Soon after Beijing made its successful bid to host the Olympic Games, human rights organizations, academics and some publications intensified their scrutiny of the manner in which the Chinese state apparatus was dealing with dissent, media freedoms and human rights in general.
But while this happened, governments did not follow suit and failed to voice official objections to the fact that Beijing has broken most of its promises.
Just last week, reports that Beijing was requesting that Chinese nationals who obtained tickets for the opening and closing ceremonies submit personal information and a recent photograph -- developments that should have raised eyebrows in world capitals -- passed with little comment.
Under the pretense that the scheme would "eradicate fake tickets [and] control speculative ticket reselling," what Beijing is doing is collecting background data on everybody who will be at the Olympic venue at a time when the world's media will be looking its way. Anyone whom the security apparatus suspects could create "image problems" of the type that were seen at Tiananmen Square in 1989 will be screened out beforehand and be unable to attend the "celebrations."
In a way, this new scheme is just an extension of Beijing's police-state-like preparations for the games, in which foreign "allies" -- which for months have provided it with lists of people and organizations that may cause "trouble" should they participate at the Olympics -- have been complicit.
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that states -- especially Western democracies that, on paper at least, would be expected to behave more responsibly than China -- seem to find it increasingly difficult to openly talk about human rights abuses, even among themselves.
A prominent example of this is Canada's decision to rewrite the manual on torture it produces for its diplomats after the US and Israel complained that their countries had been listed among the states that employ such practices. Rather than defend the authors of the report or explain his government's position on the matter, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier said the list had "mistakenly" included the two countries and did not represent the official view in Ottawa.
The document -- which was obtained by Amnesty International -- was summarily recast as an embarrassment, at best a mere rag to "stimulate discussion and debate." Its new version, Ottawa promised, will not include Israel and the US. Case closed.
Next thing you know, Beijing, too, will be complaining about its inclusion on the rogues' gallery of torturers or, as Jerusalem and Washington did, it will split hairs and argue that waterboarding and sleep deprivation do not constitute torture.
One by one, in the name of good relations, names will be removed from lists -- those that are made public, at least -- to ensure that no allied government is insulted by the truth.
It is altogether deplorable that in this day and age governments would abandon the human rights discourse -- except for cynical purposes, such as to provide a post facto rationale for the invasion of Iraq, or in the ongoing campaign to isolate Iran.
What this means for all those hapless dissidents or suspects who face torture, unjust imprisonment and other forms of humiliation is that they should no longer place their hopes in governments. Not even the supposedly "good" ones.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS