With the focus on unrest in Tibet, not much has been said about another disturbing development in China — government claims that it had stopped a terrorist attack on an airplane last month and arrested a terror ring that was allegedly planning attacks on the Beijing Olympics.
While the news may soon die down — largely unnoticed in the shadow of the Free Tibet debate — the allegations have serious repercussions for the population of China’s largest province, Xinjiang.
The accusations concern the Uighurs, a mostly Muslim, Turkic ethnic group that lives under an autonomous government that, like Lhasa’s, is a farce.
For more than a decade, there has been no evidence of attacks on civilians by Uighurs. That fact has repeatedly undermined Beijing’s efforts to gain support for the “war” on terror that it launched in Xinjiang soon after the Sept. 11 attacks in the US. China’s “war” on terror is a continuation of previous crackdowns in Xinjiang that sought to silence peaceful dissent — including those who appeal for democracy, religious freedom or true autonomy, not independence.
But by reclassifying dissidents in Xinjiang as terrorists, Beijing has sought to gain support from the US and other governments in blocking the activities of Uighurs at home and abroad. It has labeled US-based human-rights activist Rebiya Kadeer a terrorist — in much the same way it deals with the Dalai Lama. It has pressured the US and the UN to blacklist several Uighur groups as terrorist organizations, but has presented not a shred of evidence that these groups are pursuing a violent agenda.
A major obstacle to the success of Beijing’s campaign has been the outcry from non-governmental organizations and governments that have repeatedly asked: How can you wage a “war” on terror on people who are not terrorists? As the Uighur rights movement has gained momentum in the past three years, that question has become a thorn in the side of Beijing.
In this context, human-rights groups and Uighur activists abroad are calling on Beijing to proceed transparently with its prosecution of those whom it accuses of engaging in terrorist activities. Beijing has not presented evidence substantiating its claims that the plots are anything more than a twisted fantasy to justify its oppression in Xinjiang.
And as trials concerning Uighur dissidents are usually labeled state secrets, the chances that the facts would come to light are scant.
That should come as no surprise, as Beijing has blocked any unbiased probe into the Xinjiang region Gulja massacre for 11 years. Like the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, that incident began with peaceful demonstrations and ended in a military crackdown. And with Beijing’s clampdown, it remains difficult to determine how the violence started.
That same secretiveness ensures that it is impossible to disprove allegations of Uighur violence today, which Beijing hopes will give it the upper hand as it seeks to silence dissent. The international community should not let these reports go unnoticed.
Governments should refuse to take Beijing’s allegations at face value, voice their opposition to oppression of peaceful dissent in Xinjiang and demand that Beijing substantiate its claims of terrorism. If genuine terrorist acts are being plotted, Beijing’s alarm would be legitimate, but it cannot justify the systematic religious and cultural repression it exerts on all Uighurs living within its borders.
Let us not forget Tibet’s neighbor to the north, who now, as much as ever, need the help of a critical international community to take Beijing to task over its actions.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS