ETGE condemns Azerbaijan-China alliance, calls it a ‘betrayal' of Turkic values, Uyghur genocide complicity
Washington DC [US], April 24 (ANI): The East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGE) criticised the so-called 'comprehensive strategic partnership' established between Azerbaijan and the oppressive regime of the People's Republic of China.
At a moment when millions of Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and other Turkic peoples are being imprisoned, enslaved, tortured, raped, and sterilised in concentration camps across East Turkistan–an occupied territory and the eastern heartland of the Turkic world that China misleadingly refers to as 'Xinjiang' (meaning 'new territory') President Ilham Aliyev has opted to strengthen relations with the architects of this ongoing genocide, according to the release.
For decades, the Chinese occupying authorities have conducted total warfare against the East Turkistani populace. Hundreds of thousands of Uyghur and other Turkic women have been forcibly sterilised to eliminate future generations, while millions of Turkic infants have been forcibly aborted. Over 1 million Uyghur and other Turkic children have been separated from their families and placed into indoctrination camps to be raised as Chinese, being taught to despise their Turkic heritage, the release stated.
While these atrocities unfold every day, the Aliyev administration has chosen not only to be silent but to reward Beijing with public endorsement and a 'comprehensive strategic partnership.' Ilham Aliyev has engaged with the individual responsible for orchestrating the largest massacre and genocide against Turkic peoples in history. According to the release, Xi Jinping is not a collaborator; he is a fascist imperialist, a coloniser, and a genocidal dictator whose regime has killed, enslaved, and erased millions of Turkic peoples.
'This is not diplomacy; this is capitulation,' stated Dr Mamtimin Ala, President of the East Turkistan Government in Exile. 'By endorsing these agreements, Ilham Aliyev has publicly supported Beijing's genocidal colonisation of Occupied East Turkistan. He has granted China a propaganda win and disrespected every Turkic individual who values freedom over cheap deals and empty guarantees,' as quoted in the release.
Azerbaijan's Aliyev regime deserves condemnation, and its agreements with Beijing should be acknowledged for what they truly are: a disgraceful alliance with a genocidal empire. Those who back China's aggression against the East Turkistani people must be unveiled, shunned, and remembered in history not as neutral figures but as complicit in the annihilation of a people, the release emphasised. (ANI)
This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- New Indian Express
It's the world's job to spin around, our job is to be the axis
If you like to choose allegory and atmosphere out of cinematic art to describe the contemporary, a piece of classic Hitchcock horror would seem to be in our midst. There's a bird species that's seeing an increase in its population these days. No, not the pesky pigeon, which has been rendered jobless by email. There's another that's squeaking and gnawing at our window panes. It is the black swan. It's absurd. By definition, it shouldn't be there. Certainly not in such numbers. But being devoid of logic or precedence is no disqualification these days. A handful of years ago, we were stalked by a genocidal virus. Half a season ago, we had war. A small spat in a nuclear family. Both sides complained to Papa. He came and sorted it out. His fondness for young, attractive model democracies is, anyway, all over the news in America. This is one version of the story, not particularly unprecedented if you look at Indo-Pak history. And Donald J Trump speaks only the truth. His social media platform is named for that. Every time you repost what he writes there, it's apparently called a 'retruth'. Those fervently 'retruing' his version in Parliament included Rahul Gandhi, who threw that into the debate along with a gauntlet to the government. If you believe otherwise, he thundered, say it clearly that Trump is no Mahatma Gandhi. But we know that in classical Indian logic, for every assertion, the opposite is equally untrue. Meanwhile, across the border, in Pakistan, it seems America has struck oil! No one from the colonial British to the contemporary Chinese had the foresight to dig beneath those bungalows in Abbottabad. Snake oil, perhaps? The Pakistan army is known to have inexhaustible reserves. Well, in material terms, past US prospectors have talked about shale. Hope our sensitive radars don't get alarmed by the sounds of fracking. Actually, no, this is just Trumpspeak. It means they have dug deep and discovered a new kind of strategic depth. Old-timers may recall that Rafi song which Lalu Yadav once quoted in parliament and got even Manmohan Singh grinning like a Cheshire cat: it's okay if you don't love me, as long as you don't love that—other—guy. Alas, it is happening.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
No passports, no study abroad: China limits public employees' travel
Vivian Wang When Tina Liu was hired to teach literature in a public elementary school in southern China, her contract included the usual warnings about absenteeism and job performance. Then came another line: Travelling abroad without the school's permission could get her fired. The rule was reinforced in a staff group chat. 'According to regulations from higher-ups, teachers need to strengthen their disciplinary awareness,' the message said. 'We will currently not permit any overseas vacations.' Across China, similar warnings are spreading as the authorities tighten control over state employees' contacts with foreigners. Some kindergarten teachers, doctors and even government contractors and employees of state-owned enterprises have been ordered to hand in their passports. Some cities make retirees wait two years to reclaim their passports. In many cities, travel overseas by public employees, even for personal reasons, requires approval. Business trips abroad for 'ordinary research, exchange and study' have been banned. And in most provinces, those who have studied abroad are now disqualified from certain public positions. Officials cite various reasons, including protecting national security, fighting corruption and cutting costs. But the scope of the restrictions has expanded rapidly, sweeping up employees who say they have no access to sensitive information or government funds. The New York Times spoke to public employees, including an elementary school music teacher, a nurse and a literature professor, who confirmed the restrictions. The rules are part of a push by the central authorities to impose greater so-called political discipline and ideological loyalty on government workers. Some local governments have banned civil servants from eating out in groups of more than three, measures that came after several reports of excessive drinking at official banquets. But the authorities are especially vigilant about overseas contact. The Chinese government has long been wary of the threat of espionage and what it sees as hostile foreign forces seeking to sow discontent. In July, People's Daily, the Chinese Communist Party's mouthpiece, published an article declaring that people-to-people diplomacy 'exists because of the party' and should be led by the party. The result is that even as Beijing advertises itself as eager to attract foreign businesses and tourists, it is preventing many of its own people from leaving. 'On the one hand, you want foreigners to come to China. You advertise Chinese culture and hope they'll boost the economy,' Liu, who is in her 20s, said. 'But on the other hand, why are you trapping us here, rather than letting us see more of the world?' Travel restrictions for some state employees are not new. Since 2003, high-ranking officials or those handling state secrets must report foreign travel in advance. Their names are given to border officials to prevent unauthorised exits. But under Xi Jinping, the controls have extended to far lower-level workers. Full-time officials at six fishing villages near the city of Zhoushan, in coastal Zhejiang Province, were told to surrender their documents, a local government notice shows. In a city in Jiangxi Province, a public health agency also told employees to report any overseas trips they'd taken since 2018. A nurse at a hospital in Zhejiang said she would need four layers of approvals to travel abroad. The restrictions, she said, seemed to show a fear that even ordinary workers might flee with sensitive information or illicit funds.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Misunderstanding India's advocacy for multipolarity
A growing number of liberal American geopolitical analysts and Donald Trump, whom they despise, have a few things in common — they are opposed to India's relationship with Russia, its association with Brics, and advocacy for multipolarity. Trump's criticism of India is sharp and direct, of course. The Trump presidency will end in another three-and-a-half years, but this rare consensus in Washington DC, on India's search for multipolarity will remain. This is something, therefore, Indian strategic thinkers must reflect on. Put differently, with or without Trump around, India's advocacy for multipolarity will continue to haunt New Delhi, particularly given the structural transformations underway in the international system today. India's foreign policy is not about indecision. It is a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. (AFP) Let's begin by unpacking some important aspects of multipolarity, given its many layers of complexity and ambiguity. First, notwithstanding the general perception about the virtues of multipolarity, it is becoming somewhat clear that a multipolar world is not as pretty as we had imagined it to be. Even the imperfect multipolarity that we have today — with poles of various sizes and influence competing for power — seems messy, incoherent, confusing and hard to navigate. If this is what a system that is not even really multipolar looks like, what will a true multipolar system look like? Second, notwithstanding the messy nature of the quasi-multipolar order today, New Delhi remains committed to a multipolar world. The desire for multipolarity is deeply entrenched in India's tradition of non-alignment, which is one of the first principles of Indian foreign policy. When faced with a difficult choice, the first strategic instinct of political New Delhi is to be non-aligned, neutral, and multi-aligned. Mostly in that order. I would not view that as strategic escapism. It is very much part of the DNA of Indian foreign policy. It would also be wrong to mistake non-alignment (or a variation thereof) as not valuing friendships, loyalty or solidarity: In fact, India's foreign policy history is rich with examples of friendships, loyalty and solidarity. In that sense, India's foreign policy is not about indecision; it's a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. This is where the country's fascination with a multipolar world becomes crucial, for there is no genuine autonomy, balance and agency in world affairs without true multipolarity. Third, India's complaints about American unipolarity are on a steady decline, even as the rhetoric remains. It would be a mistake, however, to view New Delhi's rhetoric against unipolarity as merely, or primarily, directed against the US because today, New Delhi is less anxious about America's global unipolarity than a potential Chinese unipolarity in Asia. While America's declining global unipolarity is mostly a theoretical concern for New Delhi, the prospect of a China-led unipolar Asia is the true source of anxiety. In that sense, New Delhi's desire for multipolarity is also an attempt at ensuring the absence of a unipolar (China-dominated) Asia. Therefore, even if New Delhi is more focused on countering Chinese unipolarity in Asia rather than US unipolarity globally, opposing regional unipolarity without opposing global unipolarity will ring hollow. There are two reasons why New Delhi would be concerned about China's unipolarity in Asia. One, this could mean that China might set the rules of geopolitical engagement in Asia. Once much of Asia falls under China's influence, it will be harder for New Delhi to push back Chinese hegemony. Two, a rise of Chinese unipolarity in Asia might prompt the US to think of accommodating China in a G2 format, especially if the American nativist and isolationist tendencies persist. In an ideal world, New Delhi's articulations must make a clear distinction between American unipolarity and Chinese attempts at unipolarity in Asia, but doing so is not easy for a variety of reasons, including that New Delhi continues to resist aspects of American unipolarity and is not yet willing to acknowledge the possibility of Chinese unipolarity in Asia. But New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony, without openly resisting the growing Chinese regional hegemony or a potentially unipolar Asia, could have unintended consequences. Some US administrations, especially the current one, might interpret India's rhetoric against American unipolarity as personal rather than an academic exercise, for the most part. This could prompt an unhappy Washington to undercut India's geopolitical standing in the region, thereby indirectly aiding China's attempts at regional hegemony. This creates a paradox: India aims to counter Chinese unipolarity in Asia by promoting global multipolarity, which annoys the US, prompting it to marginalise India in the region, thereby ultimately aiding Beijing's efforts to establish hegemony in Asia. New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony could also prompt the US, which is losing influence in various parts of the world, to seek ways of strengthening its influence in spaces where it can — this could lead to accepting Chinese unipolarity in Asia. More so, if the US reacts negatively towards India, as it is doing now, it could create a fertile ground for China and Russia to fan the Indian rhetoric against the US, encourage India to proactively participate in forums and arrangements aimed at undermining US unipolarity, and generate confusion within India's strategic community about the true motives behind India's multipolarity rhetoric. All of this will further drive the geopolitical wedge between New Delhi and Washington DC. There is no easy way out. New Delhi will need to have a lot more conversations and build trust with the US. That is not easy when a president like Trump occupies the White House. Happymon Jacob is the founder and director of the Council for Strategic and Defense Research and the editor of INDIA'S WORLD magazine. The views expressed are personal.
