Category: China

  • An international relations lecturer says New Zealand’s framing of China in the perceived Pacific geopolitical struggle is “disingenuous”.

    Victoria University of Wellington’s Nanai Anae Dr Iati Iati said one example was the lack of substance behind the notion that China was militarising the Pacific region.

    He said NZ’s National Security Strategy framed Beijing within a “threat” narrative.

    “There are no angels in geopolitical competition,” he said.

    “But to frame one country in particular as the devil, that’s disingenuous, especially because the Pacific island countries know that is not the case,” Dr Iati said.

    “So unfortunately, New Zealand is caught within this tension between China on one side, and let’s say the Anglo-American Alliance on the other side.”

    Massey University associate professor Dr Anna Powles said Pacific leaders had been calling for cooperation in the region which did not undermine Pacific priorities.

    However, she said there were clear examples where China had been a “disruptive actor” in the Pacific security sector, particularly in Solomon Islands.

    “At the heart of what the Pacific Islands Forum and Pacific countries and scholars are saying is that geopolitics in general is disruptive.

    “Therefore, the solutions need to be Pacific led,” Dr Powles added.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • An international relations lecturer says New Zealand’s framing of China in the perceived Pacific geopolitical struggle is “disingenuous”.

    Victoria University of Wellington’s Nanai Anae Dr Iati Iati said one example was the lack of substance behind the notion that China was militarising the Pacific region.

    He said NZ’s National Security Strategy framed Beijing within a “threat” narrative.

    “There are no angels in geopolitical competition,” he said.

    “But to frame one country in particular as the devil, that’s disingenuous, especially because the Pacific island countries know that is not the case,” Dr Iati said.

    “So unfortunately, New Zealand is caught within this tension between China on one side, and let’s say the Anglo-American Alliance on the other side.”

    Massey University associate professor Dr Anna Powles said Pacific leaders had been calling for cooperation in the region which did not undermine Pacific priorities.

    However, she said there were clear examples where China had been a “disruptive actor” in the Pacific security sector, particularly in Solomon Islands.

    “At the heart of what the Pacific Islands Forum and Pacific countries and scholars are saying is that geopolitics in general is disruptive.

    “Therefore, the solutions need to be Pacific led,” Dr Powles added.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • China and Japan on Friday paid tribute to a school bus attendant in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou who died from stab wounds after defending a Japanese mother and child in a June 24 knife attack, while government censors deleted hundreds of anti-Japanese posts from social media platforms.

    “Hu Youping, a resident of the Chinese city of Suzhou who lost her life after attempting to stop a knife attack that injured two Japanese nationals, will be honored for her heroic deeds,” state news agency Xinhua cited local authorities as saying.

    The focus on Hu’s heroic actions came as the authorities sought to defuse anti-Japanese sentiment on Chinese social media platforms, and as Japan warned its citizens living in China to take additional precautions to guard against similar attacks.

    Hu was “seriously injured” in the attack that occurred at around 4 p.m. on Monday at a bus stop in the Suzhou New District in Jiangsu Province, and died in hospital on Wednesday, the Xinhua report said.

    Hu was stabbed as she tried to restrain the attacker, allowing the Japanese woman’s son to escape. The attacker then turned to Hu, stabbing her before being subdued by passers-by and police, according to the agency.

    “If she hadn’t tried to hold back the assailant, there could have been more victims,” it quoted an eyewitness as saying.


    Related stories

    Japanese mother and child stabbed in China

    4 American teachers are stabbed in knife attack in China

    Police in China’s Zhejiang hold man after stabbing spree leaves six people dead

    China suspends news anchor for calling Japan quake ‘retribution’


    The Japanese Embassy in China released a short video clip of its flag lowering to half-mast in Hu’s honor on its official Weibo account at about 10:00 a.m. on Friday, with the hashtagging the post “The woman who bravely rescued the Japanese mother and child dies.”

    “We are deeply saddened to hear that Ms. Hu Youping passed away after attempts to resuscitate her failed,” the post said. “Ms. Hu single-handedly protected an innocent woman and child from a criminal.”

    “We believe that her courage and kindness are representative of the vast majority of Chinese people. May she rest in peace.”

    Japan's Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa speaks during a press conference, May 4, 2024 in Colombo. Kamikawa expressed her condolences during a press conference Friday, June 28, 2024 stating, “Ms. Hu Youping stepped forward regardless of her own safety and prevented the Japanese students on the school bus from being harmed. I would like to express my sincere gratitude and respect for this heroic act and express my deep condolences.” (Ishara S.Kodikara/AFP)
    Japan’s Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa speaks during a press conference, May 4, 2024 in Colombo. Kamikawa expressed her condolences during a press conference Friday, June 28, 2024 stating, “Ms. Hu Youping stepped forward regardless of her own safety and prevented the Japanese students on the school bus from being harmed. I would like to express my sincere gratitude and respect for this heroic act and express my deep condolences.” (Ishara S.Kodikara/AFP)

    Shizuoka University professor Yang Haiying said the gesture showed how seriously Japan took the attack, and Hu’s actions.

    “It shows that Japan is very concerned about this,” Yang said. “Lowering the flag to half-mast is a huge deal, and the Japanese Embassy did a good job by talking about this from a humanitarian perspective.”

    Authorities in Suzhou will confer the title of “Role Model of Righteousness and Courage” upon Hu Youping posthumously, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told a regular news conference in Beijing on Friday.

    “We extend deep condolences over her passing and our thoughts are with her family,” Mao said, calling Hu a “shining example of the kindheartedness, bravery and everyday heroism in Chinese people, who would not hesitate to stand in harm’s way to help others.”

    Suzhou’s police department and the city’s Bravery Foundation jointly nominated Hu for the award, in recognition of her heroism in tackling the assailant.

    “She was really brave, because there were a lot of other people around, and it was around the time when school was getting out, and those people could have been in danger,” a woman who answered the phone at a number given on the joint announcement told RFA Mandarin on Friday.

    The woman, who gave only the surname Chen, said Hu’s family would likely be in line for “rewards or a pension” in honor of her actions, but that the details would need to be hammered out by a review committee.

    Offsetting applause for attack

    Veteran U.S.-based political commentator Hu Ping said the honoring of Hu was likely an attempt to stem the tide of anti-Japanese sentiment on Chinese social media platforms.

    “The government thought it necessary to honor her in order to offset the effects of the applause for the stabbing attack on Japanese people,” Hu said. “That is the intention behind it.”

    While some social media users praised Hu as an “upstanding Chinese citizen” and “a hero of the common people,” government censors were also scrambling to remove anti-Japanese comments from social media platforms in the wake of Monday’s attack, state media reported.

    Sina Weibo punished 36 accounts and removed 759 posts that “spread extreme speech that incites nationalistic sentiment, promoted group hatred, and even applauded criminal acts in the name of patriotism,” the Global Times newspaper reported on Wednesday.

    The company called on users “not to overly interpret isolated incidents, nor to promote violence and glorify crime in the name of patriotism,” the report said.

    Chinese police have detained a 52-year-old man surnamed Zhou in connection with the attack.

    Two Japanese nationals were also injured in the attack. One is receiving hospital treatment but is not in a life-threatening condition, and the other was discharged following treatment on the day of the attack, according to the Global Times.

    The Global Times said in an op-ed article published Friday that China “is undoubtedly still one of the safest countries in the world,” citing low reported homicide rates and one of the lowest incidences of firearm-related crime anywhere in the world.

    “The country is continuously moving toward social stability and the safety of its people, and foreign nationals in China will also enjoy a more legal and secure living environment,” it said.

    Mao also told reporters in Beijing that China will continue to “take effective measures” to protect foreign nationals in China.

    Monday’s attack was the latest in a string of knife attacks in China. 

    Earlier this month, four American teachers were stabbed in a park in the northeastern city of Jilin. Last month, a knife attack at a hospital in Yunnan province left two people dead and 21 people injured.

    The Japanese Embassy in Beijing warned Japanese nationals living in China to take precautions against stabbing incidents while in public places including schools and parks, the Associated Press reported.

    Japanese schools in China had also requested extra security in the wake of Monday’s stabbings, Japanese media outlet NHK said.

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Hsia Hsiao-hwa for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Erik Bulatov (USSR), People in the Landscape, 1976.

    There was a time when calls for a nuclear-free Europe rang across the continent. It began with the Stockholm Appeal (1950), which opened with the powerful words ‘We demand the outlawing of atomic weapons as instruments of intimidation and mass murder of peoples’ and then deepened with the Appeal for European Nuclear Disarmament (1980), which issued the chilling warning ‘We are entering the most dangerous decade in human history’. Roughly 274 million people signed the Stockholm Appeal, including – as is often reported – the entire adult population of the Soviet Union. Yet, since the European appeal of 1980, it feels as if each decade has been more and more dangerous than the previous one. ‘It is still 90 seconds to midnight’, the editors at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (the keepers of the Doomsday Clock) wrote in January. Midnight is Armageddon. In 1949, the clock sat at three minutes to midnight, and in 1980 it had retreated slightly from the precipice, back to seven minutes to midnight. By 2023, however, the clock’s hand had moved all the way up to ninety seconds to midnight, where it remains, the closest we have ever been to full-scale annihilation.

    This precarious situation is threatening to reach a tipping point in Europe today. To understand the dangerous possibilities that could be unleashed by the intensified provocations around Ukraine, we collaborated with No Cold War to produce briefing no. 14, NATO’s Actions in Ukraine Are More Dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Please read this text carefully and circulate it as widely as possible.

    For the past two years, Europe’s largest war since 1945 has been raging in Ukraine. The root cause of this war is the US-driven attempt to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) into Ukraine. This violates the promises the West made to the Soviet Union during the end of the Cold War, such as that NATO would move ‘not one inch eastward’, as US Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. Over the past decade, the Global North has repeatedly snubbed Russian requests for security guarantees. It was this disregard for Russian concerns that led to the outbreak of the conflict in 2014 and the war in 2022.

    Today, a nuclear-armed NATO and a nuclear-armed Russia are in direct conflict in Ukraine. Instead of taking steps to bring this war to an end, NATO has made several new announcements in recent months that threaten to escalate the situation into a still more serious conflict with the potential to spill beyond Ukraine’s borders. It is no exaggeration to say that this conflict has created the greatest threat to world peace since the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962).

    This extremely dangerous escalation confirms the correctness of the majority of US experts on Russia and Eastern Europe, who have long warned against the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe. In 1997, George Kennan, the principal architect of US policy in the Cold War, said that this strategy is ‘the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era’. The Ukraine war and the dangers of further escalation fully affirm the seriousness of his warning.

    Elif Uras (Turkey), Kapital, 2009.

    How Is NATO Escalating the Conflict in Ukraine?

    The most dangerous recent developments in this conflict are the decisions by the US and Britain in May to authorise Ukraine to use weapons supplied by the two countries to conduct military attacks inside Russia. Ukraine’s government immediately used this in the most provocative way by attacking Russia’s ballistic missile early warning system. This warning system plays no role in the Ukraine war but is a central part of Russia’s defence system against strategic nuclear attack. In addition, the British government supplied Ukraine with Storm Shadow missiles that have a range of over 250 km (155 miles) and can hit targets not only on the battleground but far inside Russia. The use of NATO weapons to attack Russia risks an equivalent Russian counter-response, threatening to spread the war beyond Ukraine.

    This was followed by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s June announcement that a NATO headquarter for operations in the Ukraine war had been created at the US military base in Wiesbaden, Germany, with 700 initial staff. On 7 June, French President Emmanuel Macron said that his government was working to ‘finalise a coalition’ of NATO countries willing to send troops to Ukraine to ‘train’ Ukrainian forces. This would place NATO forces directly in the war. As the Vietnam War and other conflicts have shown, such ‘trainers’ organise and direct fighting, thus becoming targets for attacks.

    Nadia Abu-Aitah (Switzerland), Breaking Free, 2021.

    Why Is Escalation in Ukraine More Dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis?

    The Cuban Missile Crisis was the product of an adventurist miscalculation by Soviet leadership that the US would tolerate the presence of Soviet nuclear missiles only 144 km from the nearest US shore and roughly 1,800 km from Washington. Such a deployment would have made it impossible for the US to defend against a nuclear strike and would have ‘levelled the playing field’, since the US already had such capabilities vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. The US, predictably, made it clear that this would not be tolerated and that it would prevent it by any means necessary, including nuclear war. With the Doomsday Clock at 12 minutes to midnight, the Soviet leadership realised its miscalculation and, after a few days of intense crisis, withdrew the missiles. This was followed by a relaxation of US-Soviet tensions, leading to the first Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963).

    No bullets flew between the US and the USSR in 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis was an extremely dangerous short-term incident that could have ignited large-scale – including nuclear – war. However, unlike the Ukraine war, it did not flow from an already existing and intensifying dynamic of war by either the US or the USSR. Thus, while extremely dangerous, the situation could also be, and was, rapidly resolved.

    The situation in Ukraine, as well as the growing conflict around China, are more structurally dangerous. Direct confrontation is taking place between NATO and Russia, where the US just authorised direct military strikes (imagine if, during the 1962 crisis, Cuban forces armed and trained by the Soviet Union had carried out major military strikes in Florida). Meanwhile, the US is directly raising military tensions with China around Taiwan and the South China Sea, as well as in the Korean Peninsula. The US government understands that it cannot withstand erosion to its position of global primacy and rightly believes that it may lose its economic dominance to China. That is why it increasingly moves issues onto the military terrain, where it still maintains an advantage. The US position on Gaza is significantly determined by its understanding that it cannot afford a blow to its military supremacy, embodied in the regime that it controls in Israel.

    The US and its NATO partners are responsible for 74.3% of global military spending. Within the context of the US’s increasing drive for war and use of military means, the situation in Ukraine, and potentially around China, are, in reality, as dangerous, and potentially more dangerous, than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Tatiana Grinevich (Belarus), The River of Wishes, 2012.

    How Are the Warring Parties to Negotiate?

    Hours after Russian troops entered Ukraine, both sides began to talk about a drawdown of tensions. These negotiations developed in Belarus and Turkey before they were scuttled by NATO’s assurances to Ukraine of endless and bottomless support to ‘weaken’ Russia. If those early negotiations had developed, thousands of lives would have been spared. All such wars end in negotiations, which is why the sooner they could have happened, the better. This is a view that is now openly acknowledged by Ukrainians. Vadym Skibitsky, deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, told The Economist that negotiations are on the horizon.

    For a long time now, the Russia-Ukraine frontline has not moved dramatically. In February 2024, the Chinese government released a twelve-point set of principles to guide a peace process. These points – including ‘abandoning the Cold War mentality’ – should have been seriously considered by the belligerent sides. But the NATO states simply ignored them. Several months later, a Ukraine-driven conference was held in Switzerland from 15–16 June, to which Russia was not invited and which ended with a communiqué that borrowed many of the Chinese proposals about nuclear safety, food security, and prisoner exchanges.

    Velislava Gecheva (Bulgaria), Homo photographicus, 2014.

    While a number of states – from Albania to Uruguay – signed the document, other countries that attended the meeting refused to sign on for a range of reasons, including their sense that the text did not take Russia’s security concerns seriously. Among the countries that did not sign are Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Libya, Mauritius, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates. A few days before the Switzerland conference, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin stated his conditions for peace, which include a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO. This view is shared by those countries of the Global South that did not join the Switzerland statement.

    Both Russia and Ukraine are willing to negotiate. Why should the NATO states be allowed to prolong a war that threatens world peace? The upcoming NATO summit in Washington from 9–11 July must hear, loudly and clearly, that the world does not want its dangerous war or decadent militarism. The world’s peoples want to build bridges, not blow them up.

    Maxim Kantor (Russia), Two Versions of History, 1993.

    Briefing no. 14, a clear assessment of current dangers around the escalation in and around Ukraine, underscores the need, as Abdullah El Harif of the Workers’ Democratic Way party in Morocco and I wrote in the Bouficha Appeal Against the Preparations for War in 2020, for the peoples of the world to:

    • Stand against the warmongering of US imperialism, which seeks to impose dangerous wars on an already fragile planet.
    • Stand against the saturation of the world with weapons of all kinds, which inflame conflicts and often drive political processes toward endless wars.
    • Stand against the use of military power to prevent the social development of the peoples of the world.
    • Defend the right of countries to build their sovereignty and their dignity.

    Sensitive people around the world must make their voices heard on the streets and in the corridors of power to end this dangerous war, and indeed to set us on a path beyond capitalism’s world of unending wars.

    The post There Is No Such Thing as a Small Nuclear War first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Erik Bulatov (USSR), People in the Landscape, 1976.

    There was a time when calls for a nuclear-free Europe rang across the continent. It began with the Stockholm Appeal (1950), which opened with the powerful words ‘We demand the outlawing of atomic weapons as instruments of intimidation and mass murder of peoples’ and then deepened with the Appeal for European Nuclear Disarmament (1980), which issued the chilling warning ‘We are entering the most dangerous decade in human history’. Roughly 274 million people signed the Stockholm Appeal, including – as is often reported – the entire adult population of the Soviet Union. Yet, since the European appeal of 1980, it feels as if each decade has been more and more dangerous than the previous one. ‘It is still 90 seconds to midnight’, the editors at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (the keepers of the Doomsday Clock) wrote in January. Midnight is Armageddon. In 1949, the clock sat at three minutes to midnight, and in 1980 it had retreated slightly from the precipice, back to seven minutes to midnight. By 2023, however, the clock’s hand had moved all the way up to ninety seconds to midnight, where it remains, the closest we have ever been to full-scale annihilation.

    This precarious situation is threatening to reach a tipping point in Europe today. To understand the dangerous possibilities that could be unleashed by the intensified provocations around Ukraine, we collaborated with No Cold War to produce briefing no. 14, NATO’s Actions in Ukraine Are More Dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Please read this text carefully and circulate it as widely as possible.

    For the past two years, Europe’s largest war since 1945 has been raging in Ukraine. The root cause of this war is the US-driven attempt to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) into Ukraine. This violates the promises the West made to the Soviet Union during the end of the Cold War, such as that NATO would move ‘not one inch eastward’, as US Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. Over the past decade, the Global North has repeatedly snubbed Russian requests for security guarantees. It was this disregard for Russian concerns that led to the outbreak of the conflict in 2014 and the war in 2022.

    Today, a nuclear-armed NATO and a nuclear-armed Russia are in direct conflict in Ukraine. Instead of taking steps to bring this war to an end, NATO has made several new announcements in recent months that threaten to escalate the situation into a still more serious conflict with the potential to spill beyond Ukraine’s borders. It is no exaggeration to say that this conflict has created the greatest threat to world peace since the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962).

    This extremely dangerous escalation confirms the correctness of the majority of US experts on Russia and Eastern Europe, who have long warned against the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe. In 1997, George Kennan, the principal architect of US policy in the Cold War, said that this strategy is ‘the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era’. The Ukraine war and the dangers of further escalation fully affirm the seriousness of his warning.

    Elif Uras (Turkey), Kapital, 2009.

    How Is NATO Escalating the Conflict in Ukraine?

    The most dangerous recent developments in this conflict are the decisions by the US and Britain in May to authorise Ukraine to use weapons supplied by the two countries to conduct military attacks inside Russia. Ukraine’s government immediately used this in the most provocative way by attacking Russia’s ballistic missile early warning system. This warning system plays no role in the Ukraine war but is a central part of Russia’s defence system against strategic nuclear attack. In addition, the British government supplied Ukraine with Storm Shadow missiles that have a range of over 250 km (155 miles) and can hit targets not only on the battleground but far inside Russia. The use of NATO weapons to attack Russia risks an equivalent Russian counter-response, threatening to spread the war beyond Ukraine.

    This was followed by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s June announcement that a NATO headquarter for operations in the Ukraine war had been created at the US military base in Wiesbaden, Germany, with 700 initial staff. On 7 June, French President Emmanuel Macron said that his government was working to ‘finalise a coalition’ of NATO countries willing to send troops to Ukraine to ‘train’ Ukrainian forces. This would place NATO forces directly in the war. As the Vietnam War and other conflicts have shown, such ‘trainers’ organise and direct fighting, thus becoming targets for attacks.

    Nadia Abu-Aitah (Switzerland), Breaking Free, 2021.

    Why Is Escalation in Ukraine More Dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis?

    The Cuban Missile Crisis was the product of an adventurist miscalculation by Soviet leadership that the US would tolerate the presence of Soviet nuclear missiles only 144 km from the nearest US shore and roughly 1,800 km from Washington. Such a deployment would have made it impossible for the US to defend against a nuclear strike and would have ‘levelled the playing field’, since the US already had such capabilities vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. The US, predictably, made it clear that this would not be tolerated and that it would prevent it by any means necessary, including nuclear war. With the Doomsday Clock at 12 minutes to midnight, the Soviet leadership realised its miscalculation and, after a few days of intense crisis, withdrew the missiles. This was followed by a relaxation of US-Soviet tensions, leading to the first Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963).

    No bullets flew between the US and the USSR in 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis was an extremely dangerous short-term incident that could have ignited large-scale – including nuclear – war. However, unlike the Ukraine war, it did not flow from an already existing and intensifying dynamic of war by either the US or the USSR. Thus, while extremely dangerous, the situation could also be, and was, rapidly resolved.

    The situation in Ukraine, as well as the growing conflict around China, are more structurally dangerous. Direct confrontation is taking place between NATO and Russia, where the US just authorised direct military strikes (imagine if, during the 1962 crisis, Cuban forces armed and trained by the Soviet Union had carried out major military strikes in Florida). Meanwhile, the US is directly raising military tensions with China around Taiwan and the South China Sea, as well as in the Korean Peninsula. The US government understands that it cannot withstand erosion to its position of global primacy and rightly believes that it may lose its economic dominance to China. That is why it increasingly moves issues onto the military terrain, where it still maintains an advantage. The US position on Gaza is significantly determined by its understanding that it cannot afford a blow to its military supremacy, embodied in the regime that it controls in Israel.

    The US and its NATO partners are responsible for 74.3% of global military spending. Within the context of the US’s increasing drive for war and use of military means, the situation in Ukraine, and potentially around China, are, in reality, as dangerous, and potentially more dangerous, than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Tatiana Grinevich (Belarus), The River of Wishes, 2012.

    How Are the Warring Parties to Negotiate?

    Hours after Russian troops entered Ukraine, both sides began to talk about a drawdown of tensions. These negotiations developed in Belarus and Turkey before they were scuttled by NATO’s assurances to Ukraine of endless and bottomless support to ‘weaken’ Russia. If those early negotiations had developed, thousands of lives would have been spared. All such wars end in negotiations, which is why the sooner they could have happened, the better. This is a view that is now openly acknowledged by Ukrainians. Vadym Skibitsky, deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, told The Economist that negotiations are on the horizon.

    For a long time now, the Russia-Ukraine frontline has not moved dramatically. In February 2024, the Chinese government released a twelve-point set of principles to guide a peace process. These points – including ‘abandoning the Cold War mentality’ – should have been seriously considered by the belligerent sides. But the NATO states simply ignored them. Several months later, a Ukraine-driven conference was held in Switzerland from 15–16 June, to which Russia was not invited and which ended with a communiqué that borrowed many of the Chinese proposals about nuclear safety, food security, and prisoner exchanges.

    Velislava Gecheva (Bulgaria), Homo photographicus, 2014.

    While a number of states – from Albania to Uruguay – signed the document, other countries that attended the meeting refused to sign on for a range of reasons, including their sense that the text did not take Russia’s security concerns seriously. Among the countries that did not sign are Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Libya, Mauritius, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates. A few days before the Switzerland conference, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin stated his conditions for peace, which include a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO. This view is shared by those countries of the Global South that did not join the Switzerland statement.

    Both Russia and Ukraine are willing to negotiate. Why should the NATO states be allowed to prolong a war that threatens world peace? The upcoming NATO summit in Washington from 9–11 July must hear, loudly and clearly, that the world does not want its dangerous war or decadent militarism. The world’s peoples want to build bridges, not blow them up.

    Maxim Kantor (Russia), Two Versions of History, 1993.

    Briefing no. 14, a clear assessment of current dangers around the escalation in and around Ukraine, underscores the need, as Abdullah El Harif of the Workers’ Democratic Way party in Morocco and I wrote in the Bouficha Appeal Against the Preparations for War in 2020, for the peoples of the world to:

    • Stand against the warmongering of US imperialism, which seeks to impose dangerous wars on an already fragile planet.
    • Stand against the saturation of the world with weapons of all kinds, which inflame conflicts and often drive political processes toward endless wars.
    • Stand against the use of military power to prevent the social development of the peoples of the world.
    • Defend the right of countries to build their sovereignty and their dignity.

    Sensitive people around the world must make their voices heard on the streets and in the corridors of power to end this dangerous war, and indeed to set us on a path beyond capitalism’s world of unending wars.

    The post There Is No Such Thing as a Small Nuclear War first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • China is attempting to normalize its increased incursions into the waters around the outlying Kinmen islands in the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan’s Defense Minister Wellington Koo has warned.

    Koo told a hearing at the Taiwanese legislature on Wednesday that by stepping up its activities in the prohibited and restricted waters around Kinmen, China is trying to establish a new normal.

    Kinmen is less than 10 km (6.2 miles) from China’s Fujian province.

    “Prohibited” and “restricted” waters are the tacit boundaries between Taiwan’s outer islands and China’s mainland that both sides have been adhering to.  

    “Prohibited waters” refer to the territorial waters around Kinmen that extend about halfway to the Chinese coast, or roughly 4 km (2.2 nautical miles) to the north and northwest, and about 8 km (4.3 nautical miles) to the south.

    “Restricted waters” extend a little further to the south, about 24 nautical miles from Taiwan’s main island.

    Taiwan coast guard.JPG
    Taiwan Coast guard boats seen at a port in Kinmen, Taiwan, Feb. 20, 2024. (Ann Wang/Reuters)

    On Tuesday, Chinese and Taiwanese coast guards had a tense two-hour standoff after four coastguard ships from mainland China were seen patrolling in Kinmen’s restricted waters.

    Such incursions have become regular, according to the Taiwanese coast guard, which reported in May a record number of 11 Chinese vessels intruding into Kinmen’s waters.

    “The Chinese coast guard has organized a new fleet of cutters to establish a new enforcement model around Kinmen in an attempt to demonstrate their sovereignty over Taiwan,” said Su Tzu-yun, a research fellow at Taiwan’s state-run Institute for National Defense and Security Research, or INDSR.

    “This can be seen as an expansion of the gray zone tactic, that is the use of the coast guard fleet to expand China’s maritime control, not only against Taiwan, but also against the Philippines in the South China Sea, and against Japan in the Senkaku islands,” Su told Radio Free Asia.

    Gray zone activities are not explicit acts of war but harmful to a nation’s security as they are aimed at achieving security objectives without resort to direct use of force.


    RELATED STORIES

    Taiwan’s Kinmen Island: On the front lines of tension with China

    Rudd says China using ‘gray zone’ tactics against Taiwan

    Cross-Strait tensions at risk of rising after Kinmen incident


    New model of law enforcement

    China’s Global Times reported that the Chinese coast guard has adopted a new model of conducting law enforcement near Kinmen, by expanding its scope and intensity, as well as making it “all-weather enforcement.”

    According to the news outlet, since June the Fujian coast guard has organized a fleet of warships to conduct extensive patrols and further strengthen China’s control over the area.

    The newspaper quoted a Chinese Taiwan expert, Liu Kuangyu, as saying that this new maritime enforcement method can serve as an example for promoting a “one country, two systems” formula, providing an optional solution for resolving the Taiwan question.

    The Taiwanese government has repeatedly said that China’s incursions are harmful to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.

    Beside activities at sea, Beijing has also flown military aircraft over the median line in the Strait into Taiwan’s air defense zone on a daily basis.

    This month, Taiwan has tracked 389 flyovers by Chinese military aircraft, including 141 over the past week, according to the defense ministry in Taipei.

    To respond to China’s gray zone activities “it requires the alertness and joint efforts of the Indo-Pacific countries and the ASEAN, because the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea are connected,” said INDSR’s Su Tzu-yun.

    “Regional sea lanes bear a great importance on the world’s economic development as well as serve the common interests of neighboring countries,” the analyst said, adding that China needs to be prevented from monopolizing and controlling them.

    Edited by Mike Firn.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A civil war has been raging for three years, although the nation has always been gripped by inter-ethnic violence since independence in 1948 as a legacy of British colonialist abuse.

    KJ Noh is a seasoned political analyst and commentator on the Asia-Pacific region. He says the U.S. is already heavily involved in fanning the civil war in this Southeast Asian nation because Washington views it as a critical opportunity to destabilize China’s strategic interests.

    See this informative background article here.

    China has invested hugely in its southern neighbor with a 2,000-kilometer land border. Myanmar is a vital partner in Beijing’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative projects to boost global trade.

    This makes Myanmar a priority target for Washington to provoke and destabilize China.

    See this previous article on SCF which looks at recent calls by deep-state think-tanks in the US urging for more military intervention by Washington in Myanmar’s civil war.

    KJ Noh has written for Asia Times, Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, and other alternative media outlets. He discusses how the U.S. has used Myanmar (formerly Burma) for decades as a launchpad for proxy wars against China’s interests, going back to the Korean War (1950-53).

    Western media, in hock to U.S. imperialist interests, have distorted the conflict in Myanmar as the fault of China’s alleged interference when, in reality, the opposite is true. It is Washington that has continually meddled in the internal affairs of Myanmar, including helping to precipitate a military coup in the country in February 2021.

    China is invested in creating a stable, peaceful neighbor. Beijing is trying to mediate a national settlement with all the parties. But as long as the U.S. keeps meddling in Myanmar, the conflict is liable to become protracted and much worse.

    The Western corporate-controlled media are portraying the civil war as a simplistic binary situation of “pro-democracy groups” versus a military junta backed by China. This is a gross misrepresentation. But such a distortion is usefully providing the US political cover for increasing its malign interference.

    KJ Noh says the U.S. is not interested in a peaceful, democratic Myanmar. It is only interested in exploiting the suffering of the people as a way to damage China.

    Peace is possible in Myanmar. But not while the U.S. continues gearing up to intervene with “humanitarian aid” (military aid) and self-serving media lies.

    Otherwise, Myanmar is shaping up to be another endless war for U.S. imperialism and America’s next proxy war against China.

    K.J. Noh is a long time activist, writer, and teacher. He is a member of Veterans for Peace and works on global justice issues. He can be reached at: moc.liamgnull@84hon.j.k.

    • This interview first appeared in Strategic Culture Foundation

    The post Myanmar’s civil war… will the U.S. escalate a proxy war against China? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Decision could result in retailers being prosecuted if they import goods made through forced labour, campaigners say

    The UK National Crime Agency’s decision not to launch an investigation into the importation of cotton products manufactured by forced labour in China’s Xinjiang province was unlawful, the court of appeal has found.

    Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), which brought the action, said Thursday’s decision was a landmark win that could lead to high street retailers being prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Poca) if they import goods made through forced labour.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Decision could result in retailers being prosecuted if they import goods made through forced labour, campaigners say

    The UK National Crime Agency’s decision not to launch an investigation into the importation of cotton products manufactured by forced labour in China’s Xinjiang province was unlawful, the court of appeal has found.

    Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), which brought the action, said Thursday’s decision was a landmark win that could lead to high street retailers being prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Poca) if they import goods made through forced labour.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Chinese coast guard ship CCG 5901, dubbed “The Monster” for its size, has conducted a patrol along the so-called nine-dash line that China drew to claim most of the South China Sea, said maritime experts.

    The vessel appears to have returned to base in Hainan island after a ten-day tour through neighboring countries’ waters.

    “The patrol serves the purpose of reaffirming China’s nine-dash line, but also sending a warning message to the Philippines as it passed through six sensitive Philippine locations,” said Ray Powell, director of the SeaLight project at Stanford University, who has tracked the ship’s movement over the last ten days in a map that shows a U-shaped path resembling the line.

    SCS composite.png
    The CCG 5901’s path between June 17-27, next to a map of China’s self-claimed nine-dash line. (Ray Powell/RFA)

    Manila and Beijing have been confronting each other over some disputed reefs in the South China Sea that lie within Philippine waters but also inside the nine-dash line.

    The self-claimed line is described by Chinese scholars as “historic” and is featured on Chinese maps as a set of nine, sometimes 11, segments that encircle up to 90% of the regional waterway. 

    Beijing uses it to demarcate territorial claims over most of the South China Sea, including sections that fall within areas claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries.

    An international arbitration tribunal in a case brought by the Philippines in 2016 ruled that China’s claim to “historic rights” is unlawful, but Beijing declared the ruling “null and void” and refused to recognize it.

    China has been making efforts to reinforce the nine-dash line, especially with the presence of its large coast guard and maritime militia fleets.

    The 12,000-ton CCG 5901 is currently the biggest coast guard vessel in the world – double the size of a U.S. Navy Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser.

    The ship, armed with heavy machine guns, also has a helicopter platform and a hangar large enough to accommodate larger rotary wing aircraft.

    The last time “The Monster” turned on its AIS, or automatic information system, was at 9:50 p.m. UTC on June 26, when it was about 100 nautical miles (185 km) east of Sanya in southern Hainan, according to data from the tracking website MarineTraffic. 

    MarineTraffic uses AIS signals to track ships but the Chinese vessel has mostly been running “dark”, or not broadcasting AIS, since leaving the Sanya base on June 17, 2024.

    ‘Vexing problem’ for ASEAN

    Philippine coast guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela has confirmed that the CCG 5901 was last monitored in the morning local time at a distance of 46 nautical miles (85 km) from Sanya.

    In a post on the social platform X, Tarriela said that using Canada’s dark vessel detection technology, his force has recreated the past track of the Chinese coast guard vessel.

    According to the spokesman, the CCG 5901 “directly encroached upon the territorial waters” of the Philippines, “violating our sovereignty.” 

    On June 19, it was spotted at Thitu, or Pag-Asa island, under the Philippines’ control. It spent a night at Subi Reef – an artificial island that China has militarized – before passing Union Banks and entering Malaysia’s waters on June 20.

    Malaysian law enforcement ships were shadowing the Chinese vessels in the waters near Luconia Shoals, also claimed by China, on June 21-23.

    On June 24, the vessel was patrolling near the Second Thomas Shoal, known locally as Ayungin Shoal, where a week prior the Philippine military and the Chinese coast guard had a tense stand-off resulting in a Filipino sailor losing a finger.

    The shoal is only 195 km (121 miles) from the Philippines’ Palawan island but lies within China’s nine-dashed line.

    Earlier this year, the CCG 5901 made several intrusive long-term tours near some oil fields in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, orEEZ, where Hanoi has exclusive access to the natural resources in the waters and in the seabed.

    The presence of Chinese coast guard vessels, including “The Monster,” in regional countries’ EEZs is “an old and increasingly vexing problem which ASEAN should, but unfortunately have no coordinated response to,” said Kwa Chong Guan, senior fellow at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

    ASEAN members Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam all have overlapping EEZs in the South China Sea.

    “ASEAN needs new policy initiatives on the South China Sea,” Kwa told BenarNews, a RFA-affiliated news service. “Perhaps Malaysia as the next Chair of ASEAN in 2025 could rise to the occasion and lead the association to propose some.”

    BenarNews reporter Nisha David in Kuala Lumpur contributed to this report.

    Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA and BenarNews Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The future of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, a target of US imperial power since its inception in 1998, may be decided on July 28, the date of their presidential election.

    Incumbent President Nicolás Maduro and seven other presidential candidates pledged to abide by the choice of the electorate. Edmundo González, promoted by the US, and another candidate have not signed the pledge, consistent with the far right only accepting contest results where they win. Likewise, a bipartisan and bicameral resolution was introduced on June 18 to the US Congress not to recognize a “fraudulent” Maduro victory.

    This election is taking place in the context of US unilateral coercive measures. These so-called sanctions have amounted to an actual economic and financial blockade designed to cripple the economy and cause the people to renounce their government. Such outside interference by Washington is tantamount to electoral blackmail.

    Yet Carlos Ron, Venezuela’s deputy minister of foreign affairs for North America, is confident that the government party will win. He spoke on June 25 at a webinar organized by the Venezuela Solidarity Network.

    Ron explained that the Venezuelan people and government have achieved remarkable progress, resisting Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign. A tanking economy has now been reversed. By the end of 2023, Venezuela had recorded 11 quarters of consecutive growth after years of economic contraction.

    Instead of irrevocably crashing the economy, according to Ron, the US hybrid warfare against Venezuela exposed the US-backed opposition, who have called for sanctions against their own people and have even treasonously endorsed a US-backed military coup option.

    Economist Yosmer Arellán, who is associated with the Central Bank of Venezuela and has collaborated with the UN Special Rapporteur on the impact of unilateral coercive measures, also addressed the webinar. Arellán spoke of the pain visited upon the Venezuelan people by the US sanctions.

    The economist explained that the economy was further impacted by the crash in oil prices, beginning in 2014, as well as by overcompliance with the economic coercive measures by third-parties fearful of US reprisals. Then Covid hit. During the height of the pandemic, even though Venezuela had the hard currency, US sanctions blocked the financial transactions necessary to buy vaccines. He likened such measures to “bombs dropped on our society.”

    In contrast, Venezuela’s economic situation is now looking comparatively bullish. On the same day as the webinar, President Maduro announced oil production had recovered to one million barrels a day. Earlier this month, the five millionth home was delivered as part of the Great Housing Mission social program.

    Arellán described what he called the three-step “virtuous formula” for recovering the economy. This is a model, he added, for the some one third of humanity being punished by US unilateral coercive measures.

    First came resistance in the face of the “extortion” of the unilateral coercive measures. Venezuela learned through trial and error how to do more with less. Out of necessity, the country began to wean itself from dependence on oil revenues which had fallen over 90%. Small and medium businesses were promoted. The private sector, despite being prone to oppose the socialist project, was also punished by the US measures. Today, big business is investing more in domestic productive capacity, according to Arellán.

    Second was halting the economic freefall and achieving economic stability. Two areas in particular were key: rationalizing the exchange rate of the Venezuelan bolivar in relation to the US dollar and taming runaway inflation. Monthly inflation got down to 1.2%, a previously unheard of low rate.

    Third has been the recovery stage, transforming the economy from one dependent on oil revenues to buy foreign goods to one that is now over 90% food sovereign. The economy is being diversified with the sober understanding that relief from the US imperialist hybrid war is unlikely in the near future.

    Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Ron further explained the political dimensions of the US sanctions, which were designed to reverse the sizable achievements of the Chávez years. The aim, he said, was to kill hope and blame socialism for the attacks of “predatory capitalism.” The Venezuelan state was robbed by the US and its allies: seizure of overseas assets; dispossession of  CITGO, the state-owned oil subsidiary in the US; and confiscation of gold reserves held abroad.

    The “perversity of sanctions,” according to Ron, is that they undermine the social functions of the state to support the welfare of the people. That is, they try to cripple the government in order to make socialism look bad.

    Ron gave the example of the 16% malnutrition rate when Hugo Chávez was elected president in 1998. By 2011, the rate was reduced to only 3%. But with the US maximum pressure campaign, the rate shot up to 13% (still better than before the revolution but punishing nonetheless).

    Venezuela experienced record out migration. This emigration was not due, as claimed by the US, to political persecution but was precipitated by worsening economic prospects caused primarily by the US politically-motivated sanctions. But now, Ron explained, citizens are returning to Venezuela and a new vice-ministry to assist their return has been created.

    Washington tried to isolate Venezuela both financially and diplomatically. Four years ago the US and some 50 of its allies recognized the parallel government of “interim president” Juan Guaidó, who had never even run for national office in Venezuela. Today only the US, Israel, and a few others still fail to recognize the elected government.

    Meanwhile, Venezuela has forged significant new economic and political ties with Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran among others. Regional alliances with Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and some Caribbean states, such as ALBA, have been strengthened. Close cooperative relations have been reinforced with friendly governments in Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, three of the four leading economies in Latin America.  And Venezuela is orienting toward the Global South, with the possibility of joining the expanded BRICS+ alliance of emerging economies looking increasingly likely.

    Indeed, far from being isolated, Ron noted, Venezuela has further integrated into an emerging multipolar world. Venezuela was just elected to a vice-presidency of the UN General Assembly.

    Ron credited current successes to the political will of a strong and unwavering leadership under President Maduro, which he characterized as a “collective leadership” encompassing many actors. This was coupled with organized “people power.” Both, he emphasized, were needed. Venezuela, he concluded, demonstrated the people’s willingness to face challenges and a government that did not give up on the battle for socialism.

    The post How Venezuela Is Overcoming the US Blockade first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The future of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, a target of US imperial power since its inception in 1998, may be decided on July 28, the date of their presidential election.

    Incumbent President Nicolás Maduro and seven other presidential candidates pledged to abide by the choice of the electorate. Edmundo González, promoted by the US, and another candidate have not signed the pledge, consistent with the far right only accepting contest results where they win. Likewise, a bipartisan and bicameral resolution was introduced on June 18 to the US Congress not to recognize a “fraudulent” Maduro victory.

    This election is taking place in the context of US unilateral coercive measures. These so-called sanctions have amounted to an actual economic and financial blockade designed to cripple the economy and cause the people to renounce their government. Such outside interference by Washington is tantamount to electoral blackmail.

    Yet Carlos Ron, Venezuela’s deputy minister of foreign affairs for North America, is confident that the government party will win. He spoke on June 25 at a webinar organized by the Venezuela Solidarity Network.

    Ron explained that the Venezuelan people and government have achieved remarkable progress, resisting Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign. A tanking economy has now been reversed. By the end of 2023, Venezuela had recorded 11 quarters of consecutive growth after years of economic contraction.

    Instead of irrevocably crashing the economy, according to Ron, the US hybrid warfare against Venezuela exposed the US-backed opposition, who have called for sanctions against their own people and have even treasonously endorsed a US-backed military coup option.

    Economist Yosmer Arellán, who is associated with the Central Bank of Venezuela and has collaborated with the UN Special Rapporteur on the impact of unilateral coercive measures, also addressed the webinar. Arellán spoke of the pain visited upon the Venezuelan people by the US sanctions.

    The economist explained that the economy was further impacted by the crash in oil prices, beginning in 2014, as well as by overcompliance with the economic coercive measures by third-parties fearful of US reprisals. Then Covid hit. During the height of the pandemic, even though Venezuela had the hard currency, US sanctions blocked the financial transactions necessary to buy vaccines. He likened such measures to “bombs dropped on our society.”

    In contrast, Venezuela’s economic situation is now looking comparatively bullish. On the same day as the webinar, President Maduro announced oil production had recovered to one million barrels a day. Earlier this month, the five millionth home was delivered as part of the Great Housing Mission social program.

    Arellán described what he called the three-step “virtuous formula” for recovering the economy. This is a model, he added, for the some one third of humanity being punished by US unilateral coercive measures.

    First came resistance in the face of the “extortion” of the unilateral coercive measures. Venezuela learned through trial and error how to do more with less. Out of necessity, the country began to wean itself from dependence on oil revenues which had fallen over 90%. Small and medium businesses were promoted. The private sector, despite being prone to oppose the socialist project, was also punished by the US measures. Today, big business is investing more in domestic productive capacity, according to Arellán.

    Second was halting the economic freefall and achieving economic stability. Two areas in particular were key: rationalizing the exchange rate of the Venezuelan bolivar in relation to the US dollar and taming runaway inflation. Monthly inflation got down to 1.2%, a previously unheard of low rate.

    Third has been the recovery stage, transforming the economy from one dependent on oil revenues to buy foreign goods to one that is now over 90% food sovereign. The economy is being diversified with the sober understanding that relief from the US imperialist hybrid war is unlikely in the near future.

    Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Ron further explained the political dimensions of the US sanctions, which were designed to reverse the sizable achievements of the Chávez years. The aim, he said, was to kill hope and blame socialism for the attacks of “predatory capitalism.” The Venezuelan state was robbed by the US and its allies: seizure of overseas assets; dispossession of  CITGO, the state-owned oil subsidiary in the US; and confiscation of gold reserves held abroad.

    The “perversity of sanctions,” according to Ron, is that they undermine the social functions of the state to support the welfare of the people. That is, they try to cripple the government in order to make socialism look bad.

    Ron gave the example of the 16% malnutrition rate when Hugo Chávez was elected president in 1998. By 2011, the rate was reduced to only 3%. But with the US maximum pressure campaign, the rate shot up to 13% (still better than before the revolution but punishing nonetheless).

    Venezuela experienced record out migration. This emigration was not due, as claimed by the US, to political persecution but was precipitated by worsening economic prospects caused primarily by the US politically-motivated sanctions. But now, Ron explained, citizens are returning to Venezuela and a new vice-ministry to assist their return has been created.

    Washington tried to isolate Venezuela both financially and diplomatically. Four years ago the US and some 50 of its allies recognized the parallel government of “interim president” Juan Guaidó, who had never even run for national office in Venezuela. Today only the US, Israel, and a few others still fail to recognize the elected government.

    Meanwhile, Venezuela has forged significant new economic and political ties with Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran among others. Regional alliances with Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and some Caribbean states, such as ALBA, have been strengthened. Close cooperative relations have been reinforced with friendly governments in Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, three of the four leading economies in Latin America.  And Venezuela is orienting toward the Global South, with the possibility of joining the expanded BRICS+ alliance of emerging economies looking increasingly likely.

    Indeed, far from being isolated, Ron noted, Venezuela has further integrated into an emerging multipolar world. Venezuela was just elected to a vice-presidency of the UN General Assembly.

    Ron credited current successes to the political will of a strong and unwavering leadership under President Maduro, which he characterized as a “collective leadership” encompassing many actors. This was coupled with organized “people power.” Both, he emphasized, were needed. Venezuela, he concluded, demonstrated the people’s willingness to face challenges and a government that did not give up on the battle for socialism.

    The post How Venezuela Is Overcoming the US Blockade 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.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Chinese police have detained a man accused of stabbing three people, including a Japanese mother and her young child, who were waiting for a bus used by a local Japanese school, according to reports.

    An “unemployed man in his 50s” was arrested immediately after attacking the mother, her preschooler and a Chinese woman in the city of Suzhou, which is near Shanghai, Reuters reported.

    The Chinese woman was the most critically injured in the knife attack, the report said, and had to be hospitalized. The Japanese mother and her child did not receive life-threatening injuries, the report said.

    At a press briefing Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning called the attack “regrettable” but an “isolated incident.”

    “Such isolated incidents could happen in any country in the world,” she said. “China will continue to take effective measures to protect the safety of all foreign nationals in China like protecting our own citizens.”

    The attack was the latest in a string of knife attacks in China. 

    Earlier this month, four American teachers were stabbed in a park in the northeastern city of Jilin. Last month, a knife attack at a hospital in Yunnan province left two people dead and 21 people injured.

    The Japanese Embassy in Beijing warned Japanese nationals living in China to take precautions against stabbing incidents while in public places including schools and parks, the Associated Press reported.

    Japanese schools in China had also requested extra security in the wake of Monday’s stabbings, Japanese media outlet NHK said.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Local governments in China are offering to buy up farms from rural families, offering vouchers for apartments in smaller cities in a bid to encourage more people to give up farming and move into urban areas, according to official announcements posted online this month.

    Authorities in the eastern provinces of Anhui, Jiangxi and Zhejiang and the central province of Hubei are rolling out trial “housing voucher” schemes targeted at rural communities in a bid to boost the country’s flagging real estate sector and accelerate the mass relocation of rural communities, according to announcements posted to official government websites and social media accounts.

    The move is part of a nationwide bid to resettle rural communities in urban areas, both piecemeal and en masse, as part of the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s “poverty alleviation” policy and attempts to stabilize the food supply.

    But commentators said it doesn’t look like a very attractive deal for families who have farmed the same land for generations.

    ENG_CHN_RURAL RELOCATION_06252024.2.jpg
    A farmer plants red pepper seeds with a machine, May 8, 2022, at a field in Bozhou in China’s eastern Anhui province. (AFP)

    Rural land in China is typically leased to farmers on 30-year “household responsibility” contracts, with the ownership remaining with the government. In 2016, the administration of supreme party leader Xi Jinping made it easier for farmers to be bought out of those leases.

    In a trial being rolled out in Anhui’s Fengyang county from June 20, farming families who voluntarily release their leased farms back to government ownership will be given a subsidy, or voucher, worth 50,000 yuan (US$6884) to help them buy an apartment in a smaller, regional city, according to the Nantong county government’s official WeChat account.

    Meanwhile, authorities in Zhejiang’s Changshan county are trialing a scheme that would set the value of the housing voucher based on the size of the farm being handed back to the authorities.

    Details of the voucher deal appear to vary from region to region, but are generally being announced by village, township and district governments as part of measures to boost a flagging real estate market, according to announcements seen by Radio Free Asia.

    ‘Fob them off on us’

    In Zhejiang’s Longyou county, voucher holders won’t get their hands on the whole lump sum all at once, instead receiving it in increments across a two-year period.

    A farmer who gave only the surname Sang for fear of reprisals said his local government hasn’t announced a similar scheme yet, but that he wouldn’t take it even if they did.

    “I’m definitely not giving up this land,” Sang said. “Rural land is supposed to be used for growing food.”

    ENG_CHN_RURAL RELOCATION_06252024.3.jpg
    A farmer sprays pesticide with a tractor in a wheat field, Feb. 28, 2023, in Taizhou, in China’s eastern Jiangsu province. (AFP)

    “It was handed down to us by our ancestors, so we could grow vegetables and have somewhere to bury the elderly when they die,” he said.

    Some online comments appeared to agree.

    Blogger Xiao An’s Reason commented: “Nobody wants to buy these apartments, so they’re trying to fob them off on us farmers … they want us to give up our farmland.”

    “They will leave us with no place to call home, and turn us into slaves forever,” the blogger wrote.

    Authorities in Zhejiang’s Jiangshan city said they would be targeting villages that are prone to flash flooding and landslides, areas with dilapidated housing, and areas designated part of “land improvement” schemes, as well as areas where housing has been deemed to be illegally constructed.

    “Those who opt for apartment housing voucher resettlement … shall voluntarily give up the legal right to use their farms, and the right to build on them, and shall vacate their original dwellings and facilities and return them to the village collective,” according to trial regulations published on the municipal government website.

    ‘Hollow out the countryside’

    A June 24 post about the move from the Hebei-based Sina Weibo account @Husky_who_really_keeps_cats commented: “What’s the point of this? If you can’t sell these apartments, then lower the price. They’re just trying to cheat elderly farmers.”

    “They want to hollow out the countryside and mess up the cities,” commented @Temple_victory, while @Today_I_woke_up_from_my_dream added: “They have to take away the last bit of security.”

    ENG_CHN_RURAL RELOCATION_06252024.4.jpg
    A farmer dries harvested corn at a village, Sept. 21, 2023, in Lianyungang, in China’s eastern Jiangsu province. (AFP)

    @A_turtle_is_smaller_than_a_tortoise commented that 50,000 yuan wasn’t much compensation for leased land on which people could at least practice subsistence farming and ensure that everyone had somewhere to live and enough to eat. “They’d be giving up a permanent benefit for 50,000 yuan,” the user wrote.

    Other comments pointed out the rapid aging of the population, saying that rural governments don’t have enough people paying into social security schemes to be able to pay pensions to the elderly, while still others said farmers’ pensions were miniscule anyway.

    Current affairs commentator Zhang Jianping, who hails from a rural community, said the scheme didn’t take into account the value of farms to farming families.

    “They should know that farmers’ houses have been built with the blood and sweat of several generations,” Zhang said. “Grabbing their farms back with a subsidy of just 50,000 yuan shows total disrespect for farmers’ property rights.”

    He warned that while the scheme is being trialed as “voluntary,” it could soon become coercive, citing waves of rural land grabs across China over decades of Communist Party rule.

    ENG_CHN_RURAL RELOCATION_06252024.5.jpg
    A farmer dries crops during the harvest season, Sept. 22, 2023, in Linyi, in China’s eastern Shandong province. (AFP)

    Current affairs commentator Ji Feng said the rural farms are often home to, and support, large families of up to a dozen people.

    Farmers, who also move around the country in large numbers in search of work, have typically relied on being able to go back and support themselves through subsistence farming if their lives in urban areas don’t work out, Ji said.

    “This practice will push people into a desperate, dead end,” he said. “If the farmers sign up for these schemes, they will have been severely cheated.”

    He said the authorities under Xi want to reclaim as much privately controlled land as possible for government use. That could involve selling the land back into private hands for a huge profit, especially if it’s in a more valuable area on the outskirts of a city.

    Translated with additional reporting by Luisetta Mudie.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • China has changed the names of about 630 Uyghur villages to Mandarin words such as “Harmony” and “Unity” to promote ethnic harmony in Xinjiang, a report by a human rights group found,

    The move is “part of Chinese government’s efforts to erase the cultural and religious expression” of the more than 11 million predominantly Muslim Uyghurs living in China’s far-western Xinjiang region, New York-based Human Rights Watch, or HRW, said in its June 18 report.

    “How these village names are being kind of erased and replaced shows how dystopian the whole project of the Chinese government in the Uyghur region is,” Maya Wang, acting China director at HRW.

    “It’s about repressing people and … the past, and erasing the future, and erasing what they can imagine as a possibility for their own children or grandchildren,” she said.1_ENG_UYG_HRW-VILLAGE-NAME-CHANGES_06212024.jpg

    The results came after HRW and Norway-based Uyghur Hjelp scraped names of villages in Xinjiang from the website of China’s National Bureau of Statistics.

    All told, China hanged the names of 3,652 of 25,000 Uyghur villages in Xinjiang between 2009 and 2023, but most of these changes have been mundane, such as correcting numbers or the way the names were written, they found.

    But 630 of the changes were more dramatic and religious, cultural or historical in nature. And most renamings occurred between 2017 and 2019, when the Chinese government’s repression escalated in the region, the report said, but they appear to be continuing.

    ‘Erasing symbols’

    For example, Aq Meschit, or “White Mosque,” village in Akto county, Kizilsu Kyrgyz Autonomous Prefecture, was renamed Unity village in 2018.

    The same year, Hoja Eriq, or “Sufi Teacher’s Creek,” village in Aksu Prefecture was rechristened Willow village.

    And Dutar, a village named after a Uyghur musical instrument, in Qaraqash county of Hotan prefecture, was renamed Red Flag in 2022.

    The Chinese government has used the village renamings along with other tactics, including the banning of hijabs for women, beards for men, and Muslim names for children, to wipe out Uyghur culture and to humiliate the ethnic group, Wang said.

    “On a very fundamental level, erasing the symbols of people, the language and culture is about erasing who they are and teaching them to fear,” she said.  

    The village renamings are also part of the greater set of serious rights abuses and crimes against humanity involving the detentions of an estimated 1.8 million Uyghurs and other Turkic people in “re-education” camps, torture, forced labor, sexual violence and the forced sterilization of woman, Wang said.

    Uyghur children play in a square where a propaganda poster shows Han Chinese and Uyghurs posing together in a photograph with the words 'Hotan City Unity New Village Unity Square'  at the Unity New Village in Hotan, northwestern China's Xinjiang region, Sept. 20, 2018.  (Andy Wong/AP)
    Uyghur children play in a square where a propaganda poster shows Han Chinese and Uyghurs posing together in a photograph with the words ‘Hotan City Unity New Village Unity Square’ at the Unity New Village in Hotan, northwestern China’s Xinjiang region, Sept. 20, 2018. (Andy Wong/AP)

    Campaign for Uyghurs, a Washington-based Uyghur advocacy group, condemned the village renamings.

    “The names, which have now been changed to empty CCP [Chinese Communist Party] slogans, once reflected our long history and rich culture and have been in our homeland for hundreds of years,” said Rushan Abbas, the group’s executive director, in a statement.

    “Although the CCP appears to celebrate Uyghur culture by showcasing elements like our music and dance, these displays are nothing but hollow propaganda masking the regime’s ongoing and systematic suppression of cultural and religious expression,” Abbas said.

    In response to such measures, foreign governments, especially those in Muslim-majority nations, can put pressure on the Chinese government to stop its abuses involving religious and ethnic minorities and condemn such behavior, said Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington.

    Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcom Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Gulchehra Hoja for RFA Uyghur.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • U.S. Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink has visited Vietnam for talks with senior officials on bilateral relations and regional issues including the disputed South China Sea where, he said, China had been engaging in irresponsible and “deeply destabilizing” behavior.

    Kritenbrink’s visit comes just days after Russian President Vladimir Putin spent a day in Vietnam meeting top leaders but Kritenbrink denied that his trip on the weekend had anything to do with that.

    Tensions have been rising sharply in the South China Sea, in particular between China and U.S. ally the Philippines, whose vessels have been confronting each other near the Second Thomas Shoal in Philippine waters, which China also claims.

    The Philippines accused the Chinese coast guard of ramming and boarding Philippine navy boats during a June 17 confrontation, causing severe injuries to Filipino personnel. China disputed that saying its personnel had acted lawfully.

    “We think that China’s actions, particularly its recent actions, around the Second Thomas Shoal, vis-à-vis the Philippines have been irresponsible, aggressive, dangerous, deeply destabilizing,” Kritenbrink told a press briefing in Hanoi on Saturday.

    The assistant secretary of state said that “many of China’s actions … should be of great concern, we think, for the entire region,” according to a recording of the briefing reviewed by RFA.

    “We think every country in the region, including China, needs to respect international law and needs to behave responsibly in the maritime domain,” Kritenbrink added.

    He reaffirmed that the mutual defense treaty obligations that the U.S. has with the Philippines are “ironclad.”

    “We are going to continue to stand with our Filipino allies,” Kritenbrink said, while declining to engage in discussion of any hypothetical situation.

    ‘Deeply concerned’

    The U.S. assistant state secretary met with Vietnam’s minister of foreign affairs, Bui Thanh Son, and one of his deputies, vice minister Ha Kim Ngoc.

    The Vietnamese government reported on its website that Son and Kritenbrink stressed the importance of resolving disputes, including in the East Sea, Vietnam’s name for the South China Sea, through peaceful measures, in accordance with international law.

    Earlier, a Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesperson said that her country was “closely monitoring and deeply concerned about the incident on June 17.”

    Pham Thu Hang said Vietnam urged China and the Philippines to show restraint and act appropriately in accordance with international law, respecting the sovereignty and jurisdiction rights over the exclusive economic zones and continental shelves of coastal nations, which are established in accordance with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.

    That call for respect of international law was until now the most explicit expression of support for the Philippines from Vietnam, which has always been careful not to antagonize its big neighbor China.

    China claims historic rights over more than 80% of the South China Sea, more than any other claimant.

    Philippine officials on Friday said Manila has not considered invoking the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the U.S. which obliges the United States to come to support it if Philippine forces, ships and aircraft come under an armed attack, including in the South China Sea.

    Giving a platform

    Asked about Putin’s less than 24-hour visit to Russia’s old ally Vietnam on Thursday, Kritenbrink said: “Only Vietnam can decide how best to safeguard its sovereignty and advance its interests.”

    Prior to Putin’s arrival, the U.S. embassy in Hanoi said in a statement that “no country should give Putin a platform to promote his war of aggression and otherwise allow him to normalize his atrocities.”

    Both the United States and Russia are comprehensive strategic partners of Vietnam.

    While Russia is Vietnam’s main supplier of weapons and other military equipment, the U.S. has become its largest export market, worth US$97 billion in 2023, according to official statistics.

    Kritenbrink said on the social platform X that during his visit, he discussed with Vietnamese partners “how our nations can continue to implement the critical U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and bolster strong supply chains, high tech partnerships, educational ties, and bilateral investment.”

    The senior diplomat, who served as U.S. ambassador to Vietnam from 2017 to 2021, insisted that trust between the two former enemies was at an all-time high and the U.S.-Vietnam partnership “has never been stronger.”

    Edited by Mike Firn.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • My poems were written in anger after Tiananmen Square. But what motivates most prison writing is a fear of forgetting. Today I am free, but the regime has never stopped its war on words. By Liao Yiwu

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • My Chinese-speaking wife and I recently traveled to nine different cities and towns in China over the course of a month, our fourth trip since 2005. We were also to go in 2020, but the covid lockdown canceled it. That year we could have booked a train ticket to Xinjiang and traveled around that province no questions asked, though Western media claimed we’d be in the midst of the bogus Uyghur “genocide.” One example of the endless disinformation about China.

    Of our most significant impressions of China, the first is the contrast between the stories the corporate media tell us about China, what they don’t want us to know, and the reality we see. The Wall Street Journal for example, asserted, “China’s economy limps into 2024” whereas in contrast the US was marked by a “resilient domestic economy.” In reality, China grew 5.3% in the first quarter of 2024. The US grew at 1.6%, Germany and France grew just 0.2%, Britain at 0.6%, and Japan -0.5%. But economic crisis is racking China!

    Two, China’s infrastructure surpasses anything in the US. Jimmy Carter said “How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country? [zero] China has around 18,000 miles (29,000 km) of high-speed rail lines.” That was in 2019. Now it is 28,000 miles and trains can travel 220 miles per hour. A train from Shanghai to Kunming, the distance from Philadelphia to Los Angeles, takes 11 hours 40 minutes and costs $127.

    What we live with here appears very backwards in comparison. Their subway systems are decades ahead of those in the US; the US train system seems a century behind. Videos such as this show what they have achieved.

    Three, after experiencing China’s incredible infrastructure, you realize how the trillions of dollars spent on endless war have impoverished us. The US blows things up instead of building things to improve public well-being. Carter said the US “has wasted, I think, $3 trillion” on military spending ($5.9 trillion between 2001-2018). “Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody? None, and we have stayed at war. China has not wasted a single penny on war, and that’s why they’re ahead of us. In almost every way…We’d have high-speed railroad. We’d have bridges that aren’t collapsing, we’d have roads that are maintained properly. Our education system would be as good as that of say South Korea or Hong Kong.”

    Four, clean and safe cities. We don’t see the omnipresent litter we do here. Every day a veritable army of public workers clean the streets, sidewalks, subways, parks, and other public places. These are not simply litter free, but clean. Workers making sure of it. In the US we would expect this in private buildings, universities, hospitals, fancy hotels, but not in public spaces.

    Cities are not just visually clean – the noise pollution is less. Vehicle noise – and exhaust – is much less than here because buses and many cars are electric. The streets are full of people riding motorbikes, all electric ones. One in four Chinese, 350 million, have an electric scooter.

    City parks are not simply clean, but make people feel welcomed and provided with activities to engage with others – ping pong, mahjong, badminton, dancing clubs, music groups, Tai Chi, exercise groups. Many elderly take part in these free public activities. Men retire at age 60, blue-collar women at 50, white-collar women at 55. Workers in health-harming professions such as underground, high-altitude, labor-intensive jobs enjoy a five-year reduction.

    The pleasant, well-designed and well-kept parks often have monuments to Chinese heroes from battles against Japanese or Chiang Kai-Shek’s troops.

    You can take the metro and walk anywhere and not worry about it being dirty or worry about crime.

    Chinese cities have very cheap public bicycles for people on a massive scale. In Hangzhou in 2023 they had 116,000. It cost me 75 cents to use one for a day. A monthly pass drastically reduces that. In Guangzhou a monthly pass costs only $1.40.

    That infamous Chinese air pollution? We went to Shanghai, Hangzhou, Suzhou, Chengdu, Kunming, Guangzhou, all of which had an air quality index lower than the much less populous city of Chicago (you can check on the weather app on your phone). Today, of the world’s hundred most polluted cities, 83 are in India, just 4 in China.

    Everyone seems to have a phone, used for everything – paying for what you buy through QR codes, making train, museum, hotel, bus, airplane reservations. Cash is becoming almost obsolete.

    Five, an array of social services and benefits for the people. Besides very cheap public transport, China has public bathrooms everywhere. They are not like gas station bathrooms here, but decent ones like you find in big private hotels here and kept clean like them. You need not worry about where you and your children can go when in public. You don’t have to buy something from a store just to use a bathroom. You don’t smell pee anywhere. Some public bathrooms even have an electric board at the entrance telling you which stalls are occupied and which are vacant.

    Seniors, even me, generally get half-price, such as at museums, national parks, on subways and trains. Many signs and regular announcements in public places ask you to mind and assist the elderly, children, and pregnant women around you.

    Public service workers are everywhere, available to answer any questions you have. If they don’t know, they look it up on their phones. I saw hundreds of these public service workers in the cities and towns we toured. A downtown subway station with four entrances has four workers at each one to check your bags and belongings, a customer service office with one or two more, besides the workers cleaning the station, and the one or two on the platforms assisting riders. That may be 20-25 service workers. At a Chicago CTA stop you would find one worker. A telling reminder of how public service jobs have been cut here, and expanded in China.

    WageCentre.com states the average Chinese salary is 9,500 yuan per month ($1,315) in major cities, which Statistica calls the average wage (which I think overstated). But we did find prices (and taxes) far less than here (save gas), except in Western stores, so you could at least double the buying power of a Chinese income. A subway ride was often under 50 cents (3 yuan), a bus is less – which a monthly pass cuts almost in half. A sit-down breakfast in a Chinese shop can be $5 for two; on the street, less.

    Six, the complete absence of homeless people. You don’t come across unbathed people asking for money, people forced to sleep in tents in public parks, next to roadways, or on the subway. We were in nine different cities and saw just one down-and-out person on the street asking for money. The US, in the midst of wealth, has hundreds of thousands of homeless, including children, pregnant women, and the elderly. How many freeze to death in the winter, how many face hunger, seems a US state secret.

    Seven, the qualitatively different nature of police relations with the people than here. The police don’t even look like US ones, armored as if for battle. I met only one with a gun; they simply carry a radio and a phone. They bear a closer similarity to our marshals at rallies than to US police. The police, like the other public workers, are there to assist you, answer your questions – when something would open, how we take public transportation to some place, the nearest ATM.

    I recount two experiences with the Chinese police, which show the role Chinese police play as public servants. One day we took a train and then a bus to visit the Leshan Giant Buddha statue. When we were buying our entrance tickets, I found I had lost a little jacket from my backpack containing my wallet and our passports. Alarmed, we went to the local police station to report this.

    Without passports, we cannot get back on the train to return to our hotel, check into any hotel, take our next flight, let alone leave the country. I resigned myself to spending the rest of our time in China trying to get new passports from the nearest US consulate. The local police asked us for a photo of my jacket and where we think we lost it.

    Like in the US, China has video cameras most everywhere. But there, the police actually searched videos of where we told them we had been in the previous town, and in two hours reported they found where I lost it, but someone had taken it. They had to track him down. In just three hours since we reported it missing, the police had my jacket with everything and had driven to where we were to give it to us.

    With cameras everywhere, many told us, China has greatly reduced crime. The difference between China and the US lies in the use cameras are put to. While cameras are omnipresent in US cities, there is zero chance police would search them to locate my jacket. Even if the US police did bother to devote any time to it, could they recover my jacket in a month?

    We told the police how grateful we were for saving us, that the police wouldn’t do this in the US. The head of the station replied, “Yes, we know about the police in your country. No need to thank us. This is our job. We are just doing our job.”

    My second noteworthy police experience is our arrival, after a day touring by taxi, four hours early to a small airport near Jiuzhaigou National Park. Ours was the one flight that day, and three kilometers away, the road to the airport was gated shut. The police there said it would open in two hours. But rather than have us stand outside the gate with our luggage, they opened the gate for us and four Chinese travelers, invited us to sit in their office, made us tea, and chatted with us. I cannot imagine police doing that in the US.

     In Summary

    The Chinese have devoted immense public funding to public services, making you feel the world outside your front door is clean, safe, and well-organized. As a result, you feel welcomed in public places, you feel your well-being is respected. What US subway system feels like a pleasant and welcoming space? New York City’s makes you feel you have entered Purgatory. Public transport here serves to move you from one place to another at the least expense to the government. Your comfort and well-being is irrelevant.

    The overall feeling created in litter-free, clean, safe cities, with no homeless, staffed with many workers who keep it in order for the people, is that in contrast to here, the Chinese government has created a society that cares about you. In the US, you feel government is indifferent to your concerns – unless you have money.

    We do have quality social programs here, including for the elderly. But these have been privatized. You must pay good money for it. As the 1960-70s social movements died down, the neoliberal approach began to prevail, social services were steadily cut and privatized, no longer next to free – quality senior centers, community health centers, public universities. They still exist – for those who pay for them. Quality social services here are not a human right. In China they are. There, more and better social services are increasingly provided – and maintained in top condition – for the people.

    This reduces the daily stresses and discomforts we are accustomed to living with here. It creates a more civilized environment. As we know, when we are less stressed, we feel better about ourselves and act better towards others. That’s an achievement the impressive infrastructure and social services have created in China – reducing the general stress level of the whole population. China is creating a more humane place to live. Chinese who live here and go back to visit can tell you every year China gets better.

    Similarly, when the US blockades a country, like Cuba, Venezuela, or Iran, it greatly increases the stress level in the population. It causes scarcities, which drives people to compete over scarce goods. That causes more personal and social conflicts.

    Remember, at the start of the revolution just 75 years ago, China’s illiteracy rate was 80%. Now it is the most technologically advanced country on the planet. Equally world historic are the revolutionary gains in human rights for the hundreds of millions of women, progressing from beasts of burden owned by men to full and (nearly) equal citizens, all in the space of one lifetime. Moreover, in a mere forty years, as the Asia Development Bank states, China raised 750 million out of poverty, reducing poverty from 88% in 1981 to 0.1% in 2023.

    China stands out today as the only country to ever surpass the US in development. The US rulers do not take this as an example to learn from, but as a mortal threat. China carefully accomplished this feat without being “regime changed,” attacked, or economically disabled by the US. The US succeeded in undermining the Soviet Union, then sabotaged the growing power of Japan and the European Union, and then broke the increasing closer relations between Russia and Europe by instigating the Ukraine war. But the various US strategies to disable China have failed one after another. As a result, today China presents a progressive and growing alternative force to the world power of the US empire.

    The post A Month Traveling in China first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • Donald Trump was likeliest correct when he told a CNN reporter: “Your organization’s terrible. … You are fake news.”

    The bias is so blatantly obvious in the 20 June 2024 CNN headline: “‘Only pirates do this’: Philippines accuses China of using bladed weapons in major South China Sea escalation.” To adduce that it is a bias is simple. Consider that this current news story could have been titled: “Only imperialist lackeys do this: China accuses Philippines of hiding behind the US in its attempt to violate China’s ‘indisputable sovereignty’ in the South China Sea escalation.” That would provide a different perspective to consider in a headline. But it would still be biased. It is a bias because it does not dedicate itself to providing verifiable and relevant facts and background from all perspectives to allow readers to reach their own conclusions. Mind you, one of those seemingly biased headlines may have been accurate. This is because a person may well be biased to factual reporting whatever those facts reveal themselves to be. To strike a headline that does not prejudice the reader, consider: “Clash in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines.” Then consider the factuality of what is argued in an article as each side makes its case.

    Of primary consideration in the Philippines-China conflict is which country is supported by evidence in its claims of sovereignty over the shoal known as Ren’ai Jiao in China and Second Thomas Shoal in the West.

    CNN writes,

    In 2016, an international tribunal in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines’ claims in a landmark maritime dispute, which concluded that China has no legal basis to assert historic rights to the bulk of the South China Sea.

    But Beijing has ignored the ruling.

    What is conceded by CNN is that China has “historic rights to the bulk of the South China Sea.” What CNN asserts is that “historic rights” have no “legal basis.” Historic rights are nonetheless considered nebulous by some scholars. (see Justin D. Nankivell, “The Role of History and Law in the South China Sea and Arctic Ocean,” National Bureau of Asian Research, 7 August 2017. “… many states have different interpretive understandings of the authority of the law of the sea, which invariably lead to different strategic outcomes in foreign policy decision-making and maritime practice.” And Clive R. Symmons, “Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’ in Relation to UNCLOS in the Light of the Award in the Philippines v. China Arbitration (2016) concerning the Supposed Historic Claims of China in the South China Sea: Whatnow Remains of the Doctrine?” wherein it was acknowledged that clarification was needed for “… the meaning of various formerly interchangeably-used terms relating to historic maritime claims [as used in customary international law] : such as ‘historic rights’ [which now can be seen to have both a broad and narrow meaning, …,] p 27.)

    On 7 July 2016, I noted that China’s claim of sovereignty for the entirety of the South China Sea preceded the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. China claims its activities in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago having conferred sovereignty and maritime rights.

    China has been the first to discover, name and develop the group of islands in the South China Sea, which have been known as the Nanhai Islands in China. For centuries, the Chinese government had been the administrator of the islands by putting them under the administration of local governments, conducting military patrols and providing rescue services.The Nansha [Spratly] and Xisha [Paracel] Islands, occupied by Japan during World War II, were returned to China as part of the territories stolen from China. This has been clearly set out in international documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. China sent government and military officials to recover the islands and deployed troops there.

    KJ Noh compellingly refuted the UNCLOS ruling in his article “Making a Mockery of International Law.”

    The key issue is over territorial sovereignty–who owns the islands…

    The Chinese claim these islands back to the 2nd century BCE, to the Han Dynasty. They claim constant usage, fishing, habitation, travel, mapping of the Islands, intensifying from the Ming Dynasty onwards, and produce historical documents to that effect.

    Other countries make other various historical claims: the Vietnamese claim usage from the 17th century onwards.

    The Philippines claim that the lands were terra nullius–uninhabited land–and therefore belong to them, as they fall within their maritime Exclusive Economic Zone of 200nm. They also claim that Tomas Cloma, a businessman and adventurer discovered, and then claimed for himself these islands in the 1956, before selling them to the Filipino Government for a single dollar.

    CNN writes, “What happens in the South China Sea has profound implications for the US, which has a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines that dates back decades.”

    The US (which has not ratified UNCLOS) insists on China respecting international law and backed the Philippines seeking international arbitration. One wonders what the world would be like if the US insisted on Israel adhering to international law or, for that matter, that the US respect international law. The US rejected the 1986 World Court judgment against the US’s unlawful use of force in Nicaragua.

    Furthermore,

    It is farcical for Americans to push for purported liberation of lands for other peoples. Why? Because if one grouping of people is entitled to country status in a delimited territory, then that same principle must apply to all peoples in similar circumstances. The US would have to recognize Palestinian statehood in historical Palestine. The same would apply to the Kurds, the Kashmiris, the Basques in France and Spain, the Catalans in Spain, etc. National liberation can not be seriously considered as just a pick-and-choose principle among peoples seeking liberation in a homeland.

    Even worse, not only is it farcical, it is hypocritical for Americans. If Americans (and let’s be specific to certain Americans because here we are mainly discussing Americans derived from European migrants) are to be regarded as earnest and sincere in advocating the liberation of peoples elsewhere, then one should first look in one’s own backyard before calling for an overhaul of a neighbor’s backyard. To express fidelity with H.R. 6948, the US would have to turn over Puerto Rico to Puerto Ricans, Guam to the Chamorros, the Chagos archipelago to the Chagossians (yes, Britain lays claim, but the Chagossians were expelled at the request of the US military), and others.

    And let’s not forget the conquered islands of Hawai’i, 3860 km (2400 miles) from the US mainland. Or that the entirety of the country known as the USA is based on the genocide of the Original Peoples.

    *****

    There was a confrontation between Filipino forces and Chinese forces. The Philippines charge that the Chinese Coast Guard used bladed weapons appears to be corroborated by video footage. However, a snippet of video is hard to draw any pertinent conclusions from. What is required is a release of all the footage. Nonetheless, if China used excessive force compared to the Philippines and some Filipinos were subsequently injured, then China deserves some criticism for that.


    An undated photo of the amphibious BRP Sierra Madre the Philippines have used as an outpost in the South China Sea. (Getty Images/Jay Directo)

    CNN informs that the Philippine mission was to resupply its soldiers stationed on a beached World War II-era warship, BRP Sierra Madre, that asserts Manila’s territorial claims over the atoll. China holds that the vessel was illegally beached.

    “Let me stress that what directly led to this situation is the Philippines’ ignoring of China’s dissuasion and deliberate intrusion into the waters of Ren’ai Jiao which is part of China’s Nansha Qundao,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said.

    Lin asserts that China’s action was professional and restrained and aimed at stopping the illegal “resupply mission,” and that the China Coast Guard didn’t take direct measures against the Philippine personnel.

    “The Philippine operation was not for humanitarian supplies at all. The Philippine vessels carried not only construction materials but also smuggled weapons. They also intentionally rammed into Chinese vessels and splashed water and threw things on Chinese law-enforcement personnel,” said Lin. “These actions have obviously aggravated tensions at sea and seriously threatened the safety of Chinese personnel and ships.”

    US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said the “United States stands with its ally the Philippines and condemns the escalatory and irresponsible actions” by China.

    That the US did not come to the aid of the Philippines, as per 1951 mutual defense treaty commitments, seems condemnatory of the US. “However,” said Derek Grossman, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation, “in practical terms, the Philippines itself would have to initiate a move to activate (it) before the US would intervene militarily.”

    A Global Times editorial scoffed at this.

    Washington is distorting the truth. The facts of this conflict are clear, and the China Coast Guard (CCG) has responded: the Philippines broke its promise by sending a supply ship and two inflatable boats to illegally enter the waters adjacent to the Ren’ai Jiao of China’s Nansha Islands on Monday, in an attempt to deliver supplies to its illegally grounded warship. What’s worse, the Philippine supply ship deliberately and dangerously approached and collided with normally sailing Chinese vessels. CCG took control measures in accordance with the law, including issuing warnings, intercepting, boarding and conducting inspections, and forcibly driving them away, actions which were reasonable, lawful, professional and standardized.

    There was indeed a physical confrontation. What the US — which supports the Israeli amped-up genocide in historical Palestine — thinks is obviated by its callous disregard for human life. Right or wrong will be determined by which country has the better claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea, its islands, and its islets.

    Lastly, it would be prudent if the Philippines more carefully considered who their friends really are.

    The post A Philippines-China Clash in the South China Sea 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.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • In the wake of the successful launch of China’s Chang’e 6 unmanned space probe on May 3, a new wave of rumors questioning the credibility of the U.S. Apollo manned lunar landings has swept Chinese social media.

    Conspiracy theories about the Apollo moon missions have persisted since the late 1960s, and Chinese social media users in 2024 are the latest skeptics to spread them. 

    Below, AFCL debunks five of the most widespread rumors that have emerged since the launch of Chang’e 6.

    Did Chang’e chief architect hint that the Apollo landing was staged? 

    Chang’e 6 chief architect Pei Zhaoyu was invited to be a guest analyst onto a special program aired by China’s state-run broadcaster CCTV on May 3, 2024.

    At the one-hour and 40-minute mark of the program, Pei can be heard saying: “[it] had not found the Apollo basin.”

    Apollo’s basin is a large crater near the southern pole on the far side of the moon that was discovered during the space age and later named in honor of the Apollo missions. Pei’s remark was later misinterpreted by Chinese online users as Pei challenging the veracity of the Apollo moon landings by stating that Chang’e 6 had not found any trace of the original Apollo 11 spacecraft in the basin. 

    1 (6).png
    Chinese netizens misconstrued a statement from Chang’e chief architect to mean that the U.S. lunar landing was staged. (Screenshot/Weibo)

    But the claim is false. The original context of Pei’s statement makes clear that he is responding to a question about the position on the moon’s surface where Chang’e 6 would land. 

    Furthermore, it was never intended that Chang’e 6 would land in the Apollo basin. Pei states at around the 24-minute and five-second mark into the program that Chang’e 6 would land near the Aitken basin on the the far side of the moon’s south pole, far away from the Apollo basin on the moon’s northern half.

    Did U.S. astronauts admit that the landing was a hoax? 

    Online users on the Weibo social media platform said that the Apollo 11 landing had never happened, citing a remark by crew member Buzz Aldrin During an interview: “Because we didn’t go there.”

    2 (1).png
    Weibo netizens claim that a video shows astronaut Buzz Aldrin admitting the lunar landings never took place. In reality, Aldrin was saying that no missions to the moon have taken place since 1972.  (Screenshot/Weibo) 

    But Aldrin was responding to questions about why no manned missions to the moon has occurred since 1972.

    But a closer look at the interview shows that Aldrin was in fact saying that no manned mission had gone to the moon since 1972, not that the original Apollo missions had never visited the moon. 

    A similar claim was previously debunked by a fact-check organization Snopes.

    Did a White House spokesperson say that the U.S. and China visited different moons?

    A claim emerged in Chinese-language social media posts that White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre stated that the U.S. and China landed on two “different moons.” Those posts included a photo of her. 

    3 (1).png
    Netizens claimed that White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said the U.S. and China landed on two “different moons.”  (Screenshots/ X and Tiktok)

    But keyword searches found no credible reports to back the claim.

    Reverse image searches of the photo shared in the posts show that it was in fact taken by Reuters at a White House press conference on November 18, 2022, has nothing to do with the claim. 

    4.png
    Photos of Karine accompanying the claims were lifted from a 2022 press briefing. (Screenshots/ Reuters and X)

    Did the U.S. send fake lunar rocks to the Netherlands?

    Several users of the Douyin social media platform claimed that the U.S. sent fake lunar rocks to the Netherlands, and that this was evidence that the moon landing was staged. 

    5.png
    Several netizens on Douyin suspicious of the moon landings claimed that the U.S. sent fake lunar rocks to Holland.  (Screenshot / Douyin) 

    The claim is partly false. The U.S. did send some fake lunar rocks to  the Netherlands, but it does not show that the lunar landing was staged. 

    In August 2009, reports surfaced that a lunar rock on display at the Dutch national museum in Amsterdam was, in fact, an ancient piece of petrified wood. These reports have since been confirmed as true.

    The museum acquired the object in 1988, allegedly brought back by the crew of Apollo 11 following the first moon mission in 1969 and gifted to the Netherlands later that year.

    While the American broadcaster NBC reported that the U.S. Embassy in the Netherlands was investigating the matter, no information on any follow-up investigations has been found.

    Thousands of undisputed samples of lunar rocks were collected by the six Apollo manned missions, many of which were later sent as gifts and are now on display in various countries, including China.

    Have all of NASA’s records concerning the Apollo 11 mission been lost?

    Some Weibo users claimed that all of NASA’s official documentation about the Apollo 11 mission had been lost, inferring that the disappearance of the information was a sign that the lunar landing had been staged. 

    6.png
    Netizens claimed that all official information about the lunar missions had been lost. (Screenshot / Weibo) 

    But this claim is false. NASA’s official website contains both a general overview of the program as well as detailed information about the launch and subsequent activities of the lunar module. 

    In addition, for the 50th anniversary of the moon landing, NASA engineer Ben Feist collected images and audio from the Apollo 11 mission, and created a website so that the public could experience the moon landing process at that time.

    This public information has been supplemented by images and audio collected by NASA engineer Ben Feist and uploaded on a separate website.

    Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Taejun Kang.

    Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Dong Zhe for Asia Fact Check Lab.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The U.S. military ran a secret anti-vaccination campaign at the height of the pandemic in the Philippines and other nations to sow doubt about COVID vaccines made by China, according to a new investigation by Reuters. The clandestine Pentagon campaign, which began in 2020 under Donald Trump and continued into mid-2021 after Joe Biden took office, relied on fake social media accounts on multiple…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg2 guestandvaccine

    The U.S. military ran a secret anti-vaccination campaign at the height of the pandemic in the Philippines and other nations to sow doubt about COVID vaccines made by China, according to a new investigation by Reuters. The clandestine Pentagon campaign, which began in 2020 under Donald Trump and continued into mid-2021 after Joe Biden took office, relied on fake social media accounts on multiple platforms to target local populations in Southeast Asia and beyond. The campaign also aimed to discredit masks and test kits made in China. “Within the Pentagon, within Washington, there was this fear that they were going to lose the Philippines” to Chinese influence, says Joel Schectman, one of the reporters who broke the story. Schectman says that while it’s impossible to measure the impact of the propaganda effort, it came at a time when the Chinese-made Sinovac shot was the only one available in the Philippines, making distrust of the vaccine “incredibly harmful.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg2 guestandvaccine

    The U.S. military ran a secret anti-vaccination campaign at the height of the pandemic in the Philippines and other nations to sow doubt about COVID vaccines made by China, according to a new investigation by Reuters. The clandestine Pentagon campaign, which began in 2020 under Donald Trump and continued into mid-2021 after Joe Biden took office, relied on fake social media accounts on multiple platforms to target local populations in Southeast Asia and beyond. The campaign also aimed to discredit masks and test kits made in China. “Within the Pentagon, within Washington, there was this fear that they were going to lose the Philippines” to Chinese influence, says Joel Schectman, one of the reporters who broke the story. Schectman says that while it’s impossible to measure the impact of the propaganda effort, it came at a time when the Chinese-made Sinovac shot was the only one available in the Philippines, making distrust of the vaccine “incredibly harmful.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    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.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.