@ASPI_org has produced a new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu @xu_xiuzhong, Leibold @jleibold and Daria Impiombato. I will be analysing this document in the next few weeks.
Also checkout my previous shorts. Occasional shorts – #1 and Occasional shorts – #2 where I deconstruct Michael Clarke’s contributions to the repression narrative and his indulgence in Replacement Theory.
Reference 1
title = The case of the missing indigene: debate over a second-generation ethnic policy
context = indigenous groups1
note = (long) The Chinese party-state officially recognises 56 minzu groups in China: a single Han majority and 55 numerically much smaller groups that currently make up nearly 9% of China’s population. The term minzu is deeply polysemic and notoriously difficult to translate. Depending on the context of its use, the term can connote concepts similar to nation, race, people and ethnicity in English. Party officials initially used the English term ‘nationality’ to render the term into English. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the party gradually pivoted away from ‘nationality’, preferring the term ‘ethnic minorities’ for the non-Han groups and reserving the term ‘nation’ for the collective identity and name of the Chinese nation-race’. See James Leibold, The minzu net: China’s fragmented national form,’ Nations and Nationalism, 2016, 22(3):425-428.
While party officials reject any assertion of indigeneity in China, Harvard historian Mark Elliott argues that China’s non-Han peoples are better thought of as indigenous communities rather than as ‘ethnic minorities’, which is a term widely used to refer to migrant populations in places such Canada or Australia, as these groups:
continue to live on lands to which they have reasonably strong ancestral claims; in their encounter with the majority other, all of them assume the status of natives vis-a-vis the representatives of a central (often formerly colonial or quasi-colonial) government from the outside; and all of them find themselves in positions of relative weakness as a result of an asymmetrical power structure, often the consequence of technological inferiority.’
Mark Elliott, The case of the missing indigene: debate over a second-generation ethnic policy’, The China Journal, 2015, 73:207.
Throughout this report and our website, we’ve used the terms indigenous’, ethnic minority’ and nationality’ interchangeably to gloss the term minzu, depending on the context. When we refer to the Uyghurs generically, we’re also referring to other Turkic communities in Xinjiang: the Kazakhs, Tajiks, Kyrgyzs and Uzbeks who have also been targeted in China’s crackdown in Xinjiang.
comment = A technical argument over the definition of ‘indigene’ is mixed with subjective judgments such as “relative weakness as a result of an asymmetrical power structure”. The footnote does not clarify, stating:
“When we refer to the Uyghurs generically, we’re also referring to other Turkic communities in Xinjiang: the Kazakhs, Tajiks, Kyrgyzs and Uzbeks who have also been targeted in China’s crackdown in Xinjiang.“
This means the authors are free to frame inter-ethnic relations as they please, without qualification. This leads to a premise for their ‘repression’ narrative that uses constructs such as ‘Han’ as if they were real and essential characteristics of people, not convenient labels. The extension of this premise is the concept of ‘settler colonialism’ by ‘Han’ – a dangerous concept that sails very close to the racist concept of Replacement Theory, where the ‘other’ is alleged to be attempting an ‘invasion’. Incidentally, this is the rationale that Tarrant used in his manifesto as ‘justification’ for the execution of 52 Muslims in NZ.
@ASPI_org has produced a new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu @xu_xiuzhong, Leibold @jleibold and Daria Impiombato. I will be analysing this document in the next few weeks. Here’s another taster.
Reference 22
title = Settler colonialism and the path toward cultural genocide in Xinjiang,
context = International experts agree that Uyghur militants exist in Syria and Pakistan in small numbers, but argue that they pose little direct security threat to China.21 That view is widely rejected inside China, where a mix of racial discrimination, settler-colonialism and an irrational fear of instability has driven Xinjiang policy in recent times.22
note = Michael Clarke, ‘Settler colonialism and the path toward cultural genocide in Xinjiang’, in Adrian Gallagher, Charles T Hunt, Cecilia Jacob (eds), Global responsibility to protect, Brill, Leiden, 2021;
comment = It is interesting to note Clarke’s change in language from 2007 to the present. In China’s Internal Security Dilemma and the Great Western Development: The Dynamics of Integration, Ethnic Nationalism and Terrorism in Xinjiang , the situation in Xinjiang was described as a ‘dilemma‘ which now becomes ‘cultural genocide‘, ‘in-migration‘ (usually recognised as ‘internal migration’ by geographers) becomes ‘settler colonialism‘, ‘ inter-ethnic relations‘ becomes ‘cultural genocide‘.
Clearly, Clarke is attempting to align his language with the dominant culture of academia in general where anti-China sentiment is high. Notably, Clarke is entirely sceptical about terrorism claims by China, with the majority of the usage of the term ‘terrorism’ in inverted commas indicating irony.
Like many of his peers, Clarke is unwilling or unable to acknowledge the lived experience of those members of Islam majority countries which have experienced bullying, intimidation, physical violence or homicide at the hands of extremists.
@ASPI_org has produced a new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu, Leibold & Daria Impiombato. I will be analysing this document in the next few weeks. Here’s a taster.
Reference 21.
Context
International experts agree that Uyghur militants exist in Syria and Pakistan in small numbers, but argue that they pose little direct security threat to China. 21
Note
Michael Clarke, ‘China’s “war on terrorism”’, in Michael Clarke (ed.), Terrorism and counter-terrorism in China: domestic and foreign policy dimensions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018.
Comment
Apart from the vague “international experts agree”, not appropriate for any kind of scholarly or serious report, Clarke is not a terrorism or counter-terrorism expert. His expertise is history, which does not necessarily lend itself to understanding the practical problems with implementation of anti-terror programs.
He has no experience in security issues, nor has he served in a police service. He is also not an expert in surveillance or deradicalisation. It is doubtful that he has engaged with the lived experience of moderate Muslims who have been silenced, bullied, harassed and killed by extremists. (See interview with K in Beyond deradicalisation centres – Beijing takes a holistic and rational approach to poverty alleviation in which this lived experience is described after an interview with K)
Thus, his opinion is irrelevant and can be disregarded.
Additionally, his recent article, quoted here, is contradicted by his own words in 2017
“It appears to be the ISIS group’s “first direct threat” against China, Dr. Michael Clarke, an expert on Xinjiang at the National Security College of Australian National University, told AFP. “It is the first time that Uighur-speaking militants have claimed allegiance to IS,” he added, referring to the group by its other name.
The video showed China is now “very firmly a target of jihadist rhetoric,” Clarke said, marking a shift from years past when it rarely figured in statements by global militant groups.
But Clarke said it also could indicate a possible split among Uighur fighters, as it includes a warning to those fighting with the Al Qaeda-aligned Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in Syria.” Clarke said the hints of a Uighur split could “intensify the threat to China” as it indicates Uighur militants may be able to tap into the capabilities of both ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Like so many of the references in this document, the full work of the source author is not considered. Clarke has, in the past, completely contradicted the claim in the report, but, like so many academics, has changed his ‘tune’.
This is a story about Liam Mendes, of The Australian, who wrote a hit piece on my friend Jaq James and his retreat on Twitter when confronted with some of the facts that contradicted his story.
Let me take you through the events.
Ostensibly, the piece was about Drew Pavlou, a supposed “human rights activist” running for the Senate in Queensland. I know that Queensland has had some interesting characters attempting to make their way to Canberra, including the infamous “Joh for PM” which failed miserably. Every Queensland over 50 knows what a joke that was.
I am looking forward to Pavlou’s campaign receiving the equivalent disdain from intelligent Queenslanders. As a teetotaller, I will happily raise a glass to it flopping. Pavlou’s claim to fame is, as he will happily inform you, that he has an enormous QC, apparently at his disposal, to go after anyone who isn’t nice to him.
Truthfully, I pity Pavlou and his ilk. Just as I pity that sad little band of men in Australia bleating about a mythical Uyghur genocide and about their disappointment that China defeated their dream of a ETIM Caliphate.
I imagine Drew is pissed off by not being able to join all those good ETIM chaps in training camps, waving guns around. Perhaps it’s his night time dream.
No, I’m sorry Drew, you’re just not cut out to be a terrorist. For your enlightenment (and also for our mate Mendes), here’s a real ETIM Uyghur terrorist. I hope I see your very public condemnation of this kind of terrorist – after all, you are a candidate for my state for the Senate, so I’d like to see that REALLY clearly stated.
ETIM terrorists cry “We’ll kill you all”Description of ETIM mission
Looking forward to Liam Mendes writing the piece where you utterly condemn these people. And his denunciation of the sentiments expressed in this ETIM publication by a Uyghur activist.
Translation:
“Chinese insulted the religion and culture of the Muslims of Xinjiang by permitting nightclubs, and that’s why Noor Mohamed attacked one of these clubs in Kashgar and killed two Chinese whores in 7/9/2012”
“We are fighting China… China is an enemy who has invaded Muslim countries and occupies Muslim East Turkestan. There is no greater obligation, aside from belief in Allah, than expelling the enemies of Muslims from our countries…. We are fighting China to make them testify that ‘there is no God but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah’ and make them convert to Islamabad Muslims could only fight with swords, spears, bows and arrows, they would fight with them. When they were able to fight with firearms, rockets and bombs, they would fight with them also, relying on Allah and doing their utmost… In every single battle with the infidels or the apostates.”
He will, no doubt, in the up-coming disapprobation piece for Liam, make clear that he, in no way, supports these sentiments.
But, I digress.
In fact, Liam Mendes article was actually an attack on Jaq and Milton James. Jaq and/or Milton will probably reply to the hit piece – but probably not any time soon, as they have other important things to do.
Mendes thinks that one requires a cyber security expert to uncover a rumour. Clearly, anyone, including me, who has seen the tweet below can be implicated in a glorious ‘CCP’ conspiracy.
Tweet from Vicky Xu that Mendes didn’t want you to know about, where Xu calls Robbie Barwick a “stupid bald old fuck”
It’s odd to me that Mendes seems happy to say that “The exact figure soon found its way into a social media post by a pro-Beijing activist group run by two Australians” but can’t seem to bring himself to put it in context, nor ask Jaq what her source was. It’s clear that, for Mendes, the slur is more important than the context or the truth.
Seems like, from the article Mendes has written, that emails were sent as traps. I’m not a legal expert, but this kind of entrapment doesn’t seem to be lawful. Come on, Mendes. Reveal who the emails were sent to. Give your story an ounce of credibility. Or will you hide behind the skirts of “commercial in confidence” or some other bullshit?
“One of the pair believes the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is a hoax”.
This refers to Milton James’ article in which he deconstructs the whole Tiananmen Square Massacre myth. Mendes, along with his fellow gullible Australians seems impervious to facts. Naturally, Robbie Barwick tweeted the response below.
This refers to the laughable history of the event exposed by the ABC. But never mind that. Now this tweet is ‘safely’ behind:
Twitter message showing Mendes response to Robbie Barwick’s tweet.
Of course, Mendes seems mute about this issue. If he acknowledges the comedy that Robbie indicates, he will have to retract his criticism of Milton and thence throw in doubt his narrative on Jaq and Milton.
Despite making a public statement about Jaq and Milton, Mendes can’t seem to summon the intestinal fortitude to respond to those who might defend them. No, he runs behind the skirts of a Twitter facility.
It would be interesting to know, in the description of the activity of Internet 2.0 and Robert Potter described as:
Emails with fake contracts that included a monetary figure she was to be paid for a book she was writing were sent from a burner email account to each activist. Each figure was unique to each activist to track the flow of the information.
After a cyber campaign targeting the activist community within Australia, Internet 2.0 assessed the commentary of pro-China Twitter to identify what information might be interesting to them,” chief executive and founder of Internet 2.0 Robert Potter said. “After seeing much speculation on the value of the book contract received by Vicky Xu, Internet 2.0 placed fake information within activist emails.”
whether Internet 2.0, Potter or Mendes have committed a crime under Australia’s laws on fake identities on-line. I intend to find out by reporting this to the Federal Police. I will be asking them to investigate whether anyone was involved in hacking Jaq’s email and whether this statement from Internet 2.0 might constitute an admission to such. After all, the only activists named are Jaq and Milton.
This piece of deceit continues. Having just referred to Jaq and Milton, Mendes returns to the original hack and makes unsubstantiated claims that they were ‘state actors’. An unwitting reader might connect these two statements. Read these below and see whether you would readily discriminate between the sentences about Jaq and Milton and the alleged ‘hack’ on Pavlou.
Milton and Jaqueline James did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Mr Potter said the IP addresses linked to the hack originated from mainland China, but the attack could not be confirmed to have come from a state-sponsored actor. However, it had the sophistication, and fitted the profile, of an attack by a state actor.
Now, read also how he switches rapidly between speaking about the alleged “pro-China activists” and “the remote logins” supposed to be part of the Pavlou hack. To make this clear, I will put the references to Jaq and her ‘pro-China activists’ in red and the references to the ‘hacking’ in purple.
“The data fits what was placed on social media by pro-China activists. Based on the uniqueness of the number, it appears the information has been shared with pro-China activists in one way or another,” Mr Potter said.
“The remote logins were from multiple IP addresses which shows they had preset cyber infrastructure for an attack. They had robust infrastructure and they bypassed his two-factor authentication,” he said
So, Mendes wants you, as reader, to mistake the anti-China propaganda activists he calls “pro-China activists” (and yes, I am one of them) with some alleged hacking of Pavlou. Any reasonable person would make an inference between the activism and the hack. This is clearly Mendes cynical intent.
I invite Mendes to clarify what he thinks the last quote refers to:
““It says a lot about the nature of Chinese power and global influence that they are trying to interfere in Australia’s democracy to undermine and attack their critics in this country, and they’re possibly actually carrying out illegal crimes to do it.
“This is a very clear case of Chinese interference in Australian democracy. They’re deliberately trying to undermine the credibility and genuinely attack and smear anti-CCP critics in Australia,” Mr Pavlou said.
If this is a reference to either Jaq or Milton, I hope they sue the sorry arse off both Mendes and Pavlou. Potter might be safely in another jurisdiction, but I think Pavlou and Mendes might be in for a shock about the laws of the jurisdiction in which they live.
Of course, I doubt that Mendes will come forward to clarify anything.
This refers to the laughable history of the event exposed by the ABC. But never mind that. Now this tweet is ‘safely’ behind: