EDITORIAL
There comes a point when a diplomatic statement demands more than a polite acknowledgement. It demands scrutiny.
China’s extraordinary security advisory on the Kingdom of Eswatini, issued on Tuesday, August 25, 2026, is one such statement.
Through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Department of Consular Affairs, Beijing advised Chinese citizens not to travel to Eswatini and urged Chinese nationals and institutions already in the Kingdom to leave as soon as possible or relocate to what it described as relatively safer areas, including South Africa.
China said Eswatini was experiencing a “complex” security situation characterised by rampant telecommunications fraud and online gambling activities, adding that public-security risks were “extremely high”. On Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian defended the advisory, saying it followed what Beijing described as a prudent assessment aimed at protecting Chinese citizens.
China has every right — and indeed a duty — to look after its citizens wherever they are in the world.
But exercising that responsibility does not remove the equally important responsibility to be factual, proportionate and fair when characterising another sovereign country.
Calling security risks in Eswatini “extremely high” and effectively telling Chinese citizens to evacuate the Kingdom is a serious pronouncement. Such language can affect tourism, investment, international confidence and the reputation of an entire nation.
Serious claims therefore require serious evidence.
And based on the information Beijing has publicly presented so far, there are legitimate questions over whether this sweeping characterisation of Eswatini is justified.
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF AN EXTREME NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS?
Nobody should pretend that Eswatini is crime-free.
Crime exists here, as it does in China, South Africa, the United States, Europe and virtually every country on earth. Cybercrime is also a genuine and growing international threat.
But there is a significant difference between acknowledging that a country has criminal activity and declaring that its overall public-security situation presents an “extremely high” risk serious enough to justify evacuation.
China’s August 25 advisory cites telecommunications fraud, online gambling and general public-security risks. Yet the public statement does not provide statistics showing a dramatic surge in violent attacks against Chinese nationals, widespread kidnappings of Chinese businesspeople, attacks on Chinese-owned businesses or any breakdown of law and order capable of explaining the extraordinary evacuation language.
If Beijing possesses specific intelligence showing that Chinese citizens face an imminent and extraordinary danger in Eswatini, it should explain enough of that assessment to justify such a severe warning without compromising legitimate security operations.
Without such evidence, the statement risks creating an international perception that Eswatini has suddenly become a lawless or dangerous country.
That is difficult to reconcile with available evidence.
The 2026 Global Peace Index, published by the Institute for Economics & Peace, places Eswatini at 104th out of 163 countries. China itself is ranked 118th, while South Africa is ranked 123rd. In other words, on this broad international measure of peacefulness, Eswatini ranks ahead of both China and the very South Africa to which Beijing has advised its citizens to relocate.
The Global Peace Index is not a travel-security rating and cannot settle the question of individual risk on its own. It measures broader factors including societal safety and security, conflict and militarisation.
But it certainly raises an obvious question: what objective evidence turns Eswatini into an “extremely high” security risk requiring evacuation when major international indicators do not portray the Kingdom in those terms?
THE SOUTH AFRICA CONTRADICTION
Perhaps the most puzzling part of Beijing’s advisory is its recommendation that Chinese nationals move to “relatively safer areas such as South Africa”.
That deserves examination.
China’s own official consular information on South Africa acknowledges serious security concerns there.
The Chinese Embassy’s information for South Africa classifies Johannesburg as an orange-risk area, urges Chinese nationals to exercise heightened caution and describes South Africa as having a high level of public-security risk. It specifically identifies robbery, kidnapping, theft and sexual offences among the major crimes and notes that firearms are relatively easily accessible.
The same Chinese Embassy has repeatedly issued security notices to Chinese citizens living in South Africa, including warnings about demonstrations, crime and kidnapping.
The United States currently places both Eswatini and South Africa at Level 2 — “Exercise Increased Caution” — but its reasons for South Africa include crime, terrorism, unrest and kidnapping. Its Eswatini advisory identifies crime and unrest.
Again, these are different governments applying their own methodologies. They cannot simply be placed side by side as perfect equivalents.
But Beijing cannot reasonably expect observers not to question the logic of telling people to evacuate Eswatini because of an allegedly extreme public-security threat and suggesting South Africa as the safer destination when China’s own official information acknowledges significant violent-crime and kidnapping risks in South Africa.
The contradiction is glaring.
ESWATINI POLICE ACTED — THEY DID NOT LOOK AWAY
There is another fundamental problem with using the recent online gambling and cybercrime cases as evidence that Eswatini is somehow dangerously incapable of maintaining order.
Those cases actually demonstrate the opposite.
It was the Royal Eswatini Police Service, working with other local authorities, that uncovered and dismantled the illegal operations.
Beginning in March, police carried out coordinated raids against suspected illegal online gambling and fraud syndicates operating from properties around Mbabane and surrounding areas.
The suspects were foreign nationals from several countries, including Mainland China and other Asian states as well as Brazil. Local reporting showed that the operation expanded rapidly as intelligence led police from one suspected centre to another. By March 21, 146 foreign nationals had reportedly been arrested, while later investigations pushed the overall number even higher.
This was not a case of criminals operating openly while Eswatini authorities watched helplessly.
It was a police crackdown.
More importantly, INTERPOL itself has recognised Eswatini’s role in dismantling one of these criminal networks.
In reporting on Operation First Light 2026, INTERPOL said Eswatini authorities arrested 82 people linked to an illegal online gambling, money-laundering and impersonation network. Authorities seized 240 electronic devices, foreign currency and even a realistic replica of a Brazilian police station allegedly used by scammers to impersonate law-enforcement officers during video calls.
Because of the volume and complexity of digital evidence, an INTERPOL Operational Support Team was deployed at the request of Eswatini authorities to assist with forensic analysis.
That is important.
Cybercrime syndicates operate across borders. Their presence in a country does not automatically mean that the country itself is unsafe.
What matters is how authorities respond.
And Eswatini responded by detecting, raiding, arresting, investigating and prosecuting.
Ironically, INTERPOL’s Operation First Light involved 97 countries and territories, including China and South Africa, demonstrating precisely why cybercrime must be understood as a transnational criminal phenomenon rather than used to attach a sweeping security label to one small nation.
Indeed, China’s Ministry of Public Security funded Operation First Light.
This makes the wider picture even more striking: international cooperation helped expose transnational criminals operating in Eswatini, and Eswatini’s police acted against them. That should be recognised as evidence of law-enforcement capacity, not automatically converted into evidence that the entire Kingdom poses an extreme danger.
DO NOT CONFUSE CRIMINALS WITH A COUNTRY
This distinction must be made loudly and clearly.
If foreign nationals come to Eswatini and establish illegal gambling operations, immigration violations, cyber-fraud centres or money-laundering schemes, Eswatini has every sovereign right to investigate and prosecute them.
That does not make Eswatini hostile to the nationality of those arrested.
It makes Eswatini a country enforcing its laws.
Recent court proceedings have involved Chinese nationals arrested during the March crackdown. Forty Chinese nationals were reported this week to be demanding E208 million from Government after their re-arrest, having initially been arrested among more than 100 foreigners during raids on illegal online gambling centres.
Those cases must be determined through the courts according to the law.
But enforcement against suspected or convicted offenders should never be confused with hostility towards ordinary Chinese citizens.
There are Chinese nationals who have lived, worked and conducted legitimate business in Eswatini. Foreigners are legally able to obtain trading licences subject to Eswatini’s immigration and business requirements, and Government continues to enforce those requirements across nationalities.
A law-abiding Chinese shopkeeper, investor, technician or entrepreneur is not the same as a person accused of running an illegal cybercrime operation.
Eswatini must protect the former and prosecute the latter where evidence supports charges.
That is what sovereignty and the rule of law require.
ESWATINI IS A COUNTRY OF 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE, NOT A GEOPOLITICAL THREAT
Perspective also matters.
Eswatini has an estimated population of about 1.2 million people. China ended 2025 with approximately 1.405 billion people.
Population size is obviously not a scientific measure of travel safety, and Beijing’s advisory did not claim that Eswatini constitutes a military or strategic threat to the Chinese state.
That distinction must be respected.
But the enormous difference in scale illustrates why language portraying this tiny Southern African Kingdom as a place from which Chinese nationals and institutions should urgently evacuate will inevitably sound extraordinary.
Eswatini has neither the ambition nor capacity to threaten China.
Its foreign policy is built around quite the opposite philosophy.
The Kingdom’s Anginasitsa — “I have no enemy” — principle emphasises dialogue rather than confrontation and cooperation rather than conflict. Prime Minister Russell Mmiso Dlamini recently described the principle as reflecting “strength with restraint” and leadership based on dialogue, cooperation and respect for human dignity.
It is a philosophy associated with the late King Sobhuza II and maintained under His Majesty King Mswati III.
Eswatini is a sovereign country. It determines its diplomatic relationships according to what it considers its national interest.
China does not maintain diplomatic relations with Eswatini because the Kingdom maintains formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. That disagreement is well known.
It is Beijing’s right to disagree with Eswatini’s diplomatic position.
It is equally Eswatini’s sovereign right to determine whom it recognises.
THE TIMING WILL INEVITABLY RAISE QUESTIONS
China insists the advisory is about security alone.
That position should be reported fairly.
When a Bloomberg journalist asked Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian on Wednesday whether the warning had anything to do with the absence of diplomatic relations between China and Eswatini, Lin said China had issued similar advisories elsewhere and reiterated that this decision followed a prudent assessment of security risks.
That is Beijing’s stated position.
But diplomacy does not take place in a vacuum.
Eswatini remains the only African country maintaining formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Taiwan President Lai Ching-te visited Eswatini in May after an earlier journey was disrupted when several African countries withdrew overflight permissions amid allegations of Chinese pressure. China has also excluded Eswatini from the zero-tariff arrangement extended to other African countries.
Against that background, Tuesday’s extraordinary warning will naturally invite questions about whether geopolitical tension has influenced how the Kingdom is being portrayed.
That is not the same as proving political motivation.
But it is entirely legitimate to ask the question.
And Beijing can best answer it not through repetition, but through evidence.
CHINA’S OWN WORDS SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGAINST CYBERCRIME
There is another reason the tone of this advisory appears excessive.
Only days ago, China’s Foreign Ministry responded to reports that more than 100 Chinese nationals had been detained in Pakistan over alleged illegal call centres by saying China consistently requires its citizens overseas to obey local laws and refrain from criminal activities.
The ministry also said China supports international cooperation in fighting telecommunications fraud.
That principle should apply equally to Eswatini.
If Chinese nationals are suspected of involvement in transnational fraud, Beijing and Mbabane should cooperate.
If Eswatini requires assistance in strengthening cybercrime investigations, countries with advanced capabilities should provide it.
If intelligence points to criminal networks moving across borders, governments should exchange information.
That is productive diplomacy.
Blanket language capable of tarnishing the reputation of an entire country is not a substitute for cooperation.
CHINESE PEOPLE ARE WELCOME — CRIME IS NOT
There must also be no misunderstanding among emaSwati.
This disagreement should never become hostility towards Chinese people.
It would be wrong for anybody to respond to Beijing’s statement by attacking, intimidating or discriminating against law-abiding Chinese nationals living in Eswatini.
Chinese businesspeople who obey Eswatini’s laws should enjoy the same protection as every other lawful resident and investor.
Our disagreement is with the characterisation of Eswatini, not with Chinese people.
The Kingdom should continue demonstrating what Anginasitsa actually means: maintaining dignity without hatred, defending sovereignty without hostility and responding to criticism through facts rather than anger.
That is how a peaceful country behaves.
BEIJING SHOULD RECONSIDER ITS LANGUAGE
China is one of the world’s great powers. With that influence comes responsibility.
A statement issued by Beijing can move markets, alter investment decisions, change travel behaviour and shape global perceptions within hours.
That power should be exercised carefully when describing a country of only 1.2 million people.
If there is a genuine, specific and extraordinary threat against Chinese citizens in Eswatini, China should communicate the basis of that assessment more clearly and engage Eswatini’s authorities directly on how the threat can be addressed.
If the concern is telecommunications fraud and illegal online gambling, then China should acknowledge that Eswatini’s police have already mounted major operations against the networks and cooperate with them further.
If the issue is a lack of diplomatic representation in Eswatini and therefore difficulty providing consular assistance, Beijing should say so plainly.
But describing Eswatini as presenting an “extremely high” security risk and urging Chinese citizens to move to South Africa — despite China’s own warnings about violent crime and kidnapping there — demands a far stronger public justification than has so far been provided.
Eswatini is not perfect.
No country is.
But it remains a functioning, sovereign state whose law-enforcement agencies have demonstrated their willingness to act against organised criminal activity, including sophisticated international cybercrime.
The Kingdom should continue strengthening border controls, immigration enforcement, cybercrime detection and financial intelligence. The recent syndicates are a warning that transnational criminals will exploit weaknesses wherever they find them.
There is therefore no room for complacency.
But there is an enormous difference between recognising vulnerabilities and branding an entire country an extreme security danger.
China should know that difference.
Eswatini will continue welcoming legitimate investors, tourists, workers and businesspeople from across the world, including law-abiding Chinese nationals.
At the same time, anyone — Swati, Chinese, Asian, European, African or otherwise — who enters the Kingdom to engage in fraud, illegal gambling, money laundering, human trafficking or other criminal conduct must expect the law to take its course.
That is not insecurity.
That is the rule of law.
And enforcing the rule of law should never be turned into evidence against the very country whose police had the courage to act.
