A day after Radio Free Asia announced the execution of two Uighur “terrorist” suspects in Xinjiang, the People’s Daily newspaper wrote that “These incidents [riots in Tibet and unrest in Xinjiang] show … that the Beijing Olympics is facing a terrorist threat unsurpassed in Olympic history,” adding that as a result Chinese authorities had “built the most strict prevention and control system in Olympic history, adopting a series of security measures rarely seen.”
Unsurpassed? Does the People’s Daily remember the 1972 Munich Olympics, where members of the Palestinian Black September organization murdered 11 Israeli athletes and one German police officer? Or the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, where layer upon layer of police, secret service and military security were used to fortify the Olympic venue, turning the event into a small police state?
If Beijing means what it says when it promises the “most strict” control system in Olympic history, it does not bode well for the Olympic spirit, if there is any left.
The word “terrorism” has been so overused — by Israel to describe Palestinian resistance, France to characterize Algerian and Moroccan resistance, colonial powers to decry liberation movements and, since the Sept. 11 attacks, the US and its allies to describe their opponents in the Middle East — that it has lost some of its meaning. When Tibetan demonstrators — even those who damage public property — are called “terrorists” for expressing anger at Chinese repression, or when Uighurs who refuse to be silenced or forced into relocation are executed for “terrorist” activities, the language loses all legitimacy, as does anyone who uses it.
Put simply, terrorism is the use or threat of indiscriminate violence to advance a political cause, conditions that neither Tibetans nor the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) — the main organization targeted by Beijing in Xinjiang — are capable of meeting. In fact, the US’ listing of ETIM as a terrorism organization has been widely seen as a political move by Washington to enlist China’s help in passing a UN resolution on Iraq in 2002.
What makes Beijing’s argument even more suspect is the absence of a free press, which would question the veracity of the government’s claims. Even as many are deeply suspicious of the US government, there exists in the US and in democracies a free media that can tell the truth to the powers-that-be and expose lies without fear of harsh repercussions.
As there is no such thing in China, whatever Beijing says about the number of people killed in ETIM “attacks,” the group’s relationship with al-Qaeda or its plans to “disrupt” the Olympics must be taken at face value. Not only are the suspects unable to see or question the evidence against them, but people outside China are unable to determine whether the security measures that are turning the Olympic venue into Fortress Beijing are the result of legitimate concerns or instead support an illusion that perpetuates the state’s long repression of its people.
As some critics have said, Beijing has hijacked the “war on terror” to rationalize its own actions. The difference between it and other countries that have sided with the US in the campaign, however, is that in Beijing’s case, the means to question the legality of doing so does not exist.
With every security measure added, with every extra arrest or execution, Beijing is making it ever more disgraceful for world leaders to attend the opening ceremonies or for teams to participate in the Games.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS