Concerned about the following human rights violations in Ethiopia, which include mass killing, kidnapping, imprisonment and torture, and which are being inflicted upon the Oromos and other nations and nationalities both in Ethiopia and in neighbouring countries where they have taken refuge, have heightened our concern about the safety of those peoples:

Extra-Judicial Killing: Abdi Abrahim age 30 from Dirre Xiyara , East Hararge was shot with three bullets and killed on October 30, 2007 by the Ethiopian Government soldiers. Abdi Abrahim was shot dead near Ethiopian Military Camp, found in a place called Didibo in Eastern Hararge.

Mass Attack Against Oromo Refugees in Neighbouring Country: 65 Oromo refugees from Ethiopia were killed and more than 100 others were seriously injured when two grenades were thrown at two different hotels owned by two Oromo refugees, Melaku and Jamal Arsii, in the port town of Bossaso in Puntland, Somalia. The victims were watching a video game produced in Oromo Language at the time the attack took place on the 5th of February, 2008.

Kidnappings and Tortures: Two Oromo refugees are in a critical condition after they were kidnapped and tortured by Ethiopian soldiers operating in Somaliland.

To read the whole resolution, click here.

Following is the source of above statement;

http://www.unpo.org/article.php?id=7608

by Matthias Küntzel

Contribution to the 2nd International Hearing of the European Tribunal concerning Nato’s war against Yugoslavia. Hamburg, April 16, 2000 [1]

In 1991, a delegation of the German Bundestag visited Kosovo for the first time in order to talk with Kosovo Albanian nationalist leaders. This prompted – as early as 1991! – the warning by a senior member of the Yugoslavian parliament that “the British and the Germans would create a common intervention force with 70,000 soldiers in order to intervene in Kosovo.” [2] Indeed an early and accurate prophecy! So what about Germany’s role in preparing for the Kosovo war?

There were and there are strategic differences between German and the US policies about how to retain or enhance hegemony. “As a wealthy status quo power, the United States has an interest in maintaining international order”, wrote Joseph S. Nye, Jr, a former US deputy secretary of defense. “In a world where there are some two hundred states but many thousands of often overlapping entities that might eventually make a claim to nationhood, blind promotion of self-determination would have highly problematic consequences.” [3] Berlin, however, in seeking to create conditions for an ongoing expansion of German influence (that means: changing the international order) does not share this priority. As Rupert Scholz, the former German secretary of defense, explained: “The aim of maintaining “stability” in Europe seems to be a most dangerous one. There will not be any real stablity, which is able to maintain peace, if individual nations are held prisoner in unwanted and unnatural (“unnatürliche”) state organizations, which have been imposed upon them.” Since 1990, German foreign policy has “constantly persisted in activly advocating a universal right of self-determination.” [4]

This policy has a particular bearing on Kosovo. The hidden war about Kosovo’s future started in 1995 at the latest. In February 1995 in the presence of Roman Herzog, Germany’s President at that time, Germany and Albania signed a common declaration of principle at Tirana. This declaration is rarely mentioned in the literature but nevertheless decisive because it promised to find a “solution to the Kosovo question” by advocating the right of self-determination for Kosovo’s Albanians. [5] Advocating self-determination for Kosovo´s Albanians, however, meant advocating their right to secede from Yugoslavia. This declaration was in so far a kind of advance notice to continue Germany’s 1991 course (recognition of Croatia) in order to further split up Yugoslavia following a racist (völkisch) concept of self-determination.

In the period following, the German goverment did everything it could to spur on the separation of Albanians within Kosovo. Germany supported and financed those nationalists who sought to pursue the goal of full independence by creating alternative governing institutions as well as independent Albanian educational and medical systems in Kosovo which systematically separated the majority of the people in Kosovo from the other peoples of Yugoslavia. In addition, German secret diplomacy was instrumental in helping the “Kosovo Liberation Army” (KLA), as they call themselves, since its creation in February 1996. The daily newspaper “The European” stated that “German civil and military intelligence services have been involved in training and equipping the rebels with the aim of cementing German influence in the Balkan area.” [6]

During those years, Germany unilaterally supported the secessionist movements. In 1997 editor Johann Georg Reißmüller of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (a German daily newspaper) wrote: “The US government is not at all happy with Germany’s policy in Kosovo”.

It was, however, exactly that year – 1997 – that the crisis in Kosovo began to escalate. After the destruction of the Albanian army arsenals the KLA armed itself in order to start a large-scale nationalist rebellion. This development and the following counter-attack by the Serbian police moved Kosovo into the headlines and into the focal point of NATO’s considerations. How did Germany and the United States react?

“The Clinton administration is still uncertain about how to deal with this crisis”, later wrote the weekly newspaper Die Zeit. A senior official from the German foreign office was sent to Washington to put pressure on the deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott. “We urgently need U.S. leadership now” claimed Germany’s emissary. [7] This pattern: Germany calls for the U.S. government – actually for a special wing of the U.S government – to act against Yugoslavia were repeated between March 1998 and March 1999 over and over again. Let us now take a closer look at that pre-war diplomacy which paved the way to war.

The US government is responsible for most of the war crimes NATO committed against Yugoslavia. But even in 1998, the Clinton administration – split in several fractions on how to deal with Milosevic and the Kosovo Albanians’ nationalism – hesitated, reacting uncertainly on a case-by-case basis, oscillating between supporting the KLA and letting Milosevic have a free hand in smashing them. Germany on the other hand knew what to do and how to act. The grand design of Germany’s Kosovo policy had been in effect by March 1998. It was revealed by Germany’s informal ambassador to the Balkans, Christian Schwarz-Schilling, who on March 16, 1998 said: “We should try to tell Milosevic the plain truth through pressure and even military interventions that he can retain control over Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia only if certain fundamentals are met. And if this is not the case, the territory there will have to be transformed into a kind of protectorate until those fundamentals are provided for.” [8]

This idea of pushing the Kosovo´s Albanians towards a military confrontation with Milosevic in order to create a Kosovo protectorate from now on became the central point of Germany’s Kosovo policy – either by the Kohl/Kinkel CDU government or the Schröder/Fischer SPD-Green coalition. One condition was that international troops be stationed on Kosovo soil. As early as March 1998 Germany accordingly put this matter on the agenda at the London meeting of the international Contact Group on Yugoslavia. [9]

The other condition was that Nato would have to enter Kosovo against the will of the Yugoslav government. Accordingly, Germany sharpened its tone towards Belgrad. Milosevic became the main target and remained so whatever his policy looked like.

But France, the UK, Italy and the dominating voices within the US government still prefered to follow a less confrontational policy. In 1998, The European for example stated that “Washington realised that pushing the Kosovars towards a military confrontation with Milosevic, as the Germans wanted to do, would have a boomerang effect on the Balkans. The United States put maximum pressure on Germany to stop supporting the KLA behind the scenes, as did the other European countries such as Britain and France.” [10] They termed the KLA activities “terrorist” and supported indirectly a Serbian counteroffensive against the KLA during the summer of 1998 and appealed to Milosevic and the moderate Albanian leader Rugova to begin talks. The KLA, however, succeeded in provoking the Serbian police force and in escalating armed clashes time and again. The policy of de-escalation turned out to be a permanent failure as long as there was a continuity in the supply of KLA weapons and KLA mercenaries across the Albanian border.

It was therefore not at all surprising that in the summer of 1998 all the efforts of the United Nations and the majority of Nato countries (including the US) concentrated in the goal of cutting off the arms and soldiers supplies in favor of the KLA. The Albanian government headed by Fatos Nano who had disassociated himself from the KLA supported this plan. Inside NATO the idea of sending 7000 soldiers to cut off the traffic in weapons began to take shape.

During this crucial situation,however, Germany’s covering up for the KLA became both public and evident: The German government vetoed the cutting-off of the supply of weapons for the KLA! Klaus Kinkel, then head of the German foreign office said: “Of course you have to consider whether you are permitted from a moral and ethnical point of view to prevent the Kosovo-Albanians from buying weapons for their self-defense.” [11] Volker Rühe, then head of the ministry of defense answered to this consideration with an unequivocal No: “You cannot resolve the Kosovo conflict by sending troops to Albania to seal the border and thus be acting in favor of Milosevic.” [12] Rühe’s message was quiete clear: everyone who tries to seal the border in order to find a peaceful solution is taking sides with Milosevic. In order to disassociate yourself from Milosevic you have to escalate the war between the Kosovo Albanians and the Serbs by delivering more and more weapons to the KLA!

This open German solidarity with the KLA has been as much an isolated provocation as has the recognition of Tudjman’s Croatia in 1991, 50 years after the formation of the first Croatian state under the rule of the fascist Ustashi regime.

Just like 1991 Germany again stood nearly alone against a huge majority of countries in Europe and the world. Just like 1991 Germany again supported a movement with a background rooted in the Nazi past, because the KLA is partly led by the sons and grandsons of extreme right-wing Albanian fighters, the heirs of those who fought during World War II in the fascist militias and the “Skanderbeg Volunteer SS Division” raised by the Nazis. [13] The “National Front of Albania” (Balli Kombetar) which collaborated with Nazi leaders in 1943/44 today boasts about its influence within the KLA which has a program that seems to be a modified version of the 1943 Nazi utopia.

Thus the program of “ethnic cleansing” which Germany exported into the Balkans in 1941 remained alive within the movement of the Kosovo Albanian nationalists during the 80s. “The nationalists have a two-point platform” wrote the New York Times in 1982: “First to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then the merger with Albania to form a greater Albania.” [14] Whenever the KLA talks about “liberation” or “freeing” this has been up to now understood in the Nazi-sense of “free of something” i.e. “free of Jews” (“judenfrei”), “free of Gypsies” or “free of Serbs”. Noone could be really surprised when, beginning with June 1999, the de facto rule of the KLA turned out to be a daily and a deadly trap for thousands of non-Albanians, especially defenceless Serbs.

In the summer of 1998 Germany and the USA took not only opposite but conflicting sides: While the USA – in the words of General Shelton, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – has had “concerns about the techniques that are being used to put down, to squelch the uprising” [15] Germany on the other hand acted as the protective power for the KLA. This confrontation includes a strategic conflict within NATO: Is the Atlantic Alliance supposed to help or to hinder the KLA? Should NATO as the KLA’s airforce contribute to the revision of state borders and the further diminishing of Yugoslavia? Or is the alliance bound to clap down on such a type of militant secessionism?

It was Germany’s insistence and the ignorance or thirst for adventure within the leadership of the other NATO powers that brought the world’s biggest military alliance eventually in favor of the Albanian nationalists. Germany has “given evidence of its prepareness to lead” praised the influential Frankfurter Allgemeine. [16] Now Germany once again took the lead in pressing for military intervention in Kosovo. The New York Times reported: “German officials seem increasingly inchined towards charting a military course to stop the violence in Kosovo.” [17] Indeed. “Mr. Kinkel threatens with a Nato intervention in Kosovo” proclaimed the headlines of German papers on June 5, 1998. “The United States, unlike Germany, rejects a snap decision about a military intervention”, wrote Frankfurter Allgemeine the following day. Volker Rühe was the first government official in Europe who as early as June 15, 1998 spoke in favor of a strike against Yugoslavia even without a UN Security Council green light. This suggestion played havoc with not only the UN Charter but also with the German constitution and the Treaty of Moscow concerning German unification. This proposal was later taken up positively by the USA. We have to conclude, therefore, that Germany is not only guilty of committing the crimes which are connected with the US-led bombing of Yugoslavia, but is responsible for ardently working towards triggering this war. The German concept for Kosovo includes the following:

* to make a stand against the Yugoslav government
* unlimited support for the Kosovo Albanian nationalists who demand independence and a lasting unification with Albania
* to demand for air-strikes against Yugoslavia in order to achieve a NATO protectorate for Kosovo which is supposed to be only an interim step towards the independence of Kosovo.

Strategic differences between German and the US policies diminished considerably in 1999 when the Clinton administration decided to go to war in favor of the ultra-secessionist KLA. They seem to gain, however, new weight in the post-war debate about the final status of Kosovo. US Secretary of State Madelaine Albright recently rejected the idea of creating a greater Albania, whereas German policy seems to be pushing in the opposite direction.

Karl Lamers, the influential CDU foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition in the Bundestag said about the transformation of Kosovo into a NATO protectorate that this is “only the first step towards the separation of Kosovo from Yugoslavia” and that an independent Kosovo will be “only an interim step to merging (“Anschluss”) with Albania.” [18] Recently, Lamers mentioned with great satisfaction “that everything we are actually doing in Kosovo, e. g. the creation of a new currency zone, is aimed at creating an independent Kosovo…”. [19] Even Germany’s red/green coalition government does not want to recognize Kosovo as being a province of Yugoslavia. That is the reason why in his last major statement Joschka Fischer – Germany’s vice-chancellor and secretary of state – let the question of “the future status of the Kosovo” open claiming that it would be impossible to resolve this now. In an interview with a French newspaper, however, he made clear that he had no doubts about the Kosovo’s future status: “The international community is present in Kosovo and the Balkans in order to show that – according to the example of resolving the ,German question’ in 1990 – the ,Albanian question’ could be resolved only with the agreement of the neighbouring states.” [20]

US government circles are quite aware of the ambitions of their rival, Germany. Zbigniew Brzezinski called the Berlin republic a “geostrategic main actor” and a “subversive big power inspired by an ambitious vision”. Strobe Talbott, the deputy secretary of state, characterized Germany as the seismic focal point of the current geopolitical earthquakes which are disrupting the Atlantic Alliance as well as the Balkans. He emphasized that Germany is “the epicentre of thoses processes – enlargement and expansion, extension and deepening.” [21]

Within the context of the war against Yugoslavia the other great powers, however, not only reacted to aggressive German moves but pursued their own special interests as well. The United States wanted to retain its influence in Europe, to strengthen a worldwide role for NATO and to weaken Russias influence within the new world order. Great Britain und France were eager to demonstrate their military superiority over Germany and wanted to give a starting signal for the establishing of an independent European intervention force (together with Germany) vis-a-vis the USA. Each of these nations is a rival to the others and is trying to retain or achieve as much influence and power as possible. The war against Yugoslavia has been the first, however, to be spurred on by Germany as an attempt to redesign current world order after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This war has put the irrational elements and the destructive roots of capitalistic societies into a new light.

(Not published)
———————————————————————————————
[1] This contribution is a short description of a broader study: Matthias Küntzel, Der Weg in den Krieg. Deutschland, die Nato und das Kosovo, Elefanten Press, Berlin 2000. The author´s e-mail address: MatKuentzel@aol.com.

[2] This warning was published in the Yugoslavian journal Polityka; see the minutes of the Bundestag meeting June 16, 1991, pp. 2560-1.

[3] Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Redefining the National Interest, Foreign Affairs Vol.78 No.4, July/August 1999 pp. 22-35.

[4] See Rupert Scholz, Das Festhalten an ungewollten Staaten schafft keine Stabilität, in: Die Welt, December 12, 1991; Rupert Scholz, Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht und die deutsche Politik, in: Internationale Politik 4/1995, S.51.

[5] “Deutschland und Albanien … bekräftigen das Recht aller Völker, frei und ohne Einmischung von außen ihr Schicksal zu bestimmen und ihre politische, wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Entwicklung nach eigenem Wunsch zu gestalten.” This declaration is published in the Archiv der Gegenwart, March 13, 1995, pp. 39819-20.

[6] Roger Fallgot, How Germany Backed KLA, in: The European, 21-27 September 1998. See for more details M. Küntzel, Der Weg in den Krieg pp. 59-64.

[7] See Die Zeit, May 12, 1999.

[8] Christian Schwarz-Schilling, March 16, 1999, Deutschlandradio, quoted in: Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, April 1998, p. 47.

[9] Russia, the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany are members of this informal but influential group.

[10] Roger Fallgot, ibid.

[11] Interview with Klaus Kinkel, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, July 30, 1998.

[12] Mr. Rühe is quoted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine, June 9, 1998.

[13] See Chris Hedges, Kosovo´s Next Masters? in: Foreign Affairs, Vol.78, No.3, May/June 1999, pp.24-42. “Although never much of a fighting force, the Skanderbeg Division took part in the shameful roundup and deportation of the province´s few hundred Jews during the Holocaust. ... The decision by KLA commanders to dress their police in black fatigues and order their fighters to salute with a cleched fist to the forehead has led many to worry about these fascist antecedents.” (ibid.)

[14] See Marvine Howe, Exodus of Serbians Stirs Province in Yugoslavia, New York Times July 12, 1982.

[15] See New York Times, June 16, 1998.

[16] See Frankfurter Allgemeine, September 26, 1998.

[17] See New York Times, June 10, 1998.

[18] See the minutes of the Bundestag parliamentary session of April 15, 1999.

[19] See the minutes of the Bundestag parliamentary session of April 5, 2000.

[20] See Le Monde March 25, 2000, emphasis by the author.

[21] See Frankfurter Allgemeine, February 5, 1999.

"UNPO condemms the draconian Chinese response that has led to substantial loss of life and countless detentions and beatings, and calls upon the Chinese authorities at all levels to enter into a constructive dialoque designed to end the violence and promote a return to peace within Tibet as soon as possible"

And since every Keylogger needs a Server, guess where the Server is located! Damm right: In China!!! xsz.8800.org, this server is allready quite known by internet security specalists: "8800.org is a Chinese DNS-bouncer system that, while not rogue by itself, has been used over and over again in various targeted attacks."(F-Secure)

And that's not it! There many more of these attacks going on right now! All of them have in common that the sender adress is spoofed to look like a trusted party and that they all have an infected file attached to it that has something to do with Pro-Tibeteriasm.

I do not know, if this is the doing of (recently growing) chinese intelligence services, some other politically/economically driven party or rouge black hat hackers (the later seems quite unlikely though). I guess, the chinese government wouldn't hinder anyone doing just this kind of stuff. The fact, that this is acutally happening should be enough, to cause an international outcry!

There is another thing, that really concerns me: The Russian Business Network (RBN), one of the worst areas in the Internet in terms of cybercrime recently shut down it's servers/lost connection to the rest of the internet. While there have been reports suggesting, the RBN re-opened it's doors, there are RBN-like structures arising on chinese ground - perhaps even financed by the RBN. At the same time, Chinese government recently decided to form a military cyber-unit and international govermental agencies see themselves confronted with acts of chinese reconnaissance and sometimes even attacks. Of course, they are not directly traceable to the chinese government, still...Many security specialists believe, that china is kinda seeking worldwide cyber-dominance. All this suggests, that China does have the ressources to stop those RBN-derivates but nothing seems to happen! What does this mean? Propably China even likes the RBN to gain a foothold in China so they can pretend to be rouge hackers while attacking...let's say the german Reichstag (as allready happend if I'm not mistaken). Of course, this is all a hypothesis, nothing real! But feel yourself warned: Secure your Computer! Hard times are to come!

Whoever it is, they are trying to spy on Pro-Tibetian groups and individuals. So if you get an unrequested mail by any party with any kind of attachement: double check, if the file is clean via antivirus-software and by sending (do not use the reply function but any known mail addy) a mail asking, if this mail really originates from the specified sender! Furthermore: Inform other Pro-tibetian Individuals/Groups of this new threat.

If every ethnic minority/majority needs diplomatic representation, then let all the different ethnic mash ups make their own nations such as Kingdom of Expatriate Arabia, Pharaonic Coptic Republic of Gayyid Giddan, Peoples Republic of Chinalaysia, Zimbabwean Republic of White Farmers and many others.

 The thought of allowing every group representation is frightening.  People are either bound by ideas, values, religion or race.  What annoys me today is the fact that many Muslims in the west hate defining their racial identity.  They think it's haram or shameful to mention their ethnic background. 

Here's a mock-dialogue:

Me:  Salam Alaykum Brother!

Them:  Alaykum Salam Brother!  Are you from...?

Me:  No, I'm from the United States.

Them:  Where's your dad ORIGINALLY from?

Me:  I'm a third generation American.  Where are you from?

Them:  Oh I'm Muslim!  It doesn't matter where I'm from!  I'm Muslim by blood.

For those that die for proof even though this isn't an issue of fiqh or aqeedah, I do have some proof.

 1.  Islam is not a racial terminology.  Dictionary.com - Islam is the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah.  Yes.  Some of you might say, AUTHOBILLAH!!!  Islam is a way of life.  Allow me to grab my rolling pin should you say Islam is genetics and dna.

2.  Islam does not discriminate towards people that are of different races - understood.

3.  Islam does not prohibit people from identifying themselves as a particular race or ethnic makeup.  In fact, Islam wholesomely encourages it.  Proof?  The Prophet peace be upon him used to call Salman the Persian and Sohaib the Roman.

4.  Allah made nations so that we identify each other.  Refer to Surah Al-Hujuraat please!  It says in meaning, "We have created you different groups and tribes so that you might know one another.  Verily the best of you in front of Allah are the most pious."  Here the verse identified the reason behind Allah creating different ethnic groups and nations so that we might know each other.  However, let not nationalism carry you into thinking you're better than the other person.

5.  Under an "Islamic Caliphate", Muslims were Muslims but identified themselves along racial lines to differentiate one another and not for racial supremacy.  Remember the good old names like Imam Bukhaari, Imam Tirmidhi and many others?

6.  The more that people say Islam is a "race" reminds me of Judaism because Judaism is for an exclusive race.

Now back to the issue of UNPO, should anyone out there feel that they need to be represented as the Nation of Islam, no pun intended, then please apply to UNPO.

On a further note:  It looks like the so-called "Khawarij" or OBL can't register under UNPO because they violate every single UNPO principle:

• the equal right to self-determination; clearly they only accept their right to determination, anyone that opposes them are kuffar.
• adherence to the internationally accepted human rights standards as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments; understood.
• adherence to the principles of democratic pluralism and rejection of totalitarianism and religious intolerance; clearly, hukum bi ghayri maa anzala Allah is kuffar akbar for them - not in anyway saying that it's halal either!!!
• promotion of non-violence and the rejection of terrorism as an instrument of policy;  yeah right... 
• protection of the natural environment; not really...unless caves are included

Conclusion:  It's important that we know one another and enjoy the different ethnic cultures but don't deny your ethnic heritage.  As long as your ethnic customs doen't contradict Islam, it's all good in the hood!  Don't you just hate people that put their culture over their own intellect and religion?

Destino e futuro.

Pensamento socioculturalista

O Quinto Mundo e o Novo Micronacionalismo - Carlos Góes.

Expediente

Editor - Carlos Góes

Redação - Carlos Góes, Filipe Sales, Rodrigo Mariano e Fernando Henrique Cardozo.

The annual report on the Patterns of Global Terrorism during 2001 of the Counter-Terrorism Division of the US State Department states as follows on China's contribution to the war of the international coalition against terrorism:

2. "Chinese officials strongly condemned the September 11 attacks and announced China would strengthen cooperation with the international community in fighting terrorism on the basis of the UN Charter and international law. China voted in support of both UN Security Council resolutions after the attack. Its vote for Resolution 1368 marked the first time it has voted in favor of authorizing the international use of force. China also has taken a constructive approach to terrorism problems in South and Central Asia, publicly supporting the Coalition campaign in Afghanistan and using its influence with Pakistan to urge support for multinational efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaida. China and the United States began a counterterrorism dialogue in late-September, which was followed by further discussions during Ambassador Taylor�s (Francis Taylor, the State Department's Counter-Terrorism Co-Ordinator) trip in December to Beijing. The September 11 attacks added urgency to discussions held in Washington, DC, Beijing, and Hong Kong. The results have been encouraging and concrete; the Government of China has approved establishment of an FBI Legal Attache in Beijing and agreed to create US-China counterterrorism working groups on financing and law enforcement.

3. "In the wake of the attacks, Chinese authorities undertook a number of measures to improve China�s counterterrorism posture and domestic security. These included increasing its vigilance in Xinjiang, western China, where Uighur separatist groups have conducted violent attacks in recent years, to include increasing the readiness levels of its military and police units in the region. China also bolstered Chinese regular army units near the borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan to block terrorists fleeing from Afghanistan and strengthening overall domestic preparedness. At the request of the United States, China conducted a search within Chinese banks for evidence to attack terrorist financing mechanisms.

4. "A number of bombing attacks�some of which were probably separatist-related�occurred in China in 2001. Bomb attacks are among the most common violent crimes in China due to the scarcity of firearms and the wide availability of explosives for construction projects.

5. "China has expressed concern that Islamic extremists operating in and around the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region who are opposed to Chinese rule received training, equipment, and inspiration from al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other extremists in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Several press reports claimed that Uighurs trained and fought with Islamic groups in the former Soviet Union, including Chechnya.

6. "Two groups in particular are cause for concern: the East Turkestan Islamic Party (ETIP) and the East Turkestan Liberation Organization (or Sharki Turkestan Azatlik Tashkilati, known by the acronym SHAT). ETIP was founded in the early 1980s with the goal of establishing an independent state of Eastern Turkestan and advocates armed struggle. SHAT�s members have reportedly been involved in various bomb plots and shootouts.

7. "Uighurs were found fighting with al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We are aware of credible reports that some Uighurs who were trained by al-Qaida have returned to China.

8. "Previous Chinese crackdowns on ethnic Uighurs and others in Xinjiang raised concerns about possible human-rights abuses. The United States has made clear that a counterterrorism campaign cannot serve as a substitute for addressing legitimate social and economic aspirations," the report concluded.

9. This positive portrayal of the Chinese contribution to the war against international terrorism was, however, not reflected in any action by the US against any terrorist groups of concern to China. No known terrorist/extremist organisation of Xinjiang figures in either the list of 33 designated Foreign Terrorist Organisations or in the list of other terrorist organisations not so designated appended to the State Department report. No organisation or individual connected with acts of terrorism in Xinjiang figures in the list updated as on July 18,2002, of suspected individuals or organisations against whom financial sanctions (freezing of accounts) are to be enforced by banks.

10. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the Abu Sayyaf of the southern Philippines have been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organisations under the US law of 1996, but not the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Party, though all the three are members of Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front For Jehad Against the USA and Israel. In initiating action, either for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation or for action under the UN Security Council Resolution No. 1373 in respect of bank accounts, the US and the European Union have focussed essentially on terrorist organisations, which are perceived by them as international in nature or which are seen as posing a threat to their nationals and interests. Terrorist organisations viewed by them as purely indigenous have been excluded. These multiple yardsticks have been used vis-a-vis China as well as India.

11. Thus, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), all three Pakistan-based, have been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organisations and the Harkat-ul-Jehad-Al-Islami (HUJI), also Pakistan-based, figures in the list of other terrorist organisations not so designated, but indigenous Kashmiri terrorist organisations such as the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) etc have escaped action. Action has also been taken against the Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF), apparently because of their past involvement in acts of terrorism outside Indian territory such as the explosion on board the Kanishka plane of Air India in June,1985 and the attempt to kill Indian Ambassador Ribeiro in Bucharest in 1991, but the other Sikh terrorist organisations such as the Khalistan Commando Force have been excluded.

12. Despite China's support to the international coalition against terrorism led by the US, Washington continues to maintain its ambivalence vis-a-vis the Uighur separatist groups and avoids identifying them as terrorists as Beijing would like it to do. After a meeting at Beijing on December 6, 2001, with Chinese Vice Foreign Ministers Li Zhaoxing and Wang Yi, Francis Taylor, the Counter-terrorism Co-ordinator of the US State Department, said: "The legitimate economic and social issues that confront the people in Western China are not necessarily terrorist issues and should be resolved politically rather than using counterterrorism methods."

13. After October 7, 2001, the Chinese Government, which previously had been playing down the frequent incidents of violence in the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), started playing them up and projecting them as due to East Turkestan terrorists, who formed part of the international terrorism network and hence should be a legitimate target of the international coalition. It repeatedly urged that the Uighurs captured by the US in Afghanistan should be handed over to the Chinese authorities for trial as terrorists, a request which has not yet been accepted by the US. Addressing a press conference at Beijing in the beginning of November, 2001,Zhang Qiyue, a spokeswoman for China's Foreign Ministry, claimed that there were hundreds of Uighurs in Afghanistan. The "Xinjiang Daily" published a detailed report on acts the Government considered as "terrorism" in Xinjiang over the past decade. She said that the "East Turkestan" terrorist force had close links with international terrorist forces and that "at least several hundred of these separatist-minded terrorists" once received training in Afghanistan. She added that China was willing to make joint efforts with the international community to fight against all manners of terrorism, "including the 'East Turkestan' terrorist force."

14. Following the summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Forum held in Shanghai after the start of the US operations in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, Chinese President Jiang Zemin said: "Terrorism should be cracked down upon, whenever and wherever it occurs, whoever organizes it, whoever is targeted and whatever forms it takes. "Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said during the APEC summit in Shanghai that the Al Qaeda had even sent some of the East Turkestan terrorists to fight in Chechnya. Official Chinese media reported that during their meeting on the fringes of the APEC summit, Jiang and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed that "Chechnya and East Turkestan terrorist activities are part of international terrorism."

15. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao urged during a media briefing that the international community "should hold a uniform stance and consistent attitude in opposing and combating international terrorism. " Apparently to satisfy the Chinese, the statement on terrorism issued by the APEC summit condemned "murderous deeds as well as other terrorist acts in all forms and manifestations, committed wherever, whenever and by whomsoever. " However, in remarks to the media before and after a bilateral meeting with Jiang in Shanghai, President Bush reiterated the US position as follows without specifically referring to Uighur terrorism:"The war on terrorism must never be an excuse to persecute minorities;" "ethnic minorities must know that their rights will be safeguarded-that their churches, temples and mosques belong to them."

16. Briefing the media in Beijing after a party conference on March,11, 2002, Abdulait Abuderexit, the Chairman of the Xinjiang provincial Administration, made the following points:

* Separatists in Xinjiang at home or abroad got both material and financial support from some extreme terror organizations abroad, and violent actions that had taken place in Xinjiang received financial aid from overseas.

* "During the US anti-terror war in Afghanistan, we did find some separatists in Xinjiang who joined some training programs abroad. Chinese police had caught some terrorists who returned to Xinjiang secretly after receiving training in the terrorist camps of Afghanistan and some other countries. The police of those countries concerned had also extradited and handed some of those terrorists to China."

* The paper on the East Turkestan terrorist forces issued by the State Council Information Office had made it clear that various terrorist activities had been under way in Xinjiang since the 1950s. Incomplete statistics showed that from 1990 to 2001, the East Turkestan terrorist forces inside and outside Chinese territory were responsible for over 200 terrorist incidents in Xinjiang, resulting in the deaths of 162 people of all ethnic groups, including grass-roots officials and religious personnel, and injuries to more than 440 people.

17. There are nearly a hundred organisations, which keep popping up from time to time claimimg to represent different sections of the Uighurs in Xinjiang as well as outside and to be fighting on their behalf. It is difficult to say whether all such organisations exist in reality or whether many of these are merely letter-head organisations, which exist only on paper. India faced a similar situation in Jammu & Kashmir in the early 1990s when nearly a hundred organisations popped up overnight. Most of these were subsequently found to be figments of imagination.

18. Amongst the major terrorist/extremist organisations of Xinjiang identified so far are the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Party, the Eastern Turkestan People's Revolutionary Party, the Eastern Turkestan Independence Organization, the Eastern Turkestan Grey Wolf Party, the Eastern Turkestan Liberation Front ,the Islamic Movement of Eastern Turkestan, which could be identical with the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Party, the Home of East Turkestan Youth, which is described by some analysts as the Hamas of Xinjiang,as highly motivated and as radical as the Hamas, the Turkey-based East Turkestan National Center, headed by by Reza Berken, a retired Uighur Colonel of the Turkish Army, and the Committee for Eastern Turkestan, based in Kazakhstan.

19. The Eastern Turkestan Islamic Party (Sharki Turkistan Islam Partiyesi), based in the cities of Kashgar and Hoten, is supported mainly by religious fundamentalist elements, conservative forces and some farmers. The Eastern Turkestan Revolutionary Party (Sharki Turkistan Inkalavi Partiyesi), in Urumchi and Ghulja, claims the support of writers, progressive students and other intellectuals. The Eastern Turkestan Independence Organization (Sharki Turkistan Azatlik Teshkilati) is centered in Hoten. It claims the support of some young farmers, unemployed Uighurs and young officials. The Eastern Turkestan Grey Wolf Party (Sharki Turkistan Bozkurt Partiyesi) used to have some following in Urumchi. It is believed in Xinjiang that the Uighurs descended from a wolf and hence its name. This party, reportedly backed by teachers,students and other intellectuals, was said to be Turkic-oriented. The Eastern Turkestan Liberation Front (Sharki Turkistan Azatlik Fronti) reportedly has a presence in the cities of Turfan and Kumul and is supported by unemployed Uighur youth, farmers and intellectuals. Of these organisations, only the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Party and the Home of East Turkestan Youth seem to be oriented towards religious extremism and pan-Islamism. The relative support enjoyed by these organisations amongst the local people and their respective roles in acts of violence in Xinjiang are difficult to establish.

20. Some of these organisations have ideological and possibly even operational link-ups with the Hizb-e Tehrir (HT) or Party of Liberation, which is not based in Xinjiang and which projects itself, without convincing proof, as the largest and the most popular Islamic movement with following in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan and which has been fighting to establish an Islamic Caliphate in the historical region once known as Turkestan, encompassing the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China, often referred to as Eastern Turkestan, and the Central Asian Republics (CARS), referred to as Western Turkestan. They are also reported to have links with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which, according to Russian media reports not independently corroborated, has re-named itself since June, 2001, as the Hizb-i-Islami Turkestan, or the Islamic Party of Turkestan, and re-formulated its objective as the creation of an Islamic republic out of the five Central Asian Republics and the XUAR of China.

