Close Menu
Market Data Newsletter
Saturday, August 22
Global Free Speech

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump pose for a photo with Chinese President Xi Jinping and his wife, Mrs. Peng Liyuan. Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen For all of President Donald Trump’s unpredictability, he does have some consistencies, one being his love of a reviled ruler. He’s praised Vladimir Putin as a “genius” and “tough”. Kim Jong Un is an “absolute leader”, Viktor Orbán is “great” (or was – this may have since been revised). This may have since been revised. And despite all the heat around trade, Trump really likes Xi Jinping. Cancel that – he loves him, as he said at Davos in 2020. It’s obvious why. Xi is everything Trump aspires to be: the leader of a country with the most technologically advanced form of censorship, a nation of 1.125 billion internet users all behind a firewall and many, many surveillance cameras; a place where ethnic and religious minorities are locked up and human rights defenders jailed. Xi has managed to largely get away with it – the outrage today is frankly way too muted. China has even bought complicity from other countries. I should have been at the RightsCon event in Zambia last week which brings together leaders from around the world to talk about human rights and technology. Only, it was cancelled at the eleventh hour – Chinese state level interference apparently. Xi has spoken against “hostile forces” when it comes to the nation’s history, a handy excuse to stamp out anything or anyone painting the past unfavourably: it’s forbidden to mention the Tiananmen Square student demonstrations in China. The horrors of the Cultural Revolution, which incidentally started 60 years ago this Saturday, are off limits. Even British colonial history in Hong Kong is a touchy subject, best forgotten. Xi expects journalists “to tell China’s story well”. The thoughts of Xi Jinping are studied and institutionalised. Posters of Xi have replaced deities in churches, temples and believers’ homes. As for his political rivals, he’s moved with ruthless precision to take them out. Zhang Youxia was the latest. And does anyone even remember Bo Xilai, still very much in jail? No Chinese leader since Mao Zedong has managed to accomplish such centralised control. Xi has censorship licked. Xi has power licked. And when his brazen ambition was laid bare back in 2018, when he abolished term rules so that he could stay at the top indefinitely and most of us in the world were appalled, Trump praised the move. “He’s now president for life. President for life… I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day,” he gushed. This is all grotesque. This is everything that Index exists to fight against. But this is the language that Trump speaks and this is the model that Trump wants. An economic powerhouse, a global leader, and ultimately a country that makes few concessions to freedoms. For every instance of Xi control listed above, you’ll find a counterpart coming out of the Trump administration. So what’s Trump doing in China? He’ll be talking trade, AI, Iran, fentanyl, sure. Maybe he’ll call for Jimmy Lai’s release, not because he necessarily cares about the imprisoned media mogul and certainly not because he cares about media freedom, but because consider the photo op! Consider the high of getting China’s most prized prisoner out! But I bet too that Trump will be taking note, observing up close the world’s largest and most successful autocracy and admiring the man who sits at the top. READ MORE

News RoomBy No Comments3 Mins Read3 Views
President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump pose for a photo with Chinese President Xi Jinping and his wife, Mrs. Peng Liyuan. Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen For all of President Donald Trump’s unpredictability, he does have some consistencies, one being his love of a reviled ruler. He’s praised Vladimir Putin as a “genius” and “tough”. Kim Jong Un is an “absolute leader”, Viktor Orbán is “great” (or was – this may have since been revised). This may have since been revised. And despite all the heat around trade, Trump really likes Xi Jinping. Cancel that – he loves him, as he said at Davos in 2020. It’s obvious why. Xi is everything Trump aspires to be: the leader of a country with the most technologically advanced form of censorship, a nation of 1.125 billion internet users all behind a firewall and many, many surveillance cameras; a place where ethnic and religious minorities are locked up and human rights defenders jailed. Xi has managed to largely get away with it – the outrage today is frankly way too muted. China has even bought complicity from other countries. I should have been at the RightsCon event in Zambia last week which brings together leaders from around the world to talk about human rights and technology. Only, it was cancelled at the eleventh hour – Chinese state level interference apparently. Xi has spoken against “hostile forces” when it comes to the nation’s history, a handy excuse to stamp out anything or anyone painting the past unfavourably: it’s forbidden to mention the Tiananmen Square student demonstrations in China. The horrors of the Cultural Revolution, which incidentally started 60 years ago this Saturday, are off limits. Even British colonial history in Hong Kong is a touchy subject, best forgotten. Xi expects journalists “to tell China’s story well”. The thoughts of Xi Jinping are studied and institutionalised. Posters of Xi have replaced deities in churches, temples and believers’ homes. As for his political rivals, he’s moved with ruthless precision to take them out. Zhang Youxia was the latest. And does anyone even remember Bo Xilai, still very much in jail? No Chinese leader since Mao Zedong has managed to accomplish such centralised control. Xi has censorship licked. Xi has power licked. And when his brazen ambition was laid bare back in 2018, when he abolished term rules so that he could stay at the top indefinitely and most of us in the world were appalled, Trump praised the move. “He’s now president for life. President for life… I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day,” he gushed. This is all grotesque. This is everything that Index exists to fight against. But this is the language that Trump speaks and this is the model that Trump wants. An economic powerhouse, a global leader, and ultimately a country that makes few concessions to freedoms. For every instance of Xi control listed above, you’ll find a counterpart coming out of the Trump administration. So what’s Trump doing in China? He’ll be talking trade, AI, Iran, fentanyl, sure. Maybe he’ll call for Jimmy Lai’s release, not because he necessarily cares about the imprisoned media mogul and certainly not because he cares about media freedom, but because consider the photo op! Consider the high of getting China’s most prized prisoner out! But I bet too that Trump will be taking note, observing up close the world’s largest and most successful autocracy and admiring the man who sits at the top. READ MORE

Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

For all of President Donald Trump’s unpredictability, he does have some consistencies, one being his love of a reviled ruler. He’s praised Vladimir Putin as a “genius” and “tough”. Kim Jong Un is an “absolute leader”, Viktor Orbán is “great” (or was – this may have since been revised). This may have since been revised. And despite all the heat around trade, Trump really likes Xi Jinping. Cancel that – he loves him, as he said at Davos in 2020.

It’s obvious why. Xi is everything Trump aspires to be: the leader of a country with the most technologically advanced form of censorship, a nation of 1.125 billion internet users all behind a firewall and many, many surveillance cameras; a place where ethnic and religious minorities are locked up and human rights defenders jailed. Xi has managed to largely get away with it – the outrage today is frankly way too muted. China has even bought complicity from other countries. I should have been at the RightsCon event in Zambia last week which brings together leaders from around the world to talk about human rights and technology. Only, it was cancelled at the eleventh hour – Chinese state level interference apparently.

Xi has spoken against “hostile forces” when it comes to the nation’s history, a handy excuse to stamp out anything or anyone painting the past unfavourably: it’s forbidden to mention the Tiananmen Square student demonstrations in China. The horrors of the Cultural Revolution, which incidentally started 60 years ago this Saturday, are off limits. Even British colonial history in Hong Kong is a touchy subject, best forgotten. Xi expects journalists “to tell China’s story well”. The thoughts of Xi Jinping are studied and institutionalised. Posters of Xi have replaced deities in churches, temples and believers’ homes.

As for his political rivals, he’s moved with ruthless precision to take them out. Zhang Youxia was the latest. And does anyone even remember Bo Xilai, still very much in jail?

No Chinese leader since Mao Zedong has managed to accomplish such centralised control. Xi has censorship licked. Xi has power licked. And when his brazen ambition was laid bare back in 2018, when he abolished term rules so that he could stay at the top indefinitely and most of us in the world were appalled, Trump praised the move. “He’s now president for life. President for life… I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day,” he gushed.

This is all grotesque. This is everything that Index exists to fight against. But this is the language that Trump speaks and this is the model that Trump wants. An economic powerhouse, a global leader, and ultimately a country that makes few concessions to freedoms. For every instance of Xi control listed above, you’ll find a counterpart coming out of the Trump administration.

So what’s Trump doing in China? He’ll be talking trade, AI, Iran, fentanyl, sure. Maybe he’ll call for Jimmy Lai’s release, not because he necessarily cares about the imprisoned media mogul and certainly not because he cares about media freedom, but because consider the photo op! Consider the high of getting China’s most prized prisoner out! But I bet too that Trump will be taking note, observing up close the world’s largest and most successful autocracy and admiring the man who sits at the top.

Read the full article here

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.

Share.

The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.

Related Articles

Global Free Speech

  Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan, co-leaders of the now disbanded Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HKA) were found guilty today (21 August 2026) of incitement to subversion, because they organised vigils attended by tens of thousands in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park to mark the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. The vigils were banned in 2020 and both have been detained since 2021. Below is a translation of Chow Hang-tung’s message to the world, published yesterday I’m curious about tomorrow’s verdict. Justice resides in the hearts of the people; there’s no need to look up to such top-down judgments. One verdict is nothing. Thank you all for walking alongside me in different ways. I have received all your support and blessings. ************ Because I don’t want everyone to worry too much, and I don’t want the focus to be lost, I’m sharing these feelings that have been weighing on my mind since the trial: Several years ago, I made a documentary with friends, trying to visualise the issue of torture by inviting Hong Kong friends to experience the various forms of torture suffered by protesters in China, so that it wouldn’t just remain a “tragedy” on paper. The “torture” depicted in the film was designed and researched by me. I thought I had some understanding of the subject, but only in the last couple of days have I realised I was a completely incompetent “torture officer” back then. I knew absolutely nothing about inflicting physical pain. It’s true that some things are impossible to comprehend no matter how much you read about them; you have to experience them firsthand. I say this because since the trial began, the Correctional Services Department [Hong Kong’s prison authority] has changed its method of transport. It’s no longer just simple handcuffs; now they use a full set of handcuffs, leg irons, waist chains, and ankle chains, and then lead the prisoners like dogs on a chain. From the written description alone, it seems like it’s just more inconvenient and somewhat humiliating, nothing like torture. But it’s only when you actually put on those shackles that you realise the devil is in the details. Ordinary handcuffs have buckles on both sides that connect with slipknots, allowing for limited movement between the hands. However, this set of specially made handcuffs has an outer layer of hard plastic covering the outer layer, locking the hands tightly together. This alone wouldn’t be so bad, but the “rings” on the handcuffs aren’t the round kind you usually see in adult stores (uh, I’ve been there, but only to buy props for filming!). Instead, there’s an additional hard material inside, shrinking into a flat, crescent shape that fits snugly at the thickest part of the wrist. So, when the wrist is inside, there’s absolutely no possibility of rotation; you can only constantly twist your arm to accommodate the angle designed by the handcuffs. That already restricts movement to two dimensions. Then comes the small buckle on the waist chain, which locks the handcuffs above the abdomen. If you dare to relax and let your hands hang down, the buckle will move up and lock into the thicker part of the wrist. Moreover, the locking angle is an extremely unnatural twisted pretzel, forcing one to constantly hunch their shoulders, hunch their back, bend their wrists, and twist their arms to try and avoid the handcuffs getting stuck in their wrist bones. However, complete avoidance is impossible; after all, constantly hunching one’s shoulders for the entire journey from Tai Lam [the prison where Hang-tung is incarcerated] to West Kowloon [the courthouse where the trial is taking place] would likely lead to muscle cramps. So, one can only “choose” which part of the body shall suffer in turn—when the shoulders are too tired, let the bones ache; when the hands are numb with pain, tighten the shoulders further. Then, throughout the entire journey, although most of the time is spent “still,” one is already exhausted from the unseen “muscle battle.” Not to mention, no matter how you are locked, you have to carry your belongings; for me, that means court documents. With that added weight, it is inevitable that the handcuffs will cut into the flesh. The deep marks carved into the wrists don’t fade even after a whole day in court. It turns out that locking a person’s joints in certain relative positions can create a kind of “interlocking” effect between body parts. But to the untrained eye, it’s invisible—”It’s just putting your hands in front of your stomach, child’s play.” Sigh, just looking at that statement, I feel I have no reason to complain; but I never imagined the combined effect of locking all the joints would be so powerful. Thinking back to when I was researching for the documentary, I only focused on finding the most exaggerated physical movements, the torture methods most easily identifiable by the naked eye. I was indeed viewing the victims’ experiences through the eyes of a layman. When I “tortured” my friend, the handcuffs were loosely fastened. I was completely unaware that locking the joints was the key—it really was just a childish experiment. Sophisticated torture, much like mature totalitarianism, avoids the visible, “violent” acts of violence. Its power lies in exploiting and creating internal conflicts among the people, fostering constant mutual surveillance, control, and reporting. This diffuses the perpetrators, making it impossible to identify or apprehend any single “evildoer.” People appear to have “choices,” but they are ultimately forced to choose between harming one party and abandoning another. Power, however, seems detached, never directly intervening. Visible, publicly observable conflicts vanish, leaving only unseen internal strife. The damage to society can be far more lasting and profound than occasional violence. On a more personal level, I find my resistance to physical torture is quite low. When my body aches, my mind becomes blank, overwhelmed by aches and pains, making it impossible to enjoy the scenery as usual. If I were subjected to some of the Ten Great Tortures of the Qing Dynasty, I might confess quickly. The ability to endure torture truly requires dedicated training. So, on the bright side, these 75 days of transport can be seen as initial training in physical endurance—as long as my hands aren’t ruined? To say that this correctional system is intentionally designed to torture prisoners wouldn’t be accurate; it’s just that the prisoners’ comfort or pain isn’t a consideration in its design. So, frankly, what I have endured is far from real torture; at best, it was just a preliminary glimpse. The designers’ primary consideration was probably “safety first,” ensuring prisoners have no possibility of movement. Ultimately, prisoners are at the bottom of the food chain—voiceless, powerless. Our opinions, even after suffering, are meaningless in the face of “safety.” Not to mention asking what security needs there were – frankly, even without handcuffs, a weak scholar like me couldn’t escape. Using so many tricks is overkill, but where can I reason with that? In cases where national security is invoked, even if a lawsuit is filed, it will have to be dropped and legal fees paid. But it’s precisely because I don’t want to never have anywhere to voice my grievances, and I don’t want people to remain silent and at the mercy of others, that I must persist in fighting for democracy and human rights, and for systemic change. In this sense, this new experience offered by Correctional Services is actually helping to strengthen my resolve to fight. Well then, thank you for this generous gift. I will certainly not let you down and will fight this ongoing battle well. I also hope that everyone can gain something from this long trial, perhaps just a little bit of strength, a little bit of encouragement, and that would be enough to fulfill my wish! This message was first posted on Chow Hang-tung’s Patreon account yesterday. We are publishing this with the permission of Brian Kern who translated her message on his Substack account     READ MORE

Global Free Speech

Reporting in Somalia is becoming a much more dangerous proposition. Photo: UNSomalia/Ilyas Ahmed “Do you know that we can kill you? To us, your life is worth less than a cigarette.” These are the words with which operatives from Somalia’s National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA) threatened freelance journalist Mohamed Bulbul, days after he co-authored a news report for UK news outlet The Guardian about the prosecution of activist Sadia Moalim Ali. Two days after the article ran in June 2026, Bulbul was having dinner with two fellow journalists at a restaurant in Mogadishu’s Zoobe area when armed men wearing black masks entered the establishment. “They walked straight towards our table [shouting] ‘Stand up! Stand up!’” Bulbul told Index. The masked men beat all three journalists before they dragged him outside, placed a bag over his head and forced him into a vehicle.  After being moved between two police stations and the offices of the regional police commissioner, Bulbul was interrogated by NISA officers about the article. “They asked me why I had published it.” He was then, he said, given three choices: “Work with us and take money, leave the country, or if you refuse both, we will kill you.” Bulbul fled Somalia and is now in an undisclosed safe location. “Saving my own life become my priority,” he said. “I can no longer spend time with my parents or my children.” Bulbul’s experience is not unique. Across Somalia, journalists and press freedom advocates say that intelligence and security agencies are intimidating, detaining and otherwise silencing reporters. Recent cases in Mogadishu and Puntland state indicate the state’s growing reliance on intelligence agencies and extra-legal actions, rather than the police and the courts, to deal with critical journalism. On 2 July, journalist Suways Jama Mohamed was arrested outside her home in Garowe, Puntland. Suways, founder of Suways Media, a Facebook-based news platform covering social issues, was detained after the platform published a 15-second video showing armed militia operating in her neighbourhood. She was held in Puntland’s Garowe Central Prison for 13 days before being released on bail on 15 July. Mohamed has been charged with spreading false information, defamation, insulting public officials and disturbing public order. If convicted, she could face up to three years in prison. Qareen Abdiweli, Suways’ lawyer, has challenged both the legal basis of the charges and the court’s jurisdiction. “A journalist cannot be prosecuted under the Penal Code for acts related to the exercise of their profession,” Abdiweli told RSF. Suways’ defence team have filed a motion asking for the case be referred to the Puntland Media Council, the media regulatory body. The case is pending. Less than two weeks after Suways’ arrest, Mohamed Jama Mohamad, an independent journalist who had previously worked for private television channel SBC TV, was also detained in Puntland state. Mohamed had been reporting on business closures in the city of Bosaso, following an increase in port taxes. Mohamed was taking photographs of the closed market when he noticed several men following him. “They looked suspicious and kept talking on their phones while following me everywhere I went.” Moments later, a vehicle pulled to a halt beside him. “[The people in the vehicle] weren’t police officers,” Mohamed told Source. “Their uniform [sic] looked more like military uniforms.”  Mohamed was forced into the vehicle without explanation, blindfolded and then taken to a detention facility run by the Puntland Intelligence Service (PISA). Mohamed said that he was held for four days without seeing a lawyer or being arraigned before a court.  “I had simply been taken from the marketplace. No warrant. No judge. No lawyer.” According to the Somali Journalists Syndicate (SJS), these arrests are indicative of the government’s wish to suppress free expression. In June, SJS reported the abduction by NISA agents of journalist Mascuud Warsame, founder of Xogbile TV, in Mogadishu. Warsame was released, without charge, after 39 days in detention. For media organisations, these incidents are becoming increasingly familiar. “Compared with previous years, the overall pattern of violations remains consistent,” Abdalle Ahmed Mumin, Secretary General of the Somali Journalists Syndicate, told Index. “But this year has seen a sharp increase in arbitrary arrests [and] politically motivated detentions, particularly during the ongoing political and constitutional crisis in Somalia.” Somalia’s federal government is currently advancing amendments to the country’s constitution despite objections from two federal states. This may have implications for the balance of power between the federal states, and critics fear that it will allow incumbent president Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to extend his current term of office. Mumin said that while journalists in Somalia have long been obliged to deal with intimidation and violence, the first seven months of 2026 have seen a spike in the use of prolonged detention without charge, alongside more overt interventions by Somalia’s intelligence agencies. Security analyst Samira Gaid told Index that Somalia’s security institutions are increasingly being used as a tool to suppress journalism, activists and anyone courageous enough to challenge the government.  “The role of the media is to hold those in public office accountable,” she said.  “Yet journalists are being targeted simply because they reported information that the government did not want the public to know.” International partners, according to Gaid, invested heavily in building Somalia’s security institutions – a key priority following the end of the country’s destructive civil war. “Those institutions are now being used in ways that go beyond the law.”  Gaid said, noting that NISA was created to protect national security rather than investigate journalists or detain civilians engaged in legitimate reporting. The journalists interviewed for this article all described strikingly similar experiences – arrests without warrants, detention by intelligence agencies, questioning over their reporting. For Somalia’s independent media, the message is becoming increasingly clear; reporting on anything deemed sensitive by the authorities may carry consequences extending far beyond the newsroom. READ MORE

Global Free Speech

The University of Cambridge. Photo: llee_wu / ICC BY-ND 2.0 Last month Index ran a story about a filmmaker and activist from Pakistan. His name was Roshaan Khattak and he was exploring human rights violations in Balochistan. Cambridge University had accepted him on a research pathway, with the understanding that completing this successfully would lead to him being accepted on the PhD programme. But then Khattak received a death threat and there was an unidentified explosion outside his college which scared him. He expected Cambridge to protect him but instead, as Khattak told Index, he was first locked out of his college then, despite achieving a distinction for his work, was told that he could not progress to doing a PhD and his enrolment was terminated. He saw this, and his supervisors agreed with him, as the university caving in to transnational repression. There has been little national newspaper coverage of his case. On the contrary, there was excessive and sometimes unjustifiable coverage of the allegations of plagiarism made against Professor Jason Arday. He was once hailed by Cambridge as their newest Black recruit and at 37, the youngest professor at the university. As Stephen Bush in the FT observes the question of race then became the focus of the media’s coverage, rather than Arday’s academic integrity. As the university came under increasing pressure, it announced an investigation into Arday. Since Arday’s death, there have been calls to impose curbs on the media. As you might expect, Index strongly opposes any regulation as an impingement of the right – indeed the duty – of the press to report on matters of genuine public interest. What purpose would regulation have served here? It might have shut down legitimate questions about Cambridge and its reputation for academic excellence; about the appointment of academics at the university; and about plagiarism, itself a growing issue across academia. Indeed, public focus on the role of the media in the events of the last few weeks has allowed Cambridge, arguably a more powerful institution than the press today, to evade scrutiny of its role in elevating Arday. Cambridge is supposed to be a world leader in research and teaching, yet when Arday was appointed three years ago, according to the BBC, there were only five other Black professors at Cambridge out of a total of more than 970. The numbers nationally are appalling too: 270 Black university professors in the whole of the country. There are so few Black professors today in British academia that they fear that they too will become the targets of impossible levels of public scrutiny – into their research, into their lives, into their very right to occupy a place in the public sphere on the basis of what they do for a living: in short that their freedom of expression will be curtailed. Also, research at Cambridge seems to be concentrated around subjects that are politically and financially advantageous to the institution – as opposed to research that has clear merit, but is less relevant with respect to commercial interests and priorities. Research income from China topped £23 million in 2024/25. The Judge Business School has formed a partnership with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry. I started with Khattak, a scholar from Pakistan whom Cambridge first welcomed and then cast aside. I end with the tragedy of Arday, who became the focus of arguments that extended far beyond the question of the rigour of his academic practice. The link between the two is that Cambridge adopted both as instruments that served its own purposes; then abandoned them when that purpose no longer suited them. Both cases have implications, direct and indirect, for the right to free expression in universities. READ MORE

Add A Comment

Comments are closed.