As the Zionist West has historically dominated the global shipping routes, the Chinese Belt and Road initiative (revival Silk Road), bankrupts the previously established trade and insurance corporations that still control the global financial chess board.
By building this alternative land route, the British controlled maritime shipping lane profits literally go up in flames. This must be stopped more or less in the same way the former Yugoslavia was dismantled and dissolved.
Now, the fabricated Uighur crisis in Xinjiang is seen in a pivotal strategic role on the Great Chessboard. That most certainly is not because of possible human rights abuses that might be occurring there, if indeed they are, but for entirely different, hard-nosed geopolitical reasons.
An impudent farce vaguely shrouded in pseudo legal garb is due to be staged on 4th – 7th June 2021 at Church House, in London.
A so-called “Uighur Tribunal” will be convened there to deliberate on the danger of imminent extinction allegedly threatening the Uighur Muslim minority ethnic group in China’s Xinjiang province.
For the geographically challenged, Xinjiang (or Sinkiang in more common transcription) is the westernmost region of China.
That is important, and relevant to this topic, because Xinjiang happens to be the most convenient land route corridor which China’s Belt and Road Initiative must inevitably employ if it is to be viable.
Accordingly, make Xinjiang a sufficiently hazardous place and for all practical purposes B&R trade goes up in smoke. Chinese products cannot reach their foreign destinations, and neither can the products of foreign partners be reliably delivered to the Chinese market.
Indeed, Xinjiang plays a far more strategically prominent role today than could have been contemplated even by Brzezinski in 1997, when his famous book was published.
The way it works was explained by Russian geopolitical analyst K. Gadzhiev of the Primakov National Research Institute who cogently argues that “the revival of Russia as a strong military and political power capable to defend its national interests, the emergence of powerful new actors such as China.
This emboldens the weakening of geopolitical positions of the West in general and the USA in particular, their defeat in aggressive real estate wars and other failures have led to deep cracks in the conventional Grand Chessboard, which have brought about changes in both the line-up of the leading players and the rules of the game on it.
Gadziev further argues that even though combined Western power has seriously frayed, it would be unreasonable to expect it to simply … give up the protection of their semi-colonial interests in Eurasia as a whole, and particularly in Central Asia.
Thwarting any projection of Chinese power and influence that could be deemed threatening and retaining and enhancing the power and influence of the Western coalition, viewed as a zero-sum-game, is therefore the context in which the intensification of efforts to destabilize China should be viewed.
The sudden obsession with human rights issues, specifically in the strategically positioned region of Xinjiang, is either completely coincidental or it is an important element of that very destabilization campaign.
But to return to the “Uyghur Tribunal,” which is a very important facet of the just described picture. It was set up in 2020 in the United Kingdom, on the cusp of the publicity campaign designed to enhance a public perception of the allegedly grave human rights situation in Xinjiang.
The “Tribunal’s” task now is to make the transition in the public mind from routine charges of “human rights violation,” always useful for exerting diplomatic pressure on the targeted government, to the substantively new level of “genocide,” with more serious legal, political, and moral implications.
According to information available on the Tribunal website, the initial step toward Uighur Tribunal’s formation was taken in June 2020 by Dolkun Isa, President of the World Uighur Congress, an organization of faux Uighur émigrés with close ties to the Western, primarily U.S., political and security establishment.
The official account has it that Isa turned to Geoffrey Nice QC, Hague Tribunal (ICTY) prosecutor in the case of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević, with a request to establish and chair an independent people’s tribunal to investigate ‘ongoing atrocities and possible Genocide’ against the Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other Turkic Muslim Populations.
Accordingly, the Uighur Tribunal was launched on 3 September 2020 with assistance from a non-governmental organization (NGO), the Coalition for Genocide Response.
The engagement of Geoffrey Nice to supervise this operation is of considerable symbolic significance because of his close association with the Yugoslav Tribunal in the Hague.
That in turn triggers associations with that Tribunal’s principal task, which was to legally validate the alleged Srebrenica Genocide (which happened under the watchful eye of the UN) and personally inculpate the head of the Yugoslav state at the time in that and numerous other imputed serious violations of international law.
It should be borne in mind that one of the specific named targets of the consortium of organizations, all masquerading as NGO’s, which are advocating legal proceedings against China over the Uighur Question, is President Xi himself, in a clear analogy to Milošević.
There are numerous oddities about the Uighur Tribunal, of which it suffices to mention just the following two.
First, the entity described, using deliberately misleading legal terminology, as a „Tribunal“ was in fact „constituted as a UK Private Company Limited by Guarantee – under the name ‘Uyghur Administration Ltd’“.
That means that it is a private citizens’ association without any official standing whatsoever within the judicial system of the United Kingdom. The juridical status of the „Uighur Tribunal“ is therefore null. The conclusions it draws and „verdicts“ it issues are completely non-binding and technically unenforceable.
Since it misrepresents itself as a „Tribunal,“ not being a proper court it lacks the requisite authority to make its judgements heeded, except to the extent that through manipulative political and media-tic mechanisms a perception should have been created that they ought to be.
The second significant anomaly of the „Uyghur Tribunal“ is that it apparently lacks a governing document (known as the Statute in the case of the Hague Tribunal) as well as, even more importantly, Rules of procedure and evidence.
These are practical roadmaps without which no actual or pretended „tribunal“ is even conceivable. The lack of procedure and evidence rules means that there are no set guidelines for the conduct of UT’s essential business.
Since the conclusions the panel will ultimately draw supposedly will have been based on the “evidence” put before it, the lack of rules governing admission and assessment of evidence seriously impairs the integrity of the entire process.
This year’s G7 meeting is scheduled to take place in Cornwall, UK, from 11-13 June. The first hearing of the “Uyghur Tribunal,” as already noted, will take place on 4th – 7th June 2021 at Church House, London.
That is neither a chronological nor a geographical coincidence. By generating a human rights violation frenzy at precisely the right moment, the forthcoming “Uyghur Tribunal” should be viewed in this similar light.
By feeding the media and the Western political class selected disinformation about the situation in Xinjiang its mission is to set the stage for whatever restrictive or punitive measures against China are contemplated to follow.
The “Uyghur Tribunal” verdict undoubtedly will be useful to increase political pressure on China, as well as to attempt to get Western public opinion on board in favor of exacerbating tensions and approving whatever further hostile measures are in store.
The Act Party today plans to ask Parliament to debate a motion to declare China’s oppression of the Uighur ethnic minority an act of ‘genocide’.
Its motion would ask MP’s to vote on whether human rights abuses in the Chinese region of Xinjiang amount to genocide, a move that could compel the Government to take stronger action in condemning the nation”. Significantly, the report goes on that “similar motions have passed in other Five Eyes countries such as the UK and Canada.
One wishes that Chinese representatives would boldly march into Church House (piously located at Westminster Abbey, Dean’s Yard, London) on June 4 to teach Geoffrey Nice, and his fellow panelists who simulate judges, a memorable “rule of law” lesson.
Their task, not at all difficult of execution, should be to demonstrate to all present that “Uyghur Tribunal” proceedings are a sham because they do not satisfy even minimal judicial standards, whether in the UK or any other civilized country.
They should vigorously challenge any and all evidence admitted by a forum operating without any evidentiary rules whatsoever. They should insist on cross-examining all witnesses and “experts” brought to testify.
And they must bring along their own audio and video equipment to record the judicial buffoonery and show to the global audience how in London, United Kingdom, the fount of a once impressive legal tradition, an illegitimate, private, and self-appointed court now sits and hands down its farcical verdict.
Strategic Culture / ABC Flash Point News 2021.