The US and China's semiotic politics

I get my news from online sources and word of mouth, so I definitely don't know what's currently the buzz in American news, aside from of course the Democratic primaries, which even makes the news here in Hong Kong consistently.

But what about the violence in Tibet? Here's my take.

Recently, Chinese news media revealed that they had foiled a "terrorist" plot to sabotage the Olympics. They are specifically referring to the Eastern Turkistan Independence Movement (ETIM), which is a movement fighting for the independence of Xinjiang province, the Muslim Uighur territory that I backpacked to a couple years ago. Similar to Tibet, the territory has got its own cultural, political, and historical realities that, in my opinion and in the opinion of many Uighurs, should make it its own nation independent from China. Unfortunately, the Chinese government has flooded the region with Han Chinese, and also strategically take advantage of the oil sources in the Taklamakan dessert.

But why is this movement being labeled

terrorism

when the Tibetan movement is not? Is it because Uighurs are brown, and Muslim, while Tibetans are not?

My point is not that Tibetans should be labeled terrorists, but that this fact exposes how events are co-opted by governments to represent "reality" the way they want it represented - that news is a semiotic tool. Beijing after all didn't label ETIM a terrorist organization until after 9/11, when the US really started circulating a vocabulary of anti-Muslim ideology - embodied by the word "terrorist".

But while China jumps on the US bandwagon and uses their political vocabulary for its own interests, the US simultaneously circulates anti-Chinese ideology epitomized by the phrase "human rights abuses." Let me get it straight that the Free Tibet groups and activists, as well as the Tibetans themselves who are leading an inspirational struggle, I think they are commendable, their hearts are true, compassionate, and just. The way that the US media and government piggy-backs off of this to deal with its fear that China is challenging its dominance is what's unjust. We have to ask, after all, why didn't the US get as much Olympics criticism for its own baggage of indigenous rights issues - in regards to Puerto Rico, or Pacific islands like Guam or Hawaii? Human rights abuses? What about Guantanamo Bay? Iraq? Afghanistan? And immigrant detainees in the US after 9/11? The US has got a lot of human rights baggage...where were the Steven Spielbergs of other countries boycotting the US?

The West should support Tibet with a true rather than corrupted heart; Tibet should continue its struggle; and China should respect Tibetan and Uighur sovereignty.