Category: China

  • China’s role in developing countries’ finances has transformed from capital provider to chief debt collector as a “tidal wave” of repayments due on loans Beijing extended under its Belt and Road Initiative far outstrip new disbursements, a new report by an Australian think tank showed.

    Under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing has disbursed over $1 trillion in loans to more than 150 countries to build a network of roads, airports, railways, telecommunication networks, and seaports to connect China to the rest of the world. Critics have accused China of setting up debt traps and expanding geopolitical and economic influence through BRI.

    According to the report by the Lowy Institute, developing countries owe a record $35 billion in debt repayments to China in 2025, with debt servicing costs on projects financed by BRI – which Chinese President Xi Jinping launched with great fanfare in 2013 – set to remain elevated for the rest of the decade.

    Around $22 billion, or about two-thirds of the total $35 billion in debt repayments due in 2025, will be made by 75 of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries, threatening critical spending for health, education, poverty reduction and climate adaptation efforts, the report said.

    “China’s role as a lender has passed a watershed,” wrote Riley Duke, the author of the report titled “Peak Repayment: China’s Global Lending”.

    “The nation that was once the developing world’s largest source of new finance has now wholly transitioned to being the world’s largest single destination for developing country debt service payments,” added Duke, research fellow on the Lowy Institute Pacific Aid Map.

    New Chinese loan commitments have also remained at around $7 billion per year since 2023, shifting from being a net provider of financing – where it lent more than it received in repayments – to a “net drain,” as repayments now exceed loan disbursements, the report said.

    In 2012, China was a net drain on the finances of only 18 developing nations; by 2023, that number has more than tripled to 60.

    “China is grappling with a dilemma of its own making: it faces growing diplomatic pressure to restructure unsustainable debt, and mounting domestic pressure to recover outstanding debts, particularly from its quasi-commercial institutions,” wrote Duke.

    In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, an electric multiple unit (EMU) train of the China-Laos Railway -- one of hundreds of projects under the Belt and Road Initiative -- arrives at Yuxi Railway Station in Yuxi in southwestern China's Yunnan Province, Friday, Dec. 3, 2021. (Hu Chao/Xinhua via AP)
    In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, an electric multiple unit (EMU) train of the China-Laos Railway — one of hundreds of projects under the Belt and Road Initiative — arrives at Yuxi Railway Station in Yuxi in southwestern China’s Yunnan Province, Friday, Dec. 3, 2021. (Hu Chao/Xinhua via AP)
    (Hu Chao/AP)

    Geopolitical leverage

    Despite the broader decline in global lending, China continues to finance strategic or “politically significant borrowers,” and remains the largest bilateral lender in seven out of its nine land neighbors. These include Laos, Myanmar, Pakistan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

    The report said that new loans also feature as a diplomatic dealmaking tool, particularly in getting other countries to adopt Beijing’s “One China” policy, which states that the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China, including self-ruling Taiwan as part of its territory.

    For example, China announced new financing for several countries, including Honduras, Nicaragua, and Solomon Islands, just months after they officially declared that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory” and switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing.

    In June 2023, Honduras became the latest Central American country to join BRI, reducing Taiwan’s diplomatic allies in the region to just two – Guatemala and Belize – amid China’s growing economic influence through investments, loans, and trade.

    New loan deals have been resilient also for developing countries that are exporters of critical mineral resources or battery metal, such as Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, receiving more than $8 billion in disbursements in 2023, or over a third of China’s total loan outflows for that year, the report said.

    “Rising debt-service costs raise questions about whether China could use the repayments for geopolitical leverage,” wrote Duke. “Some argue that China’s lending boom in the 2010s reflected an intentional effort at ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ aimed at pushing countries into debt problems so that geopolitical concessions could later be extracted,” he added.

    High-speed train is parked during the opening ceremony for launching Southeast Asia's first high-speed railway, a key project under China's Belt and Road infrastructure initiative, at Halim station in Jakarta, Indonesia on Oct. 2, 2023. (AP Photo/Achmad Ibrahim, File)
    High-speed train is parked during the opening ceremony for launching Southeast Asia’s first high-speed railway, a key project under China’s Belt and Road infrastructure initiative, at Halim station in Jakarta, Indonesia on Oct. 2, 2023. (AP Photo/Achmad Ibrahim, File)
    (Achmad Ibrahim/AP)

    On Tuesday, in response to a query about the key findings in the Lowy Institute report, Chinese government spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters that China’s cooperation on investment and financing with developing countries follows international practice, market principles, and the principle of debt sustainability.

    “A handful of countries are spreading the narrative that China is responsible for these countries’ debt,” Mao said. “They ignore the fact that multilateral financial institutions and commercial creditors from developed countries are the main creditors of developing countries and the primary source of debt repayment pressure. Lies cannot cover the truth and people can tell right from wrong,” she added.

    Impact of debt burden

    Today, China is the largest source of bilateral debt service for developing countries, accounting for more than 30% of all such payments in 2025, according to data reported by debtor governments to the World Bank.

    As of 2023, some 3.3 billion people live in countries that spend more on interest payments than on health or education, the report said.

    “The high debt burden facing developing countries will hamper poverty reduction and slow development progress while stoking economic and political instability risks,” Duke wrote in the report.

    In 54 out of 120 developing countries with available data, debt service payments to China exceed the combined payments owed to the Paris Club — a bloc that includes all major Western bilateral lenders, the report said.

    Chinese debt servicing is particularly dominant in Africa but also equals or exceeds that owed to Paris Club members by a majority of countries in South America, the Pacific Islands, South Asia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, the report said.

    “As Beijing shifts into the role of debt collector, Western governments remain internally focused, with aid declining and multilateral support waning. Without fresh concessional financing or coordinated relief, the squeeze on budgets will tighten further, deepening development setbacks and heightening instability risks,” Duke added.

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tenzin Pema for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • At the core of most demands for the US empire, we’re asking for kindergarten ethics– is that a stretch? It’s what the climate movement teaches about our relationship with the Earth: not to take and take and extract and extract because we have a reciprocal relationship. For most of its history, the US has largely ignored this, and that remains the case when it comes to the string of accusations leveled against the current president of Burkina Faso, Ibrahim Traoré. And if all of us– the climate movement, peace lovers, people with basic compassion–want to save the planet, we need to stand against the attempts of the US and NATO/Western powers in trying to intervene in the Sahel’s process of sovereignty.

    Several weeks ago, Michael Langley, the head of US Africa Command (or AFRICOM), testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee and stated that Ibrahim Traoré, the current president of Burkina Faso, “is using the country’s gold reserves for personal protection rather than for the benefit of its people,” an absurd claim, considering that the US Department of Defense, which Langley works for, has stolen $1 trillion from US taxpayers in this year’s budget alone. What’s more, AFRICOM itself has a deadly, well-documented history of plundering the African continent, often in coordination with NATO.

    Take a guess why Langley might want to delegitimize Traoré’s governance and the larger project of the Alliance of Sahel States/AES (made up of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, all of which have recently allied under a confederation after recent seizures of power). Any takers? Hint: the answer is natural resources and military presence. Traoré has nationalized Burkina Faso’s foreign-owned gold mines in an attempt to actually use the land’s resources to benefit its people. Similarly, upon taking power in Niger, the current president, Abdourahamane Tchiani, nationalized uranium and banned foreign exports. Notably, a quarter of Europe’s uranium, crucial for energy usage, comes from Niger. Considering Traoré’s crucial role in developing the identity of the AES as one of the more vocal and charismatic leaders, targeting Traoré is part of a larger project by the US/EU/NATO axis targeting the AES project at large. Recently, this new AES leadership has launched new green energy and educational initiatives. Meanwhile, the US has pulled out of the Sahel states as the AES asserts its sovereignty in defiance of decades of Western-backed instability.

    Traore’s Burkina Faso is not the first Pan-African project to come under attack by the US/EU/NATO axis of power. Just as the vague claims from Langley serve to cast doubt on Traore’s ability to lead a nation, past Pan-African leaders who have dared to challenge imperialism and prioritize their citizens have also come under fire. For instance, former president of Burkina Faso, Thomas Sankara, was assassinated in 1987 after putting the Burkinabè people’s needs first by rejecting IMF loans and demands, implementing nationwide literacy and vaccine campaigns, and spearheading housing and agrarian reform. Time and again, France and the US have taken decisive action against leaders who have promoted Pan-Africanism and environmental stability over the interests of Western powers. We’re watching it happen live now, and have a responsibility to stand up for Traorè and the AES before it’s too late.

    When a country doesn’t bend its knees to Washington, the standard US playbook is one of environmental death, either via hybrid or classic warfare. Venezuela has refused to grant US corporations unfettered access to its oil reserves – the world’s largest –  and thus has been forced to use them as a lifeline. The US has punished Venezuela by imposing unilateral sanctions that have prevented the proper maintenance of the country’s oil pipelines, resulting in harmful leaks. In the Congo–one of the lungs of the Earth–the West’s decades-long quest for uranium and other rare minerals has led to mass deforestation, destroyed water quality, and unleashed military forces that have killed millions. And of course, the US is backing the ecocide/genocide in Palestine in order to maintain the existence of a proxy-state in an oil-rich region.

    When the US military – the #1 institutional polluter in the world – “intervenes”, the only environmental outcome is climate collapse. And even when countries play by Washington’s rules, the US will still militarize, build more toxic bases, seek continued extraction, and create mass poverty. For the survival of the people and planet, we must resist this imperial expansion.

    Any movement concerned with transitioning from an extractive to a regenerative economy must stand against US and Western intervention in the Sahel and advocate for Pan-African projects and a multilateral world. The emergence of a multipolar world means that projects like the AES have partners beyond the region: during Traoré’s most recent visit to Moscow, he met with the heads of state of Russia, China, and Venezuela. The US, of course, threatened by the loss of its dominion, insists on pursuing a dangerous cold war against China, to contain China’s influence, refuses to cooperate on green technology, and plows through any region that it views as a battleground, be it the Asia-Pacific or the Sahel. And always at the expense of life in all forms.

    So if we are in a project for life, why, then, are we often met with hesitation in climate spaces to stand against this imperialist extraction? We need to reflect on a few questions. Whose lives do we sacrifice for “strategy”? Which environmental sacrifice zones are we silent about because of the “bigger picture?” What extraction and militaristic build-up do we let happen to theoretically prevent planetary death that is already happening via our own government down the road? Are we avoiding building connections with popular movements because of donors who only fund dead ends? We have a choice to make: allow the doomsday clock threatening climate death and total catastrophe to keep ticking or reverse course and breathe life into something new.

    Traorè’s historic meeting with China, Russia, and Venezuela is a glimpse of what’s on the horizon. As people of the world rise against imperialism and neocolonialism, it is up to us in the US climate movement to stand unequivocally in support of projects of self-determination.

    Although our lifestyles will certainly look different once we no longer have uninhibited access to the gold, cobalt, uranium, and other resources that are routinely extracted from the African continent and its people, we must prioritize building a more just and healthy relationship with the planet and all its people. If leaders such as Traore succeed in revolutionizing agriculture and resource extraction at a sustainable pace that benefits workers, what might that signal for a new world order in which exploited Africans and their lands do not form the cheap material base for the world? What might we build in place of extractive economies to usher in a green future for all?

    The post Fighting for the Planet means Sovereignty for the Sahel first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Citing as being critical to protection of the United States’ defense, and a need to punish China’s alleged use of forced labor, U.S. government policies have restricted dozens of Chinese companies from operating on U.S. soil, exporting to the U.S, and receiving materials, including advance computer chips from U.S. and allied sources. All of these directives are a masquerade, so far from reality that they need no discussion. They have one purpose ─ to deter the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) from becoming the leading economic power and submerging the U.S. to a subordinate position. Previous articles — War with China, The Washington Post Bashes Xi Jinping, United States’ War With China Policy, China on Life Support – Does China know it?, Troublesome China Bashing, and China Disguised – Agendas Distort Facts and Guide Opinions have explored the topic. This article brings the discussion to fruition.

    Departing from a policy from trying to speak with a unique voice and not being derivative, I prefer to publish a view that is similar to my own but has been already published, is highly informative, and is eloquently expressed.

    The secret sauce of Chinese industrial success
    Smart state planning plus ferocious market competition
    Hua Bin, May 23

    The planning function is carried out by the China State Planning and Development Commission, which assembles the best minds in the government, academia, think tanks, and industries and goes through multi-year research, studies, and survey to understand and predict key technological trends and future market demand. Then they iterate and socialize the plans until there is broad buy-in.

    Once top-line state planning priorities are set, central government empowers local governments to implement the policies. At the implementation level, fierce market competition becomes the norm.

    Local governments compete with each other. Each local government is powerfully incentivized to create local tech and industrial champions as career advancements are typically tied in with achievements of national priorities.

    Local governments unleash suites of policy support measures to attract and help businesses succeed, including

    • Preferential tax
    • Land use priority
    • Preferential bank loans, even venture capital financing from government agencies (e.g. Shanghai and Shenzhen each has multi-billion dollar semiconductor funds)

    Other policy support even extends to

    • Establishing educational programs at universities to train and develop scientific and technical talents specifically for identified industries and technologies (e.g. AI, robotics, hypersonics, rare earth mining and refining, rail, ship building, etc.)
    • Rolling out talent acquisition programs to provide housing, allowances, and compensation equalization schemes to attract talents to move to their cities. Some governments even provide WeWork type of office facilities to startups for free.
    • investing in infrastructure upgrades including 5G coverage, EV charging stations, high speed rail, ports, bridges, etc. to enable smooth operation of large industrial enterprises.
    • Investing in local parts and components supply chains that can be plugged into specific manufacturing sectors.
    • Promoting successful technical leaders and executives in critical industries into senior government positions (e.g. the head of AVIC, the leading aeronautic business in China, was promoted to become a provincial governor)

    The central government went so far as to crack down on monopolistic consumer tech companies such as Alibaba and Tencent in 2019 as these companies were consuming too much financial and talent resources and preventing startups from emerging. The main goal of the crackdown was to redirect resources (funding, talent) to more productive directions such as AI and hard tech.

    As a result, in the key technological and industrial hubs across China, from Shanghai, Shenzhen, Wuhan, Chengdu to Hefei and Changsa, you will find hundreds of EV companies, solar energy companies, AI and robotics startups, ship builders, and drone companies that are developing innovative technologies, building production capacity, and engage in intense competition for consumers.

    In the competition, there are private businesses, state owned enterprises, and foreign companies as well. All have to compete for customers on price and quality and operate with razor thin margin. Innovation and cost efficiency are prized in the never-ending loop of hyper competition.

    The Chinese industrial and technological ecosystem is often described by insiders as “arena for gladiators”. In a survival of the fittest environment, the winners of such competitions emerge as world class champions.

    The same model is replicated in industry after industry from EV, smart phones, solar energy, robotics, ship building, AI large language models, drones, chip making, and biopharmaceuticals.

    Many people mistakenly assume the Chinese state planning model means the government picks the winners and losers. That cannot be further from the truth. State planners pick the priority industries, define the swim lane, provide policy incentives, and then market takes over to decide the winner.

    In contrast, the US industrial policy is more guilty of government picking winners – just witness how both Biden and Trump surround themselves with senior executives of incumbent tech giants when they announce policies such as the Chips Act, Inflation Reduction Act, or the Stargate program. Almost by definition, the main beneficiaries of these industrial policies will be the companies in the room. Market competition doesn’t seem to play the same decisive rule as in China.

    As China accelerates the third mixed-economy phase of its industrial development, we can expect to see more Chinese companies will innovate faster, scale in the largest single market in the world, and become world-class competitors in their industries. Profit margins will be kept low as competition will never rest. However, more consumer surplus will accrue to customers, leading to improvement of living standards for all.

    Hua Bin details the advances in China’s economy and describes why those advances will continue and cannot stall ─ the government apparatus plans ahead, outlines alternative directions to roadblocks, and facilitates shifts in production, enabling government industry to step in when private initiative falters. No matter how the U.S. contends China, the PRC will find a way to deter the contention and, in the end, the U.S. will lose, and lose until, as a last resort….

    The post Manufacturing America’s Contenders first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Nvidia will launch a new artificial intelligence chipset for China at a significantly lower price than its recently restricted H20 model and plans to start mass production as early as June, sources familiar with the matter said. The GPU or graphics processing unit will be part of Nvidia’s latest generation Blackwell-architecture AI processors and is…

    The post Nvidia to launch cheaper Blackwell AI chip for China appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Tesla was once the undisputed king of electric vehicles but BYD is now the King. In this video, we break down how China’s BYD dethroned Elon Musk’s Tesla to become the world’s #1 EV manufacturer. From dominating domestic sales to overtaking Tesla in global deliveries, BYD’s meteoric rise is reshaping the future of the auto industry — and it’s all part of China’s larger plan to lead in green technology.

    The post Elon Musk’s Worst Nightmare Is Happening (But Not How You Think) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Federal Communications Commission voted 4-0 on Thursday to finalise rules to bar Chinese labs deemed risks to US national security from testing electronic devices such as smartphones, cameras and computers for use in the United States. All electronics used in the United States must go through the FCC’s equipment authorisation process before they can…

    The post FCC bans Chinese labs from testing electronics for US market appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Thailand’s embattled submarine deal with China—signed in 2017 and valued at 13.5 billion baht—is reaching a final decision point after years of delays, political backlash, and technical hurdles. Defence Minister Phumtham Wechayachai has stated that a verdict will be reached by the end of May or early June, following consultations with the Royal Thai Navy, […]

    The post Thailand’s Submarine Deal: Billions in, No Engine Out!!! appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Two U.S. lawmakers are taking aim at three major U.S. hotel chains for using the term “Taiwan, China” on their websites and promotional materials, saying it implies that the self-ruling island is part of China and undermines Taiwanese democracy.

    Rep. John Moolenar, Republican chairman of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, wrote Wednesday to the CEOs of Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt, demanding to know whether they were using the term at Beijing’s request.

    Hilton, Marriott, and Hyatt's official websites all label Taiwan as
    Hilton, Marriott, and Hyatt’s official websites all label Taiwan as “Taiwan, China”
    (RFA Cantonese)

    “Using terminology such as ‘Taiwan, China,’ gives false credence to the PRC’s position of authority and sovereignty over Taiwan and implies that Taiwan is the property of the PRC,” they wrote in the letter, using the initials of the People’s Republic of China.

    “Not only does this directly contradict U.S. policy, but it also undermines Taiwan’s democratic system. Other major U.S. companies with an international presence correctly identify Taiwan as an entity separate from that of China, and we urge your companies to follow suit,” they said.

    The letter references the Taiwan Relations Act, which since Washington’s formal recognition of the PRC government in Beijing in 1979 has defined the substantial but non-diplomatic ties between the United States and Taiwan.

    “This relationship is of the utmost importance to the economic and national security of the United States, and the government and the private sector alike must take steps to bolster and support Taiwan, one of our most important allies in the region,” the letter said.

    Radio Free Asia found that a quick search for a hotel in Taiwan on the websites of all three chains turned up results for “Taiwan, China.”

    RFA has sought comment from Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt but has yet to receive a response.

    China regards Taiwan as part of its territory although the island is self-ruling and has a democratically elected government. The communist government in Beijing has threatened to take the island by force should it declare independence.

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Cantonese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Illustration by Fourate Chahal El Rekaby, tni

    [A] lot of people across the global majority are asking the extremely serious question: why the BRICS, and especially why Russia and China, are not doing more than what they’re doing on behalf of Palestine and to defend Palestine. This is an extremely serious question and it’s not being addressed by Russia and China. We have to be straightforward about that, right? The only ones who are actually doing something, once again, are the Houthis in Yemen. Heroes of the whole planet.

    — Journalist and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar in a Youtube interview with Danny Haiphong, streamed live on 17 July 2024 (approximately 18:16 to 18:54)

    The sentiments expressed by Escobar were expressed to me at an earlier date by author Randy Shields:

    … if all Russia and China are going to do is talk they could start talking about a one state solution. They could put some urgency into the situation. They could let Abbas and the Gulf family dictatorships know that the status quo is unacceptable. They could start telling the truth to the world that the “two state solution” is impossible and was only ever a delaying tactic by Israel. They could even announce that Palestine is under consideration for BRICS membership…. They could cut off whatever trade they have and cut off diplomatic relations with Israel, recall ambassadors, etc…

    Godfree Roberts, author of Why China Leads the World gave his take on China and Palestine in his 1 May 2025, “Xi the Merciful?: The fate of China’s worst enemy lies in Xi Jinping’s hands”:

    Beijing is hunting much bigger game than tariffs: the liberation of Palestine. China, Palestine’s oldest and most loyal friend, has endured America’s genocidal mania for generations and now has the tools to end their shared misery….

    This year, we will witness the most momentous events since WWII. Global leadership will return to Asia, America will enters [sic] its post-imperial twilight, and Palestine will become free and independent, and the Zionists return to Ukraine whence they came.

    Shields is skeptical:

    There’s no evidence to back up what [Roberts] says. Russia and China continue to maintain trade and diplomatic ties with a genocidal apartheid state committing 24/7 live-streamed genocide.

    China plays a long game. There is plenty of evidence of Chinese advancements in science, technology, supply chains, manufacturing, arts, etc. The question is whether China (and Russia) will come through with morally based support befitting a leading world economy?

    The Communist Party of China (CPC) has made great strides for its people, having achieved a xiaokang (moderately prosperous) society in 2021. Moving forward, China aims for gongtong fuyu (common prosperity) — a society based on social equality and economic equity.

