The White House denounced in an announcement on May 22 the "horrific terrorist attack" in China's Urumqi, and said "the United States resolutely opposes all forms of terrorism." This is the first time the US officially defines violence in Xinjiang as a "terrorist attack," in contrast with it merely calling the recent bloodshed in Kunming a "violent attack."

British Foreign Secretary William Hague also denounced the Xinjiang "terrorist attack." These changes in tone of Western governments represent a new trend, though it's still too soon to tell whether it's improvised tactics of the US or a prelude that could usher in a new era in a world anti-terrorism consensus.

The West has long been maintaining a double standard. They indirectly expressed sympathy and partiality for Xinjiang terrorists through supporting separatist forces, publicly and implicitly, which helped the terrorists look "righteous." This is one of the reasons why the anti-terrorism situation in Xinjiang deteriorated in recent years.

The new element brought by the White House on May 22 is still too thin a string to change the impression of the terrorists on the policy of the West.

Though most of the Xinjiang terrorists came from the grass roots, they also live in a globalized environment. They are spiritually connected with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and its leaders who have been backed by the West and headquartered in the US and Europe. If the US sincerely supports counter-terrorism efforts by China, it should repress the activities by various institutes of the ETIM on its soil. However, ETIM leader Rabiya is still a popular guest of the US and funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.

Nonetheless, we still expect the US to change its policy of curbing China through supporting terrorist forces, because such a deed is harmful to itself and not conducive to its China policy.

The US should know that powerful countries are never afraid of terrorism, and terrorism is a trouble for China's social management rather than a strategic threat. What's more, the US has won a label among the Chinese that it backs Xinjiang terrorists, which seriously damaged the image of the US it has been sedulously portraying.

We should remember that the interest of the US is the unchanged gauge for the decision-making of Washington. Only through winning respect in Washington for China's growing power will the US behave less arbitrarily. Ethics and our reasoning can never persuade the US to withdraw its double standard. It will only be influenced by a Chinese power buildup.

Though uncertainties remain, the May 22 declaration of the White House should be acknowledged. May the Asia-Pacific geopolitical exchanges lead to more adjustments by the US.