Soviets occupants in Afghanistan. At that time, United States interest was in line with the Afghan’s anti-invasion war and people made no arguments against it. But it was exactly during this time that the ‘Al-Qaeda organization’ was born and grew. It was only after the 911 terrorist attack that Americans suddenly discovered that the enemy was in fact their old ally. There was a saying that ‘one lifts up the stone only to drop it on his own feet.’ This phrase is not used much today, but is very appropriate to describe this situation. The Arabic nations and Islamic world have been very fuming at the United States for its Middle East policy that constantly favors Israel. It was understandable that some in the Middle East were happy after the attack because they thought that the United States had brought the attack [4] onto itself and deserved to be punished.
“All of the above shows that there is still no real common understanding on the issues of terrorism, nor common spirits and a united front to fight terrorism. The United States should take more responsibilities by first giving up the “self-centered” behavior and the double standards when dealing with international affairs. Otherwise, the evil fire of the terrorism could not possibly be put out, but could become even more intense.”
Footnotes:
[1] http://news.xinhuanet.com/comments/2004-09/07/content_1952136.htm
[2] http://news.xinhuanet.com/comments/2004-09/08/content_1954199.htm
[3] This is a Chinese saying that means one should be responsible for his action.
[4] The “911” attack.
Reaction of China’s State Media To June 2004 Report of U.S.—China Economic & Security Review Commission
[Editor’s note: US accusation of China transferring nuclear technology to Iran has become a sensitive topic for China. Globe, a state-owned newspaper under the official Xinhua News Agency of the Chinese government, published a special report on June 23, 2004, written jointly by its Special Correspondent in the United States and its reporter in Iran in response to the June 15 2004, release of an investigative report by the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission of the United States Congress. The following are excerpts from the article:[1]]
“U.S. Congressional Report Defames China: the China Threat Theory Resurfaces”
Source: Xinhuanet, June 23, 2004
Following the release of the Country Human Rights Reports [2] and the U.S. Military Reports on China, on June 15 [3] the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission of the United States Congress issued another investigative report on China. The report not only proposes that the U.S. should pressure China on the political, economic and the military fronts, but also suggests that the U.S. should re-assess the ‘One China Policy’ for the Taiwan issue. Most surprisingly, the Report states that China is secretly providing nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for oil. The Chinese government immediately denied this allegation. On the afternoon of June 15, the spokesperson, Zhang Qiyue, for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, responded to questions raised by Chinese and foreign reporters, stating, ‘I have not seen the report you mentioned and I do not understand its purpose. But the content in your question is absolutely untrue.’
“The day after the release of the Investigative report, Roger Robinson, Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission, and Commission member Bartholomew attended a hearing held by the House Armed Services Committee of the U.S. Congress. When our reporter arrived at the hearing room, we discovered that most of the seats for congressmen were vacant. There were only about 10 Congressmen present, including several who yawned. During the hearing, some Congressmen got up and left. Even the Committee Chairman, Duncan Hunter apologized for leaving early to take a long distance call from his son serving in Iraq. Most of the Congressional members appeared to show little interest in the report. Robinson and Bartholomew continued to ‘sell’ their report, bragging about ‘how extensive the report is in analyzing China’s situation.’
“When asked about traveling to China, Robinson told reporters he had visited China before this Commission was formed. But, he has not been able to set foot on Chinese land since he joined the Commission. He explained, ‘I used to visit China with my personal passport, but my visa service passport has been rejected many times by the Chinese consulate. They said I could only visit China as a tourist and not as a government official.’ Robinson was a little upset about the Chinese government position on this. He said, ‘All of the Commission members were not allowed to go to China using their U.S. government official passports. But I believe, as the chairman of the most influential commission in the U.S., I will obtain a working visa to China eventually!’