    On the road to gongtong fuyu, the CPC’s next five-year plan targets “the goal of basically realizing socialist modernization, with a view to building a great country and advancing national rejuvenation” in the period 2026 to 2030. China’s rise is also meant to benefit the world as it seeks peaceful win-win relationships. Chairman Xi Jinping said, “Long ago China made a solemn declaration to the world that it is committed to pursuing peaceful development.”1

    This commitment to pursuing peaceful development has recently been thrown into question by China’s business arrangements connected to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which can hardly be construed as peaceful development from the Palestinian side (or any morally based side).

    China’s Support for Palestine

    China’s support for the human and territorial rights of Palestinians dates back to the time of chairman Mao Zedong. Mao’s China supported anti-imperialist and national liberation movements worldwide; this included support for the Palestinian cause. In May 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was ensconced in a Beijing office and accorded diplomatic privileges and immunity. During a meeting with a visiting PLO delegation in 1965, Mao said: “Imperialism is afraid of China and of the Arabs. Israel and Formosa are bases of imperialism in Asia. You are the front gate of the great continent, and we are the rear.”2

    Post-Mao, on 20 November 1988, China officially recognized the State of Palestine and established official diplomatic relations between the two countries. On 31 December of the same year, the PLO’s office in Beijing was upgraded to the Embassy of the State of Palestine in China, and its head was appointed as the ambassador of the State of Palestine to China.

    However, China has a uneven history of supporting the Palestinian cause and opposing Zionism.3

    More recently, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 22 February 2024, Ma Xinmin, director-general of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Chinese Foreign Ministry “unequivocally stated”:

    “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict stems from Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and Israel’s longstanding oppression of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people fight against Israeli oppression and their struggle for completing the establishment of an independent state on the occupied territory are essentially just actions for restoring their legitimate rights.”4

    Moreover,

    Citing numerous articles of international laws, Ma claims that “the struggle waged by peoples for their liberation, right to self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression, domination against foreign forces should not be considered terror acts” and that “armed struggle in this context is distinguished from acts of terrorism. It is grounded in international law. This distinction is acknowledged by several international conventions.” He further declares, “in pursuit of the right to self-determination, Palestinian people’s use of force to resist foreign oppression and complete the establishment of an independent state is an inalienable right, well-founded in international law.”5

    Regarding the deliberations by the ICJ on the charge of genocide being carried out by the state of Israel, China supports the ICJ’s role in upholding justice and international law, and calls for an immediate ceasefire in Palestine, humanitarian assistance, and a two-state solution to achieve lasting peace in the region.

    On 14 April 2025, Times of India reported that Russia and China criticized Israel for turning humanitarian assistance to Gaza into “a tool of war.” Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya alleged that Israel was attempting to make the UN an accomplice to its warring in Gaza. This sentiment was echoed by China’s envoy Fu Cong.

    As Shields, and many others, would point out this is just more words.

    What is China doing in Israeli Occupied Palestine?

    But the situation vis-à-vis Palestine appears decidedly more sinister.

    Razan Shawamreh is a Palestinian researcher interested in Chinese foreign policy in the Middle East. She has thrown a wrench into Chinese good intentions supporting Palestinian resistance and self-determination in its territories. Shawamreh wrote an article, “How China is quietly aiding Israel’s settlement enterprise,” for the Middle East Eye in which she charges, “Away from Beijing’s lofty rhetoric about defending Palestinians, Chinese firms are helping to sustain illegal settlements.” Despite China having supported the UN General Assembly resolution 3379 that defined Zionism as a “form of racism and racial discrimination” in 1975, Shawamreh provides numerous examples of Chinese support for Zionism.

    • Adama Agricultural Solutions, a former Israeli company now fully owned by the Chinese state-run firm China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) is directly “linked to the militarised destruction of Palestinian livelihoods.”
    • This is not an exception. Shawamreh writes, “In recent years, several state-owned Chinese companies, along with other private Chinese firms, have invested directly or indirectly in Israeli settlements or companies operating within them. Take the case of Tnuva, a major Israeli food producer that operates in illegal settlements. Despite international calls to boycott the company, China’s state-owned conglomerate Bright Food acquired a 56 percent stake in Tnuva in 2014. In 2021, Tnuva won a tender to operate 22 public transportation lines that serve 16 settlements in Mateh Yehuda – all built on occupied land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. These aren’t just buses; they’re infrastructure supporting colonial entrenchment, making settler life easier and more permanent.”

    An earlier article by Shawamreh concluded, “China’s alleged impartiality serves to undermine Palestinian rights.”6

    I have seen no official Chinese response to the reports of abetting the Israeli Jews’ dispossession of Palestinians. What did appear on 17 May 2025 was a Youtube video by global impulse, titled “The SHOCKING Truth Behind China’s Gaza Aid | 60,000 Families Saved,” which claimed, “But one thing is clear, China is no longer content to be a passive observer in Middle Eastern Affairs.” Two months earlier, The Indian Express showed a video that China had sent its first batch of 60,000 packages of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza via Jordan.

    Can the guilt of colluding in the genocide and dispossession of indigenous Palestinians bring comfort to the Chinese soul through providing aid parcels?

    Xi Jinping on Israel and Palestine

    In a speech on 5 June 2014 chairman Xi Jinping spoke of “hundreds of years [of] peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning, and mutual benefit” between the Chinese and Arab peoples. “We will not forget the promise to support the cause of the Palestinian people that China made to the Arab states … at the Bandung Conference 60 years ago.”7 [Emphasis added]

    Mao laid the foundation for the PRC in dealing with Palestinians. As part of a symposium to commemorate the 120th anniversary of Mao’s birth, Xi channelled Mao in a speech titled “Carry on the Enduring Spirit of Mao Zedong Thought”:

    We stand for peaceful resolutions to international disputes, oppose all forms of hegemony and power politics, and never seek hegemonism nor engage in expansion.8

    The Conscience of China

    China is important. Its dedication to peaceful development and diplomacy is laudatory and in stark contrast to the bombastic hectoring and warring of the US-NATO block. China cares for the well-being of all its citizens; it seeks win-win relationships with other countries — not the win-lose entanglements of the capitalist West. As such China gives substance and believability to reifying that elusive, illusory, transient, teasing, wishful abstraction called hope — hope that all too often leads to bitter disappointment.

    I have been disappointed before upon hearing of Chinese involvement in an unsavoury circumstance. A few years back, I came across an article that was scathing of a big Chinese tuna-fishing company, Dalian Ocean Fishing, for alleged maltreatment of foreign workers, workers who fell sick, died, suffered abuses, substandard food, excessive working hours, and withholding of pay.

    I inquired about the situation and discovered it was a rogue private company that was selling its catch to a Japanese company, Mitsubishi. Nonetheless, that does not let China off the hook. Perfection is not expected, but how Chinese-licensed private companies do business at home and abroad does reflect back on the home country.

    While beyond the scope of the present article, deeper consideration of the role of the Chinese State vs. Private Capital in China’s external relationships demands elucidation. What exactly does win-win mean?
    While state-owned firms are clearly extensions of Chinese policy, how China manages — or fails to manage — the conduct of private or semi-state firms abroad, especially in contested or ethically sensitive zones speaks to the conscience of a nation.

    Especially concerning, is the case of Chinese state-owned companies doing business for an occupier in occupied territory. This is morally magnified when the occupier, Israel, is under scrutiny by the World Court for committing genocide. Genocide is an act that morally upstanding countries will emphatically denounce as reprehensible; in addition, morally upstanding countries will take measures to publicly distance their state from such an evil-doer until such time as it sincerely atones for its crime against humanity. Highly moral countries — for example, Yemen — will make sacrifices to bring an end to such horrific crimes.

    Professor and author T.P. Wilkinson, a keen China observer, remarked, “Non-interference is China’s top principle — business comes first. If there is any morality it only applies in China.”

    China does not interfere in the culture and politics of other nations. That is understood. Nonetheless, morally centered people do not wish to see their country or any other country engage in violence against other nations in the world. And morally centered people do not wish to see their country abetting violence, not borne of self-defense, by another country. For allying with unrepentant rogue actors such as the United States and Israel, vassal states in Canada, Oceania, and Europe deserve to be regarded scornfully.

    As an emerging superpower, China has increasingly garnered respect for pledging and delivering peaceful, win-win relations with other countries. That needs to be across the board. China is now faced with serious allegations, and it needs to come clean on what its companies are doing in occupied Palestine. One cannot expect that a country’s political leader is up-to-date and aware of all the ongoing functions of a country, domestically and externally, especially in a rapidly rising colossus of 1.4 billion people. However, when sordid facts come to the fore, a leader must lead. It is morally incumbent that chairman Xi deal forthrightly and promptly with any Chinese involvement in ignoble business affairs or crimes against humanity.

    What Would Meaningful Action Look Like?

    If Chinese firms are confirmed to be operating illegally in the occupied territories of Palestine, then I submit that an official Chinese public apology is demanded, also an immediate cessation of Chinese operations in what was once known as Mandate Palestine, and a turning over of Chinese assets in Mandate Palestine to Palestinian authorities. But it is for the Palestinians to determine what would be the proper rectification by China.

    Why, one may ask, is such atonement not demanded of Canadians, American, and European interests in Mandate Palestine? It is and should be, but western governments have been unabashed in supporting colonialism, imperialism, and racism abroad. This speaks to the nature and conscience of Western governments that were so quick to fallaciously accuse China of genocide in Xinjiang, and yet they are loathe to acknowledge the factually undeniable genocide in Palestine. China, on the other hand, is viewed by much of the world’s people as a cut above the western governments.

    Geopolitical Realism vs. Moral Idealism

    While the present article acknowledges the current realpolitik constraints that China faces in balancing ties with Israel, the US, Arab countries, and the rest of the world, it posits the primacy of moral responsibility. Morality is what separates capitalism’s dog-eat-dog law-of-the-jungle from socialism, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is what is practiced by China.

    As such an unflinching moral audit of China’s actions in occupied Palestine is called for. Therefore, to maintain its high regard, China must earn and hold onto the people’s trust through morally centered economic activities at home and abroad, as is implied by win-win relationships. In a truly multipolar world not only must power be redistributed more equitably but shared moral standards must also be elevated.

    It is decidedly not a win-win relationship when Palestinians are subjected to starvation, humiliation, murder, bombardment, theft of territory, and the indignity of the World Court taking what must seem like an eternity to put a halt to a crime that demands immediate action: genocide. That China companies would profit from a genocide would cast a pall over China that would be hard to shake.

    If China aspires to genuine global leadership, then it must lead not just in development and diplomacy — but in conscience.

