英学者驳CNN等西方媒体：“天安门袭击”绝对是恐怖主义（全文）

日本《外交学者》网站11月3日刊登题为《天安门袭击是什么就叫它什么：恐怖主义》（Call Tiananmen Attack What It Was: Terrorism），作者为英国阿伯丁大学社会人类学博士候选人亚历山德罗•里帕（Alessandro Rippa）。亚历山德罗在文中驳斥了少数西方媒体此前“怀疑论”，称10月28日的“天安门袭击”绝对是恐怖主义行径。他认为，这场袭击是什么就应称之为什么：恐怖主义。我们拥有充分的材料断言，袭击的目的是明确致命的。此外，袭击地点肯定具有重大象征意义。此地不仅政治火药味很浓，而且是国际观察家注意的中心。

亚历山德罗最后发问，为什么西方媒体承认这一点就这样难？为什么学者和记者们似乎更为担心中国断言东突运动卷入上周一的袭击没有真凭实据，而不去关注这场袭击的悲剧性本身？

CNN报道天安门事件：恐怖袭击还是绝望的呐喊？

以下为全文内容。

对于10月28日发生在天安门前的袭击，大多数西方媒体和新疆问题学者的反应方式有令人深感不安之处。正如广泛的报道所说，此次袭击造成5人死亡，其中两人为游客，还造成40人受伤。在袭击中，一名男子带驾驶一辆越野车冲入人群，将车付之一炬。袭击发生后不久，中国当局确认肇事者为维吾尔族人。

从那时以来，西方专家频频出现在媒体上，企图辨析这起悲剧事件。

10月31日，即悲剧过后三天，乔治•华盛顿大学副教授肖恩•罗伯茨为美国有线电视新闻国际公司（CNN）撰文，罗伯茨是西方主要的新疆问题专家之一，他曾严重质疑“东突厥斯坦伊斯兰运动”作为一个强悍的恐怖主义组织的存在。在其文章中，罗伯茨称，由于缺乏透明度和细节，所以我们也许永远也不会知道上周一究竟发生了什么，就甭提证明袭击者与任何全球性穆斯林好战组织有牵连了。

罗伯茨在文章第二部分分析了中国在新疆的政策和维吾尔族的边缘化，并且中国历来将新疆视为自己的领土。罗伯茨称，这样才能理解这次“暴力行为”。最终，问题变成了“天安门袭击事件是一起精心准备的恐怖袭击，还是一个挣扎在中国巨大发展机器边缘的民族仓促组织的绝望呐喊。”

同日，另一位新疆问题学者、英国格拉斯哥大学讲师戴维•托宾（David Tobin）在博客上发表了与此相似的观点。同样地，文章对中国官方为透露事件细节表示担忧，并建议称，如果我们想要明白这次袭击事件，我们需要了解新疆的安全问题是如何运作。托宾也强调说，中国对维吾尔族自由和权利的限制是维族不满的一个因素，维族的这一现状导致了这类袭击，包括此次天安门袭击事件。

我曾在新疆生活，在该地区进行了广泛的调研。那么，我发现究竟什么事情如此令人不安呢？

在上述两项分析中，令我感到困扰的是，两位作者如此轻易地就打消了对这场袭击本身的顾虑。当我阅读这些文章时，我感到，甚至在这场袭击没有发生的情况下，他们本来也会阐述这些观点。文内的假设似乎是，天安门所发生的事情仅仅是我们近年来已经见证的反复发生的暴力活动的又一实例而已。但是，情况果真如此吗？天安门袭击事件会是一次转折点吗？

难以理解的是，为什么人们很少承认，天安门袭击是恐怖主义行径。

诚然，我们没有机会——而且大概永远也没有——了解到所有细节。但是我相信，我们拥有充分的材料断言，袭击的目的是明确致命的。此外，作为中华人民共和国的政治中心，袭击的地点肯定具有重大象征意义。但那里也几乎整日充斥着中外游客。

因此，此地不仅政治火药味很浓，而且是国际观察家注意的中心。

我发现，很难相信这两个因素不是袭击者考量的一部分。

此外，一般情况下让恐怖主义如此令人不安的是其滥杀无辜。当波士顿、伦敦、马德里或任何其他西方城市出事时，我们不断地被提醒关注这一点。媒体的报道涉及受害者、他们的背景，以及他们如何恰好在不该在的时候，身处不该在的地点。北京发生的袭击的情况为什么不是如此？我多年来一直生活在北京。我到过天安门多次。

今年夏季，我父母首次访问中国。我带他们去了天安门。我有一张照片，就是他们在这两位游客上周一死去的地方拍摄的。我本来也可能死，我的父母本来也可能死。我的北京邻居、我的中国老师、我的挚友，本来都可能在上周一的袭击中死去。

这场袭击是什么就应称之为什么：恐怖主义。但这为什么这样难？为什么学者和记者们（请看看英国广播公司和《纽约时报》的报道）似乎更为担心中国断言东突运动卷入上周一的袭击没有真凭实据，而不去关注这场袭击的悲剧性本身？

我同意大部分分析，中国关于新疆恐怖主义的声明还不十分清楚。我知道，我们也许永远都不会知道此次袭击背后的动机到底是宗教的、政治的还是个人性质的。我也很清楚，我们永远都不会知道袭击者与东突伊斯兰运动恐怖组织间关系的证据。然而，与我之前的考虑不同，我现在很确定，中国经历的是一次意在杀戮无辜群众、吸引关注的蓄意袭击。一句话：恐怖主义。正是这种确定，让天安门袭击事件成了一个意义重大的转折点，是我们在分析中国政府回应时应该考虑的因素。

当然，学者和记者调查、质疑中国政府在新疆的政策问题是很重要的。同时我相信，事情该是什么样他们就说成什么样，这也很重要。讨论在天安门此次事件的良好开端应该是这次袭击是什么就该称之为什么：一次恐怖袭击。

（翻页请看英文原文）

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.