21. The problem of terrorism/religious extremism faced by China in Xinjiang has certain similarities with that faced by India in the Punjab in the past and in J&K presently. The first similarity relates to the role of some members of the diaspora in fomenting terrorism. In India, Sikh terrorism in the Punjab was initially started by some members of the Sikh diaspora in Canada, the USA, the UK and other Western countries, with the encouragement of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the USA's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the Nixon Administration, but it could never gather much support from amongst the Sikh population of Punjab. This facilitated the counter-terrorism operations of the Punjab Police. On the contrary, terrorism in J&K was initially started by indigenous elements with the support of the Kashmiris in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK), with very little involvement of the Kashmiri (essentially Mirpuri) diaspora in the West. In Xinjiang, the role of the Uighur diaspora in the Central Asian Republics (CARs), Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the West in fomenting terrorist violence and political destabilisation has been as considerable as in the case of the Sikh diaspora in the Indian Punjab.

22. The Uighur organisations claim that there are presently about 500,000 Uighurs living in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. About 200,000 of them are in Kazakhstan of whom a half live in Almaty. It is alleged that an umbrella organisation called the Inter-State Uighur Union (Uygurlarning Devletlerara Ittifaki), headed by Kahraman Gojamberdi, acts as the front organisation of the Europe-based Eastern Turkestani Union in the CARs and mobilises the support of the diaspora for the so-called struggle against Beijing through an Eastern Turkestani Fund and an International Eastern Turkestani Coordination Center.

23. Beijing has been particularly concerned over what it apparently perceives as the failure of the authorities of Kyrgyzstan to act effectively against Uighur trouble-makers from Kyrgyz territory. In 1998, Uighurs in Kyrgyzstan staged a protest demonstration against China in Bishkek. In a protest note to the Kyrgyzstan government, Pan Chan Lin, the Chinese Ambassador, said that "certain forces in Kyrgyzstan are harboring subversive aims against China" and that "this kind of subversive activity on the soil of Kyrgyzstan will harm the warm friendship between Bishkek and Beijing. " In March 2000, the head of the Uighur community in Kyrgyzstan, Nigmat Bazakov, was assassinated, according to Kyrygz officials, for refusing to back an Uighur separatist group. Last January, a court in Kyrgyzstan condemned to death an Uzbek militant fighting alongside Uighur separatists for Bazakov's murder. On July 1, 2002, a Chinese diplomat posted in Bishkek and his driver were reportedly assassinated. It is not yet clear who was responsible for the assassination.

24. The second similarity relates to the external causes of aggravation of the terrorist violence in Xinjiang. Just as in J & K, in Xinjiang too, there are two distinct terrorist/extremist movements---one resorting to violence on ethnic grounds to assert the Uighur ethnic identity against the perceived Han Chinese domination and the other using religious and pan-Islamic arguments to justify violence for the establishment of an independent Islamic State. While the ethnic separatist elements have been the beneficiaries of sympathy and support from the Dalai Lama's set-up and the Tibetan diaspora abroad, and the US, Taiwanese and Turkish intelligence agencies, the religious fundamentalist elements have been in receipt of support from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)-backed jehadi organisations in Pakistan, the Taliban and bin Laden's International Islamic Front For Jehad Against the USA and Israel.

25. In the 1970s and the 1980s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the USA had built up a network of contacts with the Uighur separatist elements and some of those, who had in the past worked for the Munich-based Radio Liberty of the CIA such as Erkin Alptekin, chairman of the Europe-based Eastern Turkestani Union and a close Uighur associate of the Dalai Lama, are now in the forefront of the ethnic separatist movement.

26. On October 16, 1998, what was billed as the First International Conference of the Allied Committee of the Peoples of Eastern Turkestan, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia was held at the Columbia University in New York. Some officials of the Clinton administration and some pro-Dalai Lama members of the US Congress were amongst the 100 participants. Rinchen Darlo, the New York representative of the Dalai Lama, opened the conference and read out messages from the Dalai Lama and Isa Yusuf Alptekin (since dead), father of Erkin Alptekin. The Dalai Lama expressed his support for the Allied Committee and said in his message: "Though Mongolians and Tibetans share a common religion and religious heritage, our ties to the people of Eastern Turkestan are no less. Our three peoples are tied together by geography and history, and these days unfortunately by the Chinese occupation of our countries. During the last few years we have seen momentous changes come to the world. The Soviet empire has collapsed, and in its wake many formerly oppressed nations have regained their freedom and independence... In view of these changes, I remain optimistic that not too far in the future the true aspirations of the peoples of Eastern Turkestan, Inner Mongolia and Tibet will be fulfilled, and I am confident that the people of Eastern Turkestan, Inner Mongolia and Tibet will contribute to peace, prosperity and stability of not only China, but Asia as a whole."

27. The late Isa Yusuf Alptekin, based in Turkey, said in his message:" The peoples of Eastern Turkestan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia believe that the United States is in an unique position to play an important role in this matter. Therefore, I kindly request the people of the United States, the United States Congress, the Administration and the press to give due ear to the free voice of our peoples - the Allied Committee. I have devoted my entire life to bring the plight of my peoples to the attention of the Free World. I am almost 95 years old, have lost my eyesight, and God only knows how long I have to live. But one thing is very clear to me: even if I pass away the Allied Committee under the leadership of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, our common spokesman, my brother and my sincere friend, will carry on the non-violent struggle of the peoples of Eastern Turkestan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia with strong determination."

28. Erkin Alptekin,the first Chairman of the Allied Committee, urged the USA to persuade the Chinese leadership to begin negotiations to defuse the tense situation in Eastern Turkestan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia peacefully and to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. He called on the UN to send a fact-finding mission to these areas. He also called on the Chinese leaders to sit down with representatives from Eastern Turkestan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia in an effort to encourage stability and prosperity among the Chinese people and freedom and happiness among the peoples of these three countries. Amongst others who spoke were Foreign Minister Tenzing Tethong of the Exile Government of Tibet,the President of the Inner Mongolia League for the Defense of Human Rights, Shobsood Temsiltu, Prof. James Seymore of the Columbia University, Professor Yan Jia-qi also of the Columbia University, Prof. Robert Thurman, also of the Columbia University, Dr. Shevket Karaduman, president of the Federation of Turkish American Associations, Omer Kanat, a representative of Eastern Turkestan, Gyaltsen Gyaltag, representative of the Dalai Lama in Europe, and Lodi Gyari, Special Envoy of the Dalai Lama in Washington DC.

29. In February,1998, Anwar Yusuf, President of the Eastern Turkistan National Freedom Center, visited Taiwan at the invitation of the World Federation of Taiwanese Associations, reportedly a US-based organisation, along with Erkin Alptekin; Professor Thubtin Jigme Norbu, elder brother of the Dalai Lama; Tashi Jamyangling, former Home Secretary of the Tibetan Government in exile; and Johnar Bache, Vice Chairman of the Southern Mongolian People's Party. They met Liu Sung-pan, the then President of Taiwan's Legislative Yuan; Shui-Bian Chen, the then Mayor of Taipei; and Frank C.T. Hsieh, the then Mayor of Kaosiung.

30. The Turkish intelligence has allegedly been funding the World Turkic Friendship, Brotherhood and Cooperation Conference held periodically to highlight the Turkic identity.

31. Despite publicly unarticulated concerns over the encouragement received by the ethnic separatist elements from governmental and non-governmental organisations in the USA and the European Union member-States, the Chinese have been co-operating with the US in its war against terrorism in Afghanistan in the hope that the success of the US counter-terrorism strikes against the Taliban and the Al Qaeda could help them in their own operations against the pan-Islamic elements in Xinjiang. They have reasons to be concerned over the dregs of the Al Qaeda and other members of the International Islamic Front gravitating towards POK and the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) as this could add to their security problems in Xinjiang. The recent grenade attack in Pakistan by suspected pro-bin Laden terrorists on a party of German and other tourists travelling by the Karakoram Highway to Xinjiang would indicate the presence of some of these dregs in the vicinity of Pakistan's border with Xinjiang.

32. Despite their support to the USA in its war against terrorism, the Chinese are concerned over the possibility of the USA taking advantage of the war to establish a permanent military and intelligence presence in the CARs as this would enable the US intelligence agencies to keep alive the ethnic separatist elements in Xinjiang by working through the Uighur diaspora in the CARs. However, the Chinese have not yet openly expressed these concerns.

33. It is difficult to quantify the extent of the influence of bin Laden and his International Islamic Front on the pan-Islamic elements in Xinjiang. The Chinese themselves have been estimating the number of Uighurs trained in Afghanistan by the Taliban and the Al Qaeda before October 7, 2001, as about 1,000, but this appears to be an over-estimation. On the basis of the present evidence from Pakistan, the number cannot be more than 100.

34. India should have reasons to be concerned over the Dalai Lama's hobnobbing with the pan-Islamic elements in Xinjiang. One cannot avoid suspecting that the influence of these elements must have been behind his participation in a conference organised in Chennai last year by some elements, which have been acting as apologists for Gen.Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani military dictator, which was attended by a representative of the Huryiat of J&K and a large number of Pakistanis, some of them retired Pakistani military officers. The Dalai Lama's set-up subsequently denied or played down some of the controversial remarks attributed to him at the conference.

35. The Government of India should consider conveying to the Dalai Lama its unhappiness and concern over his association with pan-Islamic elements in Xinjiang.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-Mail: corde@vsnl.com )

A $12 million gift to Princeton from Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein will create the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, which will serve as a center for research and teaching on issues of self-determination around the world.

The gift will expand the University's existing Liechtenstein Research Program on Self-Determination, which also has been funded by Prince Hans-Adam II. It will enable Princeton faculty, students and outside experts to expand their work and embark on wide-ranging new projects in such places as Kosovo, Kashmir, and Chechnya.

As a bridge between academia and the practical world, the Liechtenstein Institute will engage both in fundamental research and in a practical search for solutions to real-world problems.

"By creating a non-polemical environment for research and discussion, we hope to help reduce the tumultuous and frequently violent process inherent in the search for increased autonomy," said Wolfgang Danspeckgruber, a lecturer in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the founding director of the new institute. He believes the institute can advance compromises that recognize community autonomy within existing states along with regional integration, preventing secession in all but the most extreme cases.

Researchers at the institute are beginning work on three major projects. An initiative launched in June by Danspeckgruber and Stephen Kotkin, director of the Russian Studies Program, is exploring state power, borders and self-governance in the former Soviet Union. The project is expected to conclude with findings and recommendations presented at a major conference in 2001.

In the second project, which is also supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, researchers will develop strategies to prevent and manage crises of self-determination. This project brings together Danspeckgruber, Michael Doyle, director of the Center of International Studies; Jeffrey Herbst, chair of the Department of Politics; and Gilbert Rozman, professor of sociology.

In the third project, researchers will search for solutions to the problem in Kashmir, where separatist groups have mounted an 11-year struggle against Indian rule. Predominantly Muslim Kashmir has been the main point of conflict between India and Pakistan since the partition of India in 1947.

At the same time, the institute will continue work to assist in finding a peaceful solution for conflict in the Balkans. An international conference evaluating the implications of self-determination at the beginning of the 21st century is planned for the coming academic year, Danspeckgruber said.

The institute will be part of the Center of International Studies in the Woodrow Wilson School. Each year, the institute will support at least one visiting postdoctoral fellow along with other outstanding scholars or diplomats. It also will encourage the creation of new courses related to self-government, and will support related research by undergraduates, graduate students and faculty.

The institute is an outgrowth of the Liechtenstein Research Program on Self-Determination, which was created in 1994 and supported by Prince Hans-Adam II. The research program already has produced numerous books and publications, and convened international conferences attended by scholars, political leaders and diplomats focused on self-determination.

In a letter to President Shapiro, Prince Hans-Adam II said he and his family consider the new gift "money well invested for the benefit of mankind."