Muslim children forced to drop 'religious' names in western China

  • Thread starter Thread starter sister herb
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 207
  • Views Views 93K
Salaam

Another update.



The biggest threat to the world is not China, but $31.4 trillion US debt.

US bonds price will crash inevitably and nuke many countries' economies.

Hundreds of millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in pensions will disappear.

Why wouldn't Kissinger ask China to help?

When Xi Jinping started his 1st term, he was advised that the Chinese economy couldn't withstand the US bonds crash.

China's deleveraging campaign was launched in 2013.

It sent the two largest real estate developers to bankruptcy in 2021.

Did Xi make a deadly mistake?

During my first visit in 2018, everyone in China was in a state of euphoria.

Businesses borrowed like crazy to expand. Housing prices were sky-high.

Jack Ma was further expanding his empire by giving young Chinese free loans.

It was a disaster waiting to happen.

By popping its own financial and real estate bubbles, in a controlled manner, the Chinese government defused an economic time bomb.

But Western experts say Xi is driving China into the brink of collapse, right?

I went shopping for a new condo last week.

My agent told me that, yes, local govts had to step in and fund most unfinished building projects.

And things weren't great for the last 3 years.

But she's busy again. Home buyers are taking advantage of lower housing prices.

If a 100-year-old man is going to go on a plane for 14 hours, he'll need a medical team along with him.

Kissenger jeopardized his health to travel to China for what reason?

It's got to be something about his own legacy.

China has spent the past decade insulating itself from the inevitable US bonds crash.

It won't be as enthusiastic about saving the US as in 2008.

The US economy is near its end. The only exit is war.

Kissinger travelled to Beijing to discuss the possibility of war.

Kissinger's trip to Beijing has only one purpose – to discuss how to minimize damage when (not if) a war breaks out between China and the US.

I hate being so doom and gloom. But here is a Chinese phrase – 危机

Whenever danger lurks, opportunity awaits.

F1qdYiRakAAGbCcformatjpgnamesmall-1.jpg

More on the growing military confrontation.

How China’s military is slowly squeezing Taiwan

For all the focus on a potential invasion, some in Taipei fear a Chinese pressure campaign that gradually changes the status quo

On June 24, eight Chinese fighters flew across the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan’s air force scrambled their jets in response, as they do almost every day. But this time, the People’s Liberation Army aircraft flew closer than they have before: right up to what is known as Taiwan’s contiguous zone, a buffer area just 12 nautical miles outside its sovereign airspace, before turning back.

The country’s defence ministry warned that any forceful entry into its sovereign airspace or waters would be met with a “counterattack in self-defence”. Since then, Chinese military aircraft have come as close at least once more, according to a Taiwanese national security official.

The flights are part of a gradually tightening squeeze the PLA is putting on Taiwan, which both Taipei and Washington, its only quasi-ally, have been incapable of stopping or even slowing down.

The Chinese military is waging what defence experts call a grey zone campaign: it is increasing its presence closer to Taiwan one step at a time, yet all the while remaining below the threshold of what could be considered an act of war.

For all the global attention there has been on the prospect of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, the country’s military planners also fear a very different, more gradual threat. They worry that the so-called salami-slicing tactics that Beijing is employing right now are slowly changing the status quo, one small step at a time, and could eventually deprive Taiwan of the ability to defend itself.

Some defence experts therefore believe that the US military’s strategy for deterring China is misdirected because it is focused too much on an outright invasion, rather than these pressure tactics.

“The Department of Defense is so myopically focused on a Taiwan invasion scenario that they are neglecting the current threat,” says Kristen Gunness, an expert on the PLA at the Rand Corporation, a Washington think-tank. “[Invasion] is the thing that we’ve all been planning for for many years, and it’s hard to get off of that. Also it’s the thing they [the US military] know how to do.”

Since September 2020, when Taiwan first started publishing data on Chinese military activity in its air defence identification zone, the number of monthly incursions into Taiwan’s ADIZ by the PLA has ballooned from 69 to 139 this July.

An ADIZ is a self-declared buffer zone in international airspace in which countries monitor flight movements for potential security threats. But as the airspace above the contiguous zone is outside Taiwan’s jurisdiction, the PLA’s behaviour does not violate international law.

Taiwanese strategists are sounding the alarm about this incremental encroachment — and the difficulty in mounting an effective challenge to it.

“They want to intimidate us, test our capabilities and wear down our defences, and over time they will strengthen their control over the Taiwan Strait and change its legal status,” says Lee Jyun-yi, an expert on grey zone conflicts at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, the defence ministry’s think-tank in Taipei. In a report on deterrence published on Friday and edited by Lee, INDSR analysts cast serious doubt on the deterrence strategy of both Taiwan and the US.

Increasing activity

Over the past three years, Beijing has gone from occasional flights into Taiwan’s ADIZ by one or two military reconnaissance or transport aircraft to almost daily incursions by often large groups of planes including bombers, fighters, electronic warfare aircraft, aerial refuelling planes and various kinds of drones. According to Taiwan defence ministry statistics, the PLA has already flown 60 per cent more aircraft into Taiwan’s ADIZ since January 1 than during the same period last year.

In addition, the PLA has expanded its area of operations from mainly the south-western corner of Taiwan’s ADIZ, the crossroads between the shallow Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea and the Bashi Channel which connects both to the open Pacific, to the airspace and waters all around Taiwan.

https3A2F2Fd6c748xw2pzm8cloudfrontnet2Fp-1.jpg


It has been during moments of political crisis that the Chinese military has taken some of its most significant steps forward.

The Taiwan Strait Median line is a case in point. For decades, both militaries largely respected a tacit agreement to stay on their side of the unofficial dividing line drawn by the US military in 1955. In 2019 and 2020, Beijing sent military aircraft across it on a few occasions to express its fury about high-profile visits to Taipei by cabinet officials from the Trump administration.

Then, after a hiatus of almost two years, the PLA flew more than 300 such crossings in August last year during the unprecedented exercises it held around Taiwan to “punish” it for hosting then US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. PLA officers boasted on Chinese state television that they had successfully “obliterated” the median line. Since then, dozens of PLA aircraft have crossed the line each month. After PLA aircraft approached its contiguous zone last month, Taiwanese defence officials worry it will be the next line the Chinese military crosses.

Although the US Navy has continued its regular transits up and down the Taiwan Strait, there has been no direct response to these Chinese moves by the US military.

Some officials draw a parallel to the South China Sea, where Beijing is enforcing its claim over almost the entire area against several neighbours with similar salami-slicing tactics. Over the past decade, China has wrested control of some land features from rival claimants and built military installations step by step. But it has always kept its activities below the threshold of open conflict — a process which some analysts argue could have been prevented if the US had stepped in early on.

“The stakes are much higher here. We need some new thinking, including from our friends and allies, regarding deterrence,” says a Taiwanese national security official.

At the root of Taipei’s feeling that too little is being done to deter China’s grey zone operations is disagreement over where the PLA’s tactics are leading — whether they are a prelude to conflict or a form of pressure.

Some US observers describe Beijing’s two large-scale exercises around Taiwan last August and this April as rehearsals for a blockade of Taiwan, a move that would cross the threshold of war. “If these patterns are repeated twice a year, we could say they are designed to set up a theatre for general conflict,” says Michael Mazarr, an expert on East Asian security at Rand. “If the scale of those two events doesn’t become a precedent for regular things, then we may be back to a steady state, albeit on a higher level of activity.”

Taiwan’s annual Han Kuang live-fire exercises this week will also convey a sense of urgency about a worst-case scenario. Troops will for the first time simulate defending the country’s largest international airport against an air assault, and also practise breaking a Chinese sea blockade.

But Taipei is at least as anxious about the ongoing threat of Beijing’s grey zone campaign as it is about the future risk of an invasion.

“Even if our American friends mainly worry about a Chinese invasion, we feel that we are on a kind of battlefield here and now,” says the Taiwanese national security official.

Lee, the INDSR analyst, says the defence ministry is “not that worried that the grey zone movements are leading up to a full-scale war, but rather sees them as an attempt to slowly change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait”. Taipei’s intelligence chief this month characterised China’s campaign as “intimidation, rather than aggression”.

That assessment is in line with Chinese military strategy writings which prize winning without fighting. For more than a decade, part of the PLA’s task has been what the Chinese leadership calls military operations other than war. Alongside humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and rescuing Chinese citizens abroad during crises, these include “military operations to protect national security and development interests that do not directly lead to war” and “operations to safeguard sovereignty and national interests”, according to the PLA’s dictionary of military terms.

Cui Lei, a research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, a Chinese foreign ministry think-tank, called grey zone tactics a better alternative to a military strike in a 2021 commentary. Beijing would “probe ways to subdue the island without fighting”, he wrote.

Sr Col Zhao Xiaozhuo, director at the secretariat for the Xiangshan Forum, Beijing’s international security conference, dismisses fears of a Chinese attack on Taiwan as “US hype”. “Of course we will not wage war on Taiwan,” he says. “That you would think that means that our strategy is working.”

Security analysts say countering Beijing’s gradual moves is a tricky challenge.

“It is really hard to deter such tactical-level manoeuvres and exercises — when you are on that threshold, you don’t do things that escalate and risk things spiralling into general conflict with China,” says Lyle Morris, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis and a former country director for China in the office of the US Secretary of Defense.

Ukraine as a cautionary tale

Other defence experts say the few tools available to counter military grey zone tactics include threatening punishment if a specific red line is crossed — such as Taipei’s threat to strike back if the PLA crossed into its sovereign airspace.

The Biden administration has pledged to deter grey zone tactics as well as full-blown military aggression. Its National Security Strategy mentions the goal to “prevent competitors from altering the status quo in ways that harm our vital interests while hovering below the threshold of armed conflict”.

But repeated warnings from US military and intelligence officials that China could attack Taiwan in a matter of years show that Washington’s deterrence efforts in the Taiwan Strait are mainly focused on dissuading Beijing from a full-scale invasion.

Since the Ukraine war, the US has boosted efforts to help Taipei build stocks of weapons and munitions key for defending its territory against an invasion force.

Washington is also rapidly stepping up military co-operation with allies in the Indo-Pacific, most importantly Japan, Australia and the Philippines. During exercises in the region, US generals emphasise that any adversary would have to face them and their allies together, and that their drills are designed to deter.

In Taiwan, many are doubtful these efforts will be effective, and point to the Ukraine war as a cautionary tale.

“The fact that war broke out means that US deterrence failed,” says Lee. “So we should not just learn from what is happening on the battlefield now but what happened before Russia attacked, and why deterrence failed.”

Taiwanese analysts believe that the changing military balance between the US and China in the region undermines any deterrent effect of US military power. They point to the fact that Washington is reducing some long-term deployments in the Indo-Pacific, such as certain fighter jets in Japan or bombers in Guam, in favour of rotating forces through the area.

Taiwan also harbours doubt over how far US support for its defence would go in case of war. Washington has traditionally remained ambiguous about whether it would intervene with boots on the ground. Although president Joe Biden has repeatedly said the US would intervene directly, opinion polls show that the Taiwanese public is not convinced.

Sheu Jyh-shyang, one of the INDSR report’s authors, believes the US’s decision to help Ukraine only with weapons and the wavering of some European countries about support for Kyiv do not bode well for Taiwan. “And if we think of that, China will too,” he says.

One senior US defence official says the Pentagon generally believes that its deterrence against China is working, even though it is “very hard” to make such an assessment with confidence.

“We’re showing the PRC that we’re not going to allow them to eclipse us in capabilities. We’re going to keep investing . . . keep making sure that we’re able to sustain some of the warfighting advantages that we have,” says the official. “We can show them that we’re going to do things with allies and partners that would also present some real operational dilemmas for them.”

He adds that the US military can use its posture in the region to “make it much more difficult” for the PLA to execute the military campaigns that it has written about. “Showing all of that to them has the effect of strengthening deterrence, so I think we’re making some good, good advances in those areas,” he concludes.

Escalation fears

Politics, however, can complicate even the best deterrence plans. One big worry for the Taiwanese government is the increasingly authoritarian and opaque nature of Beijing politics, which makes it harder to assess what drives Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s decisions and whether he might become more willing to risk war.

The US defence official says Washington might have to adopt more immediate deterrence measures if China were to gear up for an attack on Taiwan in the near term.

“Where the rubber would really meet the road is if we had a crisis situation where there was a real possibility of an imminent conflict,” he says. “Then you’d have to probably take more specific actions to deter that specific action at a specific time and place.”

Analysts caution that there is precedent of authoritarian leaders ignoring all deterrence signals.

“History suggests that when a political leadership considers starting a war, those kinds of considerations fade into the background. At that point a major power becomes almost undeterrable,” Mazarr says. “Before world war two, Japan had the notion that they would go to war with an industrial powerhouse, and they went ahead even though Roosevelt was rushing reinforcements into the Pacific in the months ahead.”

In China’s case, the ever fiercer competition with the US and their mutual loss of trust have locked the two countries in a spiral where both try to deter the other but which could inadvertently lead to escalation.

“When it comes to China’s core interests, any country’s deterrence against China will be useless,” says Sr Col Cao Yanzhong, a research fellow at the PLA’s Academy of Military Sciences. “The countermeasures the PLA is taking around Taiwan are directed at the US and at the Taiwan Independence forces who are plotting to change the post-world war two status quo that Taiwan was given back to China and is a part of China,” he adds.

Defence experts say that to prevent both sides’ deterrence efforts from destabilising the situation, the US needs to offer its adversary assurances alongside threats. Mazarr argues that would require convincing China that it still has a chance to achieve its goal of unification with Taiwan, something most experts see as difficult but not impossible.

For Taiwan, even such avoidance of open conflict means continuing to live with China’s grey zone campaign. “Assuming you don’t give in, there’s really no way for China to win unless they have boots on the ground,” says Lt Gen Steven Rudder, who retired last year as head of US Marine Corps forces in the Indo-Pacific. “Unless you have something like a Hong Kong scenario, Taiwan remains as it is today. But the pressure from the PLA, that won’t change.”

https://www.ft.com/content/f7922fdb-01bf-4ffd-9c5c-79f15468aa71
 
Salaam

Another update.

The End of a Naval Era

After 80 years, the United States Navy is no longer the dominant naval power on Earth.

Moscow and Beijing conducted large-scale naval drills in the Sea of Japan this week, Russia’s Pacific Fleet announced in a statement to journalists on Sunday. The three-day exercise involved a wide range of activities, including joint firing drills, a simulated naval battle, and air defense training.

The ‘North/Cooperation-2023’ exercise was held over July 20-23, the fleet’s press service said. It involved two Russian anti-submarine war frigates and two Chinese destroyers, as well as a pair of both Russian corvettes and Chinese guard ships alongside a number of support vessels, the statement said.

A total of 30 aircraft from both nations also took part in the drills, the fleet said, adding that this included anti-submarine planes and helicopters, interceptors and other maritime aircraft, the fleet said. The two nations’ naval groups took part in some 20 combat exercises during the drills, it added.

The drills were aimed at “strengthening the naval cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China as well as maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region,” the statement said.

This is significant because it is a signal that the Russians and Chinese are now confident that their combined naval power rivals that of the USA. I expect it will not be too long now before China announces that the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits are off-limits, dares the USN to challenge the ban, and the USN subsequently backs down after mumbling some meaningless phrases about “the freedom of the seas”.

How can we be so certain that China is now a greater sea power than the USA? After all, while the USN has fewer ships than the PLN, it has the advantage of more experience, better quality ships, and more of the aircraft carriers that have been the heart of all naval power since 1941. The reason is twofold. First, as we’ve seen in Ukraine, air power is now vulnerable to air defense systems to a much greater extent than before. Any air strike from a carrier against a first-tier military target is likely to lose more than half the planes it launches.

Second, and more important, China can rapidly replace its naval losses in the event of a war. The USA cannot. In fact, China’s shipbuilding advantage over the USA now exceeds the historical advantage that the USA enjoyed over Japan in WWII by a considerable margin.

A U.S. Navy briefing slide is calling new attention to the worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels and total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by China’s shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines. This underscores longstanding concerns about the U.S. Navy’s ability to challenge Chinese fleets, as well as sustain its forces afloat, in any future high-end conflict.

The most eye-catching component of the slide is a depiction of the relative Chinese and U.S. shipbuilding capacity expressed in terms of gross tonnage. The graphic shows that China’s shipyards have a capacity of around 23,250,000 million tons versus less than 100,000 tons in the United States. That is at least an astonishing 232 times greater than the United States.

Consider the implications of this massive capacity delta in light of the historic difference between US and Japanese manufacturing between 1942 and 1945.

Shipping Tonnage Produced, 1942 to 1945

—————-1942———-1943————1944———-1945

USA—–6,252,300—15,153,000—14,580,000—8,804,900

Japan——511,100—-1,023,000——1,929,200—–626,300

delta——-1223%——–1481%————757%——-1406%

Speaking of aircraft carriers, Japan was only able to build 9 carriers over the course of the war, some of which were never launched, while the US launched 120, many of which were surplus to requirements.

Aircraft produced, 1942 to 1945

———–1942——-1943——-1944——-1945

USA—-47,800—–85,900—–96,300—–46,000

Japan—8,900—–16,700—–28,200—–11,100

delta—–537%——-514%——-342%——-414%

And while it is theoretically possible for the US to signficantly expand its industrial capacity in order to reduce its disadvantage, the political, ideological, and demographic realities render that improbable to the point of total impossibility. The US corpocracy’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equality is actively reducing its current capabilities, which means there is no way it can reasonably be expected to expand them successfully.

I’d always thought that the end of US naval dominance would be the consequence of a Sicilian Expedition that resulted in the unexpected sinking of one or more aircraft carriers. But thanks to Ukraine and the offshoring of US industrial capacity, we appear to have passed that historical point in relative peace and without any fireworks.

https://voxday.net/2023/07/24/the-end-of-a-naval-era/

Related

Mailvox: Borrowed Time

A reader with knowledge of the US shipbuilding industry concurs with my assessment of the USN having lost its naval superiority:

Your analysis about US shipbuilding capacity was spot on. I have an uncle who is an engineer at Newport News shipbuilding (Ingalls). I remember, many years ago, we were having a discussion similar to this topic and it centered on submarines construction.

I didn’t know this but New London, Conn (Electric Boat) can only build sections of the subs. The bow section is built at Newport News. The reason being, Electic Boat lacks the machine necessary to bend the steel in the bulbus shape of the bow section. They sold it off years ago. Newport News is the only shipyard that has that machine. I was surprised because this is an obvious single point of failure.

But then he went to tell me that Newport News is the only shipyard that can install a nuclear reactor. I shook my head in disgust. Right then and there, I knew that we, as a country, were pretenders living on borrowed time.

No amount of glorious history and past success can prevent an outdated power from being surpassed by its successor. Sooner or later, the illusion of invincibility inevitably fades.

UPDATE: Apparently the reader’s take is the optimistic scenario, as someone with direct experience of naval repairs weighs in.

As someone who worked in ship repair on aircraft carriers and submarines at a naval shipyard for [more than 20] years, and on non-nuclear vessels for [additional] years as well, the description given to you of the industry is a vast understatement. The ability for the handful of nuclear capable yards to fix ships has been crippled by a combo of inability to train new workers well, and inability to maintain the skilled workers they do have. “Diversity” pushes women and racial minorities to the top in engineering positions. Some of those may have actually been able to do the jobs they were pushed into if they’d been given the time to build their skills in the way any man would have 10-20 years ago.

