The Ongoing Persecution of the Uyghurs: China’s False “War on Terror”

By: Nilufer Molla

The Uyghurs are a distinct Turkic ethnic group inhabiting the northwest region of China. Officially called the “Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,” Uyghurs know it as “East Turkestan.” 

For two brief periods in the twentieth century, Uyghurs achieved liberation and established an East Turkestan Republic. However, China has continued to seize the land. Ever since, the Uyghurs have struggled for legitimate autonomy and have faced continuous human rights violations and oppression. As the Chinese government restricts Uyghur culture, it simultaneously targets Islam. 

Today, this repression is justified under the banner of counterterrorism. What the Chinese government may call a “war on terror” is something else entirely.

The Chinese government claims the repression of Uyghurs is necessary for national security. Still, targeting the religion of the Uyghurs is an attempt at cultural assimilation by detaching them from a key part of their identity. 

Islam has shaped Uyghur culture following their collective conversion between the 10th and 15th centuries. It has become deeply integrated into the culture, language, and lifestyle, which is precisely why it is a target.

Since China’s occupation, Uyghurs’ deep connection with Islam has acted as a “shield”  in resisting the Chinese government’s attempts at cultural erasure and assimilation. Contrastingly, Hui Muslims, China’s largest ethnoreligious group, have enjoyed religious freedom. The Hui possess a blend of Islamic and Chinese cultures. Since they are better integrated into Chinese society due to cultural similarity, their religious practices are tolerated, proving China’s unique targeting of Uyghur Muslims due to their resistance to cultural assimilation. 

Now, over a million Uyghurs have been imprisoned in internment camps, of which the Chinese government first denied the existence. When finally addressed in 2018, they were branded as “reeducation” centers meant to teach Mandarin and prevent the influence of extremism. Though there have been a variety of reasons to place Uyghurs in these camps, it appears their only crime is being Muslim. 

Leaked documents reveal the listed reasons for detention to include growing a beard, praying regularly, and wearing a veil. Furthermore, in 2019, the U.S. embassy and consulates in Japan reported that Chinese authorities forced Uyghur Muslims to eat pork. If refused, they were vaguely labeled as “extremists” or threatened with being sent to the internment camps. As terrorism involves religiously motivated violence, it is clear that the grounds for accusing these Uyghurs of terrorism are completely illogical due to the irrelevance of peaceful expression to religious extremism and violent terrorism.

Especially during Ramadan, Uyghurs are at a greater risk. Ramadan is a sacred month in the Islamic calendar during which Muslims fast and focus on deepening their spiritual devotion. For roughly a month, Muslims wake up for a small meal called “Suhoor” or “Sehri” before the first prayer to prepare for their day’s fast. 

For Uyghur Muslims in China, just turning on the living room light to do so poses a great risk. 

They often resort to pre-preparing their meals and eating in the dark to avoid detection and risk being sent to the camps or abused. In Islam, eating in the bathroom is strongly discouraged; however, for some, it is the only room in the house without windows, so the light can be left on while they eat. Because if light could be seen from the home, it was enough reason to believe they were fasting Muslims. 

A 2016 interview conveyed the horrors of being caught. Adil Abdulghufur recalls “one disaster” that happened to him. Chinese authorities violently dragged him from his bed while he was asleep. Covered in blood, he continuously asked what he had done. They said, “You screamed ‘Allahu Akbar.’” He pleaded that he was not praying, but, unconvinced, they beat him, chained him, and hung a “25-kilogram cement board around his neck,” with the words “For stubborn prisoners who refuse to bow to Chinese rule” carved on it. 

Unique to these “prisoners,” questions would be administered to “test” them, such as:

“Were the heavens and the earth created by God or by nature?”

“Is East Turkistan part of China, or is it a separate country?”

“Will you pray in the future?”

“What kind of person is Osama Bin Laden?”

“If Chinese and Uyghurs live together, will society flourish?”

Required to answer only with “yes” or “no” (and there is a “correct” answer for each question), Uyghurs will be categorized into groups based on “compliance,” which would determine their fate.

Especially after September 11, 2001, governments all over the world expanded surveillance to combat terrorism. China seized this moment. By framing the Uyghur identity as a security threat, the Chinese government found an international cover for policies that would otherwise be viewed for what they really are: cultural erasure and assimilation. 

As China targets Uyghurs while tolerating Hui Muslims’ religious expression, it’s clear that the so-called “war on terror” is actually a war on Uyghur identity.

Artificial Intelligence is the 21st Century’s Nuclear Weapon

By: Margaret Jane Piatos

American companies have spent $335 billion and counting on artificial intelligence (AI) between the years 2013 and 2023, and today, 79% of Americans interact with AI several times a day. What began as a niche technological field has quickly become embedded in finance, healthcare, education, defense, and even personal decision-making. As governments and corporations race to dominate this emerging technology, the pace of development far outstrips that of regulation.

AI is as dangerous and as strategically transformative as nuclear weapons were in the 20th century, and it must be governed with the same urgency and international cooperation before competition turns into catastrophe.

In the 20th century, nuclear weapons transformed international politics almost overnight. They redefined how we fought wars, and consequently, who held hegemony. But nuclear technology also forced the world to confront a terrifying reality: innovation without restraint could mean total destruction. 

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 killed an estimated 100,000 people. Modern tactical nuclear weapons are far more powerful, and at the height of the Cold War, the global arsenal grew large enough to destroy human civilization many times over.  It took regulations such as the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Cold War arms-reduction agreements like SALT and START, to stabilize the system. 

Today, artificial intelligence is advancing even faster — and with far fewer guardrails.

Unlike nuclear weapons, AI does not require rare uranium or massive reactors. However, it requires data, computing power, and engineering talent. That makes it easier to develop and more difficult to contain. Yet its strategic impact may be just as profound. AI can enhance cyberwarfare, power autonomous weapons systems, manipulate financial markets, disrupt infrastructure, and more. The state that leads in AI will not just have faster software, but it will have a structural advantage in economic productivity, military capability, and information control.

And countries know it.

The United States and China are locked in a race for AI dominance. Washington frames AI leadership as critical to national security and economic competitiveness. Although the United States still maintains a far larger nuclear arsenal with 5,277 warheads compared to China’s 600 warheads, today's balance of power may not be determined by stockpile size alone. 

Beijing has openly declared its ambition to become the world leader in AI, embedding AI development into its long-term industrial planning and military modernization strategy. In some areas, particularly the integration of AI into surveillance systems and military deployments, China may be moving faster and with greater coordination than Western approaches. 

The European Union, meanwhile, is racing to shape regulatory standards that could define global norms. Through its landmark AI Act, the EU has moved to classify AI systems by risk level, impose strict transparency requirements on high-risk applications, and ban certain uses such as social scoring and some forms of biometric surveillance. By prioritizing safety and human oversight, the EU is attempting to export its regulatory model beyond Europe’s borders. If successful, the EU could set the rules of the road for AI governance worldwide, not by dominating innovation, but by defining the standards companies must meet to access one of the world’s largest markets. 

This competition resembles the early years of the arms race, but with one critical difference: AI development is primarily driven by private companies operating across borders. Governments are competing not only with rivals abroad but also, motivated by President Trump’s AI challenge, racing to outpace domestic innovation. 

That dynamic creates a dangerous incentive structure. When speed becomes the priority, safety becomes secondary. The result is an emerging AI arms race without clear rules or shared red lines.

The risks are not hypothetical. Autonomous weapons systems could make battlefield decisions faster than human oversight allows. AI-generated misinformation could undermine public trust in democratic institutions. Advanced cyber capabilities could cripple infrastructure without a single missile being launched. And as AI systems grow more complex, even their creators may struggle to predict their behavior.

Nuclear weapons taught the world a painful lesson: revolutionary technologies cannot be managed through optimism alone. Governance must evolve alongside capability. 

AI requires a similar mindset. It means establishing guardrails before chaos forces them upon us. Nations should cooperate to limit fully autonomous lethal weapons, prevent AI from controlling nuclear launch systems, and establish monitoring mechanisms for the most advanced AI models. Export controls on advanced semiconductor chips are already a step toward recognizing AI’s strategic importance, but they are only the beginning.

Some argue that AI is too embedded in civilian life and too rapidly evolving to be regulated like nuclear weapons. They are right that AI is different. But that makes regulation more urgent. And we must treat it as such, before competition becomes a catastrophe. 

The Innate Politicism of the Olympics

By: Aliza Susatijo

With winter storms keeping people indoors, the 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Olympics have taken center stage this season. Dazzled by intricate figure skating routines and the dizzying speed of downhill alpine skiing, it is easy to get absorbed in the thrill of the games. 

Yet the Olympics also represent a global effort for each country to put forth its best athletes, participating in a tradition that unites countries in a celebration of human accomplishment. As athletes compete for their countries, it has become a debate as to whether this representation causes athletes to become associated with their respective country’s politics. Is it possible to maintain the Olympics as purely an apolitical commemoration of worldwide sports, or is it irresponsible to ignore pressing political issues while the Olympics unfold?

In 2022, Russia and Belarus were banned from participating in the Beijing Paralympic Winter Games after Russia invaded Ukraine and Belarus supported Moscow. 

This decision came after multiple countries and numerous athletes threatened to boycott the games out of fear for their safety in the Olympic Village. This ban has been ongoing, with select Russian and Belarusian athletes eligible to compete as Individual Neutral Athletes (AINs) under a neutral state, unassociated with their home countries. While this compromise has lasted throughout the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics and this year’s Winter Olympics, there remains a thinly veiled tension. 

Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych was disqualified by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for wearing a helmet emblazoned with the images of his fellow Ukrainian athletes killed in Russia’s invasion. The helmet was considered inconsistent with the Olympic Charter and Guidelines on Athlete Expression because of its active presence in the game, which violates the Charter’s policies on political expression, as it could interfere with play. 

Yet Heraskevych’s helmet was not an inflammatory political statement. Rather, it was a commemoration of the athletes who should have been alongside him at the Olympics that day. 

Unique to this season’s Olympics, it has been reported that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were deployed by the U.S. government to Milan during the games, spurring a variety of responses. The IOC called their presence “distracting,” and hundreds of Italian demonstrators protested in Milan with signs that say “ICE out of Milan” or “ICE Out Of Everywhere.” 

U.S. athletes, such as freestyle skier Hunter Hess, have been asked about ICE’s actions and the division of communities in the United States. Hess expressed his reluctance to represent all aspects of the United States, stating that “Just ’cause I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the US.” After this statement, President Trump took to Truth Social to condemn Hess, calling him a “real Loser” for speaking against America. 

In moments such as this, athletes face a predicament as they aim to differentiate representing their country in the sport they love from supporting all the policies and mandates of their country. 

With the audience and influence that the Olympics hold, it is difficult for the IOC to toe the line between allowing freedom of expression for its athletes and avoiding political statements that distract from the games themselves. Athletes must contend with representing their country and expressing their own opinions as individuals. While competing on a world stage and being broadcast internationally, it is understandable that athletes may make a political statement, whether that is in defense of or against their country. 

With clear regulations on hate speech or statements that may endanger athletes within the Olympic Village, athletes should be able to safely voice their beliefs without fear of retribution from the IOC or their home country. 

From Heraskevych to Hess, athletes work their entire lives to reach this world stage. Just as they compete as representatives of their country, they should also be able to represent the ideals and sentiments that they believe in.