"Unbroken" launch reinforces urgency of Uyghur human rights crisis
Rushan Abbas presenting her book to Markus Rinderspacher, vice-president of the Bavarian State Parliament (Image credit: X/Rushan Abbas)
Uyghur human rights activist Rushan Abbas officially launched her powerful memoir "Unbroken": One Uyghur's Fight for Freedom at the European Uyghur Summit, held in Munich.
The launch was marked by a heartfelt reading and powerful statements of solidarity from global dignitaries and advocates.
The memoir, authored by Abbas--who serves as the Executive Committee Chair of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) and Executive Director of Campaign for Uyghurs (CFU)--chronicles her personal journey, the ongoing atrocities against the Uyghur people, and her tireless fight for justice and freedom.
— RushanAbbas (@RushanAbbas)
In a post on X, Abbas wrote, "Today marked the opening of the East Turkistan/Uyghur National Summit, organised by the @UyghurCongress and co-hosted by @CUyghurs alongside other allied organisations."
She also shared a personal milestone from the summit: the presentation of her memoir to Markus Rinderspacher, vice-president of the Bavarian State Parliament. "We are deeply grateful for his support of the Uyghur cause and his commitment to human rights," Abbas added.
One of the event's most poignant moments came as Abbas read from the memoir's final chapter, A Letter to the Uyghur Diaspora--a heartfelt message of resilience, unity, and hope.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
지금 차면 가장예쁜 기부팔찌
유니세프
지금 기부하기
Undo
The summit was attended by a distinguished roster of supporters and partners, including David Baxendale of Oneworld Publications, Niclas Butz, Ambassador to the Health Innovation Exchange, and Dolkun Isa, former President of the World Uyghur Congress. Each voiced strong support for Abbas's work and reaffirmed the global importance of advocating for the Uyghur cause.
Campaign for Uyghurs, a leading NGO dedicated to promoting human rights and democratic freedoms for the people of East Turkistan and ending the Uyghur genocide, shared highlights of the launch on X.
"We were deeply honoured to mark the European launch of Unbroken at the Uyghur Summit in Munich, surrounded by members of the Uyghur diaspora from across the world, trusted friends, advocates, and international delegates," the organisation posted.
The European launch of Unbroken underscores a growing international awareness of the Uyghur struggle and reflects a broadening coalition of allies committed to justice, human dignity, and the defence of basic freedoms.
The Uyghur population in China's
Xinjiang region
has faced severe and systematic
human rights violations
under the Chinese government. Since 2017, over a million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been arbitrarily detained in so-called "re-education" camps, where reports of indoctrination, torture, and abuse have emerged. Authorities have enforced mass surveillance, restricted religious and cultural practices, and separated children from families.
Evidence also links Xinjiang to forced labour programs, with Uyghurs coerced into working under oppressive conditions. Furthermore, China's birth prevention policies targeting Uyghur women have raised serious concerns about demographic suppression.
International organisations and several governments have labelled these acts as crimes against humanity, with growing calls for accountability and global action to end the repression and protect Uyghur rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
India must watch out as the world's security architecture shudders and shifts
Gift this article The annual meeting of Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, took place in The Hague last week against the backdrop of a world moving towards a new and fluid security architecture. Thirty of Nato's 32 current members are European, with the US and Canada being its two North American members. The annual meeting of Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, took place in The Hague last week against the backdrop of a world moving towards a new and fluid security architecture. Thirty of Nato's 32 current members are European, with the US and Canada being its two North American members. Born in 1949 soon after World War II, the original raison d'être of Nato was containment of the Soviet Union and its role as a hedge against the remilitarization of Germany. Once West Germany joined in 1955, the second objective was dropped. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Germany was reunited in 1990 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Nato's purpose was lost for nearly two decades. With Vladimir Putin's rise in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century and particularly after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Nato members found common cause again, and the alliance regained some of its mojo. The Ukrainian conflict that began in 2022 united Nato again. Finland and Sweden, which had remained outside for seven decades, have joined the alliance since. Also Read: Geopolitics: Brace for a global shake-up now that Trump has rattled Nato Beginning with Donald Trump's first US presidency in 2017 and continuing into his second one now, Washington has been indifferent towards Ukraine and shown an unexplained sympathy for Russia's position. President Trump has also publicly declared his ambivalence towards Article 5 of Nato, its 'collective defense" clause that states that an attack against any member requires all members to come to its aid. Whether Trump's disposition is just a threat aimed at making European members increase their contributions to Nato remains unclear. Nato is resourced through the direct and indirect national contributions of its members. Nato's common funds are composed of direct contributions to collective budgets and programmes. National contributions, the largest component of Nato funding, include the forces and capabilities held by each member country that can be provided to Nato for deterrence and defence activities and military operations. Direct funds enable Nato to maintain its capabilities and run the entirety of the organization and its military commands. Nato has three principal common-funded budgets: the civil budget (funding the Nato headquarters), military budget (funding the Nato Command Structure) and the Nato Security Investment Programme (funding military infrastructure and capabilities). For 2025, its direct funds amount to about $5.4 billion, of which the US contributes about 16% (an identical amount is contributed by Germany). If all 30 European countries were to do it, annual defence spending would double from $380 billion today to about $750 billion. The latter number is just a bit lower than the current US defence spending and comparable to China's unofficial level. The summit ended with a firm commitment from Nato allies to spend 5% of GDP, up from today's 2% floor. Whether or not America officially quits Nato, even if it psychologically 'checks out,' the security architecture of Europe would change dramatically without an assured American backstop. At the same time, there are tensions among European Nato members, with Hungary publicly supporting Russia and Turkey playing a nuanced ménage-à-trois game. The new nationalist president of Poland is also likely to hold a more matrix-determined position than his predecessor. Also Read: Nato's endgame on Ukraine will need regime change in Moscow While there are other multi-country strategic groupings like the Quad, made up of the US, India, Japan and Australia, and Aukus, made up of Australia, the US and UK, no other multi-country alliance has shown the commitment and staying power of Nato (till Trump came along). Even traditional alliances have become more situation-dependent in recent times. China has generally supported Pakistan and Russia has supported India since Cold War times. At the same time, China has supported Russia on the Ukraine War. During the recent Operation Sindoor, both Russia and the US were ambivalent in their support of India. Turkey, while pursuing its own calculus, has held positions that are inimical to Indian interests in recent years. Even more recently, Iran must have been surprised that Russia did not come to its defence more publicly during its 12-day conflict with Israel. Also Read: Mint Explainer: Sweden set to join NATO after Turkey backs off Alert to the possibility that a US commitment to their security is no longer reliable (and that the US may even turn hostile), countries from Japan and South Korea to Germany are re-arming themselves. In addition to nuclear-equipped France and the UK, Nato's nuclear sharing arrangements extend to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Beyond Nato, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) promulgated in 1969, with 191 current members, is likely to lose some members over the coming years. India is entering a phase where it will have to become far more self-reliant, even as it partners with Russia, the US and others on a context-specific basis. When India purchases defence systems, it will have to insist on technology transfers, source-code access and the interoperability of these platforms with locally developed missile systems. P.S: 'If you have one true friend, then you have more than your share," said clergyman Thomas Fuller. The author is chairman, InKlude Labs. Read Narayan's Mint columns at Topics You May Be Interested In
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
7 hours ago
- First Post
How Trump had his way in Nato's Hague Summit
Nato allies spared no effort in putting the US president at ease at the two-day Hague summit. However, it was more evident than ever that the US and Europe no longer see themselves as sharing a common enemy read more The Nato Summit, held recently on June 24–25 in The Hague, has been described as both 'transformational' and 'historic'. 'We're witnessing the birth of a new Nato,' said Finland's President Alexander Stubb. Following the conclusion of the summit, the White House stated: 'In a defining moment for global security, President Donald J Trump achieved a monumental victory for the United States and its allies, brokering a historic deal to dramatically increase defense contributions across the Nato alliance — marking a new era of shared responsibility and strength in the face of global threats.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Nato is a political and military alliance of countries from Europe and North America. Its members are committed to protecting each other from any threat. It was created by 12 countries from Europe and North America on April 4, 1949. Since then, 20 more countries have joined Nato through 10 rounds of enlargement. At present, Nato has 32 member countries—30 from Europe, besides the USA and Canada. These countries, called Nato Allies, are sovereign states that come together through Nato to discuss political and security issues and make collective decisions by consensus. The principle of collective security is at the heart of Nato's founding treaty. Article 5 of Nato's Charter says that 'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,' and that 'if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area'. Recent geopolitical shifts, particularly Trump's stance on burden-sharing, have raised concerns about Nato's future. In his first term as president, Trump had repeatedly threatened to withdraw US forces from Europe as part of his 'America First' policy. Moreover, Trump had also declared that he was not going to protect Nato members that failed to meet their defence spending targets. Therefore, during the run-up to the Nato Summit at The Hague, there were anxieties among the other Nato members that if the US withdrew from Nato, it would have enormous strategic consequences as Russia would get emboldened to be more aggressive towards its European neighbours. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In 2023, the US Congress had passed a legislation requiring Congressional assent for any US withdrawal from Nato. Even so, the procedure for withdrawal remains relatively straightforward, requiring only one year's notice under Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Given Trump's threats in his first term that he would not protect allies who failed to spend enough on defence and even quit Nato, the stakes for this intergovernmental military alliance have been high. Not surprisingly, Trump's Nato allies spared no effort in putting him at ease at the two-day summit, and he completely dominated the summit. There are some important takeaways from the recent Nato Summit. The first takeaway is the big hike in defence spending. Nato members have committed to a 5 per cent defence spending target which has to be reached within a decade. It's a remarkable jump from the current 2 per cent guideline, which too isn't met by eight Nato members out of 32. Only 3.5 per cent of that figure is meant to be achieved entirely through core defence spending on troops and weapons. The remaining 1.5 per cent can be shown as being for 'defence-related expenditure'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Thus, Trump returned to Washington with a deal which he was happy with. The other member states had agreed to increase their Nato spending, which is what he wanted. As he put it, 'I left here differently. I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a rip-off, and we're here to help them protect their country.' However, not all European Nato members came on board. Spain officially refused to be a party to the agreement, while Slovakia had reservations. The second major takeaway, which is important from the point of view of the European countries, is that the Nato Summit declaration reaffirmed its commitment to provide support to Ukraine. The declaration called it an 'enduring sovereign commitment' towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry. The declaration also stated that the security of Ukraine contributes to their own, and to this end they would make direct contributions towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is generally felt that the European Nato members persuaded Trump to agree to this in return for their pledges to increase defence spending. Significantly, the declaration stated that contributions to Ukraine's security could be included by members when calculating their own defence spending. This is important in the context of their being able to meet the 5 per cent defence spending target. The third takeaway is that there are some important signals about how things are changing. The recent Nato summit communique is much shorter and its language much weaker as compared to previous years. The statement issued after last year's Nato Summit in Washington had stated that Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and gravely undermined global security. It had also said that Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to the Nato Allies' security. In contrast to this, the declaration issued after the recent Nato Summit in The Hague does not even mention the Russian invasion of Ukraine, though it does make a reference to 'the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Again, while the Nato Summit held in Washington last year under then-US President Joe Biden had issued a declaration that mentioned Ukraine 59 times, this year's much shorter declaration only has two mentions of Ukraine. It is clear that other Nato leaders were deferential towards US President Donald Trump, who has for years embraced Putin and sharply criticised Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The fourth big takeaway is that The Hague summit declaration is not only very short, but it is also focused on portraying the alliance solely in terms of military capability and economic investment to sustain that. The declaration of every Nato summit after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has used the same form of words: 'We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.' The declaration issued by The Hague Summit on June 25 conspicuously does not have any mention of international law, the UN Charter or a rules-based international order. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the unfolding scenario, questions regarding the future of Ukraine are particularly important, particularly as US support for Ukraine has dried up under Trump. Last year, at the Nato Summit in Washington, Zelenskyy was feted by the then US President Joe Biden and secured a pledge from Nato that Ukraine's push for membership was 'irreversible'. This year – despite Nato chief Mark Rutte insisting that remains the case – the final declaration of the summit had no mention of Ukraine's bid to join. In essence, Trump has ruled out Nato membership for Kyiv, and Zelenskyy, who has been vociferous on the subject before, was quiet this time round at the Nato Summit in The Hague. In fact, Zelenskyy was left largely on the margins of this Nato summit, though he managed to get a closed-doors meeting with US President Donald Trump. While Zelenskyy was successful in securing aid for Ukraine from Europe, he did not make much progress with the US, which had been Ukraine's most important benefactor and whose equipment had been critical for checking Russia's advance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At a press conference following the meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump acknowledged that it is 'possible' that Putin has ambitions to invade a Nato country, but when asked whether money and equipment will still flow from Washington to Kyiv, he appeared to show reluctance. On the issue of giving Ukraine additional Patriot air defence systems, which it badly needs, Trump said that 'we're going to see if we can make some available — they're very hard to get". As regards financial aid to Ukraine, Trump said, 'As far as money going, we'll see what happens.' Though there were none of the bumper pledges of new weaponry to Kyiv that had been a hallmark of earlier gatherings, a consolation for Zelensky was Trump's remark, 'I had a good meeting with Zelensky. He's fighting a brave battle. It's a tough battle.' Trump added, 'Vladimir Putin really has to end that war. People are dying at levels that people haven't seen before for a long time'. While Trump said that he would talk again soon to Russian President Vladimir Putin to push stalled peace efforts, he made no mention of any possible sanctions on Moscow for stalling on these talks. Trump called the summit outcome 'a monumental win for the United States' and 'a big win for Western civilisation'. However, what this recent Nato summit and the run-up to it made quite clear is that the US and Europe no longer perceive themselves as having the same common enemy. Europe is focused on Russia as the major threat to international peace, while the US is devoting more attention to the increasingly bellicose China. Their perceptions are not identical at all, and this undeniable fact is important for understanding how global geopolitics is unfolding. The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as Consul General in New York. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Indian Express
Europe's dilemma: How long can it kick the can on Israel's human rights violations in Gaza?
The developments in West Asia — particularly the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and the Israel-Iran ceasefire — have delayed the European Union's review process of its Association Agreement (AA) with Israel. The AA provides a framework for political and economic ties between the EU and Israel. Apart from other provisions, it also establishes a free trade area between the two. On June 20, the office of the EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights submitted a note to the European Council regarding Israel's compliance with the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The note focused on Article 2 of the Agreement, which includes human rights and democratic principles as essential elements. A formal request for a review of Article 2 was made by the Netherlands and supported by 16 other EU member states. Although the Netherlands is a strong supporter of Israel, its move was seen as a response to strong public anger and widespread street protests in the country against Israel's actions in 'restricted' EUSR document was circulated to all member states ahead of the summit meeting but was leaked by some European media outlets. Based on reports concerning the blockade, denial, or limited access to humanitarian aid; the unprecedented killing and injury of civilians; attacks on hospitals and medical facilities; displacement; attacks on journalists; settlement consolidation and expansion in the West Bank; and arbitrary detentions, the note concludes that 'Israel would be in breach' of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the Agreement. In response to the EU's move to re-examine its Association Agreement on the basis of human rights, Israel labelled the step 'outrageous and indecent'. It stated that at a time when the country is facing an existential threat, the EU's 'review' of its relations with Israel amounts to a 'moral distortion'. In the lead-up to the European Council meeting, some European countries appeared to harden their stances against Israel. Nine EU countries — Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden — called on the EU to develop a plan to halt trade with Israeli settlements. They emphasised the need to ensure that EU policies do not contribute, directly or indirectly, to the perpetuation of an illegal situation. The EU is Israel's largest trading partner, accounting for around 43 billion euro in trade. In 2024, 32 per cent of Israel's total goods trade was with the EU. Although the EU does not recognise Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territories, products from these areas are often labelled as 'Made in Israel,' potentially misleading European consumers. However, at the European Council meeting, the mood was cautious. The shift towards human rights seems to have dissipated amid developments related to Iran. The Council summit was dominated by issues such as European defence, Ukraine, trade issues with the US, as well as sudden developments in the Middle East. It called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the unconditional release of all hostages, and urged Israel to fully lift its blockade on Gaza. However, instead of taking concrete action, the meeting merely took note of the EUSR report on Israel's compliance with Article 2 of the Agreement. The Council was invited to continue discussions on possible follow-up measures in July 2025, 'depending on the evolution of the situation on the ground'. In his public statement, European Council President Antonio Costa asserted that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is 'catastrophic and human rights are being violated' and the EUSR review has confirmed it. He added that the situation is unacceptable and the EU foreign ministers will discuss the next steps. Although the EU adopted a cautious approach, some European leaders expressed strong frustration. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez criticised EU leaders for not suspending the trade agreement with Israel, despite what he described as 'the catastrophic genocide'. He asserted that it was 'more than obvious that Israel is violating Article 2 of the EU-Israel Agreement.' He further stated that the EU has imposed 18 sanctions against Russia for its aggression, yet Europe, with its double standards, is incapable of suspending an Association Agreement with Israel. However, reaching a consensus on this issue within the EU will be extremely difficult. While Ireland has also supported a suspension, many others — including Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, and Hungary — remain close allies of Israel. Many of the conflicts in the Middle East are deeply rooted in European history. While the EU has a historic responsibility to play a more proactive role, its effectiveness has been limited by the divergent positions of its member states on Israel and the recognition of the State of Palestine. As a result, it has often been convenient for Europe to allow the US to take the lead in the region. Even during the current Iran-Israel war, when the Iranian Foreign Minister was meeting his counterparts in Europe, President Trump doubted the impact of these talks, saying, 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe, Iran wants to speak to us'. Today, numerous EU member states recognise Palestine. However, major powers such as France, Germany, and Italy — while supporting a two-state solution — prefer a negotiated peace settlement over unilateral recognition. Despite the difficulties in reaching a consensus on the issue, the human rights situation in Gaza will remain a serious topic in major EU discussions. The EU cannot ignore taking action indefinitely. As former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell Fontelles recently wrote: 'If Europe bears responsibility for its victims, it also bears responsibility for the victims of its victims'. The writer is Chief Coordinator, DAKSHIN – Global South Centre of Excellence at RIS, New Delhi, and Professor of European Studies at JNU
