CGTN主播刘欣评论 | 为何西方媒体对新疆的暴恐事件视若无睹？

Two new documentaries shed light on the bigger-picture context and complexities surrounding the violence in northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

两部新纪录片揭示了中国新疆地区暴恐事件发生的大背景和复杂性。

The first, "Fighting Terrorism in Xinjiang," features never-before-seen footage and testimonies from people impacted by terrorism, including the Urumqi riots in July 2009, which killed 197 people, the Kunming railway station assault in March 2014, with 31 deaths, and the May 2014 Urumqi attack with a death toll of 43.

第一部纪录片《中国新疆，反恐前沿》首次公开了部分恐怖袭击镜头以及深受其害的民众的采访，包括2009年乌鲁木齐“7·5”事件，这场暴动造成197人死亡；2014年昆明火车站“3·1”暴恐案，造成31人死亡；还有2014年乌鲁木齐“5·22”恐袭案，造成43人死亡。

The second, "The Black Hand – The East Turkistan Islamic Movement and terrorism in Xinjiang," exposes how the group brainwashes people, including children, with extremist thoughts, inciting hatred between different ethnic groups and launching terrorist attacks.

第二部纪录片《幕后黑手——“东伊运”与新疆暴恐》揭示了该组织如何利用极端思想对包括儿童在内的群体进行洗脑，煽动民族间仇恨，发动恐怖袭击。

Released in English, both documentaries provide perspectives from people who live in Xinjiang and who've been impacted by terrorism and extremism.

这两部纪录片均以英文配音，展示了新疆民众和受恐怖主义和极端主义影响的民众的视角。

But strangely enough, the very same media that have been so vocal about Xinjiang-related news seem to have gone silent when it comes to reporting on the documentaries and the ugly realities they reveal. Those that did simply dismissed the documentaries as Chinese government "propaganda" or avoided the point that the policies stem from a real threat – not just a crackdown on so-called "human rights."

但奇怪的是，面对这两部纪录片所揭示的丑恶现实，一直紧密跟踪报道新疆新闻的媒体似乎都缄口不言。而那些选择发表评论的西方媒体干脆贬低这些纪录片，称它们是中国政府的“宣传工具”，丝毫不谈及中国国内政策是基于真实存在的暴恐威胁，而不是打压所谓的“人权”。

For example, in its article "China claims detained Uygur have been freed" published on December 9, The Guardian covers a press conference where Xinjiang's governor, Shohrat Zakir, spoke to reporters about the vocational education and training centers. He emphasized the program's focus on teaching Chinese language skills, law, and vocational skills to "eliminate extremism."

例如，《卫报》于12月9日刊文《中国声称已释放被拘禁的维吾尔族人》，其中描述了一次新闻发布会上新疆维吾尔自治区主席雪克来提·扎克尔(Shohrat Zakir)的讲话，他向记者介绍了职业技能培训中心，并强调该项目旨在教授中文、法律和职业技能，以“消除极端主义。”

However, the article suggests that China's version of the story is suspect when it says that certain leaked documents undermine the governor's claims. It adds, "In recent days, Beijing has launched an aggressive propaganda campaign in response to criticism of its policies in Xinjiang."

但是，该文章认为部分泄密文件的内容与新疆自治区主席的发言相悖，中国政府关于职业技能培训项目的描述值得怀疑。文章补充道：“近几天，面对外界对其新疆政策的批评，中国政府掀起了积极的宣传攻势。”

The world wants to know what's going on in Xinjiang. But when Beijing goes out of its way to explain what's happening and why, it's automatically labeled "propaganda." The article mentions the documentaries but fails to dedicate even a few lines to what they are about. The article doesn't make one mention of the previous terror attacks in the region or why the program was launched in the first place. Why not?

世界想知道新疆的真实状况。但是，每当中国政府努力解释发生的事情及其原因时，外媒总是给中国政府扣上“政治宣传”的帽子。文章提到了纪录片，但却不愿用一言半语来介绍影片的内容。文章也没有提及该地区过去发生的恐怖袭击，也未提及技能培训项目启动的初衷。这又是为何呢？

The New York Times published the article "Facing Criticism Over Muslim Camps, China Says: What's the Problem?" on December 9.

12月9日，《纽约时报》发表文章《面对外界关于穆斯林拘禁营的批评，中国反问：有何不妥？》。

It says, "Chinese officials have released social media videos, blistering editorials and attacks on researchers in a push to counter evidence of its Muslim internment drive," adding that Beijing is using "slick videos" and "strident editorials" in its "aggressive media campaign" to defend its side of the story.

文章指出：“中国官员在社交媒体平台上发布大量视频，发表强硬的评论文章并责难调查人员，从而否认其拘禁穆斯林的相关证据。”此外，文章认为中国政府在其“积极的媒体攻势”中使用“美化的视频”和“偏激的社论”来自证其词。

Why can't the article report just the facts without the fancy adjectives? Shouldn't readers be allowed to make up their own minds if the videos are "slick," if the editorials are "blistering" and if the media's approach is indeed "aggressive"?

为何一定要用花哨的形容词来报道事实呢？视频是否“美化”，社论措辞是否“偏激”，官媒的态度是否“强硬”，难道不应该由读者下定论吗？

I even make a cameo appearance in the article, presumably as one such "strident" example. I appreciate that the article includes my commentary as another voice speaking about the issue. But the piece still misses the bigger picture of Xinjiang. What about the background information on the region, the tremendous efforts made to lift the Xinjiang people out of poverty, the overall progress that's been achieved in the region in terms of tourism, education, and infrastructure? It's important to look at the issue from a holistic perspective instead of a series of tweets and posts.

文章甚至还让我“客串”其中，大概认为我就是一个“偏激”的典型案例。我很高兴看到这篇文章包含我的评论，能让读者听到另一种声音。但是，这篇文章依然是一叶障目，不见新疆的真实大局。为何不介绍该地区的背景信息？为何不阐述政府为帮助新疆人民脱贫所做的巨大努力？为何不提及该地区在旅游、教育和基础设施方面取得的总体进展？写文章时看待问题的角度要全面，而不应该断章取义，用一些推文和帖子当证据。

I acknowledge that it's difficult for journalists to write about a place they've never lived and about such a complex issue with deep roots. But for the more than 24 million people who actually live in Xinjiang, safety and stability matter. For them, it's reassuring that no terrorist attacks have occurred in Xinjiang over the past three years. That's a big deal and a big victory for Xinjiang in the global war on terror and extremism.

我承认对记者来说，描写一个他们从未生活过的地方和一个有深刻历史根源的复杂问题是很难的。但是，对于真正生活在新疆的2400多万居民而言，安全稳定至关重要。过去三年来，新疆没有发生过一起恐怖袭击，这让他们感到更有保障。在全球反恐和反极端主义战争中，新疆无疑取得了重大胜利。

推荐阅读：