“The report from the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission contains three parts. Each part usually starts with the ‘key findings’ and later on makes some recommendations to the Congress. In the Economic and Trade Section, the report said that the U.S.-China economic relationship is severely off balance and has negative implications for our long-term economic and national security interests; China’s non-compliance with the World Trade Organization’s policies; China’s manipulation of its currency; poor enforcement of intellectual property rights. The report suggests the United States combat China’s exchange rate practices and start a complete investigation into China’s system of government subsidies for manufacturing, and work with the European Union, Japan and other major trading partners to produce a separate, unified annual report that measures and reports on China’s progress toward compliance. In the Military Section, the report claims that China’s military development has altered the military balance along the Taiwan Strait in Mainland China’s favor. It suggests that the U.S. strongly pressure their European Union counterparts to maintain the arms embargo on China and closely monitor any activities of arms sale between Russian and Israel with China. It prohibits U.S. companies or individuals to contact any foreign companies that are involved in the arms sale business with China. The most intriguing part of this report was ‘Geostrategy and Nuclear Proliferations.’ The key points were: China has been providing nuclear technologies to Iran in exchange of oil; China allowed North Korea to use its air space, railroads and sea ports to transport missiles and munitions; China has purchased huge amounts of sensitive and advanced weapons from Russia and Israel.
“Our reporter paid special attention to the section on ‘China is providing nuclear technologies to Iran in exchange of oil.’ After reading through the whole report, the reporter found that the supporting evidence for that statement were full of loopholes. Its key sources were reports from The Washington Post and The New York Times that made groundless accusations. A report in the February 20, 2003, issue of The Washington Post, reads, ‘About 50 experts that look like Chinese were seen going in and out of the Saghand uranium mine in Iran. Experts from China and North Korea were seen helping Iran to install centrifugation equipment to extract uranium in Isfahan in central Iran.’ Our reporter also found the terms of ‘maybe’ or ‘potential’ used in many places in the report. Even Robinson himself admitted to reporters, ‘There is still a big question mark what is the relationship between China exporting nuclear technology to Iran and Sino-Iran energy cooperation.'”
Footnotes:
[1] http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2004-06/23/content_1542577.htm
[2] US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
[3] 2004.
People’s Daily: The United States Started the War Against Saddam Hussein Without Grounds and It Has Led To More Terrorism
[Editor’s note: On July 14, 2004, the Philippine government ordered withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. Two days later, the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese government published a commentary on U.S. reactions to the withdrawal. On the same day (July 16, 2004), Xinhuanet, the official website of Xinhua News Agency of the Chinese government republished the People’s Daily article with its own introduction. The following contains excerpts from this Xinhuanet republication:[1]]
“On July 14, Boucher, U.S. State Department spokesperson, indicated at the press conference in Washington DC that the Philippine government withdrawal of its troops from Iraq was sending out a wrong signal to terrorists, and that the U.S. government was disappointed. People’s Daily of China published an article on July 16, “Who actually sent out a wrong signal?” stating that what the United States has said amounts to willful interference with the internal affairs of another country, and that it was the United States itself that has kept sending wrong signals on the Iraq issue. We hereby republish the article below:”
“Who Actually Sends Out Wrong Signals?”
Source: Xinhuanet, July 16, 2004
“Iraqi gunmen kidnapped a Filipino truck driver, Cruz, on the 8th of this month and demanded that the Philippine government withdraw its troops from Iran; otherwise the hostage would be beheaded. The Philippine’s 51 troops were scheduled to pull out of Iraq on August 20. However, on July 14, the Philippine government announced that it would start withdrawing its troops from Iraq immediately. Philippine troops in Iraq were reduced to 43 on the same day.
“Iraqi gunmen should be condemned for their ‘beheading’ and threat thereof of foreign hostages. Facing such a sudden hostage crisis, the Philippine government made the decision in its own interest after balancing the pros and cons. This is the internal affair of a country and should be understandable. However, the U.S. government that has the habit of bossing around in international communities could not help but criticize another country for handling its internal affairs again, which is really disappointing.