In the trades, even a modicum of skill is enough to find yourself fast tracked to a supervisor position before you even finish the apprenticeship program. Admirals appear to think that the lack of capacity to perform can be solved by creating more shipyards. This requires ignoring that the private shipyards can’t hire and maintain skilled labor either, both in nuclear and non-nuclear work. It’s not uncommon to leave a shipyard with many systems in worse shape after “maintenance” than they were in before arriving there. The ridiculous lead times for materials suggests other related industries are in just as bad of shape. As I write this, i’m staring at photos that just came out to my group of [important ship’s equipment destroyed by carelessness].


https://voxday.net/2023/07/26/mailvox-borrowed-time/
 
Last edited:
Salaam

Like to share.

Blurb


A look at the ideology of the modern Chinese state - how Mao's death and the rise of Deng Xiaoping led to a rejection of Marxism-Leninism and the transformation of China into a corporatist, nationalist state.

 
Salaam

Like to share.


Blurb

The plight of the Uyghur Muslims in East Turkestan has been described as a genocide. An entire ethnic, cultural and religious group is being erased. We hear stories of mass detention, the banning of Ramadan, and the closure and demolition of mosques. We also hear the disturbing reports of women being forced into marriage, forced sterilisation and children being removed from families and reassigned to Chinese couples.

But at the same time, people question these accounts. There is a disinformation campaign on social media and diplomatic circles, and many, even some government-paid Islamic scholars, have questioned the extent of the persecution, if not the persecution itself, especially since the Biden administration has adopted it as a cause, as part of their fight against an emerging geopolitical rival. So how do we know what to believe. Today we are joined by Abdureşid Eminhaci , he is the Secretary General of International union of The East Turkestan organisation, one of the largest Uyghur organisations in Turkey.







More comment.

 
Last edited:
Salaam

Another update.



Beijing orders 'Chinese characteristics' for new Xinjiang mosques

New rules in Uyghur region tighten state control on religion

Newly built mosques in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region must adopt "Chinese characteristics" under new regulations from authorities.

The regulations say that no organization or individual may force residents to not believe in a religion.

But new or renovated religious venues, including mosques, are required to "embody Chinese characteristics and style" in terms of architecture, sculptures, paintings and decorations.

The new rules in Xinjiang align with the Chinese leadership's policy to "Sinicize" religion and tighten state control.

They went into force on Thursday, following a public notice by the Xinjiang government last month.

Construction of new religious sites requires approval of the local government. Religious groups, clergy and believers must "practice core socialist values" and "adhere to the goal of the Sinicization of religion," the text states.

The Uyghurs are a Turkic ethnic minority who are predominantly Muslim. There were 11.77 million Uyghurs in China in 2020, according to China's National Bureau of Statistics. They reside mainly in Xinjiang in northwestern China.

In January 2021, the Communist Party published regulations on the "united front work" calling on religious doctrines and precepts to be in line with the development and advancement of modern China.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Beijing-orders-Chinese-characteristics-for-new-Xinjiang-mosques
 
Salaam

From Sky news of all places.

Blurb

Concerns have been raised over the Hui Muslim minority in China, amid claims their religious identity is being restricted.

Sky News has travelled to Hui communities in north central China, investigating reports of the Communist Party's encroachment into religious practice, including a pattern of mosques being modified to look more Chinese.

China says its policies protect religious freedom.




Heres the written report.

https://news.sky.com/story/chinas-tightening-grip-on-islam-revealed-13088966

"The Americans are not known to love the Chinese, They are not known to love Muslims, but somehow they love Chinese Muslims a lot!"
-George Yeo, Former Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yes yes, standard hypocrisy and all that but its still a decent report.

CCP is using state power to engineer a forced assimilation of cultures/faiths/socieites they disapporove of, leaving the original cultures to die by asphyxiation.

They have been doing this for sometime but now its more refined (compared to how it was done during the cultural revolution in the 1960).


One way of looking at it.

 
Last edited:
Salaam

Some history

Calamity In Kashgar [Part I]: The 1931-34 Muslim Revolt And The Fall Of East Turkistan

[Note: This article makes some use of the administrative term “Xinjiang”, not in recognition of China’s claimed sovereignty but as an administrative description for a sprawling region. Uyghur activists often refer to this region as East Turkistan, a quite fair claim that this usage is in no way intended to contest: for purely descriptive purposes, the term Xinjiang is used when referring to China’s administrative structure]

The increasing plight of Muslims and in particular Turkic minorities under China’s rule in its sprawling western Xinjiang province has attracted considerable attention in recent years. The Uyghur Turkic group native to the region for centuries has in particular come under mass surveillance in eerily misnamed “reeducation camps”, supposedly to drain them of religious fanaticism. Because the region was historically linked to Turkic Central Asia rather than China, successive Beijing governments have treated it as a special problem since conquering the region in the late eighteenth century, with a long record of Muslim revolt. This article will look at the first Uyghur-led “state”, the short-lived East Turkistan Republic that was founded in what is now southern Xinjiang by Turkic militants in the 1930s; a follow-up article will examine its successor in the 1940s.

Background

The 1930s were a period of major upheaval in Asia primarily by non-Muslim empires: the sprawling totalitarian behemoth of the Soviet Union to the north wiping out the last vestiges of Muslim resistance in Central Asia, the British Empire in the south staving off both political and armed opposition, and a horrendous civil war in China featuring a murderous Japanese invasion to the east. Since the 1910s, Beijing had exercised little control over Xinjiang, its largest but also sparsest western province, and effectively outsourced its authority to whatever militia was most powerful. The pattern was particularly intensified in the sprawling western region called “Xinjiang”, or new conquest, which had been conquered from local Turkic principalities centuries earlier. This pattern continued after the Guomindang nationalists, led by Chiang Kai-Shek with considerable American support, took control of most of China: embroiled in a vicious war with the communists led by Mao Zedong, they had little control over the governor-general of Xinjiang, a figure who often sought to expand his autonomy by getting help from the Soviets next door.

The eastern Turkic lands were a striking region, with towering mountains, shimmering lakes, and sweeping deserts that drew the fascination of onlookers, with both Turk and Han referring to them by such names as “God’s heavenly mountains” or “God’s heavenly lakes”. Historically Uyghurs and other Turkic groups had long religious, political, and cultural links with Muslim emirates in Central Asia that trumped a faraway Beijing; nineteenth-century Muslim revolts in the region, for example, were supported by Central Asian emirates. But apart from Afghanistan, these emirates had largely been wiped out by the Russian behemoth after the First World War. As elsewhere in the late colonial world, the oppressive atmosphere of the day, with brutal and capricious military leaders ruling in China’s name, helped provoke various types of opposition – including Islamic, nationalist, and even socialist – in the region. The Jadidi trend, which called for a modern reassertion of Islam, was influential here, as it was throughout Turkic Asia. Apart from political trends, there were other galvanizing circumstances: Han officials stationed in the region, often for years at a time, frequently attempted to force unIslamic marriages with local women, one long-running source of friction between Beijing and the Turks of the West.

Ironically, however, one of the most important regional forces was a conglomeration of Muslim military adventurers of ethnic Hui background, the so-called “Ma clique” – so-called because Ma, the Han word for horse, was also used for Muhammad: they shared ethnicity with Beijing and religion with the Turks, but their principal leaders were also unpredictable military adventurers much like non-Muslim militia leaders, and though they opposed anti-Islamic policies by Beijing they were essentially attached to China, favoring reform and autonomy toward its Muslims rather than independence. Dynamics from war to the west, where the Soviets were mopping off Central Asian resistance, and China’s civil war to the east also spilled over into Xinjiang. This mixture of civil war, ambitious militias, and ethnic polarization formed a febrile tinderbox that would explode during the 1930s.

Roots of Revolt


In 1930 Xinjiang’s governor-general Jin Shuren annexed the historically autonomous Turkic khanate at the Kumul oasis. However, he gave its chamberlain Yulbars Khan a token position as a strictly circumscribed governor. Instead, Yulbars and a preacher called Niaz Alam secretly fomented a revolt that burst aflame after a local sheriff’s abuses in the spring of 1931. The revolt, which featured a massacre of ethnic Han, was met with a brutal response by Shuren’s troops, with major massacres against Muslims. Desperate for aid, the Kumul revolt enlisted an ambitious young Hui commander called Buying Zhongying, with a chancy reputation even among military leaders: his uncles in the Ma clique had expelled him from their stronghold in northern China. On the advice of Kemal Kaya, an Ottoman veteran on staff, Zhongying announced his intention for jihad and thundered into the oasis. A panicking Shuren was forced to frogmarch Russian exiles, many of whom lived in Xinjiang and had military experience, to Kumul. After defeating Zhongying in the autumn, they ravaged the oasis’ Muslims in a series of massacres.

Niaz and Yulbars now turned west, where a community of Kirghiz cavalry led by Eid Mirab had been uprooted by Soviet expansion and raided across the border. While in the summer of 1932 Shuren and the Soviets busied themselves with warding the Kirghiz off, Zhongying sent his lieutenant Ma Shiming to the Turkic south of Khotan, where unrest against government oppression was boiling over. In the autumn of 1932 a massive revolt broke out through the province – involving Muslims across ethnic lines from intellectuals and workers to military adventurers. In the northern Altai region, a Kirghiz militia led by Usman Ali defected to help a respected Kazakh leader, Sharif Khan, in revolt. In the southwest, Hui commanders Mas Fuming and Zhancang defected and turned their towns over. While Fuming and Shiming set off for Xinjiang’s capital Urumqi, Zhancang allied with a Uyghur adventurer called Timur Shah who had links to underground activists. Khotan was captured by Jadidi-influenced Bughra brothers Abdullah, Amin, and Nur Ahmedjan, who worked with a respected preacher called Abdulbaqi Sabit. This group had the most well-developed program of an aspirant Muslim Turkic emirate and influenced Uyghur miners’ revolts in the vicinity.


unnamed17-1.jpg


In early 1933 the Muslim revolt picked up steam. Zhancang and Timur captured Aksu, where the latter slaughtered Han, while Mas Fuming and Shiming set off for Xinjiang’s capital Urumqi to attack a flailing Shuren himself. A massive battle ensued at Urumqi in which perhaps as many as six thousand people were killed – two thousand of them the city’s Muslim citizens, whose western quarter was systematically torched by the garrison. The casualties also included Zhongying’s brother Ma Zongxiah, who had been sent to support the assault. It took Soviet reinforcements to hold the Hui attack at bay, but in the process, Shuren was disposed of and replaced with Sheng Shicai, who made a show of exhibiting his communist proclivities to the Soviets. While the Urumqi battle raged, the Muslim coalition in the southwest was closing in. A large Muslim army comprising Timur’s Uyghurs, Zhancang’s Hui, and Usman’s Kirghiz laid siege to Kashgar.


Mexican Standoff at Kashgar

But by now ethnic and political mistrust was creeping into the Muslim coalition. This owed in part to disparate aims – by and large, the Hui wanted Muslim rights but no more, but the Turks and especially Uyghurs called for independence – and in part to indiscipline. For example, when the Bughra brothers captured Yarkend they offered its garrison safe passage to Kashgar – where, instead, Usman’s disorderly Kirghiz militia slaughtered them. Suspicious of Turkic intentions, Zhancang secretly cut a deal with the regime’s Hui commander of Kashgar, Ma Shaowu. The Hui commanders suspected that the Turkic “rebels” and Han “regime” were secretly collaborating to cut them out. A major factor in this impression was the conduct of Niaz Alam, the Uyghur titular leader of the revolt, who unexpectedly attacked Ma Shiming in the north. In addition, Uyghur commander Ismail Baig expelled Zhancang’s Hui troops from Aksu.

But though Zhancang may have interpreted this as Turkic treachery, there was no grand conspiracy. Niaz Alam was secretly negotiating with Sheng Shicai and the Soviets, but Hui commander Buying Zhongying himself – theoretically the leader of the Hui forces in Xinjiang – was himself secretly negotiating with both the Guomindang and the Soviets, hoping to trump Shicai. It was, in short, a situation where nobody trusted the other, and the atmosphere was tautest at Kashgar. There was similarly major mistrust among the Turks: Uyghur commander Timur mistrusted Niaz, and he did not fully trust the Bughras, dispatching his lieutenant Hafiz Baig to “help” them capture Yarkend, where instead Hafiz competed with them for control of the attacking force. Timur invited Abdullah Bughra and Abdulbaqi Sabit to Kashgar, and when they arrived he imprisoned them. Kirghiz commander Usman was meanwhile urging him to attack Zhancang; fatefully, Timur instead turned on Usman’s unruly militia, and Zhancang snatched the opportunity to kill him. Taking advantage of the kerfuffle, Abdullah and Sabit escaped to take control of Yarkend; in their wake, Zhancang had affixed Timur’s decapitated head to a pike in front of Kashgar’s main mosque.

In November 1933 the Bughras and Sabit returned to Khotan, where amid much fanfare they announced an independent East Turkistan Republic, with a strong dosage of both Islamic and Turkic themes as well as the distinctive pale-blue flag that Uyghurs retain today. Sabit was officially its prime minister, but the East Turkistanis made a major mistake in choosing Niaz Alam, who at the time was still secretly negotiating his share of power with the Soviets and Beijing, as its emir, but who was advocated by a mysterious Arabian arrival from Syria, a certain Sayed Taufiq.

unnamed42-1.png


Defeated in the north by Buying Zhongying, the Hui commander, Niaz arrived to help the East Turkistan army besiege Ma Zhancang at Kashgar. The war now took a strange three-way turn: the Huis who were fighting the secessionist Uyghurs were meanwhile being bombarded themselves by the Soviets. Yet the Hui troops managed to prevail, and set about slaughtering thousands of Turks in Kashgar. A war that had begun with the Hui army pledging jihad in support of oppressed Muslims ended with them slaughtering Muslims in Kashgar.

The Muslim coalition had shattered. Niaz’s treachery now came out into the open, and he abandoned the East Turkistan movement in return for a promotion to Shicai’s deputy. On the other side Niaz’s saviour-turned-rival Zhongying brutally stamped his control of the south: Sabit was executed along with his lieutenant Sharif Qari, while two Bughra brothers, Abdullah and Nur Ahmedjan, were killed in a brave last stand at Kashgar. The third brother, Amin, managed to escape Khotan with three thousand followers for Ladakh. In midsummer 1934 Zhongying left his brother-in-law Ma Hushan to rule the south, while in the north Kazakh defections helped the Soviets defeat his lieutenant Ma Heying. Apparently in search of bigger prizes, Zhongying himself went in petition to the Soviet Union, where he disappeared forever; it is often speculated that he joined the Soviet military. It could, alternatively, be that the Soviets weren’t Buying his latest defection, and that this unpredictable adventurer ended his life as one of Stalin’s countless victims.

A Brief Burst


Sheng Shicai had no intention of giving the Muslims of Xinjiang, whom he mistrusted, much leeway. Though he had retained some Hui commanders and also won over a number of Turkic lieutenants from the original 1931 revolt – including Niaz Alam, Yulbars Khan, and a popular commander called Mahmud Muhiti – he soon began to purge them. This was a period where imperial Japan had invaded China’s east, and Shicai supported both of the Japanese empire’s opponents, the governments of China and the Soviet Union. In imitation of the Soviets, he mounted a vicious crackdown on both Muslims, including many purged officials, and, increasingly, Islam itself by the late 1930s.

Shicai’s provocations had indeed provoked Muslim unrest, both among the citizenry and the elites. Ironically it was the Hui commander Ma Hushan, whose notorious cruelty toward Uyghurs in his southern fiefdom had provoked a brief uprising in 1935, who was openly plotting a Muslim revolt against Shicai and hoping to get Japanese support. Separately, Amin Bughra and Sayed Taufiq asked for Afghan and Japanese support in a Muslim revolt, with the aim of installing Muhiti at the helm of a Muslim state.

Muhiti’s cover was blown in the spring of 1937, and he escaped across the border into India. In his wake Muslim soldiers led by Kichik Akhund and Abdullah Niaz captured Yarkend and advanced on Kashgar, capturing its old city to great celebration as the garrison withdrew. Reinforcements sent by Shicai, including Pai Zuli and the Hui Mas Julung and Shengkui, instead defected, and by summer the Hui commanders had taken over the Kashgar front, with Shicai’s garrison confined to the citadel while the city was under Muslim control. Once more it seemed that the Muslims were about to capture the Kashgar region, and once more the panicking governor-general called in Soviet help. A major expedition of five thousand Soviet soldiers, supported by airpower, stormed across the border. Seeing which way the wind was blowing, Ma Shengkui switched sides again and attacked the Muslims at Kashgar, both Turks and Hui. The Muslims were pursued south across the border, fleeing into India; most of the leaders escaped, but Abdullah Niaz was captured in battle at Yarkend and executed. For the second time within a decade, an imminent Muslim win had been denied.

Conclusions and Lessons

The first East Turkistan government had lasted a single season, from November 1933 to spring 1934. Channeling considerable, justified Muslim resentment against the governor-general in Xinjiang, Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples had made a coalition with the powerful Hui militia that promised not only to retake the historic Turkic south – what was referred to as “East Turkistan” – but also Altai, Kumul, and Urumqi in the north of Xinjiang. Ultimately, however, the Muslim coalition foundered upon the disparate aspirations of its leaders, with the Uyghurs favoring independence while the Hui favored autonomy, and a pervasive atmosphere of mistrust fed by incredibly cynical self-interest. Few groups in the war – whether Han, Hui, Kirghiz, or Uyghur – were free of atrocity, and each group featured such a diversity of ambitious characters that coordination became impossible. The original aim of throwing off an oppressive yoke was lost in the fray.

The second revolt, in 1937, seemed to have learned some lessons and was generally less fractious. Once again, however, Soviet muscle and a key defection thwarted its aims, so that it was routed even faster. It was not until the 1940s, at the height of the Second World War, that a Muslim revolt would make itself felt again. On that occasion, ironically, it would be supported by the same Soviets that had twice cheated it in the 1930s.

https://muslimmatters.org/2025/01/0...muslim-revolt-and-the-fall-of-east-turkistan/







Calamity In Kashgar [Part II]: The Rise And Betrayal Of The Second East Turkistan Republic

WhatsAppImage20250108at161813_90b46559-1.jpg


In the first of this two-part series, we covered the rise and fall of the East Turkistan movement in the 1930s, a hectic period where the Turkic Muslim revolt fell prey both to internecine conflict as well as to the bludgeon of the Soviet Union. In this second part, we will trace the second, and far more controversial, “East Turkistan Republic”, one that was ironically supported and then hung out to dry by the same Soviet Union.

Imperial Sights and Local Aspirations

The intermediate years had not eased Turkic aspirations for their rights in East Turkistan, especially as China’s autonomous “Xinjiang” governor-general Sheng Shicai ruled with increasing oppression. Like his predecessors in Urumqi, he enjoyed and abused his power in what China considered its largest province. To a far greater extent than the 1930s, the 1940s would see this strategic region become the center of conflict between rival powers. Firstly, China’s American-backed Guomindang regime led by Chiang Kai-Shek had fought a long war against the communists led by Mao Zedong: both had interrupted this war to cooperate uneasily against an exceptionally brutal Japanese invasion that spanned most of the Second World War, but by 1941 their cooperation had run its course.

In the same year, the Soviet Union joined the war against Japan, forming an equally uneasy coalition with the United States. Moscow had launched an unprecedented war against religion over the last two decades, but in order to mobilize people for the “Patriotic War” against Germany and Japan, they somewhat loosened their grip. For purposes of leverage, the same Soviets who had crushed the Turkic revolts of the 1930s were eager to exploit Turkic grievances against China’s Guomindang regime. The Soviets also allied with nearby Mongolia, with whom China had a border dispute, and this competition drew in many of the Hui Muslims such as the “Ma” clique whose militias dominated China’s north. However, Turkic activists mistrusted the Hui commanders based on the bitter experience in the 1930s.

Sheng Shicai had imitated Soviet brutality, especially against Muslims; he also copied the Soviet method of classifying Turks according to sub-ethnic groups, such as Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and Kirghiz, and it was partly in response that East Turkistan activists had insisted on the name “East Turkistan”, particularly because the region included more than simply Uyghurs. In the early 1940s, Sheng increasingly exhausted the patience of both the Soviets and Guomindang, and in 1944 he was dismissed. Only weeks later, in November 1944 a major Turkic revolt broke out: unlike the 1930s where revolt had taken place in the south, the 1940s revolt took place in “Xinjiang” ‘s largely Kazakh north along the Yili river valley.

A Dramatic Winter

The revolt was led by an uneasy partnership between Islamic leaders, such as scholars Alikhan Tur and Asim Hakim, and pro-Soviet leftists whom Moscow had recently dispatched to put pressure on the Guomindang regime of China. Although the revolt included important leaders of the “Islamic” camp such as the Kanat brothers Latifjan and Muhiuddin – who were sons of Abdulbaqi Sabit, the martyred premier of the first East Turkistan emirate – their importance progressively waned and they came to rely heavily on such Kazakh chieftains in the Altai region as Ali Rahim and Usman Batur, the latter a colorful veteran of a low-running insurgency in the region for years.

The leftist camp included Ahmedjan Qosimi, Saifuddin Azizi, Abdulkarim Abbas, and the military commander Ishaq Mura: they were also joined by Dalilkhan Shukurbayoghlu, a Kazakh chieftain who had been instructed in their ideology; by Zair Saudanov, who served as commissar for their army; and by the Russians Peter Alexanderov, Major-General Bolinov, Colonel Leskin, and Moskolov who assumed key military and security roles. Several commanders from this leftist camp had in fact fought with the Soviets against the first East Turkistan emirate, but now the Soviets found it expedient to set up a second such regime as a buffer force against China.

Though they privately expressed contempt for the Islamic leaders, who with typically inaccuracy were dubbed “feudal reactionaries”, the leftists realized that in order to gain public support among Muslims they would have to let the “reactionaries” take the public face of the revolt. Yet the leftists’ own propaganda displayed their real sympathies: one tract blatantly whitewashed Soviet misrule in Central Asia and compared Soviet links to Turks to that of a mother with her newborn child – a comparison that no honest appraisal of the past decade could have made with a straight face.

The revolt quickly captured most of Yili’s main city Kulja, bottling the town’s remaining garrison, led by Du Defu, in its temple over a freezing winter. When in midwinter Du finally attempted to break out and make for the faraway garrison town Jinghe, his force was cut to ribbons: only a fifth of the original five thousand soldiers survived. Reinforcement attempts sent by Li Tiejun from Jinghe were constantly batted off by both the Russian commanders and the Kazakh chieftains, who routed thousands of reinforcement soldiers in the mountains in February 1945. A break ensued as this new East Turkistan regime, based in and thus often named after the Yili river valley, consolidated while internationally, the Guomindang regime of China, backed by the United States, negotiated with the Soviets as the Second World War drew to a close. In the summer of 1945 battle was rejoined: the Kazakh chieftains captured the Altai district of Ashan in full, the key mountain town Tarbagatai was taken, a southern advance by Abbas and Ishaq assisted by Soviet airpower, and the regime’s remaining northern strongholds at Jinghe and Wusu surrounded.

Compromise and its Camps

unnamed18-1.jpg


Alikhan Tur, the titular emir of the second East Turkistan emirate who disappeared after refusing to compromise his principles in 1946. (Source: GetArchive.net)

Then, pursuant to Soviet wishes, the advance suddenly stopped at the Manas River in the autumn 1945 and negotiations began with the Guomindang general Zhang Zhizhong. He was unusual in that he viewed the only way to retain control of “Xinjiang” to be a more conciliatory policy with greater Muslim and Turkic representation, as well as friendly links with the Soviets. The negotiations lasted months until the summer of 1946, but they greatly disturbed East Turkistan emir Alikhan Tur who had hoped to liberate the entire Turkic region rather than come to such a compromise: in turn, the pro-Soviet leftists in Yili lashed out at him and castigated him as a “reactionary”. When at the summer’s end Alikhan suddenly vanished without trace, the leftists speculated that he must have gone to the Soviet Union for medical treatment. In fact he was probably “liquidated” by the Soviets, a likelihood not lost on his successor Asim, who avoided antagonizing the leftists.

The negotiations resulted in a coalition government for “Xinjiang” led by Zhang Zhizhong, with the northern Yili valley remaining a largely autonomous region: they planned elections to make “Xinjiang” more representative and steadily water down the historical Han overrepresentation in government. Governor-general Zhang and his advisor Liu Mengchan were flanked by the Turkic leftists Qosimi and Burhan Shahidi – a supporter of the 1934 Soviet invasion. Other leftists included Abbas, Azizi, Dalilkhan, and Ishaq, but Zhang also brought in Muslims who opposed the Soviets and instead sided with the Guomindang as a preferable alternative.

They included the Turkic nationalist Masud Sabri, whose nephew Rahimjan was actually a negotiator for the Yili rebels but who himself was seen by the leftists as a “reactionary”: he became inspector-general. This camp also included Amin Bughra, who had led the first East Turkistan emirate, and Isa Alptekin, who had opposed it; Yulbars Khan, a veteran of the 1930s revolt at Kumul; and Jalaluddin Wang, a Hui merchant who had financed the 1930s revolt; and Amin’s wife Emina Baigum. It also included a number of Kazakhs – including Liu’s deputy Salis Emreoghlu and provincial treasurer Janimkhan Talaobayoghlu; Urumqi sheriff Khadija Kadvan and her husband Ailan Wang at Altai. Salis and Janimkhan had helped negotiate with the Kazakh chieftains in Altai. A Hui Muslim preacher, Ma Liangjun, was given honourary privileges, and there was some effort to end Han soldiers’ depredations toward Muslims – for example, a ban would be placed on unIslamic marriages between Muslim women and Han men in Kashgar.

