China Fighting Terrorism and Social Unrest

Just when we think we know what terrorism is, the Chinese confuse it more with a new definition.   We all know about China's new anti terrorism laws which require companies to help with decryption of internal correspondence and files.  That even seems like a reasonable action for a central government to take - until we look more closely at what that really means.

In a Reuters article today [ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-internet-security-idUSKCN0X912A] Ben Blanchard outlines the components of this kind of terror:  "The Cyberspace Administration of China said the companies had promised to 'handle in a timely way terror-related harmful, illegal information, create a clear internet space and maintain social stability' ".  This is a long stretch from where most of us see terrorism.    

It keeps with the usual Chinese policies being applied to anyone who might pass through, that it is vague and ill-defined.  That is to allow censors to apply their trade however they see fit, and law enforcement to engage almost anywhere they choose.  In real counter terrorism operations, that is a good idea, but this is not real counter terrorism and the last two categories give us a hint of why not.  

What are a "clear internet space" and "social stability" supposed to be?  They certainly have nothing to do with counter terrorism, but they are an easy way to pry into almost any category of dissent that may threaten the government.  What they have done in this, and in other circumstances is to define terrorism as any statement or action that runs contrary to the regime policy.  Anyone who dissents from central government policy is, by that definition, a terrorist.  This is not very unique in the world since the Russians have adopted the same logic in Syria, making anyone opposing Assad a terrorist.  

What the Chinese are doing is signing up their Internet providers to this policy of terror suppression and disruption, while redefining terrorism.  It would not be hard to guess that the players, Alibaba, Tencent, et al are not having an opportunity to qualify what might be this overreach of governmental authority.  They get to shut up and color.