外媒对中外两起恐怖事件新闻用词对比 Western Medias’ Terrorism Double Standard

Leave a comment

March 3, 2014 by Water Wisdom

人民网-国际频道 2014年03月03日11:34

编者按:3月1日云南昆明火车站暴力恐怖案件发生后,CNN等西方媒体或集体性“失明”、失聪,或有意识地淡化暴恐同情暴力。而在一年前“伦敦砍杀事件”发生时,他们在新闻措辞上却表现出不同的立场。

America’s double standards on terrorism
Zhou Zunyou says fair and equal treatment by the US government in defining acts of terrorism at home and abroad would help it forge allies in the global campaign to combat the violence
PUBLISHED : Monday, 06 January, 2014, 10:36pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 07 January, 2014, 3:44am

At the end of 2013, terrorist violence befell both China and Russia. On December 30, nine assailants armed with knives and homemade explosives attacked a police station in Yarkand, a county administered by Kashgar prefecture in Xinjiang . During the clash, eight attackers were shot dead; one was captured.

Also on December 30, a suicide bombing occurred on a crowded trolleybus in the city of Volgograd in southern Russia, a day after a suicide bomber launched an attack at the city’s main train station. The two attacks killed 34 people and injured many more.

Shortly after the terrorist attacks, President Xi Jinping extended his condolences to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. Plagued by Islamic terrorists fighting for ethnic independence, China and Russia have common interests in combating terrorism within the framework of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.

The US also immediately showed its solidarity with Russia, but the message of solidarity was not sent from President Barack Obama. Instead, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf condemned the terrorist attacks in Volgograd “in the strongest terms” during a daily press briefing.

US double standards on terrorism point to an awkward mindset among American politicians

However, when asked about the latest attack in Xinjiang, Harf refused to label that attack as terrorism. Instead, she called on the Chinese government to “permit its citizens to express their grievances freely, publicly, peacefully and without fear of retribution”.

So, just what does constitute an act of terrorism in US eyes? Up to now, the international community has failed to agree on a single definition. Terrorism is even defined differently within different US government departments, such as the State Department, the FBI, and the departments of homeland security and defence.

In order to understand America’s position on terrorist attacks in foreign countries, it’s necessary to look at the definition used by the State Department. According to this agency, “terrorism” refers to “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”. In particular, the term “non-combatant targets” is interpreted to include both civilians and military personnel who are not deployed in a war zone or a war-like setting.

For the State Department, terrorism is perpetrated by non-state entities, involves the premeditated use of violence, is committed against non-combatant targets, and has political aims. Given these four requirements, the Xinjiang attack cannot be categorised as terrorism, because it targeted police officers rather than so-called “non-combatants”.

But, if this definition is used to evaluate the jeep crash in Tiananmen Square last October that killed five people, including the three attackers, and injured 40, there will be a different conclusion.

This incident satisfies all four requirements: it was carried out by a group of Uygurs; it involved a premeditated suicide explosion of an SUV; it targeted tourists at Tiananmen Square; and the flag that was found in the SUV calling for “jihad” indicated a political aim.

And while the US government declined to designate the Beijing incident as terrorism, it reacted quickly to call the Boston Marathon bombings in April that left three people dead and more than 200 others wounded “an act of terrorism”.

The jeep crash and explosion in Beijing was remarkably similar in nature to the Boston bombings and undoubtedly met the State Department’s definition of terrorism. So, if the US had applied the same standards for both cases, it could have labelled the Beijing incident a terrorist attack. The American use of double standards on terrorism has been drawing strong criticism from Chinese authorities and the media.

At the December 30 press briefing, when asked to comment on accusations of double standards in the case of the Beijing incident, Harf said: “We don’t just jump to conclusions or call things by a certain name if we haven’t gathered all the facts ourselves.”

This is clearly a shoddy excuse. When declaring the Boston incident a terrorist act, Obama admitted knowing nothing about who had carried out the bombings. And when Washington identified the attacks in Volgograd as terrorism, the identities of the bombers were not known.

In previous years, the US often displayed sympathy for Islamic terrorists in Chechnya. Its solidarity with Russia this time seems to be a change of policy. One possible reason may be that the terrorism in Russia has caused considerable pain to the US, as demonstrated by the fact that the two brothers accused of the Boston bombings were ethnic Chechens.

US double standards on terrorism point to an awkward mindset among American politicians: political violence may be called terrorism only if it is perpetrated by those they do not like.

Terrorism is a crime against humanity. Counterterrorism requires effective international co-operation. For the sake of global anti-terrorist campaigns, the US must stop this unwelcome practice.

Zhou Zunyou, head of the China section at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, is working on a research project on counterterrorism legislation

Commentary: US double standard on terrorism encourages slaughters

English.news.cn   2014-03-03 14:56:10

by Xinhua Writer Gui Tao

BEIJING, March 3 (Xinhua) — For the world’s “most active human rights defender,” the latest random killing of 29 innocent civilians at a crowded Chinese train station is too insignificant to be a terrorist activity.

The U.S. Embassy in China has downplayed the severity of the bloody carnage in southwestern Kunming City, calling it on its official Weibo account a “horrible and totally meaningless act of violence,” short of calling the murderers “terrorists.”

The wording is the continuation of the government’s ambiguous stance on China’s counter-terrorism drive in Xinjiang, the northwestern autonomous region haunted by suicide bombs and deadly assaults.

In a related development, CNN, which apologized after its biased news photo editing in reporting of the March 14 riot in Tibet’s capital of Lhasa in 2008, has again showed its doubts and disbelief, if not irony, by using quotation marks around the word “terrorists” in its latest reportage of the Kunming slaughter.

How the U.S. government and some media described the terrorist attacks in China has revealed their persistent double standard in the global fight against terrorism.

Their leniency for the terrorists is sending signals of encouragement to potential attackers.

This is not the first time they have adopted this double standard on terrorism. In October, CNN published an op-ed article titled “Tian’anmen crash: Terrorism or cry of desperation?” after separatists in a vehicle slammed into the Tian’anmen Square in Beijing, killing five and injuring 40.

The latest train station killings, which evidence pointed to politically motivated Xinjiang separatists, is the latest in a spate of terrorist attacks carried out by them.

It is perpetrated by non-state entities, involves violence and designed to have psychological impact far beyond the immediate victims.

It is China’s “9/11,” only on a smaller scale.

The latest civilian slaughter conforms with any typical terrorist attack and bears striking similarities with what happened in Boston and Nairobi, which the U.S. government condemned as terrorism without a minute’s hesitation.

Behind its wording is the entrenched U.S. belief that the Xinjiang murderers were the “ethnically oppressed seeking autonomy.”

Nothing, however, justifies the act of realizing political and religious motives by slaughtering the innocent.

Washington is once again playing its “counter-terrorism card.” For the U.S. government and biased media like CNN, the only standard for terrorist activities is whether it happened within the territories of its own or its allies.

The U.S. government and biased media should know that their double standard on terrorism will one day backfire and hurt their own interests.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 61 other followers

Categories

Archives

%d bloggers like this: