Chinese authorities have expelled over 1,000 Tibetan monks and nuns from the Larung Gar Buddhist Academy in the latest blow to the major center of Tibetan Buddhist learning, sources inside Tibet with knowledge of the situation said.
Citing a lack of proper residency documentation, officials said they need to reduce the number of Buddhist clergy residing at the academy from 6,000 to 5,000, the sources said.
The move is the latest in a long series of steps taken by China to destroy and shrink the academy, which by the early 2000’s was home to about 40,000 Buddhist monastics.
In 2016, Chinese authorities destroyed half the compound and sent away thousands of monks and nuns. At the time, county authorities issued an order that spelled out the plans for the 2016-2017 demolitions and forced expulsions.
In December 2024, about 400 officials and police were deployed to Larung Gar, which is in Serthar county (Seda in Chinese) within the Kardze (Ganzi) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan province.
Officials have pressured hundreds of Buddhist clergy to leave voluntarily, the sources said.
“Those expelled have been ordered to leave under the pretext of lacking proper residency documents,” he said. “And to avoid drawing public attention, more than 1,000 monks and nuns have been gradually forced out over the past month.”
An aerial view of Larung Gar Buddhist Academy in Serthar county of Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in southwestern China’s Sichuan province, July 23, 2015.(China Stringer Network/Reuters)
The source said that government officials have been stationed at the academy, imposing strict controls on the movement of monks, nuns, pilgrims and tourists.
“They are strictly prohibited from taking photos freely and are only allowed to visit designated areas within the monastery.”
Many of the residences of expelled Buddhist clergy have been marked for demolition, although they have not been destroyed yet, he said.
Plans are in place to build a road through the monastery in April, leading to further demolitions, he said.
Part of broader strategy
The latest crackdown is seen as part of Beijing’s broader strategy to reduce the size and influence of religious institutions, particularly those ties to Tibetan Buddhism.
While Beijing says such policies are meant to ensure social stability, rights activists argue they they aim to suppress Tibetan culture and religious freedom.
Chinese authorities want to roll out a 15-year residency limit for Buddhist clergy at Larung Gar starting this year.
They also plan to shrink the academy’s population even more by making registration mandatory, which will force Chinese students to leave, according to a report by Phayul, a news website about Tibet.
Larung Gar has long been a symbol of resistance to Chinese control over Tibetan Buddhism — but it has suffered for that.
When the Chinese government deployed around 400 troops from Drago county (Luhuo) and other areas to Larung Gar last December, with helicopters flown in to monitor the movement of monks and nuns, the source said.
Founded in 1980 by the late Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok, Larung Gar, was established as a center for Tibetan Buddhist education and meditation.
Unlike traditional monasteries, it welcomed monks, nuns and lay practitioners from diverse backgrounds, fostering a unique blend of inclusivity and scholastic rigor that are now under threat.
Larung Gar at one time was home to 40,000 Buddhist nuns and monks, but in 2017, over 4,000 monastics were expelled, and 4,700 dwellings were destroyed.
“During that time, Chinese government officials stated that the Chinese Communist Party owned both the land and the sky, giving them the authority to do whatever they wanted with Larung Gar,” a second source said.
Translated by Tenzin Palmo and Tenzin Dickyi for RFA Tibetan. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Tibetan.
At a recent meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security, Chairman Carlos Jimenez warned that Beijing has “a strategic position over one of the world’s most important waterways,” referring to the Panama Canal.
He said this gives the Chinese Communist Party an opportunity “to exert influence over commercial shipping, gather intelligence on American and Allied vessel traffic, and potentially restrict the mobility of our Navy in a time of crisis.”
Almost half of the leading container ports outside of China have some Chinese ownership or operations, experts told the hearing.
(Amanda Weisbrod/RFA)
Panama has recently announced a government audit of ports owned by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing’s CK Hutchison conglomerate, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has threatened Panamanian leader José Raúl Mulino with potential American retaliation if his country doesn’t immediately reduce Chinese influence over the canal.
“While Panama has recently announced an audit of Hutchinson ports, that’s simply not enough,” Jimenez told the hearing. “We don’t need an audit. We need action.”
“The United States cannot and will not accept the scenario where a foreign adversary, one that openly seeks to undermine our global standing, controls infrastructure critical to us, homeland security, military readiness and economic stability,” he said.
He said U.S. allies should distance themselves from China, including from Chinese state-owned enterprises.
(Amanda Weisbrod/RFA)
While Mulino insists that the neutrality regime under the Panama Canal treaty has not been violated, two Panamanian lawyers have filed a lawsuit with the country’s supreme court, arguing that the contract allowing Hutchison, a subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings, to operate terminals in Balboa, on the Pacific side, and Cristobal on Atlantic side of the Panama Canal is unconstitutional, World Cargo News reported on Feb. 5.
Dual-use military and civilian operations
Experts told the Homeland Security Committee on Feb. 11 that there are concerns around dual-use military and civilian operations in any port with a Chinese corporate presence, not just in Panama.
Chinese companies have established full or partial ownership of port facilities in seven countries in the Western Hemisphere: the Bahamas, Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Peru and the United States.
China COSCO Shipping Corp. and China Merchants Group — both state-owned conglomerates owned and controlled by the Chinese government — hold eight of those investments, with Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison holds seven, according to testimony by Isaac Kardon, Senior Fellow for China Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“China’s presence in U.S. ports presents unquantified but material risks to critical maritime and transportation infrastructure,” Kardon told the meeting.
“The more pressing concerns involve vulnerabilities introduced by Chinese made equipment and software embedded in port systems,” he said. “Even facilities not owned or operated by Chinese firms, often rely on [Chinese-made] made technologies, for example, ship-to-shore cranes.”
Isaac B. Kardon, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, testifies at a U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee hearing on transportation and maritime security, Feb. 11, 2025.(U.S. Congress)
“Under Beijing’s highly acquisitive data governance regime and comparatively high levels of control over [Chinese] firms, these systems enable intelligence collection and surveillance and may cause delay or disruption to the critical operations of us,” Kardon said.
But he warned that “unwinding it recklessly will do more harm than good.”
Between 2010 and 2019, Chinese companies plowed US$11 billion into overseas ports and around US$130 billion into subsidies for its shipping companies $130 billion, according to a recent analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations.
One distinctive feature, according to written testimony from Ryan C. Berg, Director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is that more than half of China’s ports tend to sit on major shipping lanes and strategic chokepoints.
China-backed companies now operate port terminals in at least three locations in Mexico, the Hutchison Ports in the Panama Canal along with a recently opened megaport in Chancay, Peru, Berg said, citing plans for a deepwater port in St. John’s Harbor, Antigua and Barbuda.
Almost half of the leading container ports outside of China have some Chinese ownership or operations, and “Beijing intends to become a “pier competitor” by setting up a string of dual-use ports that can serve as an extensive international network of infrastructure for People’s Liberation Army vessels,” he wrote.
China’s military-civil fusion strategy could also bring commercial espionage and military security risks, including radar and GPS jamming, physical blockades, and even containerized weapon systems, Berg said.
Threats to American security
Meanwhile, former CIA analyst Matthew Kroenig warned that China’s port investments, including those in Peru and Panama, “pose a number of threats to U.S. homeland security.”
“China could restrict or block access to ports, threatening American trade and economic wellbeing,” Kroenig testified. “In the event of a crisis or war, China could hinder the passage of American naval vessels, undermining American war plans.”
Former CIA analyst Matthew Kroenig testifies at a U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee hearing on transportation and maritime security, Feb. 11, 2025.(U.S. Congress)
China could also use deep water ports to host People’s Liberation Army Navy vessels, enabling the projection of military power
into the Western Hemisphere, warned, adding that Chinese-operated ports are already used to facilitate the shipment of fentanyl precursors to the United States.
Kroenig called on Washington to put pressure on its neighbors to adopt a “de-risking” strategy toward China, including “hard decoupling” from China in sensitive areas like critical infrastructure, while providing them with viable alternatives.
Berg called for a “port buyback” scheme financed by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and multilateral financial institutions “to help countries terminate agreements early and entice more transparent operators to bid on concessions.”
Cary Davis, President & CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities, also called on the United States to offer alternatives to Chinese investments.
“If we want to counter Chinese influence at ports and secure a safe and prosperous economic future, we must provide a strong, attractive alternative through robust American investment,” he told the Committee.
Congress could also offer financial incentives to trusted allies to enable them to purchase cargo-handling equipment not made in China, he said.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Bing X for RFA Mandarin.
China’s soupy winter smogs used to make global headlines, and despite a fall in air pollution exposure in recent years, they may have done invisible damage that is only now coming to light.
China tops the world when it comes to cases of lung adenocarcinoma, a form of cancer that is becoming more prevalent, possibly due to particulate air pollution, according to a recent report from a body linked to the World Health Organization.
Lung adenocarcinoma has emerged as the predominant form of lung cancer around the world in recent years, with increasing risks observed among younger generations, particularly females, in most countries, according to a recent study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the study “highlights that the largest burden of lung adenocarcinoma attributable to ambient particulate matter pollution was estimated in East Asia, particularly China,” the agency said in a statement marking World Cancer Day.
In 2022, more than 68% of global adenocarcinoma cases in men were in China, while Chinese women accounted for more than 70% of global cases in women.
A Chinese patient looks at his medicine, after picking it up at a pharmacy, inside a hospital in Beijing, Jan. 10, 2008.(Andy Wong/AP)
The study authors think there could be a strong link to particulate air pollution.
“We examine changes in risk in different countries across successive generations and assess the potential burden of lung adenocarcinoma linked to ambient PM pollution,” study lead author Freddie Bray said.
“The results provide important insights as to how both the disease and the underlying risk factors are evolving, offering clues as to how we can optimally prevent lung cancer worldwide.”
Shift to another form of cancer
The study analyzed global, population-based cancer data for 2022, and found that adenocarcinoma was now the predominant form of lung cancer, a shift away from squamous cell carcinoma.
It said the shift was likely linked to changes in smoking patterns and exposure to environmental pollutants, estimating that 114,486 cases in men and 80,378 in women were related to air pollution, with East Asia, especially China, being the most affected region.
Global ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution is responsible for millions of annual premature deaths and trillions of US dollars of social costs.
There has been a marked post-2011 decrease in particulate pollution, largely driven by decreasing PM2.5 exposure in China, Nature Communications reported in 2023, adding that India has become the leading contributor to global ambient PM2.5 exposure since 2015.
But some 99% of the global population lives in an area where air quality doesn’t meet international standards for good health, currently set at 5 micrograms per cubic meter for the smallest and most lethal particle, PM2.5.
In 2017, more than 30% of Chinese households still used solid fuels for heating and cooking, suggesting that indoor air pollution could also be a driving factor behind this type of cancer.
Charles Swanton, clinical professor at the Francis Crick Institute, a British biomedical research institute, discovered in 2022 that EGFR genetic mutations cause lung cancer in non-smokers.
He told RFA Mandarin in a recent interview that the EGFR mutation is a common driver mutation associated with lung adenocarcinoma.
“We don’t know why EGFR mutant lung cancer is so prevalent in Asia,” Swanton said. “One of the theories that we have is that air pollution is a contributor to the prevalence of these mutations.”
“Data from our lab shows that, in normal tissue that’s been exposed to air pollution, it’s easier to identify EGFR mutant clones- suggesting that these clones expand preferentially in lung damaged by particulate matter,” he said.
“In other words, the air pollution creates a fertile soil upon which the seed, which is the EGFR mutation, can grow.”
But he said the biggest risk factor for lung cancer is still smoking.
“[Smoking] puts you at about a 30-fold increased risk of lung cancer,” he said. “The risk of air pollution… is a lot less, probably less than threefold, (or at least 10 times lower than tobacco exposure) depending on the area you live in on the planet.”
“The reason why it’s such a problem is that so many more people are exposed to air pollution than they are to tobacco smoke,” Swanton said.
Cases of never-smokers
As smoking rates decline in many countries around the world, the proportion of lung cancer cases in people who have never smoked has increased, making it the fifth most common cancer to cause death.
Almost all cases in never-smokers are lung adenocarcinoma, which is also the most common form of lung cancer in women and residents of East Asia.
While CAT scans have boosted survival rates with better imaging allowing cancers to be detected sooner, Swanton said his lab is also working on ways to screen non-smoking populations for lung cancer, and that concrete progress could be seen in as little as 18 to 20 months.
The number of smokers in China has fallen significantly since the 1990s, but lung cancer edged out liver cancer as the top cancer killer in China in 2012.
Smoking rates among Chinese adults fell from 28.1% in 2010 to 24.1% in 2022. In 2019, the smoking rate among Chinese men aged 15 and over was 49.7%, a fall of 18.2% from 1990, while the smoking rate among women was 3.5%, down 20.9% from 1990.
A 2022 report from China’s National Cancer Center showed that of the 2.5742 million people who died of cancer that year, 733,300 died from lung cancer and 316,500 from liver cancer.
Norman Edelman, Professor of Preventive Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Physiology and Biophysics at the State University of New York, said the change in lung cancer types was “a kind of conundrum.”
“The evidence is pretty strong that particulate air pollution is a risk factor for lung cancer,” he said. “And it is true we’re beginning to see more women, especially young women, have lung cancer even though they haven’t smoked.”
“The prevailing hypothesis about the cause of many cancers is the so-called inflammation hypothesis, so things that get into the lung and cause inflammation and cause outpouring of all kinds of chemicals and response to the inflammation… which applies to both cigarette smoke and air pollution,” Edelman said.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Lucie Lo for RFA Mandarin.
The New Zealand government and the mainstream media have gone ballistic (thankfully not literally just yet) over the move by the small Pacific nation to sign a strategic partnership with China in Beijing this week.
It is the latest in a string of island nations that have signalled a closer relationship with China, something that rattles nerves and sabres in Wellington and Canberra.
The Chinese have politely told the Kiwis to back off. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters that China and the Cook Islands have had diplomatic relations since 1997 which “should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party”.
“New Zealand is rightly furious about it,” a TVNZ Pacific affairs writer editorialised to the nation. The deal and the lack of prior consultation was described by various journalists as “damaging”, “of significant concern”, “trouble in paradise”, an act by a “renegade government”.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters, not without cause, railed at what he saw as the Cook Islands government going against long-standing agreements to consult over defence and security issues.
“Should New Zealand invade the Cook islands?” . . . New Zealand Herald columnist Matthew Hooton’s view in an “oxygen-starved media environment” amid rattled nerves. Image: New Zealand Herald screenshot APR
‘Clearly about secession’
Matthew Hooton, who penned the article in The Herald, is a major commentator on various platforms.
“Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown’s dealings with China are clearly about secession from the realm of New Zealand,” Hooton said without substantiation but with considerable colonial hauteur.
“His illegal moves cannot stand. It would be a relatively straightforward military operation for our SAS to secure all key government buildings in the Cook Islands’ capital, Avarua.”
This could be written off as the hyperventilating screeching of someone trying to drum up readers but he was given a major platform to do so and New Zealanders live in an oxygen-starved media environment where alternative analysis is hard to find.
The Cook Islands, with one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones in the world — a whopping 2 million sq km — is considered part of New Zealand’s backyard, albeit over 3000 km to the northeast. The deal with China is focused on economics not security issues, according to Cooks Prime Minister Mark Brown.
Deep sea mining may be on the list of projects as well as trade cooperation, climate, tourism, and infrastructure.
The Cook Islands seafloor is believed to have billions of tons of polymetallic nodules of cobalt, copper, nickel and manganese, something that has even caught the attention of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Various players have their eyes on it.
Glen Johnson, writing in Le Monde Diplomatique, reported last year:
“Environmentalists have raised major concerns, particularly over the destruction of deep-sea habitats and the vast, choking sediment plumes that excavation would produce.”
All will be revealed
Even Cook Island’s citizens have not been consulted on the details of the deal, including deep sea mining. Clearly, this should not be the case. All will be revealed shortly.
New Zealand and the Cook Islands have had formal relations since 1901 when the British “transferred” the islands to New Zealand. Cook Islanders have a curious status: they hold New Zealand passports but are recognised as their own country. The US government went a step further on September 25, 2023. President Joe Biden said:
“Today I am proud to announce that the United States recognises the Cook Islands as a sovereign and independent state and will establish diplomatic relations between our two nations.”
A move to create their own passports was undermined by New Zealand officials who successfully stymied the plan.
New Zealand has taken an increasingly hostile stance vis-a-vis China, with PM Luxon describing the country as a “strategic competitor” while at the same time depending on China as our biggest trading partner. The government and a compliant mainstream media sing as one choir when it comes to China: it is seen as a threat, a looming pretender to be South Pacific hegemon, replacing the flip-flopping, increasingly incoherent USA.
Climate change looms large for island nations. Much of the Cooks’ tourism infrastructure is vulnerable to coastal inundation and precious reefs are being destroyed by heating sea temperatures.
“One thing that New Zealand has got to get its head round is the fact that the Trump administration has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accord,” Dr Robert Patman, professor of international relations at Otago University, says. “And this is a big deal for most Pacific Island states — and that means that the Cook Islands nation may well be looking for greater assistance elsewhere.”
Diplomatic spat with global coverage
The story of the diplomatic spat has been covered in the Middle East, Europe and Asia. Eyebrows are rising as yet again New Zealand, a close ally of Israel and a participant in the US Operation Prosperity Guardian to lift the Houthi Red Sea blockade of Israel, shows its Western mindset.
Matthew Hooton’s article is the kind of colonialist fantasy masquerading as geopolitical analysis that damages New Zealand’s reputation as a friend to the smaller nations of our region.
Yes, the Chinese have an interest in our neck of the woods — China is second only to Australia in supplying much-needed development assistance to the region.
It is sound policy not insurrection for small nations to diversify economic partnerships and secure development opportunities for their people. That said, serious questions should be posed and deserve to be answered.
Geopolitical analyst Dr Geoffrey Miller made a useful contribution to the debate saying there was potential for all three parties to work together:
“There is no reason why New Zealand can’t get together with China and the Cook Islands and develop some projects together,” Dr Miller says. “Pacific states are the winners here because there is a lot of competition for them”.
I think New Zealand and Australia could combine more effectively with a host of South Pacific island nations and form a more effective regional voice with which to engage with the wider world and collectively resist efforts by the US and China to turn the region into a theatre of competition.
We throw the toys out
We throw the toys out of the cot when the Cooks don’t consult with us but shrug when Pasifika elders like former Tuvalu PM Enele Sopoaga call us out for ignoring them.
In Wellington last year, I heard him challenge the bigger powers, particularly Australia and New Zealand, to remember that the existential threat faced by Pacific nations comes first from climate change. He also reminded New Zealanders of the commitment to keeping the South Pacific nuclear-free.
To succeed, a “Pacific for the peoples of the Pacific” approach would suggest our ministries of foreign affairs should halt their drift to being little more than branch offices of the Pentagon and that our governments should not sign up to US Great Power competition with China.
Ditching the misguided anti-China AUKUS project would be a good start.
Friends to all, enemies of none. Keep the Pacific peaceful, neutral and nuclear-free.
Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.
Days after thousands of people rallied in London to protest plans for a new Chinese “super-embassy,” the local council has said it won’t argue against the project at a key government hearing, sparking allegations of political pressure from the highest levels of government.
The Chinese government purchased the historic Royal Mint in 2018 — near the Tower of London — with plans to build what would become Beijing’s largest diplomatic facility globally. Rights groups and protesters warned that the facility would facilitate espionage and Beijing’s “long-arm” law enforcement.
On the first day of a 12-day planning inquiry, Morag Ellis KC, a lawyer acting on behalf of Tower Hamlets Borough Council, said the council wouldn’t be offering any evidence opposing the plan, despite having previously rejected the Chinese government’s planning application on two occasions.
She said the main reason was the withdrawal by the city’s Metropolitan Police of its objections to the project.
“In the light of the Metropolitan Police services changed position and the external transport advice, which mirrored that of the statutory highway authorities, it would have been irresponsible to seek to pursue the putative reason for refusal,” Ellis told the hearing on Tuesday.
The hearing was packed with observers in the public gallery, with groups of people speaking Mandarin lining up early to get a seat. At least a dozen would-be observers were turned away after the venue reached capacity.
The planning inquiry into China’s application to build a “super-embassy” on the former site of the Royal Mint in London, Feb. 22, 2025.(RFA)
Ellis also cited advice by transportation consultants iTransport, and that of government highway authorities.
“On the 12th of January this year, the Borough issued its revised statement of case, explaining why it was no longer in a position to present evidence in support of the putative reason for refusal,” Ellis said.
Safety and security concerns
China resubmitted its application to build the massive new facility in London despite being rejected in 2022 amid a vocal campaign by rights groups.
The Metropolitan Police had earlier spoken against the planned embassy due to safety and security concerns, particularly relating to expected large-scale protests outside the facility, which includes plans for offices, residential quarters and cultural venues.
“The Metropolitan Police Service’s Public Order Command are content that, on balance, there is sufficient space for future protests to be accommodated without significantly impacting the adjacent road network,” the force said in a Jan. 17 letter confirming its change of position, which it said was based on a three-year-old council document.
The U-turn sparked allegations that the plan is being pushed through by strong political pressure from the highest levels of government.
Simon Bell, a lawyer speaking on behalf of the neighboring Royal Mint Court Residents Association, which opposes the plan, said it was “clear that there has been a political pre-determination of these applications at some of the highest levels of central Government.”
He said a three-year-old assessment by the council couldn’t predict the size of future demonstrations, and cited the Met Police’s failure to contain Saturday’s protest at the proposed site.
“Roads were blocked and considerable police presence confirmed the residents’ fear for their safety and security,” Bell told the hearing. ”If this is a taste of what is to come in respect of a proposed embassy, one can only imagine how the adverse effect of protests will impact on the residents’ safety and security, during any construction period, let alone after the embassy has come forward.”
Luke de Pulford, executive director of the cross-party Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, said the police appeared to have been “influenced by forces other than the merits of the application.”
“The public understanding is that the police are operationally independent and that their decisions regarding public safety ought to brook no interference,” he said.
Simon Cheng, co-founder of the advocacy group Hongkongers in Britain, said the proposed embassy posed a “serious risk to public safety, local infrastructures, and fundamental democratic freedoms,” and warned that it would become a “flashpoint of large-scale protests against Chinese Communist Party human rights abuses.”
Simon Cheng, co-founder of the advocacy group Hong Kongers in Britain, speaks at a planning inquiry into China’s application to build a “super-embassy” on the former site of the Royal Mint in London, Feb. 22, 2025.(Tower Hamlets Borough Council)
“This embassy will … be an extension of Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarian reach into Britain,” Cheng said. “We have already seen the evidence of Chinese diplomatic outposts being used for, for example, monitoring and intimidating exile activists like Hong Kongers, Tibetans, Chinese dissidents in the UK [and] Uyghurs.”
“This embassy will make it even easier for Chinese authorities to track, intimidate, and suppress critics of such a regime.”
Cheng said the embassy could also empower efforts to suppress free speech on British soil.
“The Chinese government has a history of pressuring businesses, universities, and local institutions to align with its interests,” he said. “It is about whether Britain is willing to host and legitimise an embassy that will serve as a hub for authoritarian influence.”
Translated by Luisetta Mudie.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Matthew Leung for RFA Cantonese.
China went from one of the poorest countries in the world to global economic powerhouse in a mere four decades. Currently featured in the news is DeepSeek, the free, open source A.I. built by innovative Chinese entrepreneurs which just pricked the massive U.S. A.I. bubble.
Even more impressive, however, is the infrastructure China has built, including 26,000 miles of high speed rail, the world’s largest hydroelectric power station, the longest sea-crossing bridge in the world, 100,000 miles of expressway, the world’s first commercial magnetic levitation train, the world’s largest urban metro network, seven of the world’s 10 busiest ports, and solar and wind power generation accounting for over 35% of global renewable energy capacity. Topping the list is the Belt and Road Initiative, an infrastructure development program involving 140 countries, through which China has invested in ports, railways, highways and energy projects worldwide.
All that takes money. Where did it come from? Numerous funding sources are named in mainstream references, but the one explored here is a rarely mentioned form of quantitative easing — the central bank just “prints the money.” (That’s the term often used, though printing presses aren’t necessarily involved.)
From 1996 to 2024, the Chinese national money supply increased by a factor of more than 53 or 5300% — from 5.84 billion to 314 billion Chinese yuan (CNY) [see charts below]. How did that happen? Exporters brought the foreign currencies (largely U.S. dollars) they received for their goods to their local banks and traded them for the CNY needed to pay their workers and suppliers. The central bank —the Public Bank of China or PBOC — printed CNY and traded them for the foreign currencies, then kept the foreign currencies as reserves, effectively doubling the national export revenue.
One major task of the Chinese central bank, the PBOC, is to absorb the large inflows of foreign capital from China’s trade surplus. The PBOC purchases foreign currency from exporters and issues that currency in local yuan. The PBOC is free to publish any amount of local currency and have it exchanged for forex. … The PBOC can print yuan as needed …. [Emphasis added.]
Interestingly, that huge 5300% explosion in local CNY did not trigger runaway inflation. In fact China’s consumer inflation rate, which was as high as 24% in 1994, leveled out after that and averaged 2.5% per year from 1996 to 2023.
How was that achieved? As in the U.S., the central bank engages in “open market operations” (selling federal securities into the open market, withdrawing excess cash). It also imposes price controls on certain essential commodities. According to a report by Nasdaq, China has implemented price controls on iron ore, copper, corn, grain, meat, eggs and vegetables as part of its 14th five-year plan (2021-2025), to ensure food security for the population. Particularly important in maintaining price stability, however, is that the money has gone into manufacturing, production and infrastructure. GDP (supply) has gone up with demand (money), keeping prices stable. [See charts below.]
The U.S., too, has serious funding problems today, and we have engaged in quantitative easing (QE) before. Could our central bank also issue the dollars we need without triggering the dreaded scourge of hyperinflation? This article will argue that we can. But first some Chinese economic history.
From Rags to Riches in Four Decades
China’s rise from poverty began in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping introduced market-oriented reforms. Farmers were allowed to sell their surplus produce in the market, doors were opened to foreign investors and private businesses and foreign companies were encouraged to grow. By the 1990s, China had become a major exporter of low-cost manufactured goods. Key factors included cheap labor, infrastructure development and World Trade Organization membership in 2001.
Chinese labor is cheaper than in the U.S. largely because the government funds or subsidizes social needs, reducing the operational costs of Chinese companies and improving workforce productivity. The government invests heavily in public transportation infrastructure, including metros, buses and high-speed rail, making them affordable for workers and reducing the costs of getting manufacturers’ products to market.
The government funds education and vocational training programs, ensuring a steady supply of skilled workers, with government-funded technical schools and universities producing millions of graduates annually. Affordable housing programs are provided for workers, particularly in urban areas.
China’s public health care system, while not free, is heavily subsidized by the government. And a public pension system reduces the need for companies to offer private retirement plans. The Chinese government also provides direct subsidies and incentives to key industries, such as technology, renewable energy and manufacturing.
After it joined the WTO, China’s exports grew rapidly, generating large trade surpluses and an influx of foreign currency, allowing the country to accumulate massive foreign exchange reserves. In 2010, China surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest exporter. In the following decade, it shifted its focus to high-tech industries, and in 2013 the Belt and Road Initiative was launched. The government directed funds through state-owned banks and enterprises, with an emphasis on infrastructure and industrial development.
Funding Exponential Growth
In the early stages of reform, foreign investment was a key source of capital. Export earnings then generated significant foreign exchange reserves. China’s high savings rate provided a pool of liquidity for investment, and domestic consumption grew. Decentralizing the banking system was also key. According to a lecture by U.K. Prof. Richard Werner:
Deng Xiaoping started with one mono bank. He realized quickly, scrap that; we’re going to have a lot of banks. He created small banks, community banks, savings banks, credit unions, regional banks, provincial banks. Now China has 4,500 banks. That’s the secret to success. That’s what we have to aim for. Then we can have prosperity for the whole world. Developing countries don’t need foreign money. They just need community banks supporting [local business] to have the money to get the latest technology.
China managed to avoid the worst impacts of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. It did not devalue its currency; it maintained strict control over capital flows and the PBOC acted as a lender of last resort, providing liquidity to state-controlled banks when needed.
In the 1990s, however, its four major state banks did suffer massive losses, with non-performing loans totaling more than 20% of their assets. Technically, the banks were bankrupt, but the government did not let them go bust. The non-performing loans were moved on to the balance sheets of four major asset management companies (“bad banks”), and the PBOC injected new capital into the “good banks.”
In a January 2024 article titled “The Chinese Economy Is Due a Round of Quantitative Easing,” Prof. Li Wei, Director of the China Economy and Sustainable Development Center, wrote of this policy, “The central bank directly intervened in the economy by creating money. Seen this way, unconventional financing is nothing less than Chinese-style quantitative easing.”
In an August 2024 article titled “China’s 100-billion-yuan Question: Does Rare Government Bond Purchase Alter Policy Course?,” Sylvia Ma wrote of China’s forays into QE:
Purchasing government bonds in the secondary market is allowed under Chinese law, but the central bank is forbidden to subscribe to bonds directly issued by the finance ministry. [Note that this is also true of the U.S. Fed.] Such purchases from traders were tried on a small scale 20 years ago.
However, the monetary authority resorted more to printing money equivalent to soaring foreign exchange reserves from 2001, as the country saw a robust increase in trade surplus following its accession to the World Trade Organization. [Emphasis added.]
This is the covert policy of printing CNY and trading this national currency for the foreign currencies (mostly U.S. dollars) received from exporters.
What does the PBOC do with the dollars? It holds a significant portion as foreign exchange reserves, to stabilize the CNY and manage currency fluctuations; it invests in U.S. Treasury bonds and other dollar-denominated assets to earn a return; and it uses U.S. dollars to facilitate international trade deals, many of which are conducted in dollars.
The PBOC also periodically injects capital into the three “policy banks” through which the federal government implements its five-year plans. These are China Development Bank, the Export-Import Bank of China, and the Agricultural Development Bank of China, which provide loans and financing for domestic infrastructure and services as well as for the Belt and Road Initiative. A January 2024 Bloomberg article titled “China Injects $50 Billion Into Policy Banks in Financing Push” notes that the policy banks “are driven by government priorities more than profits,” and that some economists have called the PBOC funding injections “helicopter money” or “Chinese-style quantitative easing.”
Prof. Li argues that with the current insolvency of major real estate developers and the rise in local government debt, China should engage in this overt form of QE today. Othercommentators agree, and the government appears to be moving in that direction. Prof. Li writes:
As long as it does not trigger inflation, quantitative easing can quickly and without limit generate sufficient liquidity to resolve debt issues and pump confidence into the market.…
Quantitative easing should be the core of China’s macroeconomic policy, with more than 80% of funds coming from QE…
As the central bank is the only institution in China with the power to create money, it has the ability to create a stable environment for economic growth. [Emphasis added.]
Eighty-percent funding just from money-printing sounds pretty radical, but China’s macroeconomic policy is determined by five-year plans designed to serve the public and the economy, and the policy banks funding the plans are publicly-owned. That means profits are returned to the public purse, avoiding the sort of private financialization and speculative exploitation resulting when the U.S. Fed engaged in QE to bail out the banks after the 2007-08 banking crisis.
The U.S. Too Could Use Another Round of QE — and Some Public Policy Banks
There is no law against governments or their central banks just printing the national currency without borrowing it first. The U.S. Federal Reserve has done it, Abraham Lincoln’s Treasury did it, and it is probably the only way out of our current federal debt crisis. As Prof. Li observes, we can do it “without limit” so long as it does not trigger inflation.
Financial commentator Alex Krainer observes that the total U.S. debt, public and private, comes to more than $101 trillion (citing the St. Louis Fed’s graph titled “All Sectors; Debt Securities and Loans”). But the monetary base — the reserves available to pay that debt — is only $5.6 trillion. That means the debt is 18 times the monetary base. The U.S. economy holds far fewer dollars than we need for economic stability.
The dollar shortfall can be filled debt- and interest-free by the U.S. Treasury, just by printing dollars as Lincoln’s Treasury did (or by issuing them digitally). It can also be done by the Fed, which “monetizes” federal securities by buying them with reserves it issues on its books, then returns the interest to the Treasury and after deducting its costs. If the newly-issued dollars are used for productive purposes, supply will go up with demand, and prices should remain stable.
Note that even social services, which don’t directly produce revenue, can be considered “productive” in that they support the “human capital” necessary for production. Workers need to be healthy and well educated in order to build competitively and well, and the government needs to supplement the social costs borne by companies if they are to compete with China’s subsidized businesses.
Parameters would obviously need to be imposed to circumscribe Congress’s ability to spend “without limit,” backed by a compliant Treasury or Fed. An immediate need is for full transparency in budgeted expenditures. The Pentagon, for example, spends nearly $1 trillion of our taxpayer money annually and has never passed a clean audit, as required by law.
We Sorely Need an Infrastructure Bank
The U.S. is one of the few developed countries without an infrastructure bank. Ironically, it was Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Treasury secretary, who developed the model. Winning freedom from Great Britain left the young country with what appeared to be an unpayable debt. Hamilton traded the debt and a percentage of gold for non-voting shares in the First U.S. Bank, paying a 6% dividend. This capital was then leveraged many times over into credit to be used specifically for infrastructure and development. Based on the same model, the Second U.S. Bank funded the vibrant economic activity of the first decades of the United States.
In the 1930s, Roosevelt’s government pulled the country out of the Great Depression by repurposing a federal agency called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) into a lending machine for development on the Hamiltonian model. Formed under the Hoover administration, the RFC was not actually an infrastructure bank but it acted like one. Like China Development Bank, it obtained its liquidity by issuing bonds.
The primary purchaser of RFC bonds was the federal government, driving up the federal debt; but the debt to GDP ratio evened out over the next four decades, due to the dramatic increase in productivity generated by the RFC’s funding of the New Deal and World War II. That was also true of the federal debt after the American Revolution and the Civil War.
A pending bill for an infrastructure bank on the Hamiltonian model is HR 4052, The National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2023, which ended 2024 with 48 sponsors and was endorsed by dozens of legislatures, local councils, and organizations. Like the First and Second U.S. Banks, it is intended to be a depository bank capitalized with existing federal securities held by the private sector, for which the bank will pay an additional 2% over the interest paid by the government. The bank will then leverage this capital into roughly 10 times its value in loans, as all depository banks are entitled to do. The bill proposes to fund $5 trillion in infrastructure capitalized over a 10-year period with $500 billion in federal securities exchanged for preferred (non-voting) stock in the bank. Like the RFC, the bank will be a source of off-budget financing, adding no new costs to the federal budget. (For more information, see https://www.nibcoalition.com/.)
Growing Our Way Out of Debt
Rather than trying to kneecap our competitors with sanctions and tariffs, we can grow our way to prosperity by turning on the engines of production. Far more can be achieved through cooperation than through economic warfare. DeepSeek set the tone with its free, open source model. Rather than a heavily guarded secret, its source code is freely available to be shared and built upon by entrepreneurs around the world.
We can pull off our own economic miracle, funded with newly issued dollars backed by the full faith and credit of the government and the people. Contrary to popular belief, “full faith and credit” is valuable collateral, something even Bitcoin and gold do not have. It means the currency will be accepted everywhere – not just at the bank or the coin dealer’s but at the grocer’s and the gas station. If the government directs newly created dollars into new goods and services, supply will grow along with demand and the currency should retain its value. The government can print, pay for workers and materials, and produce its way into an economic renaissance.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – Taiwan is going to increase the scale of its main annual military exercise by mobilizing more reserve brigades, amid media reports that the number of Chinese military aircraft entering the airspace around Taiwan has doubled since the inauguration of President Lai Ching-te in May last year.
China sees Taiwan as a breakaway province that must eventually reunite, even by force if necessary. Beijing views Lai, a pro-independence advocate, as a separatist and has increased military drills, economic pressure, and diplomatic isolation to counter his leadership.
“This year’s drill will mobilize an entire reserve brigade with an estimated force of 2,400 to 3,000 troops to conduct regional defense operations,” Su Tong-wei, deputy director of the Joint Operations Planning Division at Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense, told journalists at a press conference, referring to the Han Kuang exercise.
The exercise is Taiwan’s largest annual military drill, testing its defense preparations for a Chinese invasion. It includes live-fire drills, joint operations and attack simulations, highlighting the island’s focus on asymmetric warfare amid rising cross-strait tensions.
Previous drills only mobilized hundreds of reserve troops.
Defense analysts said the goal of the exercise this year is to test how effectively Taiwan’s newly established county-level reserve brigades can mobilize and operate.
“With a mobilized force of 2,400 to 3,000 troops, if the brigade can independently carry out mobilization and training without external support, it would demonstrate the ability to rapidly and effectively deploy reserved forces in response to a potential threat—this is the core focus of the exercise,” Taiwanese retired major general Arthur Kuo told Radio Free Asia.
However, Kuo said mobilizing an entire reserve brigade also presents challenges for unit commanders and participating troops at all levels, including logistical support, command and coordination.
“Effective command and coordination of brigade-level units, especially when integrating with nearby active-duty forces during the exercise, require careful planning, thorough rehearsals, and precise execution,” he added.
On Tuesday, Taiwanese media reported the exercise would double the duration of its live-fire drills from 5 to 10 days, but Su declined to confirm that.
“The duration of the exercise is still being planned and will be determined based on the level of operational plan verification, with further evaluations to finalize the training schedule,” Su said.
US request?
Taiwanese media also reported that the island’s latest decision was made in response to a request from the United States.
Radio Free Asia has not been able to verify the reports.
In March 2024, then-U.S. Indo-Pacific Commander Admiral John Aquilino was questioned about Taiwan’s military readiness at a congressional hearing.
Then-representative Matt Gaetz referred to Israel’s rapid mobilization of 360,000 reservists within a day following a Hamas militant attack, suggesting that Taiwan could learn from this example. Aquilino acknowledged the comparison and emphasized efforts to strengthen Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities.
Kuo said while there was no public information indicating a specific role for U.S. forces this year, they were expected to observe.
“U.S. military observers have frequently participated in war games and live-fire drills, offering recommendations, and this time is likely no exception,” Kuo said.
“Strengthening reserve forces does indeed help demonstrate Taiwan’s combat capabilities and determination for self-defense to traditional allies such as the U.S., thereby deterring enemy aggression,” he added.
The U.S. military, for instance, had deployed more than 200 instructors to various units in Taiwan to assist with the 14-day reservist training program, which began in 2023, according to Taiwanese government reports.
The U.S. follows the “One China” policy, recognizing Beijing while maintaining unofficial ties with Taiwan. Unlike China’s “One China Principle,” the U.S. stance remains ambiguous, neither endorsing nor rejecting Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Under the Taiwan Relations Act, Washington provides Taipei with defensive support and opposes forced reunification. While maintaining strategic ambiguity, the U.S. has increased arms sales, military training, and joint exercises to strengthen Taiwan’s defense against growing threats from China.
Taiwan began trialing the 14-day reservist training program in 2022. With the formation of reserve brigades across 18 counties and cities, this new training system will be fully implemented this year.
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alan Lu for RFA.
Russia, Turkey and Egypt also among worst perpetrators of transnational repression around the globe
A quarter of the world’s countries have engaged in transnational repression – targeting political exiles abroad to silence dissent – in the past decade, new research reveals.
The Washington DC-based non-profit organisation Freedom House has documented 1,219 incidents carried out by 48 governments across 103 countries, from 2014 to 2024.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – China has removed a buoy it installed near disputed islands within Japan’s exclusive economic zone, raising the possibility of a Chinese shift towards improving relations with Japan.
The islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu Islands in China, are a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. They are approximately 170 kilometers (100 miles) northeast of Taiwan and about 410 kilometers (250 miles) west of Okinawa, Japan.
The islands are administered by Japan but are also claimed by China and Taiwan.
China installed the buoy in July 2023, triggering strong protests from Japan, which condemned it as a violation of its sovereignty and demanded its removal.
China said the buoy was for scientific research, now finished.
“The buoy in question has completed its task at the site,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said at a news conference, noting that relevant Chinese agencies had voluntarily made technical adjustments to the buoy according to the actual needs of scientific observation.
The Japan Coast Guard also confirmed on its website the Chinese buoy northeast of Taiwan had “ceased to exist.”
While there has been no official statement linking the buoy’s removal to any diplomatic shift, it is bound to raise speculation that it is part of a calculated effort by Beijing to stabilize ties with Tokyo, particularly in light of the recent change in the leadership of the U.S.
Sino-Japan relations have long been complicated by territorial disputes, historical grievances, and economic competition.
The islands remain one of the most persistent sources of tension, with Beijing frequently sending coast guard vessels into surrounding waters, while Tokyo insists on its sovereignty over the features.
Other flashpoints have included trade disputes, China’s ban on Japanese seafood imports following the Fukushima nuclear plant wastewater release, and concerns over military activity in the East China Sea.
In recent months, however, several signs have indicated that both countries are trying to normalize relations.
In December, Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya visited Beijing, marking a significant step in diplomatic engagement. Discussions included security issues, economic cooperation, and the potential easing of China’s restrictions on Japanese seafood imports.
Additionally, China expanded its visa-free entry program to include Japan, aiming to boost tourism and economic exchanges.
During his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump took a hard line on China, emphasizing economic decoupling and increasing military cooperation with Japan. His appointment of several China hawks to top jobs in his administration has led to expectations of a repeat of that tough line.
Trump has also emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance, particularly in facing regional challenges such as China’s assertiveness and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.
This alignment was evident during Trump’s recent meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, when both leaders expressed a shared commitment to “peace through strength” in the Indo-Pacific region.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.
China has said it will take steps to “stabilize” foreign investment amid plummeting investment inflows in recent years, but analysts say the measures announced Monday by Premier Li Qiang are unlikely to result in genuine policy changes.
Li told State Council executive meeting on Monday that “foreign enterprises play an important role in job creation, export stabilization and industrial upgrading,” state news agency Xinhua reported.
Li called for “more practical, effective measures to stabilize existing foreign investment and expand new investment,” the Xinhua report said.
The meeting called for a pilot program opening up the service sector to foreign investors and “encouraged foreign capital to undertake equity investment in China,” the agency reported.
Inbound foreign direct investment, or FDI, fell by 13.7% in 2023 to US$163 billion, according to statistics from the Ministry of Commerce, although the country remained the number four destination for investors in the world, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Investor confidence has been hit by “slower-than-expected economic recovery following COVID-19, lower prospects for long-term growth, capital controls, lack of policy predictability and regulatory transparency, and tensions in the U.S.-China relationship,” according to the U.S. State Department’s 2024 Investment Climate Statement.
The State Council meeting called for “domestic and foreign enterprises to be treated equally in government procurement, as well as the need to broaden financing channels for foreign enterprises,” Xinhua reported.
China is the 11th most restrictive economy out of 89 countries surveyed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a ranking that reflects “longstanding prohibitions on investment in key sectors and unpredictable regulatory enforcement,” according to the State Department report.
“Obstacles include foreign ownership caps, requirements to form joint venture (JV) partnerships with local firms, industrial policies to develop indigenous capacity or technological self-sufficiency, licensing tied to localization requirements, and pressures to transfer technology as a prerequisite for gaining market access,” the report said.
‘Meetings are just slogans’
Analysts said Li will have a hard time turning that around, especially as President Xi Jinping has the last word on economic policy.
“All of Li Qiang’s State Council meetings are just slogans, because he’s not allowed to make changes to the broader policies laid down by Xi Jinping,” current affairs commentator Zheng Xuguang told RFA Mandarin in a recent interview.
He said Xi seems resistant to calls for him to relinquish top-down control of the economy, as late supreme leader Deng Xiaoping did from 1979, unleashing decades of breakneck economic growth.
“No one is even thinking about that now, and Xi Jinping seems to lack determination when it comes to solving [the problem of openness to foreign investment],” Zheng said.
Wang En-kuo, honorary president of the Taiwanese Business Association in the eastern city of Nanchang, said tariffs on exports to the United States are a major factor in turning away foreign investors from China.
“Everyone knows that these are just declarations, that won’t have any real effect,” Wang told RFA Mandarin in a recent interview. “That’s because China’s fundamental problems haven’t been solved.”
“For foreign-invested enterprises that produce in China for export, tariffs are the biggest consideration,” Wang said. “Export-oriented foreign investment will certainly consider looking for other locations where tariffs or production costs can be reduced.”
Even foreign-invested enterprises focused on the domestic Chinese market are facing severe competition from Chinese companies.
“If they can’t make a profit, they’ll have to leave,” Wang said.
Other destinations
And it’s not just foreign companies that are leaving.
South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy has said Chinese companies are currently setting up in South Korea at the rate of one a day, according to a Feb. 10 report by BusinessKorea.
A man walks past a Chinese flag decorating an office building on Financial Street in Beijing, China, Oct. 8, 2024.(Florence Lo/Reuters)
It cited the example of a semiconductor and display manufacturing company in Daejeon that was acquired by a Chinese company last year. While most of the company’s employees are still Korean, more than 90% of the shares are now controlled by Chinese capital, the report said, suggesting it was a form of “identity laundering” aimed at circumventing U.S. tariffs on Chinese-made goods.
According to Wang, the most popular destination for Chinese companies looking to relocate is currently Vietnam.
“Chinese exports to Vietnam grew by more than 25% year-on-year in the first three quarters of 2024, and almost all of [the orders] were from Chinese companies,” Wang said.
“The Chinese government is not worried about the departure of local companies, because even if these companies move abroad, they will still import raw materials from China.”
Zheng said Chinese companies have been relocating their production facilities, while still importing raw materials and spare parts from China.
“Companies may be able to avoid the 10% tariff by relocating to other countries, as [U.S. President] Trump’s tariffs haven’t hit those places yet,” he said. “But Trump’s policy is very clear: tariffs will be imposed on all countries.”
He said Vietnam is a salient example.
“Exports from Vietnam and Mexico have increased significantly, which is actually the effect of Chinese companies moving there,” Zheng said. “If Trump imposes tariffs across the board, then it’ll be pointless to relocate production facilities.”
China’s General Administration of Customs has said that Chinese exports to Vietnam will grow by nearly 18% in 2024 to a record high of US$162 billion, Bloomberg reported, while exports to Japan totaled US$152 billion during the same period.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Roseanne Gerin.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Huang Chun-mei for RFA Mandarin.
On the fifth anniversary of the “Xiamen Gathering” crackdown, 34 civil society organisations (on 10 February 2025) across the world reaffirm their solidarity with Chinese human rights defenders and lawyers persecuted for advocating for human rights:
26 December 2024 marked the fifth anniversary of the crackdown on the “Xiamen gathering”, a private gathering that about 20 Chinese human rights defenders and lawyers convened in Xiamen, China in December 2019 to discuss the situation of human rights and civil society in China. In the weeks after, Chinese authorities interrogated, harassed, detained and imprisoned every participant who was not able to leave China then and subjected almost all of them, including some families and friends, to travel bans, up to the present day, under the pretext of national security.
Among those detained were legal scholar Xu Zhiyong and human rights lawyer Ding Jiaxi. Both are leading human rights defenders who spearheaded the “New Citizens’ Movement”, empowering citizens as rights-bearers to advocate for a more equal, rights-respecting and free society, and to combat corruption, wealth inequality and discrimination in access to education. In 2014, Xu and Ding were both sentenced to four years and three and a half years in prison, respectively, for participating in the New Citizens’ Movement and charged with “gathering a crowd to disturb public order”.
From 26 December 2019, and over the weeks that followed, the Chinese authorities forcibly disappeared both under Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL), a criminal procedure allowing secret detention for up to six months without access to legal counsel or family. RSDL is considered by UN Special Procedures experts to constitute secret detention and a form of enforced disappearance, and may amount to torture or other ill-treatment. While held under RSDL, both men were subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, before being charged with the national security crime of “subversion of State power”. They were subsequently convicted in a secret trial and handed severe prison sentences of 14 and 12 years, respectively, in April 2023. Despite multiple calls from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and from UN Special Procedures’ experts as recently as November 2024, China has failed to address these grave violations.
These cases are emblematic of a broader and alarming trend of persecution of human rights defenders and lawyers in China. Authorities systematically employ RSDL, harsh national security charges, torture and other ill-treatment, prolonged detention, travel bans and harassment to silence dissent and dismantle independent civil society. The use of vague charges such as “subversion of State power” or “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” has become a routine tactic to criminalise human rights work, despite UN human rights experts’ repeated call for them to be repealed. Victims often face prolonged pre-trial detention, lack of due process, restricted access to lawyer and adequate healthcare, and torture or other ill-treatment aimed at extracting forced ‘confessions’.
This systematic repression is further reflected in the cases of human rights lawyers Xie Yang and Lu Siwei, feminist activist Huang Xueqin, labour activist Wang Jianbing, and citizen journalist Zhang Zhan, all of whom are currently subjected to arbitrary detention or imprisonment . UN Special Procedures’ experts have recently described these cases as part of “recurring patterns of repression, including incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance aimed at […] silencing human rights defenders and dissenting or opposing views critical of the Government”.
As we commemorate the fifth anniversary of the crackdown, we, organisations and activists from all over the world, continue to stand in solidarity with all human rights defenders and lawyers in China who courageously advocate for justice despite knowing the risks of doing so.
We urge the Chinese government to:
Immediately and unconditionally release all human rights defenders and lawyers arbitrarily detained or imprisoned for their human rights work, including Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi;
End the systematic crackdown on civil society, including harassment, unjustified detention, enforced disappearance, and imprisonment of human rights defenders and lawyers;
Amend laws and regulations, including national security legislation, the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Law, to bring them fully in line with international human rights standards;
Rescind the travel bans imposed on the gathering participants as well as their friends and families immediately.
Signatories:
Alliance for Citizens Rights
Amnesty International
Asian Lawyers Network (ALN) (Japan)
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Free Tibet (United Kingdom)
Human Rights in China
India Tibet Friendship Society Nagpur Maharashtra (India)
International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
International Campaign for Tibet
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
International Tibet Network
Judicial Reform Foundation (Taiwan)
Lawyers for Lawyers (Netherlands)
LUNGTA – Active for Tibet (Belgium)
PEN America (United States)
Safeguard Defenders (Spain)
Swiss Tibetan Friendship Association (Switzerland)
Taiwan Association for Human Rights (Taiwan)
The 29 Principles (United Kingdom)
The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders
The Rights Practice (United Kingdom)
Tibet Justice Center (United States)
Tibet Solidarity (United Kingdom)
Voluntary Tibet Advocacy Group (V-TAG) (Netherlands)
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Acción Solidaria (Venezuela)
Amnistía Internacional Chile (Chile)
CADAL (Argentina)
Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Francisco de Vitoria OP, A.C. (Mexico)
CONTIOCAP – Coordinadora Nacional de Defensa de Territorios Indígenas Originarios Campesinos y Áreas Protegidas en Bolivia (Bolivia)
Movimiento Autónomo de Mujeres (Nicaragua)
Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos Todos los Derechos para todas, todos y todes (Mexico)
China and the Cook Islands’ relationship “should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party”, says Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun, as opposition leaders in Rarotonga express a loss of confidence in Prime Minister Mark Brown.
In response to questions from the Associated Press about New Zealand government’s concerns regarding Brown’s visit to Beijing this week, Guo said Cook Islands was an important partner of China in the South Pacific.
“Since establishing diplomatic relations in 1997, our two countries have respected each other, treated each other as equals, and sought common development, achieving fruitful outcomes in exchanges and cooperation in various areas,” he said.
“China stands ready to work with the Cook Islands for new progress in bilateral relations.”
Guo said China viewed both New Zealand and the Cook Islands as important cooperation partners.
“China stands ready to grow ties and carry out cooperation with Pacific Island countries, including the Cook Islands,” he said.
“The relationship between China and the Cook Islands does not target any third party, and should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party.”
Information ‘in due course’
Guo added that Beijing would release information about the visit and the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement “in due course”.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun . . . “China stands ready to grow ties and carry out cooperation with Pacific Island countries.” Image: China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs/RNZ
However, Cook Islanders, as well as the New Zealand government, have been left frustrated with the lack of clarity over what is in the deal which is expected to be penned this week.
United Party leader Teariki Heather is planning a protest on February 17 against Brown’s leadership.
He previously told RNZ that it seemed like Brown was “dictating to the people of the Cook Islands, that I’m the leader of this country and I do whatever I like”.
Another opposition MP with the Democratic Party, Tina Browne, is planning to attend the protest.
She said Brown “doesn’t understand the word transparent”.
“He is saying once we sign up we’ll provide copies [of the deal],” Browne said.
“Well, what’s the point? The agreement has been signed by the government so what’s the point in providing copies.
“If there is anything in the agreement that people do not agree with, what do we do then?”
Repeated attempts by Peters
New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs office said Winston Peters had made repeated attempts for the government of the Cook Islands to share the details of the proposed agreement, which they had not done.
Peters’ spokesperson, like Browne, said consultation was only meaningful if it happened before an agreement was reached, not after.
“We therefore view the Cook Islands as having failed to properly consult New Zealand with respect to any agreements it plans to sign this coming week in China,” the spokesperson said.
Prime Minister Brown told RNZ Pacific that he did not think New Zealand needed to see the level of detail they are after, despite being a constitutional partner.
Ocean Ancestors, an ocean advocacy group, said Brown’s decision had taken people by surprise, despite the Cook Islands having had a long-term relationship with the Asia superpower.
“We are in the dark about what could be signed and so for us our concerns are that we are committing ourselves to something that could be very long term and it’s an agreement that we haven’t had consensus over,” the organisation’s spokesperson Louisa Castledine said.
The details that Brown has shared are that he would be seeking areas of cooperation, including help with a new inter-island vessel to replace the existing ageing ship and for controversial deep-sea mining research.
Castledine hopes that no promises have been made to China regarding seabed minerals.
“As far as we are concerned, we have not completed our research phase and we are still yet to make an informed decision about how we progress [on deep-sea mining],” she said.
“I would like to think that deep-sea mining is not a point of discussion, even though I am not delusional to the idea that it would be very attractive to any agreement.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
China and the Cook Islands’ relationship “should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party”, says Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun, as opposition leaders in Rarotonga express a loss of confidence in Prime Minister Mark Brown.
In response to questions from the Associated Press about New Zealand government’s concerns regarding Brown’s visit to Beijing this week, Guo said Cook Islands was an important partner of China in the South Pacific.
“Since establishing diplomatic relations in 1997, our two countries have respected each other, treated each other as equals, and sought common development, achieving fruitful outcomes in exchanges and cooperation in various areas,” he said.
“China stands ready to work with the Cook Islands for new progress in bilateral relations.”
Guo said China viewed both New Zealand and the Cook Islands as important cooperation partners.
“China stands ready to grow ties and carry out cooperation with Pacific Island countries, including the Cook Islands,” he said.
“The relationship between China and the Cook Islands does not target any third party, and should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party.”
Information ‘in due course’
Guo added that Beijing would release information about the visit and the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement “in due course”.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun . . . “China stands ready to grow ties and carry out cooperation with Pacific Island countries.” Image: China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs/RNZ
However, Cook Islanders, as well as the New Zealand government, have been left frustrated with the lack of clarity over what is in the deal which is expected to be penned this week.
United Party leader Teariki Heather is planning a protest on February 17 against Brown’s leadership.
He previously told RNZ that it seemed like Brown was “dictating to the people of the Cook Islands, that I’m the leader of this country and I do whatever I like”.
Another opposition MP with the Democratic Party, Tina Browne, is planning to attend the protest.
She said Brown “doesn’t understand the word transparent”.
“He is saying once we sign up we’ll provide copies [of the deal],” Browne said.
“Well, what’s the point? The agreement has been signed by the government so what’s the point in providing copies.
“If there is anything in the agreement that people do not agree with, what do we do then?”
Repeated attempts by Peters
New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs office said Winston Peters had made repeated attempts for the government of the Cook Islands to share the details of the proposed agreement, which they had not done.
Peters’ spokesperson, like Browne, said consultation was only meaningful if it happened before an agreement was reached, not after.
“We therefore view the Cook Islands as having failed to properly consult New Zealand with respect to any agreements it plans to sign this coming week in China,” the spokesperson said.
Prime Minister Brown told RNZ Pacific that he did not think New Zealand needed to see the level of detail they are after, despite being a constitutional partner.
Ocean Ancestors, an ocean advocacy group, said Brown’s decision had taken people by surprise, despite the Cook Islands having had a long-term relationship with the Asia superpower.
“We are in the dark about what could be signed and so for us our concerns are that we are committing ourselves to something that could be very long term and it’s an agreement that we haven’t had consensus over,” the organisation’s spokesperson Louisa Castledine said.
The details that Brown has shared are that he would be seeking areas of cooperation, including help with a new inter-island vessel to replace the existing ageing ship and for controversial deep-sea mining research.
Castledine hopes that no promises have been made to China regarding seabed minerals.
“As far as we are concerned, we have not completed our research phase and we are still yet to make an informed decision about how we progress [on deep-sea mining],” she said.
“I would like to think that deep-sea mining is not a point of discussion, even though I am not delusional to the idea that it would be very attractive to any agreement.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
China hit back at Washington’s call for the release of jailed pro-democracy media magnate Jimmy Lai, saying U.S. attempts to “support the anti-China rioters” were doomed to fail, using a term it prefers to describe the 2019 protests.
The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor said in a Feb. 7 post to its X account that Lai, 77, “has spent more than 1,500 days imprisoned while standing up bravely for democracy and free speech in Hong Kong.”
“We urge the HK government to immediately and unconditionally release Jimmy Lai,” the tweet said.
A spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong said the remarks were “erroneous,” and accused Washington of “openly supporting anti-China and Hong Kong-disrupting element Jimmy Lai.”
Lai on Monday spent his 39th day on the witness stand on the 131st day of his national security trial.
Sebastien Lai, son of Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai, poses with a newspaper showing a photo of his father in Taipei, Taiwan, Dec.15, 2023.(ANN WANG, Ann Wang/Reuters)
The statement accused Lai of being “the main planner and instigator” of the 2019 protest movement in Hong Kong, which started as mass popular protests against plans to allow extradition to mainland China, and broadened to include demands for fully democratic elections and greater official accountability.
“The louder the US shouts for Lai, the more it proves that Lai is in cahoots with it, and its actions are doomed to be futile,” the spokesperson said, calling on Washington to “stop interfering in Hong Kong’s judiciary,” and to stop “sheltering” pro-democracy activists in exile.
The Hong Kong government said in a statement on Feb. 8 that the State Department comment was “inappropriate,” given that Lai’s trial is still ongoing.
It said the authorities “will continue to resolutely discharge the duty of safeguarding national security, prevent, suppress and punish in accordance with the law acts and activities endangering national security.”
According to Benedict Rogers, founder and chief executive officer of the London-based rights group Hong Kong Watch, Lai, a British citizen and a devout Catholic, is currently being held in solitary confinement and reportedly only permitted 50 minutes of exercise per day.
“That means he spends over 23 hours daily without natural light, fresh air, or human contact except with prison guards,” Rogers wrote in a Feb. 7 op-ed for the Catholic news site UCANews.
“A diabetic, he has been denied independent medical care and concerns are growing about his failing health.”
Lai has been in jail since his arrest in December 2020, awaiting trial for “collusion with foreign forces” under the National Security Law, and also serving separate sentences for lighting a candle and praying for the victims of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre, for irregularities in the use of his newspaper’s office space, and for taking part in the 2019 protests.
“If lighting a candle, saying a prayer and joining a peaceful protest is a crime, deserving 13 or 14 months in jail per candle, prayer, or protest, I should be locked up for the rest of my life,” Rogers wrote.
He said Lai had sacrificed a life of wealth and freedom anywhere else in the world to stay in Hong Kong to fight for his principles, “in the knowledge that a jail cell could be his home for the remainder of his life,” he said.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – A coalition of 17 U.S. state attorneys general has raised concerns about major asset managers, including the world’s largest investment firm, BlackRock, playing down the risks of investing in China.
The attorneys general -- all Republicans -- accused BlackRock, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and other asset management companies of mischaracterizing China to their clients by failing to disclose it as a “foreign adversary” and omitting the risk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
“We are particularly concerned about BlackRock’s material misstatements and omissions, as BlackRock is the largest issuer of emerging market ETFs and China ETFs,” the attorneys general said in a letter to the companies.
BlackRock is a leading global asset management firm, offering a range of investment and technology services to institutional and retail clients worldwide. As of January 2025, the firm managed approximately US$11.6 trillion in assets.
The attorneys general, including those from Montana, Alabama and Idaho, said in their letter that BlackRock implied that investing in China carried similar risks to investing in other countries, despite China being officially designated a U.S. foreign adversary in March 2023.
“Instead, prospectuses simply state that ‘strained’ relations between the U.S. and ‘Asia-Pacific issuers’ could create adverse effects,” they said, adding that the wording masked the significant differences between investing in a foreign adversary like China and a U.S. ally such as Japan.
CEO of BlackRock Larry Fink speaks at the Annual Meeting of World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 23, 2025.(Markus Schreiber/AP)
The attorneys general also criticized BlackRock for misrepresenting forced labor and genocide of the Uyghur minority in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region as “religious and nationalist disputes.”
“Other major asset managers such as State Street, Invesco, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley (the ‘Other Asset Managers’) similarly misrepresent or conceal the material risks of Chinese investments,” they said.
BlackRock said in a post on X that the attorneys general were wrong about three of its particular disclosures on China: the threat of invasion to Taiwan, the risk of private property ownership in China and auditing practices in China.
“We are clear about the threat of invasion to China,” BlackRock said.
State Street and Invesco declined to comment. The other asset managers did not respond to requests for comment by Radio Free Asia by publication time.
Taiwan factor
The attorneys general also pointed out what they said was the failure of major asset firms to disclose the risks of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
They noted that while U.S. military officials had suggested that Chinese President Xi Jinping was preparing to invade Taiwan by 2027, BlackRock’s fund disclosures misleadingly portray China’s relationship with Taiwan as similar to relations it has with neighboring countries.
Taiwan regards itself as a sovereign nation with its own government, whereas Beijing sees it as a rebellious province that must eventually reunite with China, by force if necessary.
“BlackRock suggests that a conflict between China and ‘neighboring countries’ would create relatively minor economic risks such as ‘interest rate fluctuations,‘” the attorneys general said.
Some BlackRock funds highlight the risk of war between North and South Korea as the only example of conflict in Asia, they said. Even prospectuses that mention the possibility of conflict between China and Taiwan fail to acknowledge China’s stated intention to take control of the self-ruled island.
“BlackRock fails to disclose this risk of an invasion on the derivative positions in its funds with Chinese investments,” they said.
But BlackRock rejected the suggestion that it was not clear about the threat of an invasion of Taiwan and referred to the post on X.
“China has a complex territorial dispute regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan and has made threats of invasion; Taiwan-based companies and individuals are significant investors in China. Military conflict between China and Taiwan may adversely affect securities of Chinese issuers,” BlackRock said in the post.
The attorneys general also said a Morgan Stanley prospectus neglected to mention the possibility of a Taiwan invasion, China’s declared intent to take control of Taiwan or the severe impact such a conflict could have on the fund.
The attorneys general said that the misrepresentation primarily comes from the pressure China places on firms seeking access to Chinese investors.
For example, after BlackRock became the first company to receive approval from China in June 2021 to sell to Chinese investors, it recommended that its investors more than double their investments in China, even though the U.S. had designated China as a foreign adversary months ago.
In 2022, the Chinese government instructed JPMorgan’s research arm not to publish economic data that it labeled “politically sensitive financial information,” the attorneys general said.
They also suggested that misstatements in fund disclosures may have resulted from an inability to accurately investigate facts, due to interference and distortion by the Chinese Communist Party.
Last November, 20 state financial officers issued a joint statement calling on public pension fund fiduciaries to divest from China. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also directed state agencies to divest from China as soon as possible.
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alan Lu for RFA.
China went from one of the poorest countries in the world to global economic powerhouse in a mere four decades. Currently featured in the news is DeepSeek, the free, open source A.I. built by innovative Chinese entrepreneurs which just pricked the massive U.S. A.I. bubble.
Even more impressive, however, is the infrastructure China has built, including 26,000 miles of high speed rail, the world’s largest hydroelectric power station, the longest sea-crossing bridge in the world, 100,000 miles of expressway, the world’s first commercial magnetic levitation train, the world’s largest urban metro network, seven of the world’s 10 busiest ports, and solar and wind power generation accounting for over 35% of global renewable energy capacity.
The Cook Islands finds itself in a precarious dance — one between the promises of foreign investments and the integrity of our own sovereignty. As the country sways between partners China and Aotearoa New Zealand, the Cook Islands News asks: “Do we continue to haka with the Taniwha, our constitutional partner, or do we dance with the dragon?”
EDITORIAL:By Thomas Tarurongo Wynne, Cook Islands News
Our relationship with China, forged through over two decades of diplomatic agreements, infrastructure projects and economic cooperation, demands further scrutiny. Do we continue to embrace the dragon with open arms, or do we stand wary?
And what of the Taniwha, a relationship now bruised by the ego of the few but standing the test of time?
If our relationship with China were a building, it would be crumbling like the very structures they have built for us. The Cook Islands Police Headquarters (2005) was meant to stand as a testament to our growing diplomatic and financial ties, but its foundations — both literal and metaphorical — have been called into question as its structure deteriorated.
Then, in 2009, the Cook Islands Courthouse followed, plagued by maintenance issues almost immediately after its completion. Our National Stadium, also built in 2009 for the Pacific Mini Games, was heralded as a great achievement, yet signs of premature wear and tear began surfacing far earlier than expected.
Still, we continue this dance, entranced by the allure of foreign investment and large-scale projects, even as history and our fellow Pacific partners across the moana warn us of the risks.
These structures, now symbols of our fragile dependence, stand as a metaphor for our relationship with the dragon: built with promises of strength, only to falter under closer scrutiny. And yet, we keep returning to the dance floor. These projects, rather than standing as enduring monuments to our relationship with China, serve as cautionary tales.
And then came Te Mato Vai.
What began as a bold and necessary vision to modernise Rarotonga’s water infrastructure became a slow and painful lesson in accountability. The involvement of China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) saw the project mired in substandard work, legal disputes and cost overruns.
By the time McConnell Dowell, a New Zealand firm, was brought in to fix the defects, the damage — financial and reputational — was done.
Prime Minister Mark Brown, both as Finance Minister and now as leader, has walked an interesting line between criticism and praise.
In 2017, he voiced concerns about the poor workmanship and assured the nation that the government would seek accountability, stating, “We are deeply concerned about the quality of work delivered by CCECC. Our people deserve better, and we will pursue all avenues to ensure accountability.”
In 2022, he acknowledged the cost overruns but framed them as necessary lessons in securing a reliable water supply. And yet, most recently, during the December 2024 visit of China’s Executive Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu, he declared Te Mato Vai a “commitment to a stronger, healthier, and more resilient nation. Together, we’ve delivered a project that not only meets the needs of today but safeguards the future of Rarotonga’s water supply.”
The Cook Islands’ relationship with New Zealand has long been one of deep familial, historical and political ties — a dance with the taniwha, if you will. As a nation with free association status, we have relied on New Zealand for economic support, governance frameworks and our shared citizenship ties.
And they have relied on our labour and expertise, which adds over a billion dollars to their economy each year. We have well-earned our discussion around citizenship and statehood, but that must come from the ground up, not from the top down.
China has signed similar agreements across the Pacific, most notably with the Solomon Islands, weaving itself into the region’s economic and political fabric. Yet, while these partnerships promise opportunity, they also raise concerns about sovereignty, dependency and the price of such alignments, as well as the geopolitical and strategic footprint of the dragon.
But as we reflect on the shortcomings of these partnerships, the question remains: Do we continue to place our trust in foreign powers, or do we reinvest in our own community and governance systems?
At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves: How do we sign bold agreements on the world stage without consultation, while struggling to resolve fundamental issues at home?
Healthcare, education, the rise in crime, mental health, disability, poverty — the list goes on and on, while our leaders are wined and dined on state visits around the globe.
Dance with the dragon, if you so choose, but save the last dance for the voting public in 2026. In 2026, the voters will decide who leads this dance and who gets left behind.
Republished from the Cook Islands News with permission.
LONDON - Waving flags and carrying placards, protesters representing Tibetan, Uyghur, Chinese and Hong Kong rights groups rallied on Saturday against China’s proposed ‘mega-embassy’ in London, voicing fears that Beijing would use the building to harass and monitor dissidents living abroad.
Organizers said around 4,000 people joined the protest at the proposed site of the embassy at the historic former Royal Mint Court – near the Tower of London – just days ahead of a crucial inquiry session to start on Tuesday. Police did not respond to requests for a crowd size estimate.
The Chinese government purchased the historic building in 2018 with plans to build what would become Beijing’s largest diplomatic facility globally. Plans show that it is expected to be 10 times the size of a regular embassy and house cultural exchange centers and 225 apartment units.
VIDEO: The protesters cite security threats and fears that China would use the embassy to ‘harass’ and ‘control’ dissidents.
Nearly 30 different rights groups came together for the protest, organizers said. Many were masked and dressed in black. They waved flags and carried placards that said, “UK Government, don’t reward repression. Say no to China’s super embassy,” “Stop Chinese secret policing in the UK” and other slogans.
Police could be heard shouting for order as large crowds spilled out across the intersection by the Mint, and several protestors wrestled with and shouted at a line of police officers. About halfway through the protest, officers could be seen dragging a woman to a police van, prompting protestors to block the van and shout for her release.
Police handle demonstrators as they protest at the proposed site of the Chinese “mega-embassy” in London, Feb. 8, 2025.(Matthew Leung/RFA)
At least two people were arrested on suspicion of breaching Section 14 conditions, which require that protesters stay within a designated area, Tower Hamlets Police said.
No counter-protests from Chinese nationalists were seen.
Twice rejected
The local Tower Hamlets Council has twice rejected the planning application, putting the embassy plan on hold.
In October, British Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State Angela Rayner announced that she would take over the decision-making of the embassy’s fate.
A public inquiry will be held in front of a planning inspector from Feb. 11-18, after which Raynor will decide whether or not permission should be granted, the council said in a statement.
Demonstrators protest at the proposed site of the Chinese “mega-embassy” in London, Feb. 8, 2025.(Matthew Leung/RFA)
Previously, the Metropolitan Police had objected to Beijing’s plans to redevelop the former Royal Mint Court site into the Chinese Embassy, citing a lack of space to safely accommodate protestors. However, in January 2025, they withdrew their objection, citing a Beijing-sponsored report that claims the site surrounding the proposed embassy can safely fit up to 4,500 people.
“Chinese embassies are like a watchdog and serve as a base to control so-called minorities like Tibetans, Uyghurs, Hong Kongers and also to human rights defenders and other Chinese dissidents,” said Tsering Passang, founder and chair of the U.K.-based Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities, or GATPM.
“To have our voices and concerns heard, we have gathered here ahead of the public inquiry session,” Passang said. “We are also demonstrating that the site is inappropriate for an embassy, as there is not enough space for safe demonstrations at the site.”
‘Spy base’
At Saturday’s protest, several British politicians, including former Security Minister Tom Tugendhat, Labour parliamentarian Blair McDougall, Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick and former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, spoke out in solidarity with the protestors, saying it would be a “grave mistake” if permission was granted to build the embassy.
They warned that British intelligence services have indicated the Chinese Embassy would become a massive “spy base,” threatening not only exile communities of Hong Kongers, Tibetans and Uyghurs, but also local residents and British national security.
They criticized the U.K. government for their apparent support for the project and disregarding public opinion.
Police handle demonstrators as they protest at the proposed site of the Chinese “mega-embassy” in London, Feb. 8, 2025.(Matthew Leung/RFA)
“Tower Hamlet came out this morning and said they stand by their original objection. That means that the local council didn’t approve it, no local residents wanted it, and a large number of politicians in Westminster do not want it either,” Smith told RFA.
“So the government is now using its powers to bully all the organizations to get the decision that they want,” he said.
Smith went on to say that the U.K. government’s apparent support for the embassy approval was “promised” by Prime Minister Keir Starmer to Chinese President Xi Jinping at their meeting on Nov 18, 2024, on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
“I think it’s an act of self-harm and a betrayal of the British people to have it here,” he said.
‘We will continue our protest’
Rahima Mahmut, U.K. project director of the World Uyghur Congress, said it was perhaps the largest protest in London against the Chinese regime in recent history.
Due to the large turnout, the protest spilled out across most of the junction between Tower Bridge Road and Tower Hill. This prompted the police to close the intersection, forcing vehicles to turn back and find alternative routes and temporarily paralyzing traffic.
Demonstrators protest at the proposed site of the Chinese “mega-embassy” in London, Feb. 8, 2025.(Matthew Leung/RFA)
A local resident named Nas, who didn’t want his full name used for security reasons, said the blockage of traffic shows why the site is unsuitable.
He also noted that the area has one of Britain’s largest Muslim communities, raising fears among the local community that the Chinese government would impose its values on the area and impact local mosques, if the plan is approved.
“We are not here just for today, we will continue our protest,” Passang said. “With the collaboration of local residents we are showing a clear message to the U.K. government and also letting the Chinese government know that oppression of religious freedom, freedom of speech and human rights will not be tolerated.”
Additional reporting by Alim Seytoff for RFA Uyghur, Passang Dhonden for RFA Tibetan. Edited by Kalden Lodoe and Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jasmine Man for RFA Mandarin, Matthew Leung for RFA Cantonese, Tenzin Pema for RFA Tibetan.
By the time US President Donald Trump announced tariffs on China and Canada last Monday which could kickstart a trade war, New Zealand’s diplomats in Washington, DC, had already been deployed on another diplomatic drama.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz had said on social media it was “difficult to treat New Zealand as a normal ally . . . when they denigrate and punish Israeli citizens for defending themselves and their country”.
He cited a story in the Israeli media outlet Ha’aretz, which has a reputation for independence in Israel and credibility abroad.
But Ha’aretz had wrongly reported Israelis must declare service in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) as part of “new requirements” for visa applications.
Winston Peters replied forcefully to Cruz on X, condemning Ha’aretz’s story as “fake news” and demanding a correction.
Winston Peters puts Ted Cruz on notice over the misleading Ha’aretz story. Image: X/RNZ
But one thing Trump’s Republicans and Winston Peters had in common last week was irritating Mexico.
His fellow NZ First MP Shane Jones had bellowed “Send the Mexicans home” at Green MPs in Parliament.
Winston Peters then told two of them they should be more grateful for being able to live in New Zealand.
‘We will not be lectured’ On Facebook he wasn’t exactly backing down.
“We . . . will not be lectured on the culture and traditions of New Zealand from people who have been here for five minutes,” he added.
While he was at it, Peters criticised media outlets for not holding other political parties to account for inflammatory comments.
Peters was posting that as a politician — not a foreign minister, but the Mexican ambassador complained to MFAT. (It seems the so-called “Mexican standoff” was resolved over a pre-Waitangi lunch with Ambassador Bravo).
But the next day — last Wednesday — news of another diplomatic drama broke on TVNZ’s 1News.
“A deal that could shatter New Zealand’s close relationship with a Pacific neighbour,” presenter Simon Dallow declared, in front of a backdrop of a stern-looking Peters.
TVNZ’s Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver reported the Cook Islands was about to sign a partnership agreement in Beijing.
“We want clarity and at this point in time, we have none. We’ve got past arrangements, constitutional arrangements, which require constant consultation with us, and dare I say, China knows that,” Peters told 1News.
Passports another headache
Cook Islands’ Prime Minister Mark Brown also told Barbara Dreaver TVNZ’s revelations last month about proposed Cook Island passports had also been a headache for him.
“We were caught by surprise when this news was broken by 1News. I thought it was a high-level diplomatic discussion with leaders to be open and frank,” he told TVNZ this week.
“For it to be brought out into the public before we’ve had a time to inform our public, I thought was a breach of our political diplomacy.”
Last week another Barabara Dreaver scoop on 1News brought the strained relationship with another Pacific state into the headlines:
“Our relationship with Kiribati is at breaking point. New Zealand’s $100 million aid programme there is now on hold. The move comes after President [Taneti] Maamau pulled out of a pre-arranged meeting with Winston Peters.”
The media ended up in the middle of the blame game over this too — but many didn’t see it coming.
Caught in the crossfire “A diplomatic rift with Kiribati was on no one’s 2025 bingo card,” Stuff national affairs editor Andrea Vance wrote last weekend in the Sunday Star-Times.
“Of all the squabbles Winston Peters was expected to have this year, no one picked it would be with an impoverished, sinking island nation,” she wrote, in terms that would surely annoy Kiribati.
“Do you believe Kiribati is snubbing you?” RNZ Morning Report’s Corin Dann asked Peters.
“You can come to any conclusion you like, but our job is to try and resolve this matter,” Peters replied.
Kiribati Education Minister Alexander Teabo told RNZ Pacific there was no snub.
He said Kiribati President Maamau — who is also the nation’s foreign minister — had been unavailable because of a long-planned and important Catholic ordination ceremony on his home island of Onotoa — though this was prior to the proposed visit from Peters.
Public dispute “regrettable’
Peters told the same show it was “regrettable” that the dispute had been made public.
On Newstalk ZB Peters was backed — and Kiribati portrayed as the problem.
“If somebody is giving me $100m and they asked for a meeting, I will attend. I don’t care if it’s my mum’s birthday. Or somebody’s funeral,” Drive host Ryan Bridge told listeners.
“It’s always very hard to pick apart these stories (by) just reading them in the media. But I have faith and confidence in Winston Peters as our foreign minister,” PR-pro Trish Shrerson opined.
So did her fellow panellist, former Labour MP Stuart Nash.
“He’s respected across the Pacific. He’s the consummate diplomat. If Winston says this is the story and this is what’s happening, I believe 100 percent. And I would say, go hard. Winston — represent our interests.”
‘Totally silly’ response
But veteran Pacific journalist Michael Field contradicted them soon after on ZB.
“It’s totally silly. All this talk about cancelling $104 million of aid is total pie-in-the-sky from Winston Peters,” he said.
“Somebody’s lost their marbles on this, and the one who’s possibly on the ground looking for them is Winston Peters.
“He didn’t need to be in Tarawa in early January at all. This is pathetic. This is like saying I was invited to my sister’s birthday party and now it’s been cancelled,” he said.
Not a comparison you hear very often in international relations.
“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still-viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls [from] being used as bases without Washington approval,” he added.
Kiribati ‘hugely disrespectful’
But TVNZ’s Barbara Dreaver said Kiribati was being “hugely disrespectful”.
In a TVNZ analysis piece last weekend, she said New Zealand has “every right to expect better engagement than it has been getting over the past year.”
Dreaver — who was born in and grew up in Kiribati and has family there — also criticised “the airtime and validation” Kwansing got in the media in New Zealand.
“She supports and is part of a government that requires all journalists — should they get a visa to go there — to hand over copies of all footage/information collected,” Dreaver said.
Kwansing hit back on Facebook, accusing Dreaver of “publishing inane drivel” and “irresponsible journalism causing stress to locals.”
“You write like you need a good holiday somewhere happy. Please book yourself a luxury day spa ASAP,” she told TVNZ’s Pacific Affairs reporter.
“Despite this media issue, the government of Kiribati remains convinced the strong bonds between Kiribati and New Zealand will enable a resolution to this unfortunate standoff,” it said.
Copping the blame
Another reporter who knows what it’s like to cop the blame for reporting stuff diplomats and politicians want to keep out of the news is RNZ Pacific’s senior journalist and presenter Lydia Lewis.
Last year, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese questioned RNZ’s ethics after she reported comments he made to the US Deputy Secretary of State at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga — which revealed an until-then behind closed doors plan to pay for better policing in the Pacific.
She’s also been covering the tension with Kiribati.
Is the heat coming on the media more these days if they candidly report diplomatic differences?
TVNZ Pacific senior journalist and presenter Lydia Lewis . . . “both the public and politicians are saying the media [are] making a big deal of things.” Image: RNZ Pacific
“There’s no study that says there are more people blaming the media. So it’s anecdotal, but definitely, both the public and politicians are saying the media (are) making a big deal of things,” Lewis told Mediawatch.
“I would put the question back to the public as to who’s manufacturing drama. All we’re doing is reporting what’s in front of us for the public to then make their decision — and questioning it. And there were a lot of questions around this Kiribati story.”
Lewis said it was shortly before 6pm on January 27, that selected journalists were advised of the response of our government to the cancellation of the meeting with foreign minister Peters.
Vice-President an alternative
But it was not mentioned that Kiribati had offered the Vice-President for a meeting, the same person that met with an Australian delegation recently.
A response from Kiribati proved harder to get — and Lewis spoke to a senior figure in Kiribati that night who told her they knew nothing about it.
Politicians and diplomats, naturally enough, prefer to do things behind the scenes and media exposure is a complication for them.
But we simply wouldn’t know about the impending partnership agreement between China and the Cook Islands if TVNZ had not reported it last Monday.
And another irony: some political figures lamenting the diplomatically disruptive impact of the media also make decidedly undiplomatic responses of their own online these days.
“It can be revealing in the sense of where people stand. Sometimes they’re just putting out their opinions or their experience. Maybe they’ve got some sort of motive. A formal message or email we’ll take a bit more seriously. But some of the things on social media, we just take with a grain of salt,” said Lewis.
“It is vital we all look at multiple sources. It comes back to balance and knowledge and understanding what you know about and what you don’t know about — and then asking the questions in between.”
Big Powers and the Big Picture Kwansing objected to New Zealand media jumping to the conclusion China’s influence was a factor in the friction with New Zealand.
“To dismiss the geopolitical implications with China . . . would be naive and ignorant,” Dreaver countered.
Michael Field pointed to an angle missing.
“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls being used as bases without Washington approval,” he wrote in his Substack.
In the same article in which Vance called Kiribati “an impoverished, sinking island nation” she later pointed out that its location, US military ties and vast ocean territory make it strategically important.
Questions about ‘transparency and accountability’
“There’s a lot of people that want in on Kiribati. It has a huge exclusive economic zone,” Lewis said.
She said communication problems and patchy connectivity are also drawbacks.
“We do have a fuller picture now of the situation, but the overarching question that’s come out of this is around transparency and accountability.
“We can’t hold Kiribati politicians to account like we do New Zealand government politicians.”
“I don’t want to give Kiribati a free pass here but it’s really difficult to get a response.
“They’re posting statements on Facebook and it really has raised some questions around the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability for all journalists . . . committed to fair media reporting across the Pacific.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown says New Zealand is asking for too much oversight over its deal with China, which is expected to be penned in Beijing next week.
Brown told RNZ Pacific the Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship was reciprocal.
“They certainly did not consult with us when they signed their comprehensive partnership agreement [with China] and we would not expect them to consult with us,” he said.
“There is no need for New Zealand to sit in the room with us while we are going through our comprehensive agreement with China.
“We have advised them on the matter, but as far as being consulted and to the level of detail that they were requiring, I think that’s not a requirement.”
Brown is going to China from February 10-14 to sign the “Joint Action Plan for a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership”.
The Cook Islands operates in free association with New Zealand. It means the island nation conducts its own affairs, but Aotearoa needs to assist when it comes to foreign affairs, disasters, and defence.
NZ seeks more consultation
New Zealand is asking for more consultation over what is in the China deal.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters said neither New Zealand nor the Cook Island people knew what was in the agreement.
“The reality is we’ve been not told [sic] what the nature of the arrangements that they seek in Beijing might be,” he told RNZ Morning Report on Friday.
In 2023, China and Solomon Islands signed a deal on police cooperation as part of an upgrade of their relations to a “comprehensive strategic partnership”.
Brown said he had assured New Zealand “over and over” that there would be no impact on the countries’ relationship and “no surprises”, especially on security aspects.
“But the contents of this agreement is something that our team are working on with our Chinese counterparts, and it is something that we will announce and provide once it is signed off.”
He said it was similar to an agreement New Zealand had signed with China in 2014.
Deep sea mining research
Brown said the agreement was looking for areas of cooperation, with deep sea mining research being one area.
However, he said the immediate area that the Cook Islands wanted help with was a new interisland vessel to replace the existing ageing ship.
Brown has backed down from his controversial passport proposal after facing pressure from New Zealand.
He said the country “would essentially punish any Cook Islander that would seek a Cook Islands passport” by passing new legislation that would not allow them to also hold a New Zealand passport.
“To me that is a something that we cannot engage in for the security of our Cook Islands people.
“Whether that is seen as overstepping or not, that is a position that New Zealand has taken.”
A spokesperson for Peters said the two nations did “not see eye to eye” on a number of issues.
Relationship ‘very good’
However, Brown said he always felt the relationship was very good.
“We can agree to disagree in certain areas and as mature nation states do, they do have points of disagreement, but it doesn’t mean that the relationship has in any way broken down.”
On Christmas Day, a Cook Islands-flagged vessel carrying Russian oil was seized by Finnish authorities. It is suspected to be part of Russia’s shadow fleet and cutting underwater power cables in the Baltic Sea near Finland.
Peters’ spokesperson said the Cook Islands shipping registry was an area of disagreement between the two countries.
Brown said the government was working with Maritime Cook Islands and were committed with aligning with international sanctions against Russia.
When asked how he could be aligned with sanctions when the Cook Islands flagged the tanker Eagle S, Brown said it was still under investigation.
“We will wait for the outcomes of that investigation, and if it means the amendments and changes, which I expect it will, to how the ship’s registry operates then we will certainly look to make those amendments and those changes.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
In an increasingly multipolar world, Donald Trump’s plans to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the European Union threaten to erode the United States’ global standing. The move has even provoked a backlash from Canada, a historically close ally, where citizens have responded by launching a significant boycott movement.
With the notable exception of Israel, Trump has strained relations with nearly all of Washington’s traditional allies. Among the most unexpected targets of his rhetoric has been Canada, a country he has suggested should “become our cherished 51st state.”
The rights group Campaign for Uyghurs and freedom of expression advocate Li Ying, known as “Teacher Li” on social media, were nominated for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize by two U.S. congressmen who are members of a China panel.
John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, and fellow member Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, made the announcement on Feb. 5.
The praised the nominees in a statement for their “unwavering commitment to justice, human rights, and the protection of the Uyghur people against genocide and repression.”
‘Teacher Li’ and the Campaign for Uyghurs nominated for Nobel Prize
About 12 million mostly Muslim Uyghurs live in northwestern China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region where they face repression by the Chinese government, which includes mass arbitrary detentions, forced labor, family separations, religious persecution and the erasure of Uyghur identity and culture.
“In the face of one of the most pressing human rights crises of our time, Campaign for Uyghurs and Teacher Li continue to shine a light in the face of adversity, while challenging injustices and amplifying the voices of those too often silenced,” Krishnamoorthi said.
Moolenaar noted the CFU’s “tireless advocacy and bold testimony” in ensuing that the world can’t ignore the truth about the Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang, and in amplifying victim’s voices to pierce the Chinese Communist Party’s wall of silence.
U.S. Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (left) and John Moolenaar (right) of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party have nominated Campaign for Uyghurs and freedom of expression advocate Li Ying, known on social media as 'Teacher Li,' for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize.(AP)
He also said Teacher Li had become “a vital lifeline for free expression, courageously breaking through China’s Great Firewall to shed light on citizens' protests despite grave personal risk.”
‘Long overdue attention to the Uyghur plight’
Established in 2017 by its executive director, Rushan Abbas, the CFU champions human rights and democratic freedoms for Uyghurs while urging the global community to take action against human rights abuses in East Turkistan, Uyghurs’ preferred name for Xinjiang.
Rushan said the nomination acknowledges her organization’s dedication to advocating for Uyghur rights and acts as a powerful symbol of the resilience of a people resisting oppression.
“We hope this recognition brings overdue attention to the Uyghur plight,” she said in a statement. “The Chinese government’s crimes are not just a regional issue; they constitute a global human rights crisis that demands immediate action.”
“The world must unite — governments, institutions, and civil society alike — to defend fundamental human rights for all, no matter the perpetrator,” Abbas said.
In February 2022, the CFU was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by U.S. Reps. Tom Suozzi, a New York Democrat, and Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, who co-chair the Uyghur Caucus.
A Campaign for Uyghurs press release announces that the Uyghur rights organization has been nominated for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize.(Campaign for Uyghurs)
In the past, other Uyghur advocacy groups and individual activists, including the World Uyghur Congress, Uyghur Human Rights Project, prominent Uyghur scholar Ilham Tohti, and former World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer, were nominated for the Nobel Prize.
‘White Paper’ movement
Li Ying, a social media influencer who now lives in exile in Italy, rose to prominence during the ”White Paper" movement of November 2022, when thousands of people gathered in the streets of cities across China to protest lockdowns and mass quarantines President Xi Jinping’s zero-COVID policy.
The protests, in which people held up blank sheets of paper to show they felt authorities had robbed them of their voices, were also triggered by an apartment fire in Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital, where dozens died, apparently because they were locked in their building.
Li took to social media to tell the world in videos and texts about the White Paper protests on his X account “Teacher Li is not your teacher”.While X is banned in China and news of the protests was heavily suppressed by the authorities, young people who supported the movement still found ways to send Li footage, photos and news of the protests.
When Li woke up in Milan, Italy, on Feb. 6, his mobile phone was flooded with text messages congratulating him on the nomination, he told Radio Free Asia.
“I never thought that this would happen to me, because there are many human rights lawyers and activists who are currently locked up in China’s detention centers and prisons,” he said, adding that they were more deserving of the nomination.
“At the very least, this nomination demonstrates to the world, and to my family, that their son is not a traitor, and that he is really doing something to help the Chinese people,” said Li, who has been called a “traitor to the Chinese people” by Communist Party supporters.
“So, in that sense it is a recognition of what I do,” he said.
Mongolian rights
Ethnic Mongolian Hada, an ailing dissident and political prisoner from China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region who goes by only one name, has also been nominated for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize.
Mongolian dissident Hada displays a sign expressing support for herders in Mongolian and Chinese, Jan. 15, 2015.(Photo courtesy of SMHRIC)
Hada has been imprisoned or placed under house arrest in China since 1995 because of his activities. He is a co-founder of the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance, a campaign group that advocates for the self-determination of Inner Mongolia, a northern region of China.
The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize will be announced in October by the Norwegian Nobel Committee in Oslo, and awarded on Dec. 10, 2025.
Additional reporting by RFA Mandarin. Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Roseanne Gerin for RFA English.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – Chinese AI startup DeepSeek warned of “misunderstanding and confusion” over the firm and its service, saying misinformation was being spread about it, but it did not address an increasing number of bans by authorities around the world on its AI chatbot due to security concerns.
DeepSeek’s chatbot app became the most downloaded on Apple’s iPhone, surpassing U.S. company OpenAI’s ChatGPT. While praised for efficiency, it faces concerns over censorship of sensitive topics and data privacy, and ties to the Chinese government, with some governments banning the app.
“Recently, some counterfeit accounts and baseless information related to DeepSeek have misled and confused the public,” DeepSeek said in a statement on its official WeChat channel on Thursday, without addressing the global security concerns.
“All information related to DeepSeek is based on what is posted on the official account, and please be careful to identify any information posted on any unofficial or personal account as it does not represent the views of the company,” the Chinese firm added, saying it only manages accounts on WeChat, RedNote, also known as Xiaohongshu, and X.
“To enjoy DeepSeek’s AI service, users must download the app through the official channels, including our website,” the company said, without elaborating.
DeepSeek did not elaborate on the misleading information it said was being spread, but its statement came amid growing steps by some governments and private companies to ban the AI chatbot app.
Australia ordered on Tuesday all government bodies to remove DeepSeek products from their devices immediately, while South Korea’s foreign and defense ministries as well as its prosecutors’ office banned the app on Wednesday, with its lawmakers seeking a law to officially block the app in the country.
The ban follows similar restrictions by U.S. agencies including NASA and the Pentagon. Italy’s data protection authority has also reportedly blocked access to DeepSeek, while Taiwan prohibited its public sector from using the Chinese app.
China criticized Australia’s ban, calling it the “politicization of economic, trade and technological issues,” which Beijing opposes, adding that it “will never require enterprises or individuals to illegally collect or store data.”
The Global Times, a state-run Chinese tabloid, cited an expert as saying Australia’s ban was “clearly driven by ideological discrimination, not technological concerns.”
According to one recent study, DeepSeek’s flagship R1 AI model, which powers its chatbot application, failed to block a single harmful prompt during a series of security tests.
Conducted in collaboration between the U.S. technology company Cisco and the University of Pennsylvania, the research found that DeepSeek R1 generated responses to prompts specifically designed to bypass its guardrails. These included queries related to misinformation, cybercrime, illegal activities, and other harmful content.
While DeepSeek R1 delivers strong performance without requiring extensive computational resources, Cisco researchers said that its safety and security have been compromised by a reportedly smaller training budget. This, they suggested, has left the model vulnerable to misuse.
Researchers tested various AI models using “temperature 0,” the most cautious setting that ensures consistent and reliable responses. In these tests, DeepSeek responded to 100% of harmful prompts. By comparison, OpenAI’s o1 model only responded to 26%, while Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet had a 36% response rate.
Unlike its competitors, which successfully blocked harmful queries, DeepSeek provided answers to every harmful input it received. While the model does have some restrictions, they mainly prevent it from responding to content that contradicts the views of the Chinese government.
The researchers conducted the study on a budget of less than US$50, using an automated evaluation method to assess the AI models’ safety performance.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.
The fragility of US power was clear when a small Chinese startup released the DeepSeek machine learning program. The US stock market Nasdaq shuddered, with technology stocks collapsing. This collapse is not a minor matter for the US economy. During the post-COVID-19 inflation (2021), foreign investors began to slow down their purchase of US debt. Then, after the US seized USD 600 billion in Russia’s foreign exchange assets (2022), many central banks moved their own holdings away from the long-arm jurisdiction of the United States. US Treasury bills languished.