    ENDNOTES:

    The post Palestine and the Conscience of China first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    Xi Jinping, “China’s Commitment to Peaceful Development” in The Governance of China, (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2014): location 3914.
    2    In al-Anwar (Beirut), April 6, 1965, as received from New China News Agency (NCNA). Cited in John K Cooley, “China and the Palestinians,” Journal of Palestine Studies 1:2 (1972): 21.
    3    Lillian Craig Harris, “China’s Relations with the PLOJournal of Palestine Studies (7:1, Autumn 1977): 123-154.
    5    Quoted by Zhang Sheng, tni, 12 March 2025.
    6    Razan Shawamreh, Abstract: “Biased Impartiality: Understanding China’s Contradictory Foreign Policy on Palestine,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 53:4 2024: 25-43.
    7    Xi Jinping, “Promote the Silk Road Spirit, Strengthen China-Arab Cooperation” in The Governance of China: location 4552.
    8    Xi Jinping, “Carry on the Enduring Spirit of Mao Zedong Thought” in The Governance of China: location 602.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Protests by Chinese construction workers, teachers, and factory employees demanding unpaid wages have erupted across China in recent days amid rising public anger over the impacts of tightening local government finances, according to affected workers and videos posted on social media.

    From China’s northern province of Hebei to the southern autonomous region of Guanxi, bordering Vietnam, and its neighboring coastal province of Guangdong to the east – Chinese workers are facing the full impact of cash-strapped institutions grasping for ways to survive the economic downturn.

    In an example of measures by local governments to raise funds, the village committee of Pingtang in Gushan Town, in the eastern province of Zhejiang, issued a notice stating that “sanitation management fees” and “parking fees” would be collected from all residents from May 10.

    Those failing to pay on time would be subjected to additional fees and vehicles being clamped, starting from June 1. Speaking to Radio Free Asia, some locals and rights activists called the move a “blatant extortion” and “illegal.” The local government said it was investigating the matter.

    Last November, China’s Ministry of Finance announced 10 trillion yuan (US$1.38 trillion) of new measures to help cash-strapped local governments struggling with mounting debt levels spurred by a property market slump that has crushed land transaction sales, one of their main sources of fiscal revenue.

    “High local debt and tightening central policies have seriously affected grassroots fiscal operations. The most direct victims are front-line workers and contract workers,” Zhang, a retired teacher from Guizhou University in Guizhou province’s Guiyang city, told RFA. He wanted to be identified by a single name for security reasons.

    On May 19, workers of the No. 10 section of the Yangxin expressway civil engineering project under China Railway Seventh Group Co. Ltd. gathered in front of the Branch of the Management Department and demanded they be paid their back wages, according to a video posted by a prominent citizen journalist who manages the X account @whyyoutouzhele, also known as “Mr Li is not your teacher.”

    “We live in a boarding house and wait every day. They have said several times that they will pay our wages, but they didn’t even give a date,” said one worker in the video posted on X.

    In Nanning city in Guangxi, 32 construction workers have been camped outside Guangxi Power Transmission and Transformation Construction Co., Ltd. since May 16, demanding their wages.

    A video posted by X user ‘@YesterdayBigCat,’ a prominent source of information about protests in China, showed the protestors making a fire and cooking meals in large woks at the entrance of the company, suggesting they were in it for the long haul.

    “Our work is hard and tiring … but our money has been delayed. Some workers have sick family members and are urgently waiting for money to save their lives,” one worker, who was among the protesters at a project site of China Communications Construction Group in Hebei province’s capital Shijiazhuang, told RFA.

    On May 18, the protesters held up banners to demand the long-term wage arrears due to them. The same worker told RFA that the company had repeatedly promised to pay them their wages but has failed to do so.

    Workers at the Qianlima Embroidery Factory in Haimen city in the coastal province of Jiangsu resorted to protesting outside their boss’s home for two consecutive days this week, but still haven’t been paid, according to a video posted by @YesterdayBigCat.

    Stability unraveling?

    While worker protests and labor disputes are not uncommon in China, social media posts point to an uptick in protests among sectors such as education, healthcare and sanitation.

    This adds to broader dissatisfaction with the economic situation. Retail sales growth and industrial production slowed in April. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods took effect in March and increased to 145% in April, weighing on shipments and export activity. Respite came in May, after the two governments agreed to a sharp tariff reduction for 90 days to allow time for talks.

    Fu Linghui, a spokesperson for the National Bureau of Statistics said this week that the reduction in tariffs between China and the U.S. will be beneficial for bilateral trade and the global economy. He said despite external uncertainties, the “fundamental aspects of China’s improving economy remain unchanged.”

    But the foundation for a sustained economic recovery needs to be “further consolidated” in China with the implementation of various macro policies, Fu said.

    “They (the protesters) are the most vulnerable group,” said Zhang, the retired teacher. “Once they speak out, they will be suppressed as ‘troublemakers’, but in fact they just want to survive.”

    “In the past, it was migrant workers and laborers who demanded wages, but now it is teachers, doctors, and sanitation workers. This shows that China’s ‘stable structure’ is beginning to unravel,” he said.

    Several teachers who were employed on a contractual basis in Zaozhuang prefecture-level city in the southern Chinese province of Shandong said their salaries were six months in arrears.

    “Our monthly salary is only around 3,000 yuan (or $416), and we have been living on borrowed money for the past six months,” one primary school teacher said.

    Another teacher in Shanxi province in northern China said her school was demanding the return of year-end bonuses previously paid out to staff since 2021, along with a part of the pay they received for after-school activities.

    These moves have caused widespread dissatisfaction, the teacher said in a post on social networking platform Xiaohongshu, known as RedNote.

    Healthcare and sanitation workers face similar issues.

    A nurse at a public hospital in northwestern Gansu province said her monthly salary is only 1,300 yuan (or US$180) and that her performance bonus had not been paid for four months.

    Edited by Tenzin Pema and Mat Pennington.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Al Jazeera

    How global power struggles are impacting in local communities, culture and sovereignty in Kanaky, New Caledonia, the Solomon Islands and Samoa.

    In episode one, The Battlefield, broadcast today, tensions between the United States and China over the Pacific escalate, affecting the lives of Pacific Islanders.

    Key figures like former Malaita Premier Daniel Suidani and tour guide Maria Loweyo reveal how global power struggles impact on local communities, culture and sovereignty in the Solomon Islands and Samoa.

    The episode intertwines these personal stories with the broader geopolitical dynamics, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of the Pacific’s role in global diplomacy.

    Fight for the Pacific, a four-part series by Tuki Laumea and Cleo Fraser, showcases the Pacific’s critical transformation into a battleground of global power.

    This series captures the high-stakes rivalry between the US and China as they vie for dominance in a region pivotal to global stability.

    The series frames the Pacific not just as a battleground for superpowers but also as a region with its own unique challenges and aspirations.

    Republished from Al Jazeera.

  • In a sign of China’s expanding international influence, South Africa has downgraded the status of Taiwan’s liaison office in the country, further diminishing the democratic island’s diplomatic footprint, experts say.

    South Africa severed formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1997 and recognized Beijing as the government of China. But in the nearly three decades since, it has retained unofficial ties with Taipei and a trading relationship.

    However, it’s recently moved to diminish Taiwan’s unofficial status in the country. South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation now categorizes the Taiwan Liaison Office – which functions as a de facto embassy but without official diplomatic status – as a “Taipei Commercial Office” on its official website, and has removed the name of the Taiwanese Representative Oliver Liao under the listing.

    On Friday, Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung accused China of putting pressure on South Africa to make the changes. He said the liaison office had requested negotiations with the South African government about it.

    Analysts told Radio Free Asia that the changes highlight China’s continued efforts to use its influence in Africa and the Global South – a diverse set of countries across Africa, Latin America, Asia and Middle East – to prevent Taiwan from gaining international recognition and to hurt its ability to pursue its diplomatic interests abroad.

    “Taiwan’s representative offices are its way to make its voice heard diplomatically, in the face of declining official recognition. But China’s deep pockets and military aggression have left quite a mark on smaller, developing nations,” Anushka Saxena, China analyst at Bengaluru, India-based think tank Takshashila Institution, said.

    China claims Taiwan as part of its territory and maintains that the self-ruling island has no right to independent diplomatic relations.

    As it is, Taiwan retains formal ties with only a dozen countries, mostly smaller and less developed nations. In that context, even nominal changes in recognition by foreign governments send a strong signal to Taipei.

    The Taipei Liaison Office in South Africa which is Taiwan's representative office in South Africa's administrative capital, Pretoria, Oct. 22, 2024.
    The Taipei Liaison Office in South Africa which is Taiwan’s representative office in South Africa’s administrative capital, Pretoria, Oct. 22, 2024.
    (Alet Pretorius/Reuters)

    Last October, the South African government announced that Taiwan’s liaison office would be “rebranded” as a trade office and said the same change would be effected for the South African liaison office in Taipei.

    Under its foreign representation listing section on the website, the South African government now shows the address of the Taiwan liaison office as being in the nation’s economic hub Johannesburg, not the administrative capital Pretoria, although Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin told reporters Friday that it continues to operate normally in Pretoria.

    South Africa last October described the relocation of the office from the capital as “a true reflection of the non-political and non-diplomatic nature of the relationship between the Republic of South Africa and Taiwan.”

    The email address for the office is also changed in the South African government listing from the official domain name of @mofa.gov.tw to one under a South African telco provider, @telkomsa.net.

    Analysts viewed the steps taken by South Africa as predictable despite Taiwan’s attempts to engage in dialogue to address the issue.

    “This has been part of China’s ongoing mission to shrink Taiwan’s international space, so it’s not surprising that talks have fallen through despite Taiwan’s persistence,” Sana Hashmi, Fellow at Taipei-based Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation, told RFA.

    South Africa is a significant diplomatic player and the largest economy in Africa – a continent where China has built economic and security ties over the past two decades or more. South Africa is also set to host this year’s summit of Group of 20, or G-20, nations.

    Ties between China and South Africa have strengthened significantly since the two established formal relations in 1998. China is now South Africa’s largest trading partner. In 2024, their bilateral trade was $52.4 billion, compared with Taiwan-South Africa trade which averages around $2 billion annually.

    As a member of the BRICS, an intergovernmental organization consisting of 10 countries, South Africa also collaborates with China on economic, political, and developmental initiatives, aligning with Beijing on global governance reforms.

    Song Guocheng, a researcher at the Center for International Relations Research at National Chengchi University, said China uses both inducement and pressure tactics to strong-arm South Africa into taking a slew of measures against Taiwan that may eventually culminate in more drastic ones, including closure of office or expulsion.

    “It is possible that under the pressure of the CCP, it will take a more overbearing approach to Taiwan,” Song told RFA, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.

    While Taiwan is seeking negotiations with South Africa, analysts say it has little leverage. Taiwan’s government should focus instead on expanding its economic interdependence with its partners in South and Southeast Asian economies and on building ties with countries that can contribute to deterrence and its defense, they said.

    On Tuesday, President Lai Ching-te, who has been dubbed a “separatist” by Beijing, marked the completion of his first year in office, which has been marked by growing military pressure against the island.

    He said Taiwan wants peace and is ready to engage in talks with China, as long as there is “reciprocal dignity,” with dialogue replacing confrontation.

    Edited by Mat Pennington.

    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Chen Meihua and Tenzin Pema for RFA.

  • US President Donald Trump claimed he would “un-unite” Russia and China. However, this divide-and-conquer strategy — which prominent US officials like Henry Kissinger have advocated since the 1970s — is clearly failing.

    In a meeting in Moscow celebrating the 80th anniversary of their nations’ shared victory in World War Two, Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin reaffirmed that “China-Russia relations have reached the highest level in history”.

    In a lengthy statement, Beijing and Moscow vowed to “jointly resist any attempts to interfere with and disrupt the traditional friendship and deep mutual trust between China and Russia”.

    The post Trump’s Far-Fetched Attempt To Divide Russia And China Is Clearly Failing appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • President Donald Trump is hardly an avatar for underconsumption. With a net worth of roughly $5 billion, the business mogul, crypto salesman and former reality TV star boasts a sprawling portfolio of lavish properties, private jets and luxury cars. But amid the tumultuous rollout of his sweeping tariff policy, Trump has had an unexpected message for U.S. consumers: buy less.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In Danish here for Danish readers.

    The development – or decline – of the Danish daily newspaper Politiken as a quality newspaper in the field of foreign policy pains me. Allow me a personal, somewhat nostalgic introduction. I wrote frequently for Politiken from 1971 to 1994. As a 20-year-old sociology student, I was naturally proud to be published in what was then a prestigious, liberal media outlet, which was initially shaped by Hørup’s anti-militarism and cultural radicalism.

    In Denmark, there was a – albeit quite traditional but serious and multifaceted – discussion about the state of the world. There was actually quite a lot of room for different opinions, and it was natural that many opinions were expressed and met in the Danish media – creating the social debate that is essential for security, peace and democracy. There were debates on security policy around the country – in folk high schools, assembly halls, upper secondary schools and trade unions.

    How I miss that Denmark, which is dead and gone today.

    Back then, no one would dream of excluding/cancelling discussions about peace – nor did anyone suggest that Denmark should contribute to the militarisation of the world or participate in wars abroad – no, Denmark should first and foremost be able to defend itself against an attack or if, God forbid, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty should come into force. Denmark was called a ‘footnote nation;’ the principles were upheld that NATO membership was compatible with the country never accepting nuclear weapons, foreign bases, pre-positioning of equipment, weapons and ammunition on its soil, and that Denmark should not participate in NATO’s nuclear planning group.

    Those were the days. There were politicians who could both read books and write books – readable ones at that.

    And back then, long ago, Politiken was, in my view, the leading newspaper (along with Information, which, however, had less general influence) for common sense, diversity, broad social debate and room for both pro- and anti-military perspectives.

    And peace – and futurology, including global perspectives, Club of Rome reports, which I reviewed, etc.

    OK, things change over 50 years, of course. But Politiken’s current position on foreign and security policy is not a law of nature. Over time, the owners and editorial managers of the daily newspaper could have chosen to preserve at least some of the soul of what Politiken used to be.

    But where does Politiken – which still confidently calls itself ‘the organ of the highest enlightenment since 1884’ – stand today?

    For me, with the above background to compare (there are advantages to getting older…), it stands as one of the highest organs of propaganda about other countries and their – Western-determined – role as threats to the fine, pure, innocent Western world. Whether intentional or not, Politiken legitimises and promotes militarism infinitely more strongly than anti-militarism and peace.

    Today, it can rightly be called PolitPravda.

    My younger readers should know that Pravda was the organ of the Soviet Communist Party; Pravda means ‘the truth’ – and that wasn’t exactly what Pravda contained.

    In the areas of foreign and security policy, today’s Politiken runs on what I call FOSI – Fake+Omission+Source Ignorance. The newspaper’s management clearly sees its role as blindly loyal support for the militarism of the American empire – NATO, interventions, bombings, regime change, hatred of Russia – although not necessarily for Trump’s policies or the grabbing of Greenland.

    FOSI has been and continues to be practised in the coverage of Syria, Israel, Russia, Ukraine… Palestine. And China, which I discuss further down.

    *****

    I have just listened to the fifth episode of Politiken’s populist podcast series: Putin – The World’s Most Dangerous Man? The episode is alternately titled The Grand Plan and How He Is Creating a Generation of Ardent Nationalists. Listen here.

    It is incomprehensibly trivialising, intellectually lazy and unprofessional, with a few facts and guesswork about, for example, Putin’s daily routines, spiced with the journalist’s personal opinions and ‘assessments,’ interrupted now and then by exclusively US-Western media Russophobic expert quotes, which are concocted into breakneck interpretations of the banal central thesis that Putin is power-mad with his Grand Plan for the re-establishment of the old Soviet empire.

    No, dear reader, this is not political satire on Politiken’s humour page, ATS, or elsewhere. These are grown adults conveying this message without any form of analysis or arguments for or against the thesis, based solely on Western mainstream sources. It is blatant Russophobia, entirely in line with the relentless opinion-shaping efforts of the government, the military’ intelligence’ agency, FET, and other media outlets. It is opinion journalism of the worst kind and of no use whatsoever to anyone seeking qualified knowledge.

    There are no theories or concepts, and therefore no rigour. It is tabloid drivel at the lowest level of information and limited in its understanding, in that Russia and Putin are not seen as part of the international system or as a partner in a very complex conflict with the cultural West, which all Soviet/Russian leaders since Gorbaechev, also Putin, has stated clearly that they feel their country belongs to. In this presentation, Russia is an isolated entity – only action and never reaction. It is about a Russia that is only itself and in no way navigates the challenges posed by, for example, NATO. At Politiken, Russia is a pariah that can be talked about – and disparaged – however one pleases.

    This is the result of 110% groupthink, and there is only one possible attitude towards ourselves and towards Russia (and China). From my own experience, I know that it is impossible to get a response from today’s journalists if you point out that their portrayals are, for example, factually incorrect, biased and lacking in basic knowledge and fairness. Or if the top management has chosen a very specific systematic approach to reporting.

    How many times have you seen that this or that country is engaging in dis/misinformation – and that we must protect ourselves against this sedition? We are to understand that it is only the others who do this; we in the West do not engage in such mis/dis behaviour. It is only Russia that threatens us – we cannot in any way be perceived as threatening in the eyes of Russia or China. We have good intentions, but they do not.

    Coincidentally, this awful story about the CIA’s activities in China came out at the same time as Politiken’s series. You will not find that story in Politiken.

    Thus, nothing is too low, simple or stupidly propagandistic. It would be demeaning to children to describe it as ‘sandbox level.’

    This fifth podcast about the world’s most dangerous man is completely uninteresting if you want to know anything about Russia, Putin and international politics – including the invasion/war in Ukraine, which, in NATO agitprop style, is of course and quite foolishly called ‘full-scale,’ which is about the only thing (along with ‘unprovoked’) it cannot be described as. It is simply factual nonsense and should not have made it through quality control. When it does, it is because it is NATO speak, and therefore, there is no professional or ethical problem.

    I wonder how far they can go – and how long it will take – before loyal readers of the highest organ of propaganda realise that they are being deceived? When will the Pravda Moment hit Politiken’s readers?

    And if it is not deliberate deception, then it is simple ignorance and professional incompetence. A third – entirely hypothetical, of course – possibility is that senior editors at Politiken a little too often have lunch with people from the American embassy and say ‘No, thank you’ if they receive invitations from embassies that do not represent NATO and the EU.

    *****

    In keeping with the West’s incredible, rapid intellectual decline and impending fall, coupled with its support for armament and militarism, Politiken has also descended into pure propaganda when it comes to China. In an ‘analysis’ a few days ago, it claimed that China is hunting down critics all over the world. Read it here.

    In another, the theme is that China has infiltrated the UN and distorts and lies about everything related to human rights. Read it here. These are pure smear articles by journalist John Hansen and the newspaper’s Asia correspondent Sebastian Stryhn Kjeldtoft – who is based in Taipei, Taiwan, and not in mainland China.

    China has infiltrated the UN with an army of fake NGOs. Meet the gongos↗

    This is yet another example of how the media sees it as its primary task to write only negatively about China. You hardly ever see anything positive about China and its impressive development over the past 40 years. The classic themes are Tibet, Hong Kong, the ‘genocide’ and ‘concentration camps’ in Xinjiang, Xi Jinping is a dictator – and the system is a dictatorship because it is not a democracy in the Western sense – Chinese researchers, students and agents have stolen everything in the West, China’s military build-up is a threat to the Western world – and then, of course, Taiwan, which, according to Western media, is an independent state (or should be), but is constantly threatened by an invasion launched by Beijing.

    On the other hand, you never hear about what the US and the rest of the West are doing vis-à-vis China – and it is not small stuff and is not done on small budgets. TFF and my staff have mapped out this entire media-based Cold War initiated by the West. Read the full report with extensive, concrete documentation here.

    Both articles are based on material from an organisation that Politiken neither describes nor provides its readers with a link to, namely ‘the journalistic network ICIJ’ – as if readers already knew what ICIJ stands for, much like NATO or the EU. ICIJ’s website can be found here.

    I visited this website on 6 May 2025 and found that of the 13 top articles, 11 are about China – and only about how terrible China is. Several focus on the well-worn story of how China persecutes all Uyghurs. In Politiken, the issue of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is presented by quoting Zumretay Arkin, vice-president of the World Uyghur Congress, ‘who is fighting for democracy and independence for the Uyghurs, an ethnic minority in the Xinjiang region of western China.’ (My italics).

    However, the whole thing is a little more complicated. A very small minority of Uyghurs want an independent East Turkestan and have been trying to achieve this goal for a couple of decades by carrying out around 1,200 terrorist attacks in and outside Xinjiang. The United States and US-backed terrorist movements support them, and the East Turkestan government-in-exile has been based in Washington for 20 years!

    Many have been arrested and sentenced to prison or re-education camps in China – and it is certainly no fun to be there. But it is also no fun for China that the United States supports violent separatist movements in its largest province – and that some of these Uighur terrorists have been trained by al-Nusra and have been fighting in Syria for years with the aim of returning to Xinjiang and ‘liberating’ it – a province considerably larger than France and with extensive natural resources, through which China’s new Silk Road project, BRI, involving 140 countries runs.

    But in Western media and political propaganda, the terrorist element of this is never mentioned; it is simply that China persecutes Muslims in general and Uighurs in particular. Because remember: this was said by Trump’s then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – a habitual liar and former CIA chief who has himself said that he is proud to have trained CIA agents to ‘lie, cheat and steal.’ On his last day at work, he left a ‘statement’ saying that what was happening in Xinjiang was genocide. Full stop. To date, the State Department has never backed this up with any form of documentation. But TFF has documented how this outright lie has come about, how it is part of the US media’s Cold War against China, and here you can read a report from Xinjiang, which I co-authored.

    People who have no idea what social analysis or journalism is – but have a political agenda – have since promoted the lie, the fake and omission. Whether they know what they are doing or are simply ignorant, I will leave unsaid – but neither is particularly honourable. And the very same media and politicians are simultaneously concealing the actual Israeli/Zionist genocide and ensuring that it is not stopped. The US and its media allies are – once again – at the centre of moral decay.

    Back to the ICIJ website. The ICIJ’s ‘Our team’ consists of 42 journalists; no less than 25 of them are listed as ‘United States,’ and it is indeed in Washington that the organisation has its headquarters. The chairwoman of the board, Rhona Murphy, has worked with a number of leading conservative American media outlets.

    And who finances the ICIJ – which Politiken’s source-uncritical China smear campaign chooses not to reveal to its readers in the two articles? Well, as I thought – yes, I have a nasty mind: A long list of government organisations, foundations and funds in NATO countries, in the West in general – none outside. See the list here.

    Three stand out: the EU, the US State Department and the usual suspect, NED – The National Endowment for Democracy, which is indisputably well known as a front organisation for the CIA. There is hardly a US regime change where NED has not pumped money into NGOs to carry out colour revolutions, etc. The organisation was created by Ronald Reagan, and a former NED director has stated that most people would not want to accept money directly from the CIA and that NED appears less controversial as an NGO.

    As I write this article, Politiken publishes another smear article on 6 May and an editorial by Marcus Rubin – a law graduate, former US correspondent for Politiken and now feature editor and member of the editorial board – with the cultured, journalistically objective headline: “China’s oppression is both lawless and boundless. It makes for frightening reading about an extremely powerful dictatorial regime.”

    A taste:

    It makes for frightening reading about an extremely powerful dictatorial regime whose power is spreading both in Asia and throughout the rest of the world, and which will stop at nothing. The goal of the campaign of repression is to stifle any criticism of the regime in Beijing by persecuting, subjugating and destroying its critics – wherever they may be. The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) acknowledges the problems and assesses that China is also ‘attempting to exercise control over Chinese people in Denmark to a large extent.

    Not a single fact, not a single example, not a single piece of evidence. No documentation. It is as if Rubin asked an AI machine to ‘Write some shit about China.’

    The third article in the “highest level of information” about China appeared on 28 April with this sober headline: “Eric compares his former workplace to the Gestapo.” And the introduction reads:

    Chinese people who criticise the Communist Party are hunted down all over the world. Now one of the regime’s former manhunters, the spy “Eric”, tells his story in Politiken. For 15 years, he helped spy on and plan the kidnappings of dissidents, even though he secretly hated the Communists. Now Eric himself has become a victim.

    Like the other articles, the story is accompanied by a tasteful illustration of this type and begins:

    We meet “Eric” at dusk in an anonymous car in a secret location in Australia. He fumbles with the video camera, nervous that some detail in the background might reveal his location. He knows better than most what China’s hackers are capable of. Eric is convinced that his life is in danger. That is why Politiken does not publish his real name…

    So we are simply expected to believe Politiken: that this is objective journalism and not Sinophobic propaganda in the service of the US/the West. China’s intelligence service is like the Gestapo, and so you know that President Xi Jinping is like Hitler. And – surprise, surprise! – it is emphasised that the Chinese embassy has not responded to Politiken’s smear campaign.

    What Politiken naturally never covers is the positive development in China, for the people in general. That, according to the World Bank, 700 million people have been lifted out of poverty in record time. That the country has developed from a poor and dirty underdeveloped country 40 years ago to being the world’s most successful welfare state today, with a super-modern infrastructure, where people have access to education, health, employment, culture – and where incredible resources have been invested in research and development. Unique in the history of humankind.

    Would Politiken kindly publish the figures from the American Edelman Trust Barometer, which show that, year after year, China is the country in the world where the largest proportion of the population has trust in its government. The figure is around 90%; the corresponding figure is 30, some higher and some lower for many in the ‘democratic’ West.

    Would you kindly explain in an editorial how on earth it can be that over 120 million Chinese leave China every year to travel to the rest of the world and 99.999999% return and would not dream of settling permanently anywhere in the Western world. Oh yes, Marcus Rubin, they have all simply been completely brainwashed, haven’t they?

    I wonder if Politiken can find a single Westerner who has travelled around China as a tourist on their own for just 14 days and returned home with the same attitude towards China, the Communist Party and the population as Western racist US/NATO agitprop media continue to have in the current Yellow Peril hysteria, which Politiken also shamelessly and ignorantly promotes with its smear campaigns?

    I am not saying that various media outlets should write hallelujah articles about China. Journalism should never be about conveying a solely positive or solely negative image. It should be about being curious, being fair and conveying facts that are useful for the highest level of public information.

    Politiken simply does not do this. Or it prefers its agitprop role.

    *****

    Politiken’s writers make a big deal out of the fact that China has so-called ‘gongos’ – governmental non-governmental organisations, i.e. government-controlled/influenced NGOs. That is absolutely correct. But it does not occur to them that the ICIJ – and tons of Western NGOs – are wholly or partly funded by their governments and therefore, in practice, also have a restricted mandate and become near-governmental. It does not occur to them – because they have hardly investigated it, as they are uncritical of their sources as long as the message is anti-China (sinophobic) – that they are promoting claims without documentation from the ICIJ, which is partly funded by the US government, including the NED…CIA.

    Even less – one would hope – does it occur to them that they are helping to legitimise armament and increase the risk of actual war between the US/NATO and Russia and/or China. All false threat scenarios have that consequence.

    If Politiken is the organ of the highest information, the lights have gone out on the Danish mass media scene. The articles I have reviewed here are so journalistically poor and so propagandistic that it is far more accurate and relevant to compare Politiken with the old Pravda. (I am only talking about foreign and security policy areas – not about Politiken as a whole).

    Which reminds me that one of the most unique bridge builders between Russia, Ukraine and the United States, Edward Lozensky (1941-2025), has just passed away. Read about him here. Among many other things, he is known for this spot-on description of reality – that of the Western world – which only causes me pain in my heart:

    “The Americans are busy
    turning their country into the Soviet Union.
    And they don’t even realise they’re doing it.”

    This does not only apply to the United States. It applies to the entire Western world. It applies to Denmark. And to PolitPravda.

    The post Danish Politiken Smears China Based on CIA, US, EU and NATO Funded Sources first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Tibetan government-in-exile and rights groups have called on China to free the Panchen Lama, the second-highest spiritual leader in the largest sect of Tibetan Buddhism, who was kidnapped 30 years ago and has remained missing ever since.

    “At just six years old, he was abducted by Chinese authorities — an act that remains one of the starkest examples of China’s grave human rights violations,” Tenzin Lekshay, spokesperson for the Dharamsala, India-based Tibetan exile government, known as the Central Tibetan Administration, told Radio Free Asia.

    “We urgently call on the Chinese government to reveal the Panchen Lama’s whereabouts and ensure his well-being. As a spiritual leader and as a human being, he has the fundamental right to live freely and fulfill his spiritual responsibilities without fear or restriction,” Lekshay said.

    On May 17, 1995, just days after the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, officially recognized Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the 11th Panchen Lama, Beijing abducted the then-6-year-old boy with his family and teacher.

    Their whereabouts have remained unknown, despite repeated calls by global leaders for China to disclose information about the fate of the Panchen Lama who turned 36 last month.

    “30 years ago China disappeared a 6-year old boy because he represented freedom to Tibetan Buddhists facing brutal oppression. Today, we call for this horrible injustice to end and for China to free Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama,” said Asif Mahmood, Commissioner at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

    Succession of the Dalai Lama

    Rights groups say the Panchen Lama’s continued disappearance and China’s installation of another boy, Gyaltsen (in Chinese, Gyaincain) Norbu, in his place, highlights Beijing’s plan to control the succession of the Dalai Lama, given the two lamas have historically recognized the other’s successive reincarnations and served as the other’s teacher.

    “The Chinese government kidnapped a 6-year-old and his family and have disappeared them for 30 years to control the selection of the next Dalai Lama and thus Tibetan Buddhism itself,” said Yalkun Uluyol, China researcher at New York-based Human Rights Watch.

    Activists and members of the Tibetan Women's Association (Central) living in exile, take part in a protest against the disappearance of 11th Panchen Lama Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, in New Delhi on May 17, 2023.
    Activists and members of the Tibetan Women’s Association (Central) living in exile, take part in a protest against the disappearance of 11th Panchen Lama Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, in New Delhi on May 17, 2023.
    (Sajjad Hussain/AFP)

    China says it can appoint the successor under Chinese law. In 2007, it decreed that the Chinese government would begin overseeing the recognition of all reincarnate Tibetan lamas, or “living Buddhas,” including the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama, for which China plans to use its own Beijing-appointed Panchen Lama to endorse.

    “As the current 14th Dalai Lama will celebrate his 90th birthday on July 6, the question of his succession — and the future of Tibetan Buddhism and the Tibetan people — is becoming increasingly urgent,” Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

    The Dalai Lama has said in a new book, that his reincarnation will be born in the “free world,” which he described as outside China.

    Experts say China’s appointment of Gyaincain Norbu as Panchen Lama underscores Beijing’s attempts to not only interfere in the selection of the next Dalai Lama, but also to project its soft power across Buddhist nations worldwide and gain control and legitimacy among Tibetans, both inside Tibet and in exile.

    “Abductions, surveillance, imprisonments and torture are standard tactics in China’s playbook of religious persecution,” said USCIRF’s Maureen Ferguson. She urged the U.S. Congress to prioritize religious freedom and ban any paid lobbying in the U.S. on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.

    Cultural and religious suppression

    China annexed Tibet in the early 1950s and has since governed the territory with an oppressively heavy-hand while seeking to suppress expressions of their Buddhist faith, and erase Tibetan culture and language.

    “At a time when Chinese authorities are intensifying efforts to annihilate Tibetan culture and identity, the absence of the Panchen Lama is deeply felt. The 10th Panchen Lama played a vital role in safeguarding the Tibetan language, religion, and cultural heritage under Chinese rule,” said the exile government spokesperson Lekshay, referring to the previous Panchen Lama.

    As a vocal critic of Chinese government policies in Tibet and their impact on Tibetan culture and language, the 10th Panchen Lama was subjected to house arrest in the 1960s and subsequent imprisonment for more than a decade, and torture in prison. He died in 1989 under mysterious circumstances.

    One of the charges against him was that he had written, in 1962, a 70,000-character petition describing the destruction of Tibetan monasteries and suppression of the Tibetan people during and after the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950. The document had remained secret until obtained by Tibet scholar Robert Barnett, who revealed that Chinese leader Mao Zedong had condemned it as a “poisoned arrow shot at the party.”

    “His (the 10th Panchen Lama’s) voice and vision are profoundly missed in today’s Tibet,” Lekshay said.

