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.
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