However this coalition was inherently unstable: the majority of Zhizhong’s year in Urumqi (1946-47) was spent in tussles between leftist and rightist Muslims, each of whom appealed for the others’ dismissal. While the leftists were backed by the Soviets, ironically the rightists were partly supported by Guomindang corps commander Song Xilian, who himself disliked the Muslims but feared that the leftists would act as a “fifth column” against China to space out Han from positions of power. In February 1947 Song put Urumqi under emergency rule after protests escalated into ethnic violence.

In the south, Kashgar commander Yang Deliang – a Han general who had converted to Islam – incited protests against leftist sheriff Abdulkarim Maksum. In the east Turfan’s leftist sheriff, Abdurrahman Muhiti, and Uyghur activist Namanjan Khan led protests that allegedly escalated into revolt before the army violently cracked down.

In the north, Kazakh chieftains Usman Batur and Ali Rahim launched a revolt, claiming to fight Soviet tutelage, against the leftists alongside whom they had formerly fought in 1944-45. In the summer of 1947 Usman, along with Hui generals Ma Chengxian of the famous “Ma family” and Habibullah Youwen, raided the Baytash Boghd region on the border of Mongolia. The Soviets had long supported Mongolia’s territorial dispute with China, and so this was treated as an international incident backed by China’s Guomindang regime.

unnamed19-1.jpg


His support for Guomindang as a counterweight to the communists made “Xinjiang”‘s first Turkic governor-general, Masud Sabri, a target of the leftists. (Source: Centre for Uyghur Studies)

By this point a harried Zhizhong had resigned in favor of Masud, on whom Qosimi and the other leftists now trained their gunsights, forcing him to rely more and more on an army whose prestige was crumbling. In early 1949 Masud was replaced, to the rightists’ dismay, with Tatar leftist Burhan Shahidi: this coincided with the Guomindang collapse in China. Over the course of 1949 Mao Zedong’s communists routed Guomindang forces throughout China, including many of the Hui troops who had led it in the north. Many generals, including former Xinjiang governor-general Zhizhong and Hui commander Youwen, ended up defecting to the communists. At this early stage, Mao had won over much of China’s countryside, and unlike the Guomindang, he promised to give autonomy and respect minority rights. When a plane crash in the summer of 1949 killed Qosimi, Abbas, Ishaq, and Dalilkhan, it left Xinjiang governor-general Shahidi and Yili emir Azizi as the leading leftist Turks, and they had no hesitation in welcoming Mao’s vanguard that autumn. The second “East Turkistan” emirate, always a plaything between rival international powers, thus faded with a whimper.

Aftermath and Lessons


In spite of Shahidi and Azizi’s confidence in communist solidarity, by the mid-1950s Mao’s China was beginning to extend its control and the promised autonomy soon became a thing of the past. Instead, the Turkic leftists were left as simpering puppets for an increasingly brutal regime, whose Han commander Wang Zhen viewed Uyghurs in particular as natural troublemakers and intensified the worst practices of the past. Only in the 1980s, with some Pakistani mediation, did China permit “Xinjiang”’s Muslims to return to the Islamic pilgrimage, but by the late 1990s calls for independence or autonomy resumed, as did a very low-level insurgency that consisted of occasional knife attacks, and China again increasingly cracked down – a process that reached a terrifying extent in 2016 when the communist party put virtually the entire Uyghur people under tightly surveilled “re-education” camps to drain them of their supposed radicalization. In fact, the “East Turkistan Independence Movement” never had much of a presence at all within its homeland, and has largely been restricted to faraway battlefields such as Afghanistan and Syria.

But if the leftist alliance had failed, rightist prospects had hardly been more promising. The Guomindang regime had been expelled by the communists to Taiwan, whereas an American vassal it continued to stake its claim to China. Various Muslim commanders including Yulbars Khan, Usman Batur, and many Hui generals joined Guomindang ranks and, with American support, led an insurgency against the new communist regime till many of them were killed in battle. Unlike Yulbars, Isa Alptekin and Amin Bughra tried to persuade the Guomindang regime in Taiwan to give up its claim to “Xinjiang”: when this failed, the pair instead traveled to Turkiye where they would continue to advocate for East Turkistan’s independence. Alptekin, who had opposed both the first and second East Turkistan emirates, now fervently argued for East Turkistan’s complete independence: after he passed away, his son Erkin set up an “exile government” of sorts, the World Uyghur Congress, at the United States with considerable American support in 2004. The political trajectories of such exile leaders mean that their impact on the ground among Uyghurs and other Turkic groups is limited.

There are many lessons that can be learned from the short-lived East Turkistan Republics of the 1930s and 1940s. Perhaps most notably, its leaders too often failed to honor their Islamic rhetoric and instead engaged in bitter internecine conflict: whether between Turks and Hui in the 1930s or between rightists and leftists in the 1940s. Secondly, its strategic location meant that self-interested foreign powers were never far away: especially revealing is the cynical role of the Soviet Union, who crushed the first emirate in the 1930s, and then adopted the role of the second emirate’s “mother” in the 1940s only to discard it when it outlived its use. Such uncomfortable alliances, with all the contradictions they entailed, were only made necessary because of the remoteness of this eastern corner of Central Asia. Today, in an age of expanded communications and potential awareness, the people of East Turkistan need greater solidarity from Muslims: it is only through such shared interests, through principled solidarity and faith in Allah subḥānahu wa ta'āla (glorified and exalted be He), that both oppression from Beijing and abuse by self-interested foreign empires can be avoided.

https://muslimmatters.org/2025/01/0...trayal-of-the-second-east-turkistan-republic/
 
Last edited:
He is God, there is no god besides Him, the Most Great, the Master of the Day of Judgment, where 10 000 000 00 angels will carry His Throne, to Him is our Certain Return and so is our death, everything praise God, all thanks is due to God, Ashad'hu ana la illaha ila Allah wa ashad'hu ana Mohammadon rashul U Allah, God is the King and Protector and Light and Lord and Ruler and Creator of the heavens and the earth and everything in them!
---------
Let the pigs who call themselves Christians and Jews and Atheists and Polytheists have their power and money and so on, in the hereafter, the Muslims will be victorious, since they have uttered from their tongue, "Ashad'hu ana la illaha ila Allah wa ashad'hu ana Mohammadon rashul u Allah".

There are none liked by God more than a Muslim, Muslims follow the Absolute Certain Straight Path (Total Islamic-Monotheism, not joining partners with God, testifying that there are no god besides God Alone).

We are the Truth-people and our Religion is Truth, since God Himself teached us to follow Islam and to be a Muslim (God-submited, having his head bowd down by the Command of God), and the Quran is from Him, and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is His Messenger and Absolute slave, and he is in paradise right this second.

The victory is not here in this earth, it is after death, and we have returned to God.

God is Aware.
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top