The Chinese government has rebuffed bold consumption stimulus policy. But boosting domestic household spending is precisely what the country needs to achieve healthy growth.
New tariffs ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump on imports from China will also apply to goods from Hong Kong, according to a U.S. government document, indicating that Washington has erased the city’s status as a separate trading entity.
“Products of China and Hong Kong [other than exempted categories] and other than products for personal use included in accompanied baggage of persons arriving in the United States, shall be subject to an additional 10% ad valorem rate of duty,” according to Department of Homeland Security implementation guidelines for Trump’s Feb. 1, 2025 Executive Order.
The order imposes duties on imported goods “to address the synthetic opioid supply chain in the People’s Republic of China.”
The document cites a July 17, 2020, Executive Order from the previous Trump administration, which states that China’s ongoing political crackdown in the city represents “an unusual and extraordinary threat” because it “fundamentally undermine[s] Hong Kong’s autonomy.”
“It shall be the policy of the United States to suspend or eliminate different and preferential treatment for Hong Kong to the extent permitted by law and in the national security, foreign policy, and economic interest of the United States,” the order states, citing Hong Kong’s 2020 National Security Law.
Employees check rain boots for export at a shoe factory in Lianyungang, China, March 13, 2024.(AFP)
“Under this law, the people of Hong Kong may face life in prison for what China considers to be acts of secession or subversion of state power—which may include acts like last year’s widespread anti-government protests,” the Order said, citing the lack of trial by jury and the possibility of secret prosecutions.
The new tariffs apply to all goods, even those with a value of less than US$800, but with exemptions for humanitarian and aid supplies.
“The message is very clear,” Sunny Cheung, fellow for China studies at the Jamestown Foundation, told RFA Cantonese in a recent interview. “Hong Kong has always been China’s main transshipment port and unaffected by tariffs on Chinese goods.”
“Now, Hong Kong is being included [in those tariffs], which can be seen as an attempt to plug a loophole and send a tougher message,” Cheung said. “It will have a greater deterrent effect on China.”
Shipping containers at a port in Hong Kong, March 2, 2022.(DALE DE LA REY, Dale de la Rey/AFP)
He said the Trump administration is keenly aware of indirect ways in which China gets what it wants, citing the recent concern in Washington over the acquisition of key strategic port facilities along the Panama Canal by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing’s CK Hutchison.
Cheung said currently the tariffs only apply to goods produced in China or Hong Kong, and had stopped short of applying to goods shipped through Hong Kong.
“That would be a more nuclear-level attack,” Cheung said.
While the balance of trade has fluctuated over the years, the United States has always been in the top 10 markets for goods exported from Hong Kong, which topped US$5.9 billion for the whole of last year.
Meanwhile the Hong Kong Post said packages and parcels to the United States were suspended with effect from Feb. 5, although services for postal items containing documents only will be unaffected.
“As advised by the postal administration of the United States, Hongkong Post shall not dispatch any postal items containing goods destined to the United States with immediate effect, unless a “formal entry” has been completely and accurately filed with the United States Customs and Border Protection in accordance with United States law,” the postal service said in a statement.
It said postal items containing goods which entered into the United States on or after Feb. 4, 2025, will be returned to Hong Kong.
A “formal entry” must be made via a customs broker, and requires necessary import documents and payment of duties, it said.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Ha Syut for RFA Cantonese.
Vietnam’s island reclamation activities in the South China Sea made headlines in 2024 with a record area of land created and several airstrips planned on the new islands.
The Washington-based Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, or AMTI, said that between November 2023 and June 2024, Hanoi created 280 hectares (692 acres) of new land across 10 of 27 features it occupies in the Spratly archipelago.
“Three years from when it first began, Vietnam is still surprising observers with the ever-increasing scope of its dredging and landfill in the Spratly Islands,” the think tank said.
Hanoi’s island building program stemmed from a Communist Party resolution in 2007 on maritime strategy toward the year 2020, according to Carlyle Thayer, a Vietnam expert at the University of New South Wales in Australia.
The resolution set out an integrated strategy to develop coastal areas, an exclusive economic zone, and 27 land features in the South China Sea with the objective that this area would contribute between 53% and 55% of the gross domestic product by 2020, Thayer said.
China has built an airfield, buildings and other structures on the Spratly Islands’ Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea, Oct. 25, 2022.(Ezra Acayan/Getty Images)
It was only in 2021 that Vietnam began a modest program of landfill and infrastructure construction on its features in the Spratly Islands, Thayer said.
By that time, China had completed the construction of its “Big Three” artificial islands in the South China Sea – Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi reefs – and equipped them with runways and military facilities.
The island-building program focuses mainly on the so-called integrated marine economy, the analyst told Radio Free Asia, noting that there are only modest defenses such as pillboxes, trenches and gun emplacements on the newly developed features.
Risk of tension
Vietnam has long been wary of causing tension with China but its increasing assertiveness had led to a re-think in Hanoi.
“Vietnam has not placed major weapon systems on its land features that would threaten China’s artificial islands,” Thayer said.
“But no doubt the rise in Chinese aggressiveness against the Philippines after the election of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. reinforced Vietnam’s determination not to leave its island features in the Spratlys exposed.”
“Vietnamese occupation also serves to deny China the opportunity to occupy these features as China did when it took control of unoccupied Mischief Reef belonging to the Philippines in 1984,” he added.
(AFP)
Carl Schuster, a retired U.S. navy captain based in Hawaii, said that on the surface, Vietnam and China appeared to have strong, positive relations but “at its roots, the relationship is one of distrust and for Vietnam, pragmatism.”
“Vietnam has noticed that the PRC is most aggressive around undefended or uninhabited islands and islets,” Schuster said, referring to China by its official name the People’s Republic of China.
“Hanoi therefore sees expanding, hardening and expanding the garrisons on its own islands as a means of deterring PRC aggression.”
Yet Vietnam’s island building activities have been met with criticism from some neighboring countries.
Malaysia sent a rare letter of complaint to Vietnam in October 2024 over its development of an airstrip on Barque Canada reef – a feature that Malaysia also claims in the South China Sea.
Vietnam has built an airstrip on Barque Canada Reef in South China Sea, seen Feb. 2, 2025.(Planet Labs)
In July 2023, the pro-China Manila Times published two reports on what it called “Vietnam’s militarization of the South China Sea,” citing leaked masterplans on island development from the Vietnamese defense ministry.
Shortly after the publication, a group of Filipinos staged a protest in front of the Vietnamese embassy in Manila, vandalizing the Vietnamese flag. The incident did not escalate but soured the usually friendly relationship between the two neighbors.
Reasonable response
The Southeast Asian bloc ASEAN has long been negotiating with China on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea and the consensus is to observe the status quo in the disputed waterway and maintain peace.
Azmi Hassan, a senior fellow at Malaysia’s Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research, explained that status quo means “there shouldn’t be any new reclamation, especially in the Spratly or Paracel Islands as new reclamation could create some instability.”
“But in the case of Vietnam, it’s very difficult to stop them because the Chinese have been doing it for many years and China has the longest airstrip and the biggest reclamation on Mischief Reef,” Hassan said.
Philippine Coast Guard personnel maneuver their rigid hull inflatable boat next to a Vietnamese coast guard ship during a joint exercise off Bataan in the South China Sea on Aug. 9, 2024.(Ted Aljibe/AFP)
Malaysia also built an airstrip on Pulau Layang-Layang, known internationally as Swallow Reef, which is claimed by several countries including Vietnam.
“So it’s very hard to criticize Vietnam because Malaysia has done it, China has done it, and the Philippines has been doing it for quite some time,” the analyst said.
Greg Poling, AMTI’s director, told RFA that in his opinion, Hanoi’s goal with the development of features in the South China Sea “appears to be to allow it to better patrol its exclusive economic zone by sea and air in the face of China’s persistent presence.”
“That seems a reasonable and proportionate response,” he said.
The U.S. government has taken no public position on the issue but the Obama administration did push for a construction freeze by all parties, Poling said.
Then-U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter visited Hanoi in June 2015 and discussed the issue during a meeting with his Vietnamese counterpart, Phung Quang Thanh and, according to the transcript of a press briefing.
Carter was told that “the government of Vietnam is considering … a permanent halt to reclamation and further militarization” of the new islands.
“But that was when the prime goal was to stop China’s island building,” Poling said. “Obviously that didn’t work so now I think the U.S. and other parties understand that Vietnam is not likely to agree to unilaterally restrain itself when China has already done it.”
In 2015, Vietnam still insisted that it was only carrying out activities “to enhance and to consolidate the islands that are under our sovereignty.”
In the late Gen. Phung Quang Thanh’s words: “We do not expand those islands, we just consolidate to prevent the soil erosion because of the waves, to improve the livelihood of our people and of our personnel who are working and living there.”
“And for the submerged features, we have built small houses and buildings, which can accommodate only three people, and we do not expand those features. And the scope and the characteristics of those features are just civilian in nature,” Thanh told Carter.
Bad investment?
Fast forward 10 years, and Vietnam has reclaimed a total area of about half of what China has built up and among the 10 largest features in the Spratlys, five are being developed by Hanoi with an unknown, but no doubt massive budget.
The island building program, however, has been received positively by the Vietnamese public.
Pearson Reef on March 23, 2022 and Feb. 5, 2025.(RFA/Planet Labs)
Photos and video clips from the now popular Bai Thuyen Chai, Dao Tien Nu and Phan Vinh – or Barque Canada, Tennent and Pearson reefs respectively – have been shared and admired by millions of social media users as proof of Vietnamese military might and economic success even if the construction comes at a big environmental cost.
South China Sea researcher Dinh Kim Phuc told RFA Vietnamese that despite the environmental damage, Vietnam’s actions “must happen” and are necessary for “strategic defense” as long as China does not quit its expansionist ambitions.
However, some experts have warned against the effectiveness of such artificial islands from a military standpoint.
“Like Chinese-built islands, Vietnamese built islands are, by nature, small areas of land that are difficult to defend against modern land-attack missile capabilities, and given their low altitude, they are at the mercy of salt water corrosion of structures and systems ashore,” said Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst in defense strategy and capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
“So as with Chinese experience, the Vietnamese will also struggle to base military capabilities on these islands for extended periods of time,” Davis told RFA.
“In the longer term, they are also going to be vulnerable to the effects of climate change - most notably, sea level rise, which could quickly swamp a low-level landmass and see it become unusable.”
“These challenges are why I don’t worry too much about those Chinese-built bases in the South China Sea, as I think Beijing has made a bad investment there,” the analyst added.
AMTI’s Poling said rising sea levels and storm surge would threaten all the islands “but it is something that both China and Vietnam are likely able to cope with by continually refilling the islands and building up higher sea walls.”
MAE SOT, Thailand - Chinese President Xi Jinping thanked Thailand’s visiting prime minister on Thursday for a crackdown on scam centers in Myanmar a day after Thailand cut off electricity and internet services to five hubs for the illegal operations just over its border.
As Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was meeting Xi in Beijing, a Myanmar militia allied with the junta released 61 trafficked foreigners from one of Myanmar’s major scam zones and handed them to Thai authorities over the border.
Online fraud has mushroomed in parts of Southeast Asia over recent years, often relying on workers lured by false job advertisements and forced to contact people online or by phone to trick them into putting money into fake investments.
Would-be investors have been cheated out of billions of dollars, with many perpetrators and victims believed to be from China, research groups say.
Reports about the centers have hit the headlines in recent weeks after a Chinese actor was rescued from eastern Myanmar, alarming the public across Asia and leading to a rash of tour group cancellations to Thailand and raising the prospect of economic damage.
Thai officials have also cited national security for their decision to cut electricity and internet to the enclaves in Myanmar, though they have not elaborated.
Xi thanked the visiting Thai leader for her government’s action, China’s CCTV state broadcaster reported.
“China appreciates the strong measures taken by Thailand to combat online gambling and phone and online scams”, CCTV cited Xi as saying.
“The two sides must continue to strengthen cooperation in security, law enforcement and judicial cooperation” to “protect people’s lives and property,” Xi said.
With the pressure growing, the Myanmar militia group that has overseen and profited from the fraud operations in the Myawaddy region, the Border Guard Force, or BGF, sent 61 foreign workers to Thailand on Thursday and vowed to wipe out the illegal businesses.
BGF spokesperson Lt.-Col. Naing Maung Zaw said the 61 foreigners, including some from China, were sent over a bridge across a border river from Myawaddy to the Thai town of Mae Sot.
A Thai group that helps victims of human trafficking said 39 of those released were from China, 13 from India, five from Indonesia and one from Malaysia, Ethiopia, Pakistan and Kazakhstan.
Media photographs showed Thai officials speaking to the 61, who included some women, as they sat on rows of plastic chairs. Many of them wore blue surgical masks.
Last month, BGF leaders said they had agreed with operators of the scam centers to stop forced labor and fraud, and Naing Maung Zaw repeated a promise to clean up his zone.
“At some time, we will completely destroy this scamming business. That’s what we’re working on now,” he told Radio Free Asia, adding that the utility cuts had hurt ordinary people more than the scamming gangs.
Thai Defense Minister Phumtham Wechayachai greeted the 61 as they crossed into Thailand.
“Please feel free to give us information and cooperation which will be useful for eradicating this,” Phumtham told them.
“Please inform everyone about the conditions there,” he said before the 61 were taken to an immigration facility for paperwork.
Translated by Kiana Duncan. Edited by RFA Staff.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Burmese and Pimuk Rakkanam for RFA.
(Amanda Weisbrod/RFA)
(Amanda Weisbrod/RFA)
(AFP)
