Many African Union (AU) member states remain furious that AU Commission chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat has unilaterally granted Israel observer status. Mahamat’s decision, announced in July 2021, has led some to accuse him of bringing “Israel through the back door into the AU”. Some countries have suggested that this move undermines AU procedures. Mahamat, in turn, argues that it’s within his rights as AU Commission chair to grant observer status to non-member states.

South Africa, Nigeria and Algeria have been the most vocal critics of the decision. Members of SADC announced their collective opposition in a letter addressed to Mahamat after the regional bloc’s August summit in Malawi.

Mahamat is planning to stand for Presidential elections in his home country, Chad, following the death of President Idris Derby in April 2021. It is believed that his controversial decision on Israel could be beneficial as he starts his campaign in earnest:  According to some observers, “Mahamat needs friends with deep pockets as he kicks starts his presidential campaign.” 

It is also highly unlikely that Mahamat made this decision without first discussing it with current AU Chairperson, President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Tshisekedi is a committed evangelical Christian and well-known supporter of Israel; in March 2020 he was granted the rare opportunity to speak at an AIPAC meeting. AIPAC is a powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US. At the March 2020 event, Tshisekedi called Israel an inspiration and thanks US evangelicals for supporting Israel.

Here, too, money may be at play: the DRC needs help to save its economy from absolute collapse. Israel has provided monetary support to African countries as part of its foreign policy before. As New Africa Daily reported in July 2020: “The Congolese president has been pushing for greater diplomatic ties with Israel, motivated in part by his evangelical faith and desire to bring in Israeli investment and expertise to help modernize the country.” 

Israeli observer status at the AU will grant the country proximity to member states and allow it sneak previews of the body’s agenda. It will also have a chance to use its deep pocket diplomacy to win support from other African countries.  Israel, like many countries, seeks to access Africa for its natural resources; the DRC is especially attractive given the massive hydroelectric potential of its Congo River – estimates suggest the river could produce close to a third of the continent’s total hydroelectric power.

Importantly, Israel seeks support and votes from AU member states as it continues to be defeated and embarrassed at various multilateral platforms for its atrocities against the Palestinian people.

Another vehement supporter of Israel’s observer status in the AU is Morocco.  When Morocco joined AU In 2017, I argued: “In truth, Morocco remains isolated and is beginning to feel the strain of that isolation. Like many North African countries, Morocco has been circumspect and often opportunistic in its dealings with Sub-Saharan Africa; it generally preferred the Arab League over the AU. That fact notwithstanding, the importance and influence of the Arab League has dwindled, especially since the 2013 coup in Egypt.”

The article argued that Morocco was feeling isolated and missing a number of photo opportunities at many international investment summits involving Africans across the globe.  Moreover, I argued that Morocco was missing out on the bloc politicking that benefits many African countries. Moroccan officials said that AU membership would make it easier to deal with the Western Sahara issue inside the AU. Morocco intended to use its membership to promote its political agenda, mainly to lobby more members to renounce their recognition of the Western Sahara.

There was no talk of plans to push Israel’s agenda in the AU - but we later discovered this was one of the main objective all along.

Morocco has been successful in achieving two major objectives since joining the AU. First, on the issue of Western Sahara, it has regained a chance to formally lobby inside the AU against the autonomy and recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.  Second, it has upped efforts for the support of Israel’s observer status in the AU – bringing it into conflict with South Africa, which supports Morocco on the Western Sahara issue but is also a strong supporter of Palestine.

Morocco has clearly not been happy with South Africa’s domineering role at the AU and is committed to reduce the apparent South African hegemony.  At what cost?  There is likely to be division moving forward; differences on foreign policy and what is good for Africa are likely to become more pronounced. 

Amongst other matters, the AU was meant to present a unified African foreign policy position often representing and benefiting weaker African states. The block politics of the AU have assisted weaker African states, which would ordinarily not be able to articulate independent positions at multilateral platforms. AU has also succeeded in pushing for trade treaties that benefited Africa as a whole using block politicking. Recently, the block negotiation and coordination of COVID-19 vaccinations strategies and donations from Western countries have been enabled by the AU. Dismantling that enabling environment and unity will certainly have a negative impact on AU’s future sociopolitical and economic agendas. The advent of Israel and creeping in of its deep pocket politics facilitated by countries such as Morocco is likely to further polarise the AU. It can also be argued that

Morocco’s advent or return to AU politics will certainly serve a negative agenda towards Africa’s unity. Morocco’s return has been mainly to push its own agenda inside the AU against SADR at the detriment of the cohesion of the AU. The AU will never function the same moving forward at least as long as Mousa Faki Mahamat remains the chairperson of the AU Commission and as long as Morocco continues to serve its own narrow political agenda and that of Israel. 

 About the author

Thembisa Fakude holds Masters degree in Politics. He is a columnist with the Middle East Monitor in London. He is a research fellow at Al Sharq Forum in Istanbul, Turkey. He also serves on the board of Common Action Forum in Madrid, Spain. He serves on the board of Mail and Guardian publication in South Africa. He is the former Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera Media Network for Arabic and English Channels in Southern Africa.

Introduction

The United States’ (US) decision to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan will have far-reaching implications for the people of Afghanistan and  the region.  It is also likely to impact on the credibility and standing of the US in the world.  .  There has been high levels of corruption which many people in Afghanistan attribute to the apparent low moral within the country’s security forces. Many also believe it was the low moral within the security forces which led to the swift collapse of the government.  The collapse of the government in Afghanistan has raised concerns about the “success of the decade long democratic process” in that country.  This article will examine the history and formation of the Taliban, it will look at its past demise and expulsion from power.  It will interrogate the current developments and immediate challenges faced by the government.  It will conclude by suggesting steps that could produce political stability, at least in the short term, in Afghanistan.

Brief History of the Taliban  

The Taliban is one of those organisation that cannot be understood without closely looking at its history.  The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989.  When the occupation ended, there were high levels of crime and corruption in Afghanistan.  From 1989 to 2001 Afghanistan was engaged in a civil war between the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) and the Mujahedeen.  Mujahedeen received assistance from a number of countries including the US and Pakistan.  Most Mujahedeen were education in Pakistan.  Their main objective “was to provide peace and security to the local population, institute justice and to implement Sharia Islamic law in Afghanistan” and to bring back safety and security in Afghanistan.  The Mujahedeen adopted conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam and exercised unrestrained violence against other sectarian and ethnic groups.  They also vowed to fight all forms of foreign occupation in Afghanistan.  In 1994, a local cleric, Mullah Muhammad Omar together with his followers in Kandahar formed a group called the Taliban, meaning students in Pashtun language.  Subsequently, the majority of the Mujahedeen joined Taliban.  

In 1996 the Taliban captured Kabul and declared Afghanistan an Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.  They were in power from 1996 to 2001.  During that time, Afghanistan experienced “one its darkest chapters in history”. Their strict interpretation of Islam involved forbidding women from doing professional work, banning girls from going to school and forcing men to grow beard.  They also carried out severe punishments, including public beatings, hangings of civilians who violated their code of conduct. They also destroyed important historical symbols and heritage sites. Notwithstanding immense international pressure, the Taliban blew up two 1500-year-old massive Buddha statues carved into a mountains of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.  They argued at the time that the “statues were forms of idols, a practice prohibited by Islam”.  They also carried out political assassinations including that of Dr. Najibullah, a pro-Soviet Union political leader and former President of Afghanistan.  They were also involved in the assassination of the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmad Shah Masoud.  However what brought the Taliban to prominence globally was its hosting and protection of the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden.  Bin Laden, was killed by the US special forces in May 2011.  He was accused of planning and financing the terrorists attacks  which killed thousands of people in the US on September, 11, 2001.  After September 11, 2001 attacks, the US demanded that the Taliban surrender Bin Laden to face the consequences of his crimes, the Taliban refused.  On 07 October 2001, the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan, an event which in hindsight is regarded as one of the worse tragedies of our times..  

Current Developments 

The  US and the Taliban negotiated peace agreement in Doha, in February 2020.  The agreement has culminated into some  significant changed in Afghanistan.  The situation has been in a tail spin by virtue of actions of different actors.  At the beginning of July 2021, “the Taliban controlled 90 districts in comparison to 141 districts controlled by the government, while 167 remained uncontested”. The unwillingness of Ashraf Ghani’s government to enter into a meaningful dialogue with the Taliban paved a way for a zero-sum contest between Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the Taliban.  After assuming office, President Joe Biden, made it clear that he was going to remain committed to President Trump’s timeline to withdraw the US troops from Afghanistan.  The air power and other logistical support by the US granted Afghanistan’s forces a critical leverage over the Taliban and to an extent overestimated the ANSF’s ability in their fight against the Taliban. The government of Afghanistan therefore never felt compelled to engage the Taliban under an inclusive intra-Afghanistan dialogue.  Consequently, when it became clear that the advancing and confident Taliban was about to enter the gates of Kabul, it became difficult for the government to engage nor negotiate a peaceful transition.  “At the beginning of August, 2021, the momentum swung in Taliban’s favour, as the government lost control of two-thirds of Afghanistan’s territory”.  The fall of Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, led into a frenzy as many country representatives rushed to evacuate their personnel and citizens from the country.  Some embassies opted to shut down their offices fearing reprisal from the Taliban.  The Taliban has indicated that it will have an inclusive government.  It has also undertaken to grant general amnesty to all members of the former government and those who were “deemed enemies” during the war.  Notwithstanding those undertakings, aberrations from that course by the Taliban continue unabated. There are suggestions that the nature of the Taliban i.e. their decentralized structures, contributes to these aberrations.  Others blame elements of ill disciple amongst some of the foot soldiers of the Taliban.  

Challenges moving forward

The Taliban announced the cabinet early in September 2021 which consists  mainly of its members.  Meanwhile, the National Coordination Council (NCC) headed by former President Hamid Karzai and former Chief Executive Abdullah-Abdullah were negotiating with different leaders of the Taliban for an inclusive government.  These efforts are supported by Pakistan.  The Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, has assured Pakistan’s facilitative role towards the Afghanistan peace process and has stressed the importance of an inclusive and representative government in Afghanistan.  

Although the current situation in Afghanistan is still very fluid and very hard to predict any specific outcomes.  There are still fears that more terrorist attacks from the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant – Khorasan (ISIL-K) are likely to continue.  ISIL-K is undoubtedly the major threat to peace and stability in Afghanistan and the region.  Notwithstanding, there are certain key steps that the Taliban must embark upon to ensure political stability at least in a short term in Afghanistan.  First, the Taliban must ensure that all political stakeholders; including ethnic and religious minorities, are part of the political and reconciliation process. The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, “proposed at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s Head of State meetings to reaching out to Pashtun and Taliban factions for the inclusive government. He has also asked his Tajik counterpart to do the same in wooing the Tajiks to reconcile their differences with the Taliban”.  Second, the Taliban must also work to integrate its forces with that of the ANDF including, the Northern Alliance.  The Northern Alliance has been fighting the Taliban and has vowed to resist the government of the Taliban.  Third, the Taliban has to ensure the promotion of basic human rights and liberties including and particularly those of women and girls. Fourth, out of 33 members of the cabinet, 14 are on the list of UN sanctions list.  The Taliban must ensure that members of “the Taliban 2.0” are removed from the UN sanctions list and that the organisation is declassified as the terrorist organisation.  Simply put, in order to attract investments into Afghanistan and establish new relationship with the international community, the Taliban must prove that it has reformed.  It will have to give assurances to the international community that it has severed all ties with the terrorists groups and will cease to host Al Qaeda.  Finally, the Taliban must ensure that it brings to line radical elements within its ranks particularly those who are still clinging to a strict version of Islam.  These are key considerations for the Taliban if it wants to succeed in governing and winnin support of all people of Afghanistan.  

