An ‘academic institute’ tied to an antisemitic Italian ‘Nazi-Maoist’ linked to Iran has released a report denying China’s atrocities against the Uyghurs. It’s been loudly welcomed by America's conspiracy theory-riven, autocrat-loving, ‘anti-imperialist’ left
Three "academic institutes" have released a new report denying China's genocide of the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. Its "findings" reject all charges of atrocities being perpetrated by China, smears Uyghur activists – and have been loudly welcomed by America's conspiracy theory-riven authoritarian left.
The latter's unfortunately wide reach means it's worth delving into the report, its backers and what is really motivating their morally and factually unhinged revisionism.
The report, entitled, Xinjiang: Understanding Complexity, Building Peace, is a strange and esoteric document that states from the get go that it aims to undermine the "West's charges" of genocide and detention camps, to counter the "simplistic" and "sensationalist" accusations against China, otherwise known as "China-bashing," that legitimize "sectarian and "violent" groups, and to foreground testimonies from experts who have visited the region.
The report ends with a call for Uyghur activists and others who, only pages earlier, were accused of supporting jihadism, to "come and see" with their own eyes "how good life is in Xinjiang nowadays." Despite this eagerness to "tell a very different story," barely ten out 38 pages in the report actually relate to current issues around mass detention. The rest is taken up with a Wikipedia-style fly-over history of the ancient civilizations and anti-Soviet rebellions in Central Asian states, and esoteric conflicts between Turkic peoples and the Tsars, Soviets, and Han Chinese.
Ok, so that was a fucking rabbit hole. I'm posting so you don't have to.
Firstly, no, the institute is not particularly closely tied to the Nazbol that takes up half the article. Two people that ran a paper with him in the 90s are also kind of affiliated maybe, sorta.
It is kind of weird and some of the stuff they write does sort of sound like Pan-Eurasian NRx shit I've read in here and there, but nothing actually heretical in the brief skim, just a bit more pro-Putin than I would personally go for.
It's also the Junior Sponsor in this doc. The other two are bog-standard major Neolib/Succdem EU Think Tanks that have been generating lanyards for the last 70 years. Honestly, I'm a bit confused as to why they're even there. The Doc itself is written by an "Independent Research Team." Fuck knows who, put your name on things cowards!
Now to the doc.
Yeah, it mentions Lev Gumilyov, TNO "Passionarity" meme. Super cringe, spent most of the Stalin era in prison with only his wife's poems to Stalin keeping him from being shot. Spent most of the rest being shutdown for cringe takes on nationalism and barely not being jailed again.
Cite is in context, ethnogenesis is his work and has some application, but strange they'd use it. Hardly "fawning" though.
Context is all relevant aside from maybe the first two pages going too far back, but it feels a bit like show-off nerdery by the intern. Goes from origin of the Turkic peoples to the reconquest of Xinjiang in 1877 by China, the warlord era, that awkward Stalin-sponsored state thing, and then Pan Turkic nationalism, it's relationship to Turkey, and the CIA shit. (I want to point out here that Eurasianists are generally pro pan Turkic movements, so Mr Nazbol is in weird company)
It then goes through the "Camps" debunks numbers, shows the retraining centres (Which are Bleak, in the same way a Google campus is bleak) and adds Geopolitical context, showing the province as a hub for the Belt and Road.
There's nothing here that's particularly controversial. It's a standard white paper put out by a standard Think Tank group, with a weird org tacked on the side.
Why are they dunking on this 2nd rate pdf?! I don't understand the game here.
Unsurprising.
One thing I learned from being a Russiagate dweeb is that the actual substance behind claims like "has links to" or "ties to" is usually very thin.