But aca­d­e­mics who study ter­rorism pointed to the changing rhetoric ema­nating from the White House as a pos­i­tive sign for U.S.-Chinese rela­tions. While gov­ern­ments ought to take care in branding activ­i­ties “ter­rorist” given the license for vio­lent response that such a word implic­itly con­veys, in this case the term would appear to apply, some sug­gested, noting that ordi­nary people have been falling victim.

The inter­na­tional com­mu­nity has been slow to treat Uighur vio­lence as ter­rorism; they have shied away from using the term. Typ­i­cally, what you will hear out of the White House is words like con­do­lences or tragedy, but not ter­rorism,” said Max Abra­hams, a pro­fessor of polit­ical sci­ence at North­eastern Uni­ver­sity in Boston. “It is an impor­tant step for Wash­ington to rec­og­nize the attack as terrorism.”

Read the article at International Business Times →