Tai Gray
4/14/2015
Terrorism, Poli 476
Counterterrorism in Authoritarian and Democratic Governments
A Case Study of the United States and China
Introduction
In a world of increasing levels of globalization, the threat from both domestic and international
terrorism has become a key issue that most countries must grapple with. Scholars in the field of
counterterrorism have focused a great deal of study on finding the most effective methods to deter,
detect and prevent terrorist attacks, as well as how best to combat an ongoing terrorist threat. Despite
these efforts, there is much room left for debate and innovation in counterterrorism methods. While
scholars are able to spend lifetimes discussing and analyzing their findings, governments are responsible
to take relatively immediate action in order to protect their citizens and maintain both their domestic
and international interests. There are a vast variety of options available to governments considering
how to best mitigate the threat from terrorism, ranging from funding development projects in conflictprone areas to conducting an international war against terrorism.
This research aim to examine the counterterrorism policies and methods used by authoritarian
regimes and democratic regimes to determine whether or not there is a substantive difference in
preferred methods between the two. For this study, I chose to perform a case study of the United States
and China in order to analyze the differences between the two regime types, as both countries are
relatively similar to each other in many respects. I conclude that there is a significant difference
between the counterterrorism policies of authoritarian and democratic governments, but the gap is not
1
as large as first expected. Authoritarian governments are more likely to use more extreme forms of
counterterrorism that often infringe on the Western ideals of human rights and civil liberties, but the
United States demonstrates that democracies are also capable of similar policies, though on a more
restricted level. These findings have important implications for the reputations of countries in the
international system, the ability of democracies to spread their ideology, as well as relations between
democratic and authoritarian governments.
Differences between Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes
Authoritarian countries and democratic countries have historically used different methods to
address the nation’s problems, and this trend could extend to counterterrorism. Authoritarian regimes,
according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index: do not allow for free and fair elections
of government officials, maintain a large degree of control over media groups in the state, lack an
independent judiciary, repress criticism, are involved in censorship, and may disregard the civil liberties
of those within the borders of the country.1 Authoritarian governments are prone to use more extreme
methods to ensure state stability, including the use of widespread imprisonment and military forces in
cases such as the infamous 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident in China. By examining the past actions of
authoritarian governments, it would be reasonable to suspect that the counterterrorism methods used
would also be more extreme, as the state values the maintenance of stability over the rights of
individual citizens. China, with an overall index value of 3.0, qualifies as an authoritarian regime,
especially due to the closed political process and the lack of civil liberties afforded to citizens.
Also according to the Democracy Index, full democratic regimes: have a culture that demands
political freedom and civil liberties, have a functioning governmental system with checks and balances
(including an independent judiciary), and foster an environment suitable for independent media
1
Economist Intelligence Unit, “Democracy Index 2013: Methodology,” Economist, 2014: 29.
2
groups.2 Democracies rely on support of the general public and are thus much more limited in their
ability to enact policy without public approval. This dependence on public approval leads democratic
governments to respect civil liberties at a much higher level than do authoritarian regimes, and civil
liberties are only threatened by increases in national security measures. Regarding democratic regimes,
it would be expected that the general public would favor any counterterrorism measures that would
increase the level of domestic security up to the point that civil liberties are at risk of infringement
(however, this tradeoff is fluid and susceptible to shifts depending on events in the country). The United
States, with an overall index value of 8.11, qualifies as a full democratic regime, especially due to its
involved political process and the great value placed on the protection of civil liberties.
Due to their relative similarities, China and the United States serve as the best examples of
authoritarian and democratic governments for this study. As a world superpower and the primary target
of a significant number of terrorist attacks, the United States is at the forefront of counterterrorism
policy. No previous government has addressed terrorism to the extent that the United States has, and
its actions and policies will likely set the example for future global counterterrorism policies. China is the
most similar authoritarian state to the United States and uses many counterterrorism methods that are
considered typical of authoritarian regimes.
Case Study: The United States and China
In order to examine the effects of regime type on counterterrorism response, I will compare the
counterterrorism measures employed by both the United States and China. As seen in figure 1, China
and the United States are similar in many aspects that are important to consider when isolating the
differences due to regime type.
Figure 1
2
Ibid., p. 28.
3
Both countries are very large and have significant stretches of border that must be protected
from external threats. Both countries also have large, growing economies based on both domestic
products and international investment and trade. As a result of their large land size and robust
economies, both countries also invest heavily on military and border security and both countries
maintain stocks of nuclear weapons. In addition, both countries have significant international interests
that must be protected. The United States maintains alliances and free trade agreements with countries
around the world and, as the world’s only superpower, is involved in the vast majority of international
events. China continues to foster its economic ties with nations all over the world and uses many soft
power methods to influence the international community, especially within the East Asian region. As a
4
result of these significant international interests, both China and the United States are very active in
international organizations, such as the United Nations. While both countries represent their own
positions in these international forums, both are relatively willing to act unilaterally in pursuit of their
own goals. The United States has historically been prone to becoming engaged in international conflicts
and disputes, despite disapproval from organizations such as the United Nations. China has
demonstrated its commitment to furthering its interests in the East Asian area through its aggressive
methods of expanding power in areas such as the South and East China Seas.
Definition of Terrorism
The international community has struggled for decades to determine a commonly accepted
definition of terrorism with little progress, especially due to the differing viewpoints of terrorism posed
by different nations. Despite major setbacks, international organizations such as the United Nations and
the European Union have settled on basic definitions by which to form policy and regulations. Compared
to these definitions, the definitions used by both the United States and China are more general. Within
the U.S. government exist many different definitions of terrorism, each serving the needs of a particular
sub-organization. A standard U.S. definition of terrorism is provided by the U.S. Department of State for
reporting purposes and will be used here. This definition defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically
motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine
agents.”3 This definition is considered broad because it does not expand on the meaning of motivation
and the word noncombatants is generally accepted to denote both civilian and military members not
actively involved in a conflict.
3
Zhou, Zunyou, "How China Defines Terrorism," The Diplomat, February 13, 2015,
http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/how-china-defines-terrorism/ (Accessed April 3, 2015).
5
The Chinese definition of terrorism has evolved over the years and has remained largely
ambiguous. However, the Chinese government recently published a most recent draft of
counterterrorism law that defines terrorism as “thought, speech, or behavior which attempts to incite
social panic, influence national policy-making, create ethnic hatred, or subvert state power by means of
violence, sabotage, or threat.”4 Compared to the U.S. definition, the Chinese definition is much more
general; the definition does not specify the targets of an attack, it includes nonpolitical motives, and
includes thoughts and speech along with the physical act of terrorism. In the draft, the law against
terrorism is expanded to include assisting or supporting a terrorist group through any means and
concludes with a general statement that “other terrorist activities” are also included in the law, but does
not specify what these activities include. Groups such as Human Rights Watch have warned that this
broad definition of terrorism could be twisted to justify the persecution of Chinese separatists and other
dissidents that the Chinese government deems to be threatening to the stability or legitimacy of the
regime.5 The differences between the Chinese and U.S. definitions of terrorism reflect a difference in
motives for dealing with the terrorist threat; the United States is primarily concerned with safeguarding
its citizens (as seen in the broad meaning of noncombatants), while China is concerned with preserving
the stability of the state.
Domestic vs. Transnational Terrorist Threat
One important factor that needs to be taken into account when comparing the counterterrorism
methods used by the United States and China is the difference in where the primary terrorist threat
4
National People’s Congress of China, “Fankongbzhuyifa (caoan) quanwen [Draft Counterterrorism Law
Full Text],” Zhongguo Rendawang, November 3, 2014, http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/lfgz/flca/201411/03/content_1885027.htm (Accessed April 11, 2015).
5
Human Rights Watch, "China: Draft Counterterrorism Law a Recipe for Abuses," Human Rights Watch,
January 20, 2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/20/china-draft-counterterrorism-law-recipe-abuses
(Accessed March 30, 2015).
6
comes from, whether it be domestic terrorism or transnational terrorism. The United States tends to
focus much greater effort on combating transnational terrorism, while China’s terrorist threats are
largely domestic.
Figures 2 & 3. Data provided by the RAND Terrorism Database and the Global Terrorism Database.
Figure 2 shows the total number of terrorist attacks experienced by each country, subdivided
based on whether the attack was a domestic or international terrorist incident. Roughly a quarter of the
attacks experienced by the United States were international attacks, compared to the lack of
international attacks in China. There are significant differences between international and domestic
terrorist attacks that could influence the comparison of these two countries: international terrorist
attacks tend to garner more media attention, they generally leave a greater impact on the general
public, and they usually illicit a more resolute response from the government. In order to effectively
7
compare China and the United States, two countries primarily concerned with different types of
terrorism, the similarity between the two must be explained a bit more. While figure 2 could explain
why the United States focuses largely on combating international terrorism, much of the emphasis on
international terrorism is due to one attack in particular, the attacks that occurred on September 11th,
2001. The 9/11 attacks were the most extreme, both in the number of casualties (approximately 3,000
people were killed) as well as psychological impact, that have ever occurred. The influence of these
attacks was felt most deeply by the United States, but the attacks also influenced other countries
dramatically, including China. These attacks not only forced the U.S. government to respond in a very
direct manner, but also led to significant advances in terrorism laws of many countries around the
world, China included. If the total casualties caused by terrorist attacks are compared between the two
countries, the United States’ graph would be overpowered by the deaths caused by the 9/11 attacks,
thus justifying the U.S. preoccupation with international terrorist threats. However, if 9/11 is removed
from the graph, the result would be figure 3. By removing 9/11 from the sample of terrorist attacks,
deaths caused by international terrorist attacks in the United States only account for approximately one
tenth of the total casualties caused by terrorism, a number which is much more comparable to China’s
lack of international terrorist attacks. Therefore, the comparisons made between the United States and
China will largely be based upon their prevention of and response to domestic terrorism rather than
international terrorism.
Terrorism in China
In China, the most significant terrorist threat comes from four groups who support the
independence of Xinjiang: the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), the East Turkistan Liberation
Organization (ETLO), the World Uighur Youth Congress (WUYC), and the East Turkistan Information
8
Center (ETIC).6 Xinjiang is the northwestern-most province in China, along the traditional Silk Road trade
route and surrounded by desert and wilderness. Xinjiang is a relatively new acquisition of the Chinese
government, having been incorporated during the Qing dynasty (1644 AD to 1911 AD).7 The region is
home to the Uighur minority group, a Muslim population of Turkic descent closely related to other
groups in Central Asia. In an effort to develop the region, the Chinese government encouraged the
migration of Han Chinese (the majority ethnic group of China) to the region to encourage growth.8
Despite the influx of human and financial capital, the cultural and religious differences of the Uighur
people prevented the Han Chinese from melting in with the general population. The Chinese
government has enacted many policies which favor the Han Chinese, including the mandatory
knowledge of Mandarin Chinese for work and the regulation of religious practices in general.9 These
policies, seen as discriminatory by the Uighur people, combined with the continued growth of the Han
Chinese population in turn further segregated the two ethnic groups, leading to much discontent among
the Uighurs. This conflict is the basis for the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (the most active of the
independence groups) to push for independence.
The Chinese government has claimed that ETIM has ties to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but the lack
of evidence makes it difficult to evaluate the truthfulness of this claim.10 The U.S. Treasury Department
added the group to its list of terrorist organizations in 2002, though the State Department continues to
6
Chinese Embassy, “China seeks int’l support in counter-terrorism,” Embassy of the People’s Republic of
China in the United States of America, December 15, 2003, http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t56257.htm
(Accessed April 11, 2015).
7
Chien-peng Chung, “China’s ‘War on Terror’: September 11 and Uighur Separatism,” Foreign Affairs 81,
no. 4 (July-August 2002): 9.
8
Jeffry, “Jiangdu shi women zuida de yinyou [The Xinjiang Independence Movement is our greatest
hidden concern],” Wuyouzhixiang, October 30, 2013,
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/346fc316915f804d2b16c1e9.html (Accessed April 11, 2015).
9
Kevin Sheives, “China Turns West: Beijing’s Contemporary Strategy Towards Central Asia,” Pacific Affairs
79, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 208.
10
Chien-peng Chung, “China’s ‘War on Terror’,” 10.
9
only regard the group as a “group of concern.”11 Despite this uncertainty of the group’s ties to Al Qaeda,
the Chinese government claimed in a report that “Uighur separatists were responsible for 200 attacks
between 1990 and 2001, causing 162 deaths and injuring more than 440 people.”12 Activity among
Uighur separatists has increased over the past year, with groups conducting several terrorist attacks on
train stations and public markets, killing dozens of people and resulting in a harsher crackdown by the
Chinese government.13
Terrorism in the U.S.
Unlike China, there are very few significant organized terrorist or separatist groups who actively
conduct terrorist attacks. Historically, much of the domestic terrorist activity in the United States was
performed by right-wing extremist groups, such as the neo-Nazis, racial hate groups, and special interest
groups.14 Over the past decade, there has been an overall decrease in the number of attacks carried out
by these groups, either due to activity moving to the cyber realm or the fracturing of groups.15 However,
one trend that has been predicted is that members of these groups will split and act alone rather than as
a larger group. There have been several attacks conducted by these lone wolf terrorists who have links
to larger right-wing extremist ideologies and movements:

August 5, 2012 – Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting – shooter had been involved in white
supremacy groups
11
Department of Treasury, “Press Statement on the UN Designation of the East Turkistan Islamic
Movement,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, September 12, 2002, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/pressreleases/Pages/po3415.aspx (Accessed April 11, 2015).
12
Chien-peng Chung, “China’s ‘War on Terror’,” 8.
13
Yan Lu, “Waimei: Beijing jidai wei fankonglifa tianbu Zhongguo zingfa kongbai [Beijing Urgently Enacts
Counterterrorism Law to fill gap in National Criminal Law],” Huanqiu Shibao, October 27, 2014,
http://www.chinanews.com/gj/2014/10-27/6718024.shtml (Accessed April 11, 2015).
14
Miki Vohryzek-Bolden, “Right-wing Terrorists and the Threats they pose for Americans in the 21st
Century,” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 27, no. 2 (2003): 54.
15
Ibid., 71.
10

April 15, 2013 – Boston Marathon Bombings – suspected that the bombings were in retaliation
to U.S. attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan against Muslims

November 1, 2013 – LA International Airport Shooting – ties to anarchist agenda

April 13, 2013 – Overland Park Jewish Community Center Shooting – shooter was a neo-Nazi16
This just a small selection of attacks conducted in the past few years, illustrating the diversity of
motivations and the larger movements that the terrorists were participating in. Another significant
domestic terrorist threat is the phenomenon of homegrown terrorism advocated by Islamist movements
around the world, most notably the effort led by the Islamic State. There is a general fear among the
public and government officials that international extremist activities and propaganda could radicalize
more Americans, who would in turn conduct terrorist attacks within the United States.
Chinese Response to Terrorist Threat
In order to curb the impact that terrorist activity has on society and to prevent it in the future,
China has adopted strict counterterrorism measures, especially within the region of Xinjiang. One of the
first steps of the Chinese government was to shut down border activity to make sure that terrorists
could not escape into countries like Afghanistan and that terrorists from such areas would not make
their way into China.17 Xinjiang’s western border is next to a remote area of Afghanistan that terrorist
groups have increasingly been using as a training ground and area of refuge from government forces,
increasing the possibility that terrorists or equipment could make their way into China through the
shared border. In addition to strict border regulations, the government also increased the police
presence in the region in order to maintain public peace and prevent riots and demonstrations from
16
Examples taken from a collection of attack summaries found on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present (Accessed April 14, 2015).
17
21 Shiji Huanqiu Baodao, “Zhongguo Fankong Baogao [Report of Chinese Counterterrorism],” 21 Shiji
Huanqiu Baodao, October 15, 2002,
http://mil.eastday.com/epublish/gb/paper238/1/class023800014/hwz872502.htm (Accessed April 11, 2015).
11
being held. In some cases, specialized military groups were dispatched to problem areas in order to keep
the peace and deal with any public disturbances.
China’s counterterrorism effort also includes increased use of technology to seek out potential
terrorists and prevent future attacks. Internet monitoring by the national government is pervasive
throughout China, but the measures adopted in Xinjiang were more extreme. After major disturbances
or attacks, internet access in the region is often cut off completely until the government forces can get
things under control.18 In addition, the reporting of events inside of Xinjiang is heavily restricted and
almost exclusively covered by state-run media sources. Unofficial sources of news within the region are
routinely censored by the government. The lack of independent media coverage of events inside of
Xinjiang has led to much international criticism and suspicion that the government forces are not
allowing citizens their civil liberties.19
The treatment of suspected terrorists has also been a point of contention between China and
the international community. Hundreds of arrests of potential terrorists have been made, and there are
concerns about citizens not receiving legal defense and having their cases rushed through the legal
system.20 Previously, the Chinese government maintained a policy of reeducation through labor, through
which they could hold a prisoner for up to three years without going through any sort of judicial process.
Just in the last few years, this policy was reversed.21 There are also reports that the government and
police forces conduct forced disappearances and secret arrests.
18
Jimei Zhao, “Dangqian Zhongguo fankong zhengce tanxi [An Exploration of Current Chinese
Counterterrorism Policy],” Shandongsheng Gonghui Guanli Ganbu Xueyuan Xuebao, March 2005,
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/589f7d00f111f18583d05a58.html (Accessed April 11, 2015).
19
Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2015: Events of 2014,” Human Rights Watch, 2015,
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015 (Accessed April 11, 2015).
20
Human Rights Watch, “We are Afraid to Even Look for Them,” Human Rights Watch, October 21, 2009,
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2009/10/22/we-are-afraid-even-look-them (Accessed April 11, 2015).
21
Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2015.”
12
U.S. Response to Terrorist Threat
Most of the current counterterrorism policies currently used in the United States were
implemented in response to the 9/11 attacks in an effort to both secure the domestic targets from
international attacks as well as prevent domestic terrorist plots from being successful. Before 9/11,
legislation such as the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act barred the funding of terrorist
groups while increasing the penalties for participating in terrorist activities, but the legislation was
limited due to a general consensus that additional security measures would negatively influence civil
liberties.22 After the 9/11 attacks, the American public was much more willing to accept limitations on
civil liberties in favor of increasing security. The Department of Homeland Security was created in order
to coordinate the domestic counterterrorism preparations, including hardening airports and public areas
while restricting immigration and border activity through the TSA.23 The National Security Agency (NSA)
was given more funding and ability to conduct mass signals intelligence gathering on both citizens and
noncitizens with extremely little oversight in order to use such intelligence to stop future terrorist
attacks. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was charged with investigating possible terrorist groups
domestically, and they implemented their own plans and strategies to catch and foil potential
terrorists.24
In addition to the domestic efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, the United States also declared a
“War on Terrorism” in order to deal with various terrorist organizations in the Middle East. The U.S.
government increased its military and defense spending in order to meet the demands of fighting
insurgencies and terrorist groups overseas (see figure 4).
22
Lynn M. Kuzma, “Trends: Terrorism in the United States,” The Public Opinion Quarterly 64, no. 1 (spring
2000): 94.
23
Eben Kaplan, “Examining Counterterrorism Culture,” Council on Foreign Relations, November 6, 2006,
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/examining-counterterrorism-culture/p11922 (Accessed April 11, 2015).
24
Ibid.
13
Figure 4. U.S. Military expenditure since 2001.
In addition to this massive international campaign against terrorism, the United States arrested
several hundred suspected terrorists and sent them to locations such as Guantanamo Bay for
questioning and intelligence gathering.25 At these sites, torture was used in order to gain more
information that could be useful for preventing future terrorist attacks. The use of torture for
intelligence gathering has led to much criticism from international groups, American citizens, and the
international community. Similar to Chinese arrests of terrorists, prisoners captured by the United
States have also not had access to proper judicial processes and civil liberties.
Conclusion
A comparison of the United States and Chinese counterterrorism methods shows that there is a
significant difference in the methods used by authoritarian and democratic governments to deal with
terrorism. There seems to be a set procedure of basic steps to take when confronting a terrorist threat
common to most countries around the world, which includes monitoring communications within the
25
American Society of International Law, “Treatment of U.S. Detainees at Guantanamo Bay,” The
American Journal of International Law 99, no. 1 (January 2005): 261-262.
14
country to stop future attacks, hardening domestic targets against potential attacks, severely restricting
border activity and tightening immigration laws, as well as increasing the police presence in a country to
maintain peace and ensure security. However, the additional measures that China has taken illustrate
the counterterrorism possibilities when the overall goal of counterterrorism is to maintain stability of a
regime or country. China’s counterterrorism policies demonstrate that the Chinese government is willing
to do anything to maintain peace and the stability of the party, whether it be cutting off access to
information about the threat to imprisoning any potential and suspected terrorists without a fair trial.
While these differences are significant, the United States provides an interesting insight into the
results of policies enacted with little oversight from the general public. The methods used by the NSA
and CIA to gather intelligence turned out to be far more invasive and unethical than most Americans
suspected at the time and, once revealed, they were heavily criticized. The outcomes of such policies
show that democracies have the potential to break down and use more authoritarian methods of
dealing with counterterrorism when a threat it large enough. While some may argue that the use of
more extreme forms of counterterrorism is necessary in order for a country to mitigate a terrorist
threat, research has show, that these methods could instead contribute to the spread of terrorism.
International terrorist organizations use the United States’ extreme response as a recruiting tool for
future terrorists. In a similar manner, China’s attempt to dilute the Uighur population as a
counterterrorism method has only fostered ethnic conflicts in the region. Extreme counterterrorism
policies do not seem to be working, and more research should be done to develop alternative policies
and programs.
The use of extreme counterterrorism practices can have detrimental effects for a country. First,
the international reputation of the country is soiled. Democracies are founded upon the guarantee of
basic human rights; when a democratic government goes against those ideals, it not only shows
weakness in upholding the country’s values but also reflects upon the integrity of the national
15
government as a whole, casting it as a hypocrite. Authoritarian regimes are also harmed, as the
measures decrease the overall levels of public support, necessitating the use of more resources to
maintain control. Second, the spread of democracy is hampered. One of the key national security goals
of the United States is to make the world safe for democracy, especially through aiding other countries
in their transition to democratic forms of government. When a democratic country participates in
human rights violations, it incurs the opposition of the very groups that it hopes to democratize, placing
significant barriers in the way of future democratization. Finally, such activities harm relations between
democratic and authoritarian governments. For example, much of the contention between the United
States and China has stemmed from China’s abuse of human rights and the U.S. opposition to it. In
President Obama’s visit to China in 2014, he repeated his criticism of human rights violations. However,
what authority does the United States have to criticize another country for things that it does itself?
These findings have important implications for the reputations of countries in the international system,
the ability of democracies to spread their ideology, as well as relations between democratic and
authoritarian governments.
16
BIBLIOGRAPHY
21 Shiji Huanqiu Baodao. “Zhongguo Fankong Baogao [Report of Chinese Counterterrorism].” 21 Shiji
Huanqiu Baodao. October 15, 2002.
http://mil.eastday.com/epublish/gb/paper238/1/class023800014/hwz872502.htm (Accessed
April 11, 2015).
American Society of International Law. “Treatment of U.S. Detainees at Guantanamo Bay.” The
American Journal of International Law 99, no. 1 (January 2005): 261-262.
Chinese Embassy. “China seeks int’l support in counter-terrorism.” Embassy of the People’s
Republic of China in the United States of America. December 15, 2003. http://www.chinaembassy.org/eng/xw/t56257.htm (Accessed April 11, 2015).
Chung, Chien-peng. “China’s ‘War on Terror’: September 11 and Uighur Separatism.” Foreign Affairs 81,
no. 4 (July-August 2002): 8-12.
Crawford, Neta C. “Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War.” Perspectives on Politics 1, no. 1
(March 2003): 5-25.
Department of Treasury. “Press Statement on the UN Designation of the East Turkistan Islamic
Movement.” U.S. Department of the Treasury. September 12, 2002.
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/po3415.aspx (Accessed April 11,
2015).
Guan, Zhixiong. “Xuezhe guancha: ‘Jiangdu’ chixu de baoli bingmeiyou shehuijichu [A Scholar’s
Perspective: the continued violence of the Xinjiang Independence Movement has no social
foundation].” Zhongguo Xinwenwang. July 7, 2009.
http://www.chinanews.com/hb/news/2009/07-07/1764683.shtml (Accessed April 11, 2015).
Hafer-Burton, Emilie M. and Jacob N. Shapiro. “Tortured Relations: Human Rights Abuses and
Counterterrorism Cooperation.” PS: Political Science and Politics 43, no. 3 (July 2010): 415-419.
Human Rights Watch. “China: Draft Counterterrorism Law a Recipe for Abuses.” Human Rights Watch.
January 20, 2015. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/20/china-draft-counterterrorism-lawrecipe-abuses (Accessed April 11, 2015).
Human Rights Watch. “We are Afraid to Even Look for Them.” Human Rights Watch. October 21, 2009.
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2009/10/22/we-are-afraid-even-look-them (Accessed April 11,
2015).
Human Rights Watch. “World Report 2015: Events of 2014.” Human Rights Watch. 2015.
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015 (Accessed April 11, 2015).
Jeffry. “Jiangdu shi women zuida de yinyou [The Xinjiang Independence Movement is our greatest
hidden concern].” Wuyouzhixiang. October 30, 2013.
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/346fc316915f804d2b16c1e9.html (Accessed April 11, 2015).
17
Ji, You. “China’s Post 9/11 Terrorism Strategy.” Association for Asian Research. May 11, 2004.
http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2047.html (Accessed April 11, 2015).
Kaplan, Eben. “Examining Counterterrorism Culture.” Council on Foreign Relations. November 6, 2006.
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/examining-counterterrorism-culture/p11922 (Accessed April
11, 2015).
Kuzma, Lynn M. “Trends: Terrorism in the United States.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 64, no. 1 (spring
2000): 90-105.
Liptak, Kevin. “Obama: We are not at war with Islam.” CNN. February 18, 2015.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/politics/isis-obama-extremism-summit/index.html (Accessed
April 11, 2015).
Lu, Yan. “Waimei: Beijing jidai wei fankonglifa tianbu Zhongguo zingfa kongbai [Beijing Urgently Enacts
Counterterrorism Law to fill gap in National Criminal Law].” Huanqiu Shibao. October 27, 2014.
http://www.chinanews.com/gj/2014/10-27/6718024.shtml (Accessed April 11, 2015).
Malik, Mohan. “Dragon on Terrorism: Assessing China’s Tactical Gains and Strategic Losses After 11
September.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 24, no. 2 (August 2002): 252-293.
National People’s Congress of China. “Fankongbzhuyifa (caoan) quanwen [Draft Counterterrorism Law
Full Text].” Zhongguo Rendawang. November 3, 2014.
http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/lfgz/flca/2014-11/03/content_1885027.htm (Accessed
April 11, 2015).
Nunn, Samuel. “Incidents of Terrorism in the United States, 1997-2005.” Geographical Review 97, no. 1
(January 2007): 89-111.
Richardson, Sophie. “China: How the West was Lost.” Foreign Policy. February 23, 2015.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/23/how-the-west-was-lost-china-terrorism-xinjiang-uighursobama-human-rights/ (Accessed April 11, 2015).
Savun, Burcu and Brian J. Phillips. “Democracy, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism.” The Journal of Conflict
Resolution 53, no. 6 (December 2009): 878-904.
Scott, Catherine V. “Imagining Terror in an Era of Globalization: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Construction
of Terrorism after 9/11.” Perspectives on Politics 7, no. 3 (Sept. 2009): 579-590.
Sheives, Kevin. “China Turns West: Beijing’s Contemporary Strategy Towards Central Asia.” Pacific
Affairs 79, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 205-224.
Shen, Simon and Peng Liu. “Perceptions of Anti-Terrorism among Students at China’s Guangzhou
University: Misinformation or Misinterpretation?” Asian Survey 49, no. 3 (May-June 2009): 553573.
Sieren, Frank. “Sieren’s China: Beijing charts unknown territory with counter-terrorism law.” Deutsche
Welle. July 12, 2014. http://dw.de/p/1E0bf (Accessed April 11, 2015).
18
Tian, Hongjie. “Kongbuzhuyi fanzui de jieding [The Definition of Terrorism].” Xingshi Falu Kexue Yanjiu
Zhongxin. December 21, 2006. http://www.criminallaw.com.cn/article/default.asp?id=9007
(Accessed April 11, 2015).
Vohryzek-Bolden, Miki. “Right-wing Terrorists and the Threats they pose for Americans in the 21st
Century.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 27, 2 (2003): 53-98.
Xia, Congya and Li Na. “’Jiangdu’ kongbuzhuyifenzi fanzui de yuanyin tanxi [On the Causes of Terrorism
Crime of the ‘East Turkistan Separatists’].” Lunwenwang. April 25, 2012.
http://www.xzbu.com/4/view-1557678.htm (Accessed April 11, 2015).
Xu, Beina, Holly Fletcher and Jayshree Bajoria. “The East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM).” Council
on Foreign Relations. September 4, 2014. http://www.cfr.org/china/east-turkestan-islamicmovement-etim/p9179 (Accessed April 11, 2015).
Zhao, Jimei. “Dangqian Zhongguo fankong zhengce tanxi [An Exploration of Current Chinese
Counterterrorism Policy].” Shandongsheng Gonghui Guanli Ganbu Xueyuan Xuebao. March
2005. http://wenku.baidu.com/view/589f7d00f111f18583d05a58.html (Accessed April 11,
2015).
Zhou, Zunyou. “How China Defines Terrorism.” The Diplomat. February 13, 2015.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/how-china-defines-terrorism/ (Accessed April 11, 2015).
19