This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
-
China’s special mission aircraft are maturing intelligence gathering assets that are gaining data on tactics, techniques and procedures of those opponents that may be faced in the future. China has in recent years stepped up efforts to assert its aerial power projection capabilities in East Asia, demonstrating not just its intent to be the dominant […]
The post Listening, Watching, Gathering – Chinese EW Comes of Age appeared first on Asian Military Review.
This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.
-
Eight Philippine naval personnel were injured, one of them severely, on Monday when Chinese vessels blocked a Philippine resupply mission to the Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratly Islands, Philippine media reported.
The incident is the third this year in which Philippine service members have been hurt in confrontations with Chinese boats, and signals more aggressive tactics by China in its territorial dispute with the U.S. ally.
Philippine media reported that a member of the navy’s Special Operations Group lost a finger during a confrontation with Chinese troops. Six Philippine vessels were on a routine mission to deliver supplies to the BRP Sierra Madre outpost on the reef, which is called Ayungin Shoal in Tagalog, when they were intercepted.
Chinese soldiers targeted all six vessels, as well as their inflatable craft , and seized eight high-powered firearms from one boat, media reported on Tuesday.
None of the Philippine vessels reached the shoal due to the “dangerous maneuvers, including ramming and towing” by the Chinese vessels, which included boats from the navy, the China Coast Guard and the maritime militia, media reported.
Philippine government officials said in a statement that the mission “was disrupted by the illegal and aggressive actions of Chinese maritime forces.” They did not elaborate
China ’s rejected the accusation. Its foreign ministry said that China “took necessary control measures to stop the Philippine vessels in accordance with the law” and that their maneuvers were “professional, restrained, justified, and lawful.”
U.S. Pentagon officials confirmed to the U.S. Naval Institute (USNI) News that a Philippine sailor suffered severe injuries during the mission that also resulted in damage to Philippine vessels.
The U.S. State Department condemned China’s actions, which “reflect consistent disregard for the safety of Filipinos and for international law in the South China Sea.”
Dangerous actions
The incident was the third this year in which Philippine personnel have been hurt on missions to rotate and resupply troops stationed at the Second Thomas Shoal.
On March 5 and March 23, Filipino crew members were injured when their supply boats were hit by water cannons from Chinese vessels.
Analysts say the water cannon has become a favored tool of Chinese law enforcement agencies at sea, not only at the Second Thomas Shoal but also at Scarborough Shoal, another South China Sea hotspot, allowing Chinese forces to act more aggressively without using the force of firearms.
In a video from March supplied by the Philippine Coast Guard, two Chinese vessels were seen firing water cannons from opposite sides of Philippine resupply vessel Unaizah May 4, causing it damage.
“It’s mainly for firefighting since many coastguards have this role, but water cannon is also used for other purposes – including for maritime law enforcement,” said Collin Koh, a regional maritime expert.
“The use of water cannon falls short of use of kinetic force, by which we normally refer to as firepower weapons,” Koh said, pointing to what he sees as a “loophole” in regulating the use of water cannons in maritime disputes.
Koh, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said that water cannon, “depending on the range at which it’s fired, the nature of the target and especially the water pressure itself, can potentially maim or kill.”
“And if water cannon damages the vessel’s navigation system, it could heighten the risk of collision with other vessels, hence creating a physical hazard.”
Yet as navies typically don’t mount water cannon on vessels, firing one does not constitute an armed attack – a basis to invoke a Mutual Defense Treaty between Washington and Manila.
“Water cannons are certainly effective since China’s objective is to control smaller Philippine ships,” said Ray Powell, director of the SeaLight project at Stanford University in California who has been watching developments in the South China Sea.
“But not so effective for winning hearts and minds.”
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
China’s ruling Communist Party is stepping up its “United Front” influence and outreach operations targeting democratic Taiwan, with a cross-straits conference and paid junkets to promote tourism for Taiwanese influencers and celebrities, the island’s government has warned.
China’s Straits Forum, which opened at the weekend with the aim of boosting exchanges between China and Taiwan, is essentially a “platform” for the Chinese Communist Party’s influence operations targeting the island through soft power diplomacy, Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council has warned.
Taiwanese YouTuber Potter King reported last week that dozens of influencers from the island, which has never been ruled by China nor formed part of the People’s Republic of China, are being invited to China on expenses-paid junkets during which they will film tourism promotion videos, as part of a United Front operation targeting young people.
Ashin of Taiwanese band Mayday performs in Kuala Lumpur in 2013. (Lai Seng Sin/AP) “Based on reliable information I have received, Taiwanese influencers will travel to China to shoot videos at the invitation of an organization called Cross-Straits Youth as part of Cross-Straits Youth Culture Month, starting in late July,” Potter King wrote in a June 12 post to his Facebook account.
“I want to let everyone know that the State Council … has a budget to spend on a United Front battle targeting Taiwanese culture,” he wrote.
Potter King’s claim comes after dozens of Taiwanese artists and actors publicly endorsed Beijing’s territorial claim on the island by retweeting a Chinese state media post in support of eventual “unification.”
Taiwan President Lai Ching-te wears a hat given to him by Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, in Taipei on May 27, 2024. (Taiwan Presidential Office via AP) That tweet was a response to the inauguration speech of Taiwan’s directly elected president Lai Ching-te, who called on Beijing to stop threatening his country, and respect the will of its 23 million people, the majority of whom have no wish to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party.
It also comes after Chinese actor Hu Ge, who has a massive following in Taiwan, made a flying visit to the island last week to attend a youth exchange forum.
Funding source
Liang Wen-chieh, deputy head of Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council, said the Council had looked into Potter King’s claims and confirmed that the scheme does exist.
But he said the celebrities “should be paying for their own flights.”
“Once they land on the other side, the rest of their expenses will be borne by the host organization,” he said.
Liang said the Council will be investigating the source of Cross Straits Youth’s funding.
“We will be paying special attention to where its funding is coming from to invite these people and carry out these activities, because it won’t be cheap,” he said. “We are currently looking into it.”
Worshippers kneel under a palanquin during the annual pilgrimage in honor of the sea goddess Matsu in Changhua, April 6, 2008. (Nicky Loh/Reuters) Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, who was Beijing’s least favored candidate in January’s presidential elections, warned on Sunday that China is currently the biggest threat facing Taiwan, which has governed its own affairs as the 1911 Republic of China since the Kuomintang nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek fled to the island after losing a civil war with Mao Zedong’s communists in 1949.
“The biggest challenge is to face down the strong rise of China, which has destroyed the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, and which regards the annexation of Taiwan and the elimination of the Republic of China as part of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” Lai said.
“Our highest mission is to bravely assume the heavy responsibility of protecting Taiwan and maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait,” he told the island’s military at an event marking the centenary of founding of the Whampoa Military Academy in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong.
‘Healthy’ exchanges
Lai’s comments came after Wang Huning, who ranks fourth in the Chinese leadership, told the opening ceremony of the Straits Forum on Saturday that “unification is a historical necessity for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”
Executive Yuan spokesman Chen Shikai said Taiwan welcomes “healthy” cross-Strait exchanges, however.
“We believe that orderly and healthy cross-strait exchanges are a good thing, but if they involve the United Front, then of course we are not happy to see that,” Chen told reporters on Friday.
Taiwanese singer Jolin Tsai is pictured in Milan in 2017. (Marco Bertolrello/AFP) Lai Jung-wei, CEO of the Taiwan Inspiration Association, said Beijing appears to believe that Taiwan’s young people are more susceptible to political influence than older residents of the island.
“When young people vote, they tend to vote for candidates over parties, and vote based on their feelings,” Lai said.
“This is of course what Xi Jinping of the Chinese Communist Party wants to make happen,” he said. “Young people are more changeable, and he wants to find ways to convert them.”
This year’s Straits Forum opened in the southeastern port city of Xiamen on Saturday, with the theme of “Expanding civil exchanges, deepening integrated development,” and is being hosted by 86 organizations, according to Chen Binhua, spokesperson for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office.
The Mainland Affairs Council’s Liang also warned on June 13 that Chinese artists and celebrities are welcome to visit Taiwan, but are barred from making statements “harming Taiwan’s autonomous status.”
Taiwan currently bans county magistrates or mayors from traveling to China without prior approval by its government.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Matt Reed.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Ray Chung for RFA Cantonese, He Ping for RFA Mandarin.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
On 12 June 2024, a group of important NGOs addressed the following letter to Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs:
We, the undersigned civil society organisations, are writing to reiterate our request for the European Union to suspend its human rights dialogue with China, and to consider other, more impactful measures at the EU’s disposal to address the Chinese government’s assault on human rights at home and abroad.
While appreciative of the open and frank discussion and engagement with the EEAS in preparation of each round of human rights dialogue with China, we regret that the EU continues this exercise despite its amply proven ineffectiveness over 38 rounds. While the EU raises concerns during these dialogues, it knows that the Chinese government will not acknowledge abuses, will not undertake any effort to secure accountability, and will not be persuaded to undertake any policy or legislative action to comply with China’s international human rights obligations. The EU’s reluctance to establish any measurable benchmark of progress, or even to establish clearly defined objectives beyond having a dialogue, exacerbates the ineffectiveness of this exercise.
This year’s human rights dialogue would also entail EU officials sitting down with authorities in Beijing to “engage… through dialogue and cooperation” on human rights, days after the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre.
Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2013, the Chinese government has intensified its crackdown on dissent, harassing and imprisoning human rights defenders and activists including the Swedish bookseller Gui Minhai, the Uyghur economist and Sakharov Prize laureate Ilham Tohti [7 human rights awards, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/37AE7DC4-16DB-51E9-4CF8-AB0828AEF491], the Hong-Kong barrister and human rights activist Chow Hang-tung and human rights lawyers Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan, who were arrested a little over a year ago on their way to meet with the EU delegation [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/69fc7057-b583-40c3-b6fa-b8603531248e and https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/07/12/new-wave-of-repression-against-human-rights-lawyers-unleashed-in-china/]. The Chinese government has committed egregious violations against Uyghur and other Turkic communities in Xinjiang/The Uyghur Region, which a report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in August 2022 stated “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.” Beijing has also intensified its repression in Tibet, while in Hong Kong the creation of a new national security architecture at Beijing’s behest has severely restricted the rights and freedoms long enjoyed by Hong Kong’s people.
Beijing’s foreign policy has also been increasingly detrimental to human rights, both in the region and beyond. The Chinese government continues to support highly abusive governments, to challenge international efforts to secure accountability for grave abuses, and to intensify efforts to undermine the international human rights system and rewrite its norms. The Chinese government has also engaged in increasingly brazen transnational repression – abuses committed outside its borders – including in EU countries.
The EU has already suspended human rights dialogues with highly repressive countries such as Russia, Syria, Belarus, and Myanmar, among others, in light of the nature, scale and pervasiveness of their authorities’ human rights abuses and violations of international law. The Chinese government has committed serious crimes amounting to crimes against humanity. It has long been evident that the human rights dialogue is not an appropriate nor an effective tool to address them. There is no reason to expect the 39th round will prove more beneficial to the rights of people in China than the previous 38. The EU and its member states should pursue different, more effective actions to press the Chinese government to end its crimes against humanity and other serious violations – and to hold accountable those responsible for failing to do so.
We have long been suggesting alternative action, latest in this February 2023 letter. We stand ready to discuss these and other options with you any time.
Signatories:
Amnesty International
Front Line Defenders
Human Rights Watch
International Service for Human Rights
World Uyghur Congressand see https://www.ucanews.com/news/jailing-of-chinese-metoo-journalist-upsets-rights-groups/105431
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
-
Modi’s narrow re-election this month was greeted in the U.S. media with petulant satisfaction that Indian voters had “woken up”, as an oped piece in the New York Times put it.
The Washington Post’s editorial board rebuked Modi with the headline: “In India, the voters have spoken. They do not want autocracy.”
The Post editors went on to say that Modi “will lack a free hand for further repression of civil society, imprisonment of the opposition, infiltration and takeover of democratic institutions, and persecution of Muslims.”
That is quite a withering rap sheet for a political leader who not so long ago was given the VIP treatment in Washington.
Other U.S. media outlets also sounded smug that India’s legislative elections had returned a diminished majority for Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The “shock setback” for India’s strongman would mean that his Hindu nationalist politics would be restrained and he would have to govern during his third term with more moderation and compromise.
The American media’s contempt for the 73-year-old Indian leader is a dramatic turnaround from how he was lionized by the same media only a year ago.
Back in June 2023, Modi was feted by U.S. President Joe Biden with a privileged state dinner in the White House. The Indian premier was invited to address the Congress and the media were rhapsodic in their praise for his leadership.
Back then, the Washington Post’s editors recommended “toasting” Modi’s India, which Biden duly did at the White House reception. Raising a glass, Biden said: “We believe in the dignity of every citizen, and it is in America’s DNA, and I believe in India’s DNA that the whole world – the whole world has a stake in our success, both of us, and maintaining our democracies.” With trademark stumbling words, Biden added: “[This] makes us appealing partners and enables us to expand democratic institutions across, around the world.”
Modi may well wonder what happened over the past year. The Indian leader has gone from receiving the red carpet treatment to having the rug pulled from under his feet.
The difference is explained by the changing geopolitical calculation for Washington, which is not to its liking.
It is not that the Indian government under Modi has suddenly become a bad strongman who has taken to trashing democratic institutions and repressing minorities. Arguably, those tendencies have been associated with Modi since he first came to power in 2014.
The United States had long been critical of Modi’s Hindu nationalism. For more than a decade, Modi was persona non-grata in Washington. At one stage, he was even banned from entering the country owing to allegations that he was fanning sectarian violence against Muslims and Christians in India.
Washington’s view of Modi, however, began to warm up under the Trump administration because India was seen as a useful partner for the U.S. to counter China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific, a region which Washington renamed as the Indo-Pacific in part to inveigle India into its fold. To that end, the U.S. revived the Quad security alliance in 2017 with India, Japan and Australia.
The Biden administration continued the courting of India and Modi who was re-elected in 2019 for his second term.
Biden’s fawning over India culminated in the White House extravaganza for Modi last June when the U.S. media championed the “new heights” of U.S.-India relations. There were at the time residual complaints about India’s deteriorating democratic conditions under Modi, but such concerns were brushed aside by the sweep of media eulogizing, epitomized by Biden’s grandiloquent toasting of the U.S. and India as supposedly world-conquering democratic partners.
It was discernible, though, that all the American charm and indulgence was setting India up for an ulterior purpose.
In between the lines of effusive praise and celebration, the expected pay-off from India was that it would be a “bulwark” for U.S. interests against China and Russia.
As a piece in CNN at the time of Modi’s visit last year in Washington asked: “Will India deliver after lavish U.S. attention?”
The article noted with some prescience: “India and the U.S. may have different ambitions and visions for their ever-tightening relationship, and the possibility that Biden could end up being disappointed in the returns for his attention on Modi.”
The Indian leader certainly did receive some major sweeteners while in the U.S. Several significant military manufacturing deals were signed such as General Electric sharing top-secret technology for fighter jet engines.
Still, despite the zealous courting of New Delhi, over the following months, the Modi government appeared not to change its foreign policy dramatically to suit Washington’s bidding.
India has had long-held strained relations with China over border disputes and regional rivalry. Nevertheless, Modi has been careful not to antagonize Beijing. Notably, India did not participate in recent security drills in the Asia-Pacific along with the U.S. and other partners.
New Delhi has also maintained its strong support for the BRICS group that includes Russia, China, Brazil and other Global South nations advocating for a multipolar world not in hock to Western dominance.
This traditional policy of non-alignment by India is not what Washington wants. It seems that Modi did not heed the memo given during his splendid Washington visit. He rebuffed the American expectation of steering India towards U.S. geopolitical objectives of toeing a tougher line against China and Russia.
What seems to have intensified Washington’s exasperation with Modi is the worsening proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. After two and half years of conflict, President Vladimir Putin’s forces have gained a decisive upper hand over the NATO-backed Kiev regime. Hence, Biden and other NATO leaders have begun to desperately ramp up provocations against Moscow with recent permission for Ukraine to use Western long-range weapons to hit Russian territory.
When Modi visited Washington last June, the West was (unrealistically) confident that the Ukrainian counteroffensive underway at the time would prove to be a damaging blow to Russian forces. Western predictions of overcoming Russian lines have waned from the cruel reality that Russian weapons and superior troops numbers have decimated the Ukrainian side.
During Modi’s state trip last year, Washington’s focus was on getting India to act as a bulwark against China, not so much Russia. Modi has not delivered on either count, but the situation in Ukraine has cratered, from the NATO point of view.
Commenting on U.S. priorities last June, Richard Rossow of the Washington-based think-tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said: “If the invasion went worse for Ukraine, or was destabilizing the region, the Biden administration might have chosen to reduce the intensity of engagement with India. But the United States has found that nominal support to Ukraine, with allies and partners, has been sufficient to blunt the Russian offensive…” (How wrong was that assessment!)
Rossow continued his wrongheaded assessment: “Russia’s ineffective military campaign [in Ukraine] has also underscored the fact that China presents the only real state-led threat to global security, and the United States and India are steadily deepening their partnership bilaterally and through forums like the Quad to improve the likelihood of peace and tranquility in the region. So long as this strategic relationship continues to grow, it is unlikely that a U.S. administration will press India to take a hard line on Russia.”
Washington and its NATO allies have got their expectations about Russia losing the conflict in Ukraine all badly wrong. Russia is winning decisively as the Ukrainian regime stumbles towards collapse.
This is a double whammy for the Biden administration. China and Russia are stronger than ever, and India has given little in return for all the concessions it received from Washington.
From the American viewpoint, India’s Modi has not delivered in the way he was expected to by Washington despite the latter’s fawning and concessions. New Delhi has remained committed to the BRICS multipolar group, it has not antagonized China and it has not succumbed to U.S. pressure to condemn Russia. Far from condemning Moscow, India has increased its imports of Russian oil and gas.
Now with the U.S. and NATO’s reckless bet on Ukraine defeating Russia looking like a beaten docket, Washington’s disappointment with India is taking on an acrimonious tone.
In one year, Modi’s India has gone from a geopolitical darling to a target of U.S. recrimination over alleged human rights violations and democratic backsliding. It is not so much that political conditions in India have degraded any further. It is Washington’s geopolitical calculations that have been upended. Hence the chagrined and increasingly abrasive attitude towards New Delhi from its erstwhile American partner.
• First published in Strategic Culture Foundation
The post Why Modi’s India is Suddenly getting Washington’s Cold Shoulder first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
-
China said a Philippine supply vessel “dangerously” approached its ship near a disputed atoll in the South China Sea on Monday, causing a collision but the Philippines dismissed the complaint as “deceptive and misleading.”
The Chinese coast guard said in a statement a supply ship from the Philippines “illegally intruded into the waters adjacent to Ren’ai Reef,” using the Chinese name for the Second Thomas Shoal.
The Philippines deliberately ran a World War II-era warship, the BRP Sierra Madre, aground on the shoal in 1999 to serve as a military outpost. It runs regular rotation and resupply missions to the shoal, known as Ayungin in the Philippines.
The Chinese coast guard added the Philippine supply ship ignored its warnings, violated international regulations for preventing collisions at sea and “deliberately and dangerously” approached the Chinese vessel in an “unprofessional manner, resulting in a collision.”
“The responsibility lies entirely with the Philippines,” it said.
The Philippine military said in response that it would not discuss operational details of what it calls “legal humanitarian rotation and resupply mission” at the shoal.
“We will not dignify the deceptive and misleading claims of the China coast guard,” it said in a statement, adding that the main issue remained “the illegal presence and actions of Chinese vessels” within the Philippines’ EEZ.
The Chinese actions not only infringe the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the Philippines but also escalate tensions in the region, it stated.
Tensions between China and the Philippines at the shoal have in recent months been the most serious in years in the South China Sea, where six parties hold overlapping claims with China’s claim the most expansive, including more than 80% of the waters.
New order
China has been blocking the Philippines’ efforts to bring supplies to the marines stationed on the BRP Sierra Madre, saying the voyages violate China’s jurisdiction despite the reef being located well inside Manila’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
In March, Chinese coast guard and maritime militia vessels were accused of firing a water cannon at a Philippine supply boat near the shoal, causing significant damage to the vessel and injuring its crew.
It is unclear whether a water cannon was used in the Monday incident and what damage the alleged collision caused to the vessels involved.
The Chinese coast guard has issued a new order, which became effective on June 15, that allows its force to detain foreign vessels and crew suspected of “trespassing” into Chinese-claimed waters.
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
The first visit to Australia by a Chinese premier in seven years was marked by anti-China groups protesting China’s disregard for human rights
- Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates
- Get our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcast
The Australian government has rolled out the welcome mat as China’s premier, Li Qiang, visited Canberra, but his trip may have been overshadowed by an apparent attempt by Chinese officials to block the view of the formerly detained Australian journalist Cheng Lei during a signing ceremony.
The first trip to Australia by a Chinese premier in seven years is the most striking symbol yet of the easing of tensions in a previously turbulent relationship.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
-
Our response to Yang Hengjun’s jailing is inadequate and chilling. Chinese-Australians are Australians too!
China’s premier is visiting Australia and Li Qiang’s first stop was the Adelaide zoo, home to pandas Wang Wang and Fu Ni.
Beijing has enjoyed exercising “panda diplomacy” over the years, loaning bears to countries depending on its assessment of how well diplomatic relations are going.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
-
On June 14, Reuters headlined: “Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic: The U.S. military launched a clandestine program amid the COVID crisis to discredit China’s Sinovac inoculation – payback for Beijing’s efforts to blame Washington for the pandemic. One target: the Filipino public. Health experts say the gambit was indefensible and put innocent lives at risk.”A June 15 Google-search of the headline “Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic” produced virtually no publication of that Reuters news-report anywhere within the U.S. empire — U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc. The news-report was not published, for example, in the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Guardian, Telegraph, and Daily Mail, nor CNN, NBC, CBS, BBC, NPR, PBS, Deutsche Welle, etc. That headline did briefly run on the websites of USA Today and Fox News, but never the news-report itself on that given site, and the link to the story no longer works at either USA Today or Fox News. There had been a link to that headlined story, but that news-report had not been published on either site. The only mainstream site in the U.S. empire that posted not only the headline but that also at their site the actual news-report, was Australian Broadcasting Corporation, on June 15. A Google-search of that headline four hours later on June 15 showed no better results. So, this extraordinarily important news-report remains as being news even the day after Reuters had published it on their news-feed. Suppression of a major news-story from a U.S. empire news-agency such as Reuters is highly extraordinary.
That suppressed news-report — which should immediately have been splashed everywhere, because it was among the biggest news-stories anywhere on June 14 — opened:
At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. military launched a secret campaign to counter what it perceived as China’s growing influence in the Philippines, a nation hit especially hard by the deadly virus.
The clandestine operation has not been previously reported. It aimed to sow doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and other life-saving aid that was being supplied by China, a Reuters investigation found. Through phony internet accounts meant to impersonate Filipinos, the military’s propaganda efforts morphed into an anti-vax campaign. Social media posts decried the quality of face masks, test kits and the first vaccine that would become available in the Philippines – China’s Sinovac inoculation.
Reuters identified at least 300 accounts on X, formerly Twitter, that matched descriptions shared by former U.S. military officials familiar with the Philippines operation. Almost all were created in the summer of 2020 and centered on the slogan #Chinaangvirus – Tagalog for China is the virus.
This post, identified by Reuters, matched the messaging, timeframe and design of the U.S. military’s anti-vax propaganda campaign in the Philippines, former and current military officials say. Social media platform X also identified the account as fake and removed it.
TRANSLATION FROM TAGALOG
#ChinaIsTheVirus
Do you want that? COVID came from China and vaccines came from China
(Beneath the message is a picture of then-Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte saying: “China! Prioritize us first please. I’ll give you more islands, POGO and black sand.” POGO refers to Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators, online gambling companies that boomed during Duterte’s administration. Black sand refers to a type of mining.)
“COVID came from China and the VACCINE also came from China, don’t trust China!” one typical tweet from July 2020 read in Tagalog. The words were next to a photo of a syringe beside a Chinese flag and a soaring chart of infections. Another post read: “From China – PPE, Face Mask, Vaccine: FAKE. But the Coronavirus is real.”
RELATED
Podcast: Pentagon’s anti-vax campaign
After Reuters asked X about the accounts, the social media company removed the profiles, determining they were part of a coordinated bot campaign based on activity patterns and internal data.
The U.S. military’s anti-vax effort began in the spring of 2020 and expanded beyond Southeast Asia before it was terminated in mid-2021, Reuters determined. Tailoring the propaganda campaign to local audiences across Central Asia and the Middle East, the Pentagon used a combination of fake social media accounts on multiple platforms to spread fear of China’s vaccines among Muslims at a time when the virus was killing tens of thousands of people each day. A key part of the strategy: amplify the disputed contention that, because vaccines sometimes contain pork gelatin, China’s shots could be considered forbidden under Islamic law.
The military program started under former President Donald Trump and continued months into Joe Biden’s presidency, Reuters found – even after alarmed social media executives warned the new administration that the Pentagon had been trafficking in COVID misinformation. The Biden White House issued an edict in spring 2021 banning the anti-vax effort, which also disparaged vaccines produced by other rivals, and the Pentagon initiated an internal review, Reuters found.
“I don’t think it’s defensible. I’m extremely dismayed, disappointed and disillusioned to hear that the U.S. government would do that.”
Daniel Lucey, infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine.
The news-report also said:
Then-Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte pleaded with citizens to get the COVID vaccine. “You choose, vaccine or I will have you jailed,” a masked Duterte said in this televised address in June 2021.
When he addressed the vaccination issue, the Philippines had among the worst inoculation rates in Southeast Asia. Only 2.1 million of its 114 million citizens were fully vaccinated – far short of the government’s target of 70 million. By the time Duterte spoke, COVID cases exceeded 1.3 million, and almost 24,000 Filipinos had died from the virus. The difficulty in vaccinating the population contributed to the worst death rate in the region.
COVID-19 deaths in the Philippines
The pandemic hit the Philippines especially hard, and by November 2021, COVID had claimed the lives of 48,361 people there. …
To implement the anti-vax campaign, the Defense Department overrode strong objections from top U.S. diplomats in Southeast Asia at the time, Reuters found. Sources involved in its planning and execution say the Pentagon, which ran the program through the military’s psychological operations center in Tampa, Florida, disregarded the collateral impact that such propaganda may have on innocent Filipinos.
“We weren’t looking at this from a public health perspective,” said a senior military officer involved in the program. “We were looking at how we could drag China through the mud.” …
In 2019, before COVID surfaced in full force, then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper signed a secret order that later paved the way for the launch of the U.S. military propaganda campaign. The order elevated the Pentagon’s competition with China and Russia to the priority of active combat, enabling commanders to sidestep the State Department when conducting psyops against those adversaries. The Pentagon spending bill passed by Congress that year also explicitly authorized the military to conduct clandestine influence operations against other countries, even “outside of areas of active hostilities.”
Esper, through a spokesperson, declined to comment. A State Department spokesperson referred questions to the Pentagon.
The statement — “We weren’t looking at this from a public health perspective,” said a senior military officer involved in the program. “We were looking at how we could drag China through the mud.” — means that the U.S. Government was placing a higher priority upon “dragging China through the mud” than on keeping covid-19 deaths down in the Assia-Pacific region. Especially in the Phillipines, which under Duarte’s Presidency was neutralist in the conflict between the U.S. Government and the Chinese Government, adding to the death-rate there was not a practical concern for the U.S. Government. In other words: the U.S. Government treats neutralist nations as-if they’re instead among its enemy-nations, to such an extent that even civilian deaths there that are caused by the U.S. Government, are of no practical (much less of ethical) concern. This operation by the U.S. Government was expected to increase deaths in that region (because the U.S. Government believed that vaccinations would reduce covid-19 deaths in its own and allied territories), but they were not concerned about that. They were interested only in “how we could drag China through the mud.” The possibily that deaths would increase deaths in and around Asia as a result of what they were doing, was of no concern to them. The extent to which the post-1945 U.S. Government is significantly different than was Hitler’s Government in Germany, is therefore an appropriate matter for public debate, though it’s not being debated anywhere in today’s U.S. empire. The major importance of this news-report from Reuters is that it importantly contributes to that debate; and, now, the further fact of its virtually complete black-out within the U.S. empire, displays the extent to which the U.S. empire will not tolerate the existence of any such public debate. Perhaps this fact is even more important than that extraordinary report from Reuters itself was.A reasonable conclusion from all of this is that America’s Government treats neutral countries as-if they are enemy countries. An associated aspect of this fact is that starting on June 11th the U.S. Government increased its secondary sanctions against Russia — the sanctions against businesses that trade with Russia — so as to punish them for that and thereby to limit such firms’ choices as to which countries they will be allowed by the U.S. Government to have commerce with. Secondary sanctions present non-U.S. targets (neutral countries and firms) with a choice: do business with the United States or with the sanctioned target, but not both. This is erecting a new “iron curtain,” of a specifically economic type, between the American empire — “The West” — and “The East.”
The U.S. Government is, in effect, betting that to force neutrals to choose between “The West” and “the East,” “The West” will expand, instead of reduce, its empire. Whether, or the extent to which, the reverse might happen, was so much as even considered by “The West,” is not, as-of yet, publicly known.
However, specifically as regards what was the topic in that Reuters news-report: to be concerned not at all about how the death-rates in the east-Asian region would be affected, but ONLY about “how we could drag China through the mud,” was — given the fact that the U.S. Government thought that to increase the vaccination-rates in that region would reduce the death-rates there — for the U.S. Government to intend to increase covid-19 deaths in the East-Asia & Pacific region. It was their intent, regardless of whether, or the extent to which, it was the result of what the U.S. Government did there.
The post Reuters Reveals Secret U.S. Government Anti-China Operation to Increase Covid-19 Deaths in East Asia and Pacific first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
-
Anthony Albanese should seek commitments for tangible measures in his talks with Li Qiang, campaigners say
Human rights advocates have called on Anthony Albanese to place China’s human rights record ahead of economic and trade discussions in his meeting with China’s second most powerful leader on Monday.
They said it was time for Australia’s Labor government to demand concrete action from China in addressing human rights complaints against it as “statements of concern” were not achieving results.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
-
Wang Wang and Fu Ni have lived at the city’s zoo for 15 years but are due to head home by the end of 2024
- ‘Twists and turns’ in Australia-China ties are over, Li Qiang says – but Penny Wong highlights tensions
- Get our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcast
Li Qiang has announced a panda swap for Adelaide zoo, a diplomatic move long anticipated but timed to coincide with the first visit of a Chinese premier to Australia since 2017.
Making the announcement at the zoo, Li said two new giant pandas would replace Wang Wang and Fu Ni, who have lived at the zoo for 15 years as the only specimens of their kind in the southern hemisphere.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
-
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will stop over in Port Moresby today for a quick bilateral with Prime Minister James Marape before setting off to Japan.
Luxon hosted Chinese Premier Li Qiang in New Zealand this week before flying off to Japan through Port Moresby.
Luxon has recently returned from a trip to Niue and Fiji and will fly to Tokyo today, returning on June 20.
- READ MORE: Heated exchanges between protesters, supporters as Chinese Premier arrives in NZ
- Chinese premier Li Qiang departs for Australia after Fonterra visit
PNG Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko confirmed that Prime Minister Luxon would be stopping over in Port Moresby for a bilateral meeting with his counterpart Prime Minister Marape before flying on to Japan.
“The newly elected Prime Minister will be stopping over for one hour and will have a bilateral with our Prime Minister,” Minister Tkatchenko said.
