英學者駁CNN等西方媒體：“天安門襲擊”絕對是恐怖主義（全文）

日本《外交學者》網站11月3日刊登題為《天安門襲擊是什麼就叫它什麼：恐怖主義》（Call Tiananmen Attack What It Was: Terrorism），作者為英國阿伯丁大學社會人類學博士候選人亞歷山德羅•裏帕（Alessandro Rippa）。亞歷山德羅在文中駁斥了少數西方媒體此前“懷疑論”，稱10月28日的“天安門襲擊”絕對是恐怖主義行徑。他認為，這場襲擊是什麼就應稱之為什麼：恐怖主義。我們擁有充分的材料斷言，襲擊的目的是明確致命的。此外，襲擊地點肯定具有重大象徵意義。此地不僅政治火藥味很濃，而且是國際觀察家注意的中心。

亞歷山德羅最後發問，為什麼西方媒體承認這一點就這樣難？為什麼學者和記者們似乎更為擔心中國斷言東突運動捲入上週一的襲擊沒有真憑實據，而不去關注這場襲擊的悲劇性本身？

CNN報道天安門事件：恐怖襲擊還是絕望的吶喊？

以下為全文內容。

對於10月28日發生在天安門前的襲擊，大多數西方媒體和新疆問題學者的反應方式有令人深感不安之處。正如廣泛的報道所説，此次襲擊造成5人死亡，其中兩人為遊客，還造成40人受傷。在襲擊中，一名男子帶駕駛一輛越野車衝入人羣，將車付之一炬。襲擊發生後不久，中國當局確認肇事者為維吾爾族人。

從那時以來，西方專家頻頻出現在媒體上，企圖辨析這起悲劇事件。

10月31日，即悲劇過後三天，喬治•華盛頓大學副教授肖恩•羅伯茨為美國有線電視新聞國際公司（CNN）撰文，羅伯茨是西方主要的新疆問題專家之一，他曾嚴重質疑“東突厥斯坦伊斯蘭運動”作為一個強悍的恐怖主義組織的存在。在其文章中，羅伯茨稱，由於缺乏透明度和細節，所以我們也許永遠也不會知道上週一究竟發生了什麼，就甭提證明襲擊者與任何全球性穆斯林好戰組織有牽連了。

羅伯茨在文章第二部分分析了中國在新疆的政策和維吾爾族的邊緣化，並且中國曆來將新疆視為自己的領土。羅伯茨稱，這樣才能理解這次“暴力行為”。最終，問題變成了“天安門襲擊事件是一起精心準備的恐怖襲擊，還是一個掙扎在中國巨大發展機器邊緣的民族倉促組織的絕望吶喊。”

同日，另一位新疆問題學者、英國格拉斯哥大學講師戴維•託賓（David Tobin）在博客上發表了與此相似的觀點。同樣地，文章對中國官方為透露事件細節表示擔憂，並建議稱，如果我們想要明白這次襲擊事件，我們需要了解新疆的安全問題是如何運作。託賓也強調説，中國對維吾爾族自由和權利的限制是維族不滿的一個因素，維族的這一現狀導致了這類襲擊，包括此次天安門襲擊事件。

我曾在新疆生活，在該地區進行了廣泛的調研。那麼，我發現究竟什麼事情如此令人不安呢？

在上述兩項分析中，令我感到困擾的是，兩位作者如此輕易地就打消了對這場襲擊本身的顧慮。當我閲讀這些文章時，我感到，甚至在這場襲擊沒有發生的情況下，他們本來也會闡述這些觀點。文內的假設似乎是，天安門所發生的事情僅僅是我們近年來已經見證的反覆發生的暴力活動的又一實例而已。但是，情況果真如此嗎？天安門襲擊事件會是一次轉折點嗎？

難以理解的是，為什麼人們很少承認，天安門襲擊是恐怖主義行徑。

誠然，我們沒有機會——而且大概永遠也沒有——瞭解到所有細節。但是我相信，我們擁有充分的材料斷言，襲擊的目的是明確致命的。此外，作為中華人民共和國的政治中心，襲擊的地點肯定具有重大象徵意義。但那裏也幾乎整日充斥着中外遊客。

因此，此地不僅政治火藥味很濃，而且是國際觀察家注意的中心。

我發現，很難相信這兩個因素不是襲擊者考量的一部分。

此外，一般情況下讓恐怖主義如此令人不安的是其濫殺無辜。當波士頓、倫敦、馬德里或任何其他西方城市出事時，我們不斷地被提醒關注這一點。媒體的報道涉及受害者、他們的背景，以及他們如何恰好在不該在的時候，身處不該在的地點。北京發生的襲擊的情況為什麼不是如此？我多年來一直生活在北京。我到過天安門多次。

今年夏季，我父母首次訪問中國。我帶他們去了天安門。我有一張照片，就是他們在這兩位遊客上週一死去的地方拍攝的。我本來也可能死，我的父母本來也可能死。我的北京鄰居、我的中國老師、我的摯友，本來都可能在上週一的襲擊中死去。

這場襲擊是什麼就應稱之為什麼：恐怖主義。但這為什麼這樣難？為什麼學者和記者們（請看看英國廣播公司和《紐約時報》的報道）似乎更為擔心中國斷言東突運動捲入上週一的襲擊沒有真憑實據，而不去關注這場襲擊的悲劇性本身？

我同意大部分分析，中國關於新疆恐怖主義的聲明還不十分清楚。我知道，我們也許永遠都不會知道此次襲擊背後的動機到底是宗教的、政治的還是個人性質的。我也很清楚，我們永遠都不會知道襲擊者與東突伊斯蘭運動恐怖組織間關係的證據。然而，與我之前的考慮不同，我現在很確定，中國經歷的是一次意在殺戮無辜羣眾、吸引關注的蓄意襲擊。一句話：恐怖主義。正是這種確定，讓天安門襲擊事件成了一個意義重大的轉折點，是我們在分析中國政府回應時應該考慮的因素。

當然，學者和記者調查、質疑中國政府在新疆的政策問題是很重要的。同時我相信，事情該是什麼樣他們就説成什麼樣，這也很重要。討論在天安門此次事件的良好開端應該是這次襲擊是什麼就該稱之為什麼：一次恐怖襲擊。

（翻頁請看英文原文）

 

   

Call Tiananmen Attack What It Was: Terrorism

By Alessandro Rippa

There is something profoundly disturbing about the way most Western media and Xinjiang scholars have reacted to the attack in Tiananmen Square last Monday. As has been widely reported, the attack left five people dead, two of whom were tourists, and 40 injured.

Shortly after the attack, in which a man with his wife and mother drove an SUV into a crowd of people and set it on fire, Chinese authorities identified the perpetrators as Uyghurs. Since then, Western experts have appeared in the media, attempting to shed some light on the tragic event.

On October 31, three days after the tragedy, Sean R. Roberts wrote a piece for CNN significantly headlined “Tiananmen crash: Terrorism or cry of desperation?” Roberts is one of the leading Western experts on Xinjiang, and author last year of an important report in which he casts serious doubts on the existence of the ETIM as a capable terrorist organization. In his CNN article, Roberts argues that given the lack of transparency and details we might never know what exactly happened on Monday, let alone prove that the attackers were tied to any global Muslim militant movement.

To understand this “act of violence,” as Roberts calls it, the second part of the article moves into an analysis of Chinese policies in Xinjiang and the marginalization of the Uyghurs in what they perceive as their historical homeland. The question, eventually, is whether “Monday’s alleged attack was a well-prepared terrorist act or a hastily assembled cry of desperation from a people on the extreme margins of the Chinese state’s monstrous development machine.”

The same day, another Xinjiang scholar, David Tobin, offered a similar perspective from his blog in a post that was then republished by Beijingcream. The post shares the concerns about the lack of details provided by the Chinese authorities, and suggests that if we want to make sense of the attack then we need to understand how security works in Xinjiang. Once again, China’s restrictions on Uyghur freedom and rights are responsible for Uyghur discontent, a situation that could lead to attacks such as that in Tiananmen.

Both Roberts and Tobin offer very insightful analysis into the complex range of problems that are likely to be behind Monday’s attack. I have lived in Xinjiang and conducted extensive research in the region, and find myself in total agreement with most of what they are saying. So what is it then, that I find so disturbing?

What bothers me, in both analyses, is the facility with which the authors dismiss the attack itself. Paradoxically, as I was reading the pieces, I felt that they could have made the very same points without the attack even having taken place. What happened in Tiananmen, it seems assumed, is just another example of the repeated violence we have witnessed in recent years, ultimately rooted in Beijing’s disastrous policies in Xinjiang. But is this really the case? Isn’t Tiananmen a turning point?

What is hard to understand is why the attack in Tiananmen is rarely acknowledged as an act of terrorism. Granted, we don’t – and probably never will – have access to all the details, and yet I believe we have enough material to claim that the attack was clearly intended to be deadly. The place of the attack, moreover, certainly has major symbolic value as the political center of the PRC, but it is also packed with Chinese and foreign tourists at virtually all hours. It thus isn’t just politically charged, but also in the spotlight of international observers. I find it hard to believe that both these factors weren’t part of the attackers’ calculations.

Moreover, what generally makes terrorism so disturbing is the randomness of the victims. We are constantly reminded of this when something happens in Boston, London, Madrid or any other Western city. Media run stories on the victims, their backgrounds, and how they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why hasn’t this been the case with Monday’s attack in Beijing? I have lived in Beijing for years and I visited Tiananmen many times. This summer, for the first time, my parents visited China. I took them to Tiananmen, I’ve got a picture of them in the very same place where the two tourists died on Monday. I could have died, my parents could have died. My Beijing neighbor, my Chinese teacher, my best friend: all could have died in Monday’s attack.

Why is it so difficult, then, to call the attack what it is: terrorism? Why do scholars and journalists (see, for instance the BBC and NYT) seem more concerned about the weakness of China’s claims that the ETIM was involved in Monday’s attack, rather than in the tragedy of the attack itself?

Once again, I agree with most analysts that China’s claims concerning Uyghur terrorism have been unclear at best. I understand that we will probably never know whether the main motivation behind the attack was religious, political or personal. I’m also quite sure that we will never be provided with proof of the attackers’ link with the ETIM. And yet, in contrast to my previous thinking, I’m now sure that what China experienced was a deliberate attack intended to kill innocent people and attract notice. In a word: terrorism. It is this certainty that makes the Tiananmen attack a significant turning point, and something that we should take into account when analyzing Beijing’s response to it.

It is surely very important that scholars and journalists investigate and question the Chinese government’s accusations and discuss its policies in Xinjiang. It is also important, I believe, that they call things what they are. A good discussion about what happened in Tiananmen should begin by calling the attack what it really was: an act of terrorism.