About the author

Afeera Firdous is a Research Lead at Pakistan. Now, a digital media channel. She previously worked with Center for International Strategic Studies (CISS) as Associate Research Officer for three and a half years. She holds M.Phil. in Strategic Studies from National Defence University Islamabad. She has worked on various strategic and policy issues including counter extremism and counter terrorism, nuclear issue specifically in South Asian region, cyberspace, and information warfare. 

Within minutes after it was taken, the photo of US Major General Chris Donahue boarding a C-17 plane in Kabul went viral. The 20-year war had ended in a humiliating defeat and the retreat of the world's most powerful army. That image evoked memories of the summer of 1962 when the French army – then the fourth largest in the world – was brought to its knees and driven out of Algeria.

There were other images from Kabul airport of equal significance; they, however, did not make it onto the front pages of newspapers or television screens. Apart from Al Jazeera, none reported the pillage of the civilian airport by the departing US forces. Taliban officials estimated the damages to be around $23 million.

Even after their gratuitous trashing of the civilian airport, the US maintained its freeze of an estimated $9.5 billion belonging to the Afghan Central Bank. Yet it had the audacity to call for the swift and safe passage out of Afghanistan for its remaining citizens and those Afghan allies who worked for them.

The Americans, it seemed, had taken a page from the playbook of defeated settler colonials in Africa. When the Portuguese settler colonial regime was finally defeated in Mozambique in 1975 they took with them all the goods and capital they could. As for the property which they could not carry such as buildings and tractors, they destroyed them.  In Algeria, a similar picture emerged. During their departure, the French took hundreds of thousands of maps and historical documents from the colonial period (1830-1962) and others dating back to the Ottoman era (1518-1830). Today, the Algerian authorities are locked into a bitter diplomatic battle to retrieve the documents from France, which refuses to return them on the grounds that they are classified and subject to national defence secrets.

Apart from the historical documents, France is also refusing to return the skulls of resistance fighters who were killed and then beheaded during the war of independence. These apparent colonial trophies are now on display in the Homme Museum in Paris.

Like in Algeria, the defeat of the US in Afghanistan has left in its wake a mad rush to the exits of Afghan collaborators, professionals and people with technical and managerial skills. It remains to be seen how long their welcome will last in the West. Despite their initial pledges to receive all those seeking refuge, several European countries have begun to express concern over the numbers.

It must be recalled that it was only after intense international pressure did the government of Charles de Gaulle agree to resettle 40,000 Algerians who had fought alongside the French in the war of independence.

Regardless of the promises of integration and support, the multitudes fleeing Afghanistan will have to exercise patience before their individual hopes and expectations are realised. A lot will depend on personal ambition, drive and good fortune. In other words, they can either take charge of their own destinies or allow others to do so.

As for the Taliban, who have inherited a state apparatus that was broken and dysfunctional, they now have an opportunity to prove their detractors wrong. They can, with the right leadership and resolve, lift Afghanistan from the ashes of war and civil strife.

At the height of the Eurozone debt crisis in 2008 the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (derisively called PIGS) were worst hit. Astonishingly, thousands of Portuguese nationals turned to their former colonies, Mozambique and Angola, in search of a brighter future. In a stunning reversal of roles, Angola, after 400 years of colonisation, was buying everything from banks to real estate and telecommunications in Portugal.

Afghanistan, with its abundance of natural and human resources, can now chart a new course in its history.

Unsurprisingly, the era of US occupation failed to 'remake' Afghanistan. A January 2021 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction uncovered what the real priorities of the US in Afghanistan were. Of the $946 billion that was invested in the country, $816 billion, or 86 per cent, were allocated for military operations. The report further revealed that less than two per cent of the overall US spending actually reached the Afghan people in terms of infrastructure and development projects.

Surely, if the US and its allies had spent more on health care Afghanistan would not have been left with a life expectancy of 63 years, a maternal mortality rate of 638 per 100,000 births, and a child stunting rate of 38 per cent.

After two decades, the US fiasco in Afghanistan had become unsustainable, costing too much not just in terms of lives and money. In the same way that the defeat of France in Algeria diminished its status as a world power, so too the US defeat in Afghanistan has undermined its standing on the world stage. The era of attempting to 'remake other countries' through military intervention is over. Afghanistan has proven that it was always a delusion.

This article was first published in the Middle East Monitor website by Dr. Daud Abdullah

Dr. Daud Abdullah Daud Abdullah was born in St. David's Grenada where he received his early education. He obtained his first degree from the University of Guyana in 1981 and was awarded a scholarship to study Arabic language at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia. ^] In 1984 he joined the Univeristy of Khartoum, Sudan  to pursue postgraduate studies and was awarded his doctorate in 1989.  His last posting in Saudi Arabia was as editor and translator at the Abul Qasim Publishing House in Jeddah.

There are many countries that continue to deny their people's basic rights.  Moreover because elections by their very nature culminate into change of governments, that jeopardises continual flow of both political and human rights.  Consequently, it has been global organisations and multilateral platforms such as the United Nations (UN) that have played roles that guarantee and promote basic human rights.  Moreover, these platforms have been  significant in exerting pressure on governments across the globe to maintain continual flow of basic rights.  Nationalists have used and often misused notions of “national unity” to foster their own type of social and national cohesion.  In some countries, they peddle exclusionary and hostile racial, ethnic, cultural and religious sentiments to achieve their political objectives.  Frequently, hyped nationalistic rhetoric has also been used to shield incumbent governments from socioeconomic and political failures.  Governments, particularly in the developing world, justify their failures by blaming past colonial powers and manipulate shared past traumas to this end.  The resurgence of ultra-nationalism at the beginning of the 21^st century has fuelled conflict, economic destabilisation and displacement of millions of people.  Furthermore, the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East have resulted in increased number of refugees around the world.  Deplorable and inhumane conditions, both inside Syria and in bordering host countries, have fuelled an exodus of hundreds of thousands of families into Europe.  In 2015 alone, more than one million men, women and children braved the dangerous sea crossings to Europe in hopes of finding peace and opportunities to rebuild their lives.

By the end of 2020, there were 281 million migrants around the world.  An estimated 82.4 million of them were forcibly displaced from their countries.  The high numbers of refugees and their continued plight call for crucial discussions on the safe passage of people and their protection around the world.  Under International law, rights of refugees and displaced people are recognised.  Internally displaced people are protected by international human rights law and domestic law and, in situations of armed conflict, by international humanitarian law (IHL).  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees  (UNHCR) was formed to assist the displaced people of Europe after the WWII, it has since extended its mandate to all people of the world.  Subsequently, other protocols meant to alleviate the plight of refugees were enacted including Refugee Convention of 1951 and the 1967 Protocol. 

The high number of refugees and immigrants arriving in Europe has given rise to ultra-nationalism which has led to anti-migration sentiments.  According to the Leiden Model UN 2017 Report, “the refugee and migrant crisis is one of the most serious challenges that the European Union has faced in its history. Since the start of the crisis, xenophobic sentiment has increased across the continent, far-right and populist parties have gained ground, and member states have replaced solidarity with calls for national solutions. Xenophobia has increased all over Europe due to the current refugee and migrant crisis.”  Toxic political rhetoric suggesting that immigrants are responsible for high crime rates are outright dangerous, they have also added to the plight of refugees and immigrants.  President Emmanuel Macron’s speech on August 2021 referred to anticipated “irregular migratory flows” from Afghanistan has not assisted in this regard.  Such rhetoric by politicians unfortunately reinforces anti-migration sentiments and perpetuates ill treatment of refugees. 

Despite the UN’s adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) in 2018. There is still a lack of clarity among receiving nations on how to deal with refugees and other types of immigrants into their countries.  The Global Compact is the first inter-governmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, covering all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner.  It is a non-binding document that respects states’ sovereign right to determine who enters and stays in their territory and demonstrates commitment to international cooperation on migration. The response to the refugee and immigration crisis has instead tended to frame immigrants as a burden on the state, competing with citizens for public services and jobs, and as a threat to national security and culture.  Consequently, there has been negative social consequences for refugees and immigrants particularly in Europe.  Discussions that frame immigrants simply as victims who lack agency can be disempowering and could indirectly reinforce the notion that migrants in general are “the state’s problem”. 

There are a number of suggested ways to address the growing anti-immigration sentiments which are threating national cohesions especially in Europe.  First, a comprehensive and inclusive migration governance policy among receiving states is essential.  They should be accompanied by a political rhetoric and media messaging that is congruent with the objectives of GCM. Second, governments, humanitarian agencies and refugee organisations should develop programmes in partnership with refugees and immigrants.  It must take into consideration lived experiences as primary sources of data instead of solely relying on official reports.  Centring the voices of refugees and immigrants will not only address injustices against refugees and immigrants, it could also increase understating of the plight of refugees and immigrants within host communities. This could ultimately empower all stakeholders and facilitate co-existence and national cohesions in receiving countries. 

About the author

Karabo Kgoleng holds a BA Honors degree in Migration and Displacement. Currently pursuing her Masters of Arts degree at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa. She is a recipient of South African Literacy Award for Journalism and a former book editor for a popular South African weekly, City Press.

Introduction

Xinjiang, officially known as the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), lies in the northwest region of China and constitutes about one-sixth of its landmass.  It is rich in natural resources and the most politically sensitive region in China.  Xinjiang borders India, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia and Mongolia. It is home to an estimated 11 million Uighurs and several smaller ethnic groups including the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz.  Historically Xinjiang region has been a battleground for Turkic nations, the Mongols, China and Russia. The region was once known as ‘East Turkistan’, this name was changed to Xinjiang by China because it “was deemed separatist in nature and Pan-Turkish”.  Xinjiang means a new frontier in Mandarin.

Xinjiang became a focus of international attention when reports emerged that millions of Uighurs were forcibly detained by Chinese authorities in internment camps.   Since 2017, satellite images have revealed 380 internment camps in Xinjiang. The United Nations (UN) estimates that the number of detainees in Xinjiang may be closer to 2 million people.  Uighurs were relatively unknown until mid-1980’s when China introduced a new integrated language policy for the rest of the country.  The decision has resulted in the persecution, displacement and deaths of thousands of Uighurs and continues to threaten their ethnical identity.

This paper will endeavour to answer questions on the origins of the Uighurs and threats to their cultural existence in China.  It will interrogate the language and forced assimilation policies imposed on the Uighurs by the government China.  It will  argue that these actions are meant to obliteration the ethnical, culture and traditions of the Uighurs.  It will also argue that global war on terror has been used as a pretext to further suppress the rights of the Uighurs in Xinjiang.  It will conclude by briefly discussing the future existence of Uighurs in China.

Who are the Uighurs?

The Uighurs are a Turkic ethnic group based in the province of Xinjiang formally known as East Turkistan.  Beijing took control of the region of Xinjiang in the 19th century during the reign of the Qing dynasty.  The Uighurs are ethnically and linguistically distinct from the Han Chinese and were the dominant ethnic group in the northwest region of China until the early 1980’s.  Unlike many nomadic tribes of Turkic origin in Central Asia, Uighurs are largely urban.  They have been residing for centuries in historical towns and cities such as Kashgar, Khotan and Yarkhand along the historical Silk Road.  Mahmud al-Kashgari, the 11th-century Kara-Khanid scholar and lexicographer of the Turkic languages was from Kashgar, a city in the Tarim Basin region of Southern Xinjiang.  Between 1072-74 Mahmud al-Kashgari compiled the Dīwān Lughāt al-Turk which translates to "Compendium of the languages of the Turks", it is the first comprehensive dictionary of Turkic languages.  Turkic nomadic Uighurs ruled over a powerful empire between 744 and 840.  Their capital, Karabalghasun was located on the upper Orhon River in Mongolia.  It was during this period that Islam was introduced to the region. The Uighurs began embracing Islam in the 10th Century.  Islam is an integral part of Uighur’s lifestyle and identity. The Chinese government’s crackdown on religion together with other oppressive policies has culminated into an entrenchment of Islam in the Xinjiang.  The Uighurs enjoyed intermittent autonomy and independence until the Chinese Communist government occupied Xinjiang in 1949. Since then, politics have been tense and ethnic ratio has changed.  The government sponsored migration of large numbers of Han Chinese to Xinjiang has altered the socio-political and cultural complexion of the region.

The persecution of the Uighurs and the threats to their existence in Xinjiang  

Chinese government recognises Uighurs as one of China's 56 officially ethnic minorities.  The Han Chinese ethnic group is the largest among all groups, making up 91.11 percent of the total population of 1.41 billion people.  Mongolian, Hui, Tibetan, Uygur, Miao, Yi, Zhuang, Bouyei, Korean, Manchu, Dong, Yao, Bai, Tujia, Hani, Kazak, Dai, Li, Lisu, Va, She, Gaoshan, Lahu, Shui, Dongxiang, Naxi, Jingpo, Kirgiz, Tu, Daur, Mulam, Qiang, Blang, Salar, Maonan, Gelo, Xibe, Achang, Pumi, Tajik, Nu, Ozbek, Russian, Ewenki, Deang, Bonan, Yugur, Jing, Tatar, Drung, Oroqen, Hezhen, Moinba, Lhoba and Jino form part of minority ethnic groups which accounts to around 8.89 percent of the country's total population.  Notwithstanding a historically thriving multilingualism and cultural pluralism in China, the preceding governments have implemented a strict language policy as part of China’s nation-building process.  Under the Article 53 of September 1949 of the Common Program for an example, a degree of local autonomy for minorities was promoted.  It allowed ethnic minorities freedom to develop their own dialectics and languages, customs and religious beliefs.  This strengthened the rights of ethnic groups.  However, over the years China has pursued a monolingual, monocultural political agenda particularly in the Xinjiang.  What has further encouraged adverse government’s policies in Xinjiang is the continual portrayal in the media of Uighurs as Islamic Jihadists.  

During the Soviet control of the region; Central Asian Soviet Republics adopted Cyrillic orthographies.  Central Asian Uighurs, as part of the population, adopted a similar form of writing and communication.  Cyrillic is the national script used by various Slavic, Turkic, Mongolic, Uralic, Caucasian, South-eastern Europe, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and East Asia.  It was only in 1954 that the Arabic script was adopted by Uighurs.  According to the government of China, its suppression of multiculturalism, especially in Xinjiang region, is meant to prevent what it calls, “ethnic nationalism”.  In 1990, China began using HSK Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi-Chinese competence test (HSK) for the Uighurs.  The implementation of HSK has led to marginalisation of other minority languages.  Uighurs students require a certain minimum score in HSK test to pass exams.  Similar requirements apply for students seeking to pursue university qualifications. This has consequently placed Han Chinese students at a much greater advantage to their Uighur counterparts  

Besides the language policy, the Chinese authorities have continued to pursue strict assimilation policies including a process of diluting the hegemony of the Uighurs in Xinjiang.  Beijing has been channelling the flow of other ethnic groups from other regions including internally displaced Hen Chinese into Xinjiang.  Xinjiang Production Construction Corps (XPCC) or Bingtuan, a state-owned economic and paramilitary organization, has recruited and relocated millions of Han Chinese to the region.

Global war on terror used as a pretext to further suppress the rights of the Uighurs in Xinjiang

The Chinese media has been linking East Turkestan, present day Xinjiang, with Muslim terrorists for the last two decades.  Similarly, the Chinese government insists that unrest in Xinjiang region stems from Islamic extremism and influences from abroad.  However, the reality is that the current ethnic tensions in Xinjiang are as a result of government’s treatment of the Uighurs.  After September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, the U.S. and China entered into a counterterrorism cooperation.  In August 2002, the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) was declared a terrorist organization by both China and the US.  In October 2020, after a realisation of continued atrocities in Xinjiang, the US ordered the delisting of the ETIM as a terrorist organisation.  ETIM, is currently waging a struggle of independence from China and is blamed for a series of attacks and bombings in Xinjiang region.  ETIM was falsely accused of planning attacks during the Beijing Olympics this year.  Although attacks did not happen, these accusation have further legitimised Chinese authorities’ crackdown  in Xinjiang.  Atrocities against Uighurs in Xinjiang started attracting international media attention during the riots in Ürümqi in July 5, 2009.  Peaceful protests by Uighurs turned into violence after two Uighurs were killed by Chinese authorities in a Guangdong factory days earlier.  According to the Chinese state media, 200 Han Chinese were killed, no Uighurs’ casualties were mentioned.  There were many other incidences targeting Uighurs over the years.   China accused “Uighur Jihadists” of knives attacks at the Kunming Railway Station in March 2014.  In April 2014, Uighurs were accused of a knife and bomb attacks at the Ürümqi train station.  Technologically-driven mass surveillance, internment, indoctrination, family separation, birth suppression, and forced labour incidences have increased over the years as a result.   Chinese government has also used legislation to justify its crackdown on Uighurs including, a counterterrorism law of December 2015, anti - extremism ordinance of March 2017 and a revision of the regulations governing religious affairs of September 2017

The Future of the Uighurs in China

Despite efforts by the Chinese government to erase cultural, ethnic, and religious identities of the Uighurs, there is a strong rise of ethnical identity in Xinjiang.  This ethnical identity is Islamic in nature, and has consequently attracted solidarity from other Muslim majority countries in the world.  The rise of Muslim solidarity across the globe is likely to backlash on China.  It could just become an antithesis of national cohesion the government of China seeks to achieve.  The Syrian ambassador to China told Reuters in 2017 that up to 5,000 Uighurs were fighting in alongside various groups in his country.  According to the World Uyghur Congress, an estimated 1 to 1.6 million Uyghurs live outside of China, with the largest populations residing in parts of central Asia and Turkey.  China is working with its allies around to world to crack down on Uighur dissenting voices.  Since 2017, there has been 695 Uyghurs detained or deported to China from 15 countries.  China’s transnational repression of Uyghurs is rife in Egypt and some parts of the Middle East particularly in those countries that enjoy strong economic relations with China.  Turkey has strongly condemned the Chinese government for its repressive rule in Xinjiang.  The Foreign Minister of Turkey, Mevlut Cavusoglu, criticised China’s treatment of the Uighurs saying: “The reintroduction of internment camps in the 21st century and the policy of systematic assimilation against the Uighur Turks carried out by the authorities of China is a great shame for humanity.”

In conclusion, the U.S., European Union, UK and Canada have imposed sanctions on certain Chinese officials over human rights violations on Uighurs.  However China appears to be unfazed by these majors; it has responded by imposing its own version of sanctions on certain European officials.  Furthermore, in an act of defiance, Beijing has continued to build additional internment camps in Xinjiang including instituting force labour on the Uighurs.  

About the author

Turkmen Terzi is a Turkish foreign journalist based in Johannesburg, South Africa. He reports on Southern Africa and Turkish politics. He holds a Master’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Johannesburg. He is a contributor to an online publication www.Turkishminute.com. He serves on the board of Foreign Correspondents Association of Southern Africa.