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tenzin Pema for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Father of Anna Kwok Charged with National Security Crime

    The Hong Kong police arrested the father of a prominent US-based activist, Anna Kwok, on April 30, 2025, and charged him with a national security crime, Human Rights Watch said today. The arrest of Kwok Yin-sang was the first such prosecution of a family member of an exiled activist. Hong Kong authorities should immediately drop all charges and release him.

    The Hong Kong authorities have recently intensified their harassment of the families of 19 wanted Hong Kong activists living in exile. Punishments and harassment against individuals for the alleged actions of another person is a form of collective punishment, prohibited by international human rights law.

    The Chinese government has increased its appalling use of collective punishment against family members of peaceful activists from Hong Kong,” said Yalkun Uluyol, China researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Hong Kong authorities should immediately and unconditionally release Anna Kwok’s father and cease harassing families of Hong Kong activists.”

    On May 2, national security police formally charged Kwok Yin-sang, 68, with “directly or indirectly” dealing with the finances of an “absconder” under section 90 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which carries a punishment of up to seven years in prison. Kwok Yin-sang remains in custody with a bail hearing scheduled for May 8. Anna Kwok’s brother was also arrested on April 30 but has been released on bail pending further investigation.

    Anna Kwok, 28, is the executive director of Hong Kong Democracy Council, a nongovernmental organization based in Washington, DC. In July 2023, she was among a first group of eight people against whom the Hong Kong police issued arrests warrants and HK$1 million (US$129,000) bounties for violating Hong Kong’s National Security Law.

    Since then, Hong Kong police have issued similar baseless arrest warrants and bounties against 11 other exiled Hong Kong activists.

    Hong Kong authorities have sought to intimidate dozens of family members of the 19 “wanted” individuals, primarily by interrogating them. In the case of Ted Hui, a resident of Australia, they also confiscated HK$800,000 (US$103,000) from him and his family for having allegedly violated the National Security Law.

    There has been a new wave of harassment against these families in recent months, Human Rights Watch said. After the Hong Kong police issued the third group of arrests and bounties against six exiled activists in December 2024, they began to harass their families. In January, police interrogated eight family members and former colleagues of the UK-based scholar Chung Kim-wah, and raided the office of the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute, with which Chung was formerly associated.

    In February the police questioned the aunts and an uncle of Carmen Lau, a UK-based activist and former district councilor. On March 18, police interrogated the stepfather of the activist Tony Chung, who is in the UK.

    On April 10, national security police took the parents of the US-based activist Frances Hui into custody for questioning.

    The 19 wanted activists have also faced various other forms of harassment. In June and December 2024, the Hong Kong government cancelled the passports of 13 wanted activists, including Anna Kwok. In March, Lau and Chung reported that anonymous individuals sent letters to residents in various London neighborhoods urging them to hand in the activists to the Chinese Embassy in London, citing the warrants and bounties against them. Similar letters were sent to Melbourne-based Kevin Yam, a democracy activist and an Australian citizen.

    Many of the 19 activists, including Kwok and Frances Hui, have reported online harassment campaigns, including rape and death threats, since the government issued the warrants and bounties against them. The media reported that an online campaign, which exhibited signs of a previous Chinese government influence operation, sought to mobilize far-right people in the UK to attack activists on the bounty list.

    The 19 wanted activists live in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia. The US government in March sanctioned six officials in Hong Kong for using the National Security Law “extraterritorially to intimidate, silence, and harass” the activists. The other three governments have issued statements condemning the arrest warrants, but have not taken action to hold Hong Kong officials accountable. The US government is also the only one that has arrested someone for allegedly harassing a Hong Kong activist on its soil, though the person was later acquitted.

    The Chinese government has used two draconian national security laws, the National Security Law of 2020 and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance of 2024, to dismantle the city’s pro-democracy movement and take away its fundamental freedoms, which are enshrined in Hong Kong’s de facto constitution, the Basic Law. Over 200,000 Hong Kongers have left Hong Kong, among them protesters and activists who have continued their activism abroad.

    The AustralianUK, and US governments, the European Union, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have all publicly expressed concerns about the two security laws.

    “Beijing isn’t likely to stop abuses against the families of exiled activists unless affected governments send a strong message that such repression carries a cost,” Uluyol said. “They should fully investigate and sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials involved, and pass strong laws to protect their residents and citizens from transnational abuses.”

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/04/hong-kong-targeting-exiled-activists-families-escalates

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • China and Russia released a joint declaration on the need for global strategic stability, which included an explicit condemnation of the US’s nuclear counterforce strategy. Historian Peter Kuznik and filmmaker Regis Tremblay join us to discuss the risks of nuclear war in the current moment and the historical implications of the Russia-China alliance. Our understanding of China — and U.S.-China relations — has become a defining feature of all global politics. The China Report is a new show produced in collaboration with Pivot to Peace where every week, we will be helping you through all the propaganda with an independent view of the country we are taught to hate, but know so little about.

    The post Pentagon Strategy Increases Risk Of Nuclear War With China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On April 8, a bipartisan commission chartered by Congress warned that China is rapidly advancing a terrifying new military threat: genetically engineered “super soldiers.”

    The report by the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) urges the U.S. to respond with a sweeping effort to militarize biotechnology. It offers little concrete evidence that such Chinese programs even exist.

    In the name of national security, Washington is now pushing for deregulation, massive government investment, and human experimentation. Experts say this effort echoes Cold War-era paranoia and threatens to erode ethical boundaries in science and warfare.

    The post Pentagon Using Fabricated Chinese Threat To Build GE Soldiers appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A video of an elderly Chinese woman who died outside a Hunan bank after she was required to appear in person to make a withdrawal to pay for her medical expenses has sparked social media outrage over rigid banking regulations that prioritize security over accessibility.

    The woman who was hospitalized for hemiplegia, a condition in which one half of the person’s body is paralyzed, was brought to the bank in a wheelchair by her family after the bank insisted she come in person to withdraw her fixed deposit of 50,000 yuan (or US $6,937), according to a video posted by her nephew on Weibo on Wednesday.

    The critically ill woman died at the entrance of the Agricultural Bank of China’s Tianxin branch in Zhuzhou City of the central Chinese province of Hunan before she could complete the withdrawal procedure, the nephew said in the video.

    The money was meant to be used for the elderly woman to receive further treatment at another hospital that she was being transferred to, he said.

    According to Chinese state-owned local news outlet Da Wan News, she repeatedly failed to pass the facial recognition as she was too ill to blink or shake her head as required during the screening and died after nearly an hour-and-a-half of such failed attempts.

    In China, banks like the Agricultural Bank of China have made it mandatory to use facial recognition technology to process withdrawals. As a result, there have been similar incidents in the past where families have been forced to take the elderly, including a dying father in 2023 and another in 2024, to the bank to get their money.

    These incidents have typically triggered widespread outrage on Chinese social media platforms. Discussion threads around the latest one on social media, particularly on Weibo, garnered millions of views, as netizens criticized the bank for lack of flexibility and sensitivity to the concerns and needs of vulnerable customers.

    “The management systems of many of our banks have long been integrated with many advanced technologies, but the only thing missing is: humanity,” wrote one netizen named Duan Lang.

    “The bank requires the person to withdraw money in person out of consideration for the safety of customer funds, but shouldn’t the regulations be humane? When facing such a special seriously ill elderly person, can’t they handle it flexibly?” asked another netizen.

    Chinese netizens also called for reforms in regulations and policies at institutions across industries to show more empathy for sick and elderly customers and offer alternative solutions to accommodate their needs.

    “Sometimes the bank’s requirements are too harsh … Can’t we provide door-to-door service in special circumstances?” asked one netizen.

    “When formulating rules, shouldn’t all industries consider the needs of special groups and show more humane care? Don’t let the ‘system’ become an excuse to hurt others,” wrote one netizen named Snowstorm.

    “The real issue is that the financial regulatory agency lacks detailed regulations … (and) prioritizes bank security,” Pang Jiulin, an attorney working at a law firm in Beijing, said on Weibo.

    Regarding this week’s incident, a staff member of the Shifeng District office – one of the four urban districts of Zhuzhou City in Hunan province – said the police at its Tianxin subdistrict have intervened and are investigating the matter.

    The Agricultural Bank of China’s Zhuzhou branch said the bank has set up a special working group to fully cooperate with police on the investigations.

    Edited by Tenzin Pema.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Xiangyang Li and Haonan Cheng for RFA Cantonese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A mass protest by parents this week against the planned closure of a private school in northern China prompted a rare reversal by authorities, officials and parents said.

    Video posted on social media showed hundreds of parents outside the Nangong municipal government building in Hebei province on Sunday, demanding Fengyi Elementary School stay open after learning it was set to close its doors.

    The planned closure appeared to be part of a broader government effort that began several years ago to scale back private education and boost state-run schools.

    In the video, posted on X by Yesterday, a project that documents mass protests in China, the demonstrators could be heard shouting “Disagree!” and “Leaders come out!”

    Video: Mass protest by parents prompts reversal of private school closure in China

    Witnesses told RFA that the protest continued into the night, and police were dispatched to maintain order.

    A parent who did not want to be named for safety reasons told Radio Free Asia on Thursday that the school was well-regarded and parents would compete for placements for their children through a public lottery.

    With the school’s closure, children were going to be sent instead to public schools with a reputation for chaotic management and high turnover of teachers, he said.

    “They (the government) saw that the school had high educational quality and that parents with financial means sent their children to Fengyi Elementary School, so they wanted to close it down,” the parent said.

    As well as being told the school would close, parents were told to choose a public school for their children. The video posted on X showed a form for them to fill out to list the priority of their school choices.

    But following the protest, authorities reversed course.

    An official from the Nangong City government office confirmed a “protest by thousands of parents a few days ago,” but said that “the problem has been resolved” and that “Fengyi Elementary School will not be closed.” The official said he wasn’t able to provide further details and the matter was being addressed by the Education Bureau.

    In recent years, the Chinese Communist Party has sought to scale back private education and bring private schools under state control with the justification that it would promote fairness in education and reduce costs for parents. However, it has more recently eased restrictions on private tutoring.

    According to statistics released by the Ministry of Education last October, the total number of private schools in the country has decreased by more than 20,000 in the past four years, and by more than 11,000 in 2023 alone. The data also showed that the current number of students enrolled in private schools stood at less than 50 million, down more than 3 million from 2023. In total, that represents nearly 17% of the total student population nationwide.

    But private schools remain a first choice for many parents in China even as local governments have implemented policies to restrict the private education and narrow the gap in the quality with education offered in the public sector.

    Jia Lingmin, a retired teacher from Zhengzhou, Henan, told RFA that as birth rates in China continue to decline, the number of children entering school is also decreasing year by year, and many public schools are facing the problem of insufficient enrollment and closure.

    “Private schools have high education quality and a good teaching environment, and many parents are willing to send their children to private schools,” she said.

    Yao Li, a parent in Handan, Hebei, said that although public schools offer free tuition for ages at which education is compulsory – from age 6 to 15 – parents still generally prefer private schools in terms of education, teacher quality and management methods.