“On the same occasion, Boucher also stated that it is important to fight back against terrorists bravely—’not to let the terrorist change our behavior.’ It sounds plausible and righteous, but rather weak when you think about it carefully.
“The United States started the Iraq war without any grounds and has caused numerous aftereffects. One of the bitter fruits is that it ‘bravely’ manufactured more terrorists. In such a bloody chaotic situation, the United States realizes that itself alone is not enough to ‘fight against terrorists bravely;’ therefore, it is now trying to ‘let’ other countries ‘fight against terrorists bravely.’
“However, frequent scandals in intelligence finally brought to the world that the United States and Britain have sent out wrong signals from the beginning to the international communities, thus fundamentally weakening the righteousness for which the United States launched the Iraqi war. Spain and other countries pulled out of Iraq, creating a domino effect. Amid a series of bombings by terrorists, even the date for the United States to hand over the power to Iraq’s new government was mystically two days ahead of schedule. It failed to achieve ‘not letting terrorists change our behavior.’
“It is rather ironic to see that the United States accuses other countries of sending out wrong signals on the Iraq issue. For just a little over a year, the United States has exaggerated about mass destruction weapons in Iraq and has emphatically accused the former Iraqi government of having connections with terrorist groups. How many wrong signals has the U.S. ‘carelessly’ sent out?
“On the12th of this month, England, the 21-year-old U.S. female soldier facing 19 charges of abuse of Iraqi prisoners, attended a preliminary hearing. If only Englands are brought to court and no efforts made to investigate the root cause behind it, will this send another wrong signal to the world?”
[1] http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2004-07/16/content_1606490.htm
Articles from Xinhua on the U.S. Release of Chinese Eastern Turkistan Members
[Editor’s note: On November 4, 2004, Xinhuanet, the official Chinese news agency, published two reports written by reporters of its subsidiary, International Herald Leader, a Chinese weekly that claims to have the largest number of overseas reporters among Chinese state-run media [1]. The focus of the two reports is the potential release of Chinese ‘Eastern Turkistan” members by the United States to a third country, instead of China.
Xinhua comments that such release to countries other than China will harm China. The following contains excerpts from the two reports: [2]]
“The United States Harbors Evil Intentions Behind Its Decision Not to Release Chinese ‘Eastern Turkistan’ Members to China.”
Source: Xinhuanet, November 2, 2004
“The U.S. State Department recently confirmed the news that the US is going to release, one after another, most of the ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members from China, but will not return them to China. From the position of the U.S. decision makers, the decision appears reasonable and not surprising. This move by the United States government has more political significance than practicality. Releasing more than a dozen detained Chinese ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members cannot possibly be a real threat to China’s state security. However, it is a clear demonstration of the intent of the Unites State decision makers—the United States will never regard China as its trusting and qualified partner, let alone an ally.
“Geographic Considerations”
“Why does the U.S. decision makers particularly show favor to the “Eastern Turkistan” members, thus giving them a “way out”? The locale of Central Asia, where “Eastern Turkistan” members and their behind-the-scenes boss ‘Al-Qaida’ have been very active, is so important to U.S. strategic interests. In the early 20th century, the famous British geopolitician, MacKinder, regarded Central Asia as the most critical area in the significant ‘heartland’ (from Eastern Europe to Siberia) to dominate Asia and Europe.
“In his book, The Grand Chessboard, the famous contemporary American strategist Brzezinski has repeatedly reminded American policy makers to pay attention to Eurasia as the basic framework of the grand chessboard. What concerns the United States most is that the countries in Eurasia are unified against American hegemony, and that its privileges will end. To gain the advantage by striking first and taking preventive measures, the U.S. must maintain effective controls in politics, the economy and the military, in order to deal with each big country, on an individual basis. Therefore, for more than half a century, since World War II, American policy makers have utilized the strategy of staying in the central region of Eurasia. The determination and will of the U.S. to enter and stay in Central Asia for the long haul should not be underestimated.
“For the past 200 years, among the master ‘chess players’ in Central Asia, Russian has only stressed ‘formality’; the British have cared more about ‘substance’ than ‘formality’; the United States, just like ‘someone who outshines one’s teacher, ‘considers carefully, and pays attention to substance.’ It ‘pretends to be low key, but will lead and control when it wants.’ More than half a century ago, the United States set up military bases in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in order to fully contain China. Half a century later, the United States sent troops to Central Asia, making it more convenient to interfere with China’s internal affairs—i.e., Tibetan and Xinjiang issues. It shows the United States as a great chess player, possessing excellent vision and overview, balancing historic strategic insight and consistency in its foreign policy. However, it is not at a blessing to China.
“Playing The Game Of ‘Arresting And Then Releasing Caocao’ [3]
“‘Anti-terrorism’ is the excuse for the U.S. to enter Central Asia after ‘911,’ but is also the one for China and Russia to approach the United States in foreign relationships. However, one’s meat may be the other’s poison. Under the same great banner, the losses and gains to the countries in different situations yield different consequences. While trying to maintain a solid foothold in Central Asia, the United States exert great efforts to weaken China and Russia along the two borders: the Xinjiang region and the Northern and Southern Caucasus.
“The United States has double standards in anti-terrorism, and treats Chechnya secession forces in Russia and ‘Eastern Turkistan’ in China with different standards. It never passes on any group that can make trouble for China or Russia, which is in line with the behavior mode of the United States in its foreign affairs—harming others to benefit oneself under the pretext of ‘alliance,’ ‘detente’ and ‘cooperation.’ If we look back to the time when China and the United States alleviated tensions and normalized relationship and the United States still would not surrender Taiwan, a piece of its strategic chessboard, we will not be surprised upon seeing a modern version of ‘Arresting and then Releasing Caocao’ by the United States in releasing ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members.
“The Tools To Suppress China
“The U.S. policy towards China has been consistent, on the whole, in its overall scheme. In 1944, the American strategist Spykman, who was an advisor to President Roosevelt, pointed out, ‘We must beware of China becoming a powerful and centralized country in the future. Be on guard for it to extend its control to the west coast of the Pacific (meaning that China should never unify Taiwan)… be on guard for China to be the most powerful country in the region (East Asia).’ Under such a strategic policy of preventing China from reunifying with Taiwan, and if necessary, making its secession, ‘Taiwan Independence’ members and ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members become the two strategic tools for the U.S. to alienate China from the East and West.
“The purpose of U.S. strategy is very obvious, that is, to use its advantage in geopolitics, economics and military power to bring about ‘peace under the control of United States’ with North America as the center. Spykman, even at that time, had already envisioned that, ‘One day, the unified world order, imagined by many, will come true. Eventually, we will set up a world government, eliminating the government of each individual country. Our country is rich and powerful, which can help build the foundation for peace, favorable to our country, after the war ends. It will benefit America most.’
“Obviously, to U.S. decisionmakers, the terrorist actions taken by Chechnya separatist groups or ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members is merely ‘killing their own kind, and others should not get involved. ‘ ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto you’ is an eastern moral maxim and has no effect on this Anglo-Saxon nation that is good at ‘mind game and heroic boldness.’“
“Chinese Embassies in Southern Asia on Alert for U.S. Government’s Release of ‘Eastern Turkistan’ Members”
Source: Xinhuanet, November 4, 2004
Notes from Xinhuanet: “If the U.S. insists on releasing 22 members of the ‘Eastern Turkistan,’ who were trained by Al Qaeda, and sending them to a certain country northwest of China, then it is most likely that they would join the Eastern Turkistan movement based on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It would then pose the biggest potential threat of terrorism to the Chinese embassies in Southern Asia.”
Quotes from International Herald Leader report from Kabul: “On October 28, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) sent out a message that the U.S. will release most of the Chinese members of the ‘Eastern Turkistan,’ who have been detained in the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but have no intention to hand them over to China. According to an official of the U.S. State Department, they are unwilling to hold those people, fearing that such an action would infuriate the Chinese government, thus harming the U.S.-China relationship. In fact, on May 13, 2004, the U.S. State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, confirmed that the United States and China have negotiated how to handle the ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members. China has urged the United States to deport all of them to China for them to be tried in China in accordance with domestic and international laws. But the U.S. government’s attitude toward the matter has been vague. In an interview by Japanese media, the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the U.S. would not deport these people to China, but that it was looking for a third country to offer them shelter.
“Where Will The ‘Eastern Turkistan’ Members Settle?
“On October 28, Boucher said that the U.S. would send these ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members to a third country northwest of China. According to the U.S. State Department, they have contacted several countries (most of them being European countries) and have asked them to consider accepting the ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members for settlement in their country. One country seemed to be interested in accepting them. The U.S. Department of State refused to reveal its name. Boucher emphasized that even if no country is willing to accept this group, the United States would not send them back to China.
“Mr. Sun Dangen, an expert in the War Research Department of the Chinese Academy of Military Science, stated that there is agreement on ‘Eastern Turkistan’ and anti-terrorism between China and the U.S., wherein ‘Eastern Turkistan’ is listed as one of the terrorist forces as defined by the United States. The country chosen by the United States to try Chinese prisoners would not be one that does not have diplomatic relationship with China. This country should be a supporter of the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign, and could be one of the American allies. An expert speculated on condition of anonymity that ‘the country northwest of China’ is most likely to be Turkey, which is one of the core regions for ‘Eastern Turkistan’ activities. According to the British Financial Times, however, Turkey has already expressed that it will not accept the ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members. In addition, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Italy, France, Portugal, Austria, and the United Nations Refugee Agency also denied the U.S. request.
“According to AFP, the 22 members of the ‘Eastern Turkistan’ to be released were captured during the United States attack on Afghanistan. Some of them were trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and participated in the Taliban forces to fight against the United States and its northern allies. Boucher said that the DOD confirmed after investigation that this group of the ‘Eastern Turkistan’ members will not endanger the U.S. and its allies. These detainees indicated that they would not want to go to China. Under pressure from human rights organizations, the United States decided to seek a third country for them.
“Are Chinese Embassies In Southern Asia In Danger?”
“If the United States sends this group of ‘Eastern Turkistan’ activists to the country northwest of China, that would amount to ‘returning tigers to the mountains,’ which would highly strengthen the terrorist forces of the ‘Eastern Turkistan.’ Recently, the Indian Times revealed some disturbing news: the “Eastern Turkistan” members established a training camp on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan for recruiting and training new terrorists. They are targeting Chinese embassies in Southern Asia, and are ready to launch a new terrorist attack. As a result, Chinese Foreign Affairs has ordered the re-enforcement of the security of the five embassies in South Asia.
“With the special conditions of politics, economics, military and strategy in Afghanistan, the Chinese embassy in Afghanistan became a natural potential target of the ‘Eastern Turkistan.’ According to sources from the embassy, the ‘Eastern Turkistan’ never stopped its threats of violence against the embassy ever since its re-opening on February 26, 2002; from time to time the embassy would receive alerts of terrorist attacks from related channels. That is to say that from the day of its re-opening, the Chinese embassy in Afghanistan has been under the shadow of terrorist attacks.”
[1] http://news.xinhuanet.com/herald/2004-02/20/content_1985454.htm
[2] http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/herald/2004-11/04/content_2176536.htm;
http://news.xinhuanet.com/herald/2004-11/04/content_2176728.htm.
[3] Caocao was a king in the period of “The Three Kingdoms” in China. In a failed assassination attempt of a high official in the former kingdom, Caocao was placed on a “most wanted” list, and was arrested by a local official. He persuaded the local official not only to release him, but also to befriend him and become his follower.