    The Nangong City Education Bureau Office did not respond to RFA’s call seeking comment.

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • China’s political form is called ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.’ Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei calls the Chinese political content ‘whole-process people’s democracy’. He distinguishes this model from the formulaic, procedure-obsessed, and anti-democratic model of the North American Republic and European social democracies. What separates the Chinese model from the political model of the central capitalist formations are a number of variables: firstly, mass participation from top to bottom is a key feature of Chinese socialism. Secondly, the subordination of the capitalist class to the party-state and thus the imperatives of the masses defines China’s ability to develop a socialist market economy.

    The post Whole Process People’s Democracy: The Path Forward appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • TAIPEI, Taiwan — Submarine communication cables are critical for modern life: for security, economic prosperity and connecting people.

    Experts warn that the cables serving Taiwan and its high-tech economy are vulnerable not just to wear-and-tear and accidents, but sabotage.

    In early 2025, a Chinese cargo ship was suspected of damaging the submarine cables between Taiwan and its outlying Penghu islands in the Taiwan Strait.

    That incident highlighted the risks facing self-ruling Taiwan, which China claims as part of its territory, from so-called “gray-zone” activities – acts of aggression against an adversary that fall short of being acts of war.

    Radio Free Asia interviewed Huang Shengxiong, chairman of the Taiwan Internet Information Center, about the potential impact if China damages Taiwan’s submarine cables.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Image credit: Dossier no. 87 ‘The Bandung Spirit’, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, 2025.

    Seventy years ago this month, leaders of twenty-nine newly or nearly independent Asian and African nations inaugurated the historic Bandung Conference, embarking on the ‘Freedom Walk’ along Asia-Africa Road to the conference’s Freedom Building (Gedung Merdeka) in Bandung, Indonesia. As a diplomatic performance and collective political action, these leaders walked among the teeming crowds to announce that the peoples of the Third World had stood up after centuries of colonialism.

    There was, however, no consensus on the future towards which these countries were marching. Participating nations ranged from those in US military alliances (Turkey, the Philippines) to non-aligned states (Indonesia, Egypt, India), and included ideologically distinct regimes – from newly communist nations (North Vietnam and China) to those accusing Soviet communism of being ‘another form of colonialism’ (Ceylon, now Sri Lanka). In other words, it was unclear how unity could be built from such diversity.

    In his opening speech, Indonesian President Sukarno emphasised that ‘colonialism is not dead’ and that it persists in new forms. He declared:

    Colonialism also has its modern dress, in the form of economic control, intellectual control, and actual physical control by a small alien community within a nation.

    Now these nations were united in their opposition to colonialism – ‘the lifeline of imperialism’ – to defend their hard-won independence. As former colonies:

    This line [that] runs from the Straits of Gibraltar, through the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea, and the Sea of Japan. For most of that enormous distance, the territories on both sides of this lifeline were colonies; the peoples were unfree, their futures mortgaged to an alien system.

    ‘We have so much in common’, he added, ‘and yet we know so little of each other’.

    Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai played a pivotal role by raising the banner of ‘seek[ing] common ground while reserving differences’, as part of the young communist country’s debut on the international diplomatic stage. One of the conference’s major achievements was the unanimous adoption of a ten-point ‘Declaration on the Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation’. These principles – including sovereign equality, non-aggression, non-interference, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence – have since become the cornerstone of Global South diplomacy.

    Itji Tarmizi (Indonesia), Bandung Lautan Api, 1972.

    The Bandung Spirit, as an assertion of the historical agency of the formerly colonised world, rejected the Cold War logic of military blocs and great-power domination. It offered an alternative vision: That these countries could establish a set of universal norms to ensure their own survival and sovereignty. The conference also served as a testing ground in diplomacy for nascent nations, allowing them to ‘localise’ diplomatic norms and push for regionalism – seen as a powerful instrument for defending national independence.

    Yet the Bandung moment was hard-won and immediately contested. Western imperialist powers viewed the awakening of the Third World with alarm. US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles saw the conference’s Afro-Asian solidarity as ‘by its very nature and concept anti-Western’ and feared that inviting the People’s Republic of China (PRC) would give Zhou Enlai a platform to broadcast communist ideology to what he called the ‘naïve audience of anti-colonialists’. In the following years, the West retaliated violently against the emerging Third World project that Bandung helped propel – most notably through a wave of CIA-backed coups in countries such as Indonesia that deposed Sukarno a decade later. Despite these efforts, the ideals of Bandung have endured in the political imagination of the Global South.

    A New Mood: The Rise of China and the Global South

    Seventy years on, a new world order is slowly emerging, aspiring towards one of Bandung’s core ideas: that international affairs need not be dominated by Western powers. The rise of the Global South has generated new multilateral institutions embedded with the principles of equality and mutual benefit in international relations.

    Notably, BRICS has grown in prominence as a platform for the Global South to cooperate – both economically and politically. It has expanded to include five new members – Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE – along several partner states. This new mood is backed by material changes. The centre of gravity of the world economy has shifted eastward, with China and other Asian countries becoming engines of global growth​.

    By 2023, China was the largest global economy in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and 47% of its foreign trade was with countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative – a figure that rose to 50% in 2024,​ reflecting a deliberate diversification away from Western markets. Likewise, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a multilateral trade pact spanning Asia and the Pacific, has strengthened regional trade ties, with intra-RCEP trade growing by 12% year-on-year​. These developments signal a major shift: China is now the largest trading partner for over 120 countries in the world​.

    As in 1955, China today occupies a central position in this unfolding Global South project –serving as both a target of imperialist aggression and a torchbearer of an alternative path. Nowhere is this dual role clearer than in the global trade war unleashed by the United States, particularly under Donald Trump’s administration. In a throwback to Cold War hostility –   employing tariffs instead of troops – Trump began his series of offensives by signing an executive order placing a blanket 10% tariff on all imports into the United States in February. Then, on April 2 – labelled by Trump as ‘Liberation Day’, the US President unleashed a series of punitive ‘reciprocal’ tariffs on 57 countries. These were ostensibly to correct trade imbalances and hit friends and foes alike. A week later, Trump grandiosely announced, via social media, a ninety-day tariff reprieve for countries that ‘have not…retaliated in any way’, while doubling down on China as the primary target with a 145% tariff on all goods.

    Amrus Natalsya, Mereka Yang Terusir Dari Tanahnya (Indonesia), Those Chased Away from Their Land, 1960.

    Much like Dulles in 1955, the US establishment today fears China’s emergence, which in the past served as an ideological threat as the world’s largest communist Third World nation and is today seen as an economic and existential threat. The tariff onslaught has injected instability into the global economy and further eroded the norms of multilateral trade ​– ironically undermining the very international trading system that the US helped build in its own favour.

    Beijing, however, has refused to bow to this economic aggression. China responded swiftly and resolutely to Trump’s tariff barrage. Within days, the Chinese government announced reciprocal tariffs, zeroing in on sensitive sectors to maximise pressure. ‘We have abundant means to retaliate and will by no means sit by if our interests are harmed’, Chinese officials declared, denouncing Washington’s economic coercion and asserting China’s right to defend its national sovereignty. This stance was met with an outpouring of public support inside China: Patriotic sentiment surged on social media, with the hashtag ‘China’s countermeasures are here’ with 180 million engagements in a week. As one Chinese netizen highlighted, ‘Patriotism is not just a feeling – it is an action’. That China and the Chinese people have stood united against US’ bully tactics carries symbolic significance for the Global South.

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Mao Ning, invoking President Xi Jinping’s words from 2018, summed up this spirit of resistance on April 8: ‘A storm may churn a pond, but it cannot rattle the ocean. The ocean has weathered countless tempests – this time is no different’. Two weeks after Trump unleashed tariffs on the world, hitting Southeast Asian countries such as Cambodia (49%) and Vietnam (46%) the hardest, Xi toured the region, signing 31 and 37 agreements spanning various sectors in Malaysia and Cambodia, respectively. In Vietnam, where Xi called on deeper bilateral ties to resist ‘unilateral bullying’, 45 agreements were signed while party-to-party exchanges underscored the alignment between the countries’ communist parties.

    Trump’s strongarm tactics and economic warfare dressed as ‘reciprocity’ is the antithesis of the Bandung principles of non-interference and equality. Within this context, South-South cooperation frameworks are receiving increased attention, together with renewed calls to strengthen cooperation and unity within the BRICS, RCEP, and other Global South multilateral platforms. Finding unity among the extreme diversity of the Global South is a tall order. This unity, however, cannot rely solely at the level of states and their leaders, but it must also come from below, from the energy of peoples’ movements and progressive forces across Africa, Asia, and Latin America to revive a true Bandung Spirit against US imperialism and unilateralism. As Zhou Enlai evoked at the Bandung Conference, the hand of imperialism has five fingers – political, military, cultural, social, and economic spheres – which can only be overcome through the unity of the Global South and its peoples.

    As Sukarno wrote in ‘Towards Indonesian Independence’ (1933): ‘If the Banteng (bull) of Indonesia can work together with the Sphinx of Egypt, with the Nandi Ox of the country of India, with the Dragon of the country of China, with the champions of independence of other countries – if the Banteng of Indonesia can work together with all the enemies of international capitalism and imperialism around the world – O, surely the end of international imperialism is coming fairly soon!’ One of the major blows against US imperialism was the victory of the Vietnamese people, celebrated fifty years ago today.

    René Mederos (Cuba), Viet Nam Shall Win, 1971. (courtesy: Center for the Study of Political Graphics)

    For more about the Bandung Spirit, read our Institute’s latest dossier.

    – Tings Chak, Tricontinental Asia

    The post Coexistence Not Co-Destruction: Remembering Bandung 70 Years On first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Ten years after its creation, the China-CELAC Forum has consolidated its position as one of the most relevant platforms for dialogue between Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia.

    “The platform has strengthened cooperation between CELAC members and China, based on sovereign equality, mutual respect, plurality, and shared benefits,” states the meeting’s final joint declaration.

    Under the theme “Planning development and revitalization together, jointly building a China-LAC community with a shared future,” the meeting brought together representatives from more than 30 countries and leaders such as Xi Jinping (China), Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Brazil), Gustavo Petro (Colombia), and Gabriel Boric (Chile).

    The post China-Celac Forum Brings Latin America And China Together appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The first thing to say about the Trump administration’s tariff war is that it is primarily designed to weaken, undermine and isolate the People’s Republic of China.

    It’s part of a broader program of “decoupling” from China and a broader New Cold War on China – a system of hybrid warfare incorporating economic measures, diplomatic measures and propaganda measures, along with a significant military component: the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops to the Pacific region; the US military bases in the Philippines, Guam, Okinawa, Japan, South Korea, Australia; the deployment of sophisticated weapons systems to the region; and the various attempts to create some sort of Asian NATO.

    The post Trump’s Tariffs And The New Cold War On China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.