“He is travelling with his New Zealand Trade Minister, so our Trade Minister, the Honourable Richard Maru, myself and Prime Minister will be having a one hour bilateral with the new New Zealand Prime Minister and we will be talking about most of the issues we discussed with the New Zealand Foreign Minister and our partnership,” he said.
Health, infrastructure, renewable energy, security, and stability are among the themes of the bilateral agenda.
Prime Minister Luxon met with Chinese Premier Li Qiang at Government House in Wellington yesterday.
Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
-
A court in southern China on Friday handed down a prison sentence of five years to feminist journalist Sophia Huang after finding her guilty of “incitement to subvert state power.”
The Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court also handed a three-year, six-month jail term to labor activist Wang Jianbing for the same offense. Time already served since their initial detention in September 2021 will be taken into account, according to a copy of the judgment posted to social media.
Security outside the court building was tight, with large numbers of plainclothes and uniformed police officers, as well as security volunteers in red armbands, campaigners said.
Journalists weren’t allowed to approach the building, according to a campaign group working for their release.
The court also confiscated 100,000 yuan (US$13,800) in assets from Huang and 50,000 (US$6,900) yuan from Wang.
Neither Huang nor Wang has been allowed to receive visits from family members since their detention, but have been allowed legal representation within parameters set by the authorities, fellow activists said.
A security guard stands on duty outside the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, May 7, 2015. (Paul Traynor/AP) Huang told the court she planned to appeal the sentence and conviction, the Free Huang Xueqin and Wang Jianbing support group said via its X account, adding that Wang plans to consult with his lawyer before deciding whether to appeal or not.
“Tomorrow will be their 1,000th day in detention,” a friend of the pair who gave only the nickname Xiao Cao for fear of reprisals told RFA Mandarin. “It would be a violation of their freedom and dignity to hold them for just one day.”
The day before
Huang and Wang were detained on Sept. 19, 2021, the day before Huang had planned to leave China via Hong Kong for the United Kingdom, where she planned to embark on a master’s degree in development with a prestigious Chevening Scholarship.
Wang, who is a labor and healthcare rights activist, had planned to see her off on her journey.
They were put on trial for “incitement to subvert state power,” a charge frequently used to target peaceful critics of the ruling Chinese Communist Party.
In this photo released by Free Huang Xueqin & Wang Jianbing, Chinese labor activist Wang Jianbing poses on Mount Lushan in Jiangxi province in April 2021. (Free Huang Xueqin & Wang Jianbing via AP) Amnesty International’s China Director Sarah Brooks said neither Huang nor Wang have committed any crime.
“These malicious and totally groundless convictions show just how terrified the Chinese government is of the emerging wave of activists who dare to speak out to protect the rights of others,” Brooks said in a statement on the Amnesty International website.
“The Chinese government has fabricated excuses to deem their work a threat, and to target them for educating themselves and others about social justice issues such as women’s dignity and workers’ rights,” she said, calling for the pair’s unconditional release.
Before being targeted by the authorities in 2019, Huang had been an outspoken member of the country’s #MeToo movement, and had carried out a survey of sexual harassment and assault cases among Chinese women working in journalism.
Huang was present at a million-strong protest in Hong Kong on June 9, 2019, against plans to allow extradition to mainland China, and was detained for “picking quarrels and stirring up trouble” in October 2019, before being released on bail in January 2020, a status that often involves ongoing surveillance and restrictions on a person’s activities.
Huang had previously assisted in the investigation and reporting of a number of high-profile sexual harassment allegations against professors at Peking University, Wuhan University of Technology, Henan University and Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou.
The case against Huang and Wang is believed to be related to their attendance at weekly gatherings with fellow activists, hosted by Wang Jianbing, the statement said.
The Chinese authorities systematically use national security charges with extremely vague provisions, such as “subverting state power” and “inciting subversion of state power,” to prosecute lawyers, scholars, journalists, activists and NGO workers.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Chen Zifei and Qiao Qin’en for RFA Mandarin.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
On 12 June 2024, Human Rights Watch published a useful, short “questions-and-answers” document which outlines key questions on the global trend of transnational repression.
© 2024 Brian Stauffer for Human Rights Watch - What is transnational repression?
- What tactics are used?
- Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?
- Where is transnational repression happening?
- Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?
- Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression?
- What should be done?
What is transnational repression?
The term “transnational repression” is increasingly used to refer to state actors reaching beyond their borders to suppress or stifle dissent by targeting human rights defenders, journalists, government critics and opposition activists, academics and others, in violation of their human rights. Particularly vulnerable are nationals or former nationals, members of diaspora communities and those living in exile. Many are asylum seekers or refugees in their place of exile, while others may be at risk of extradition or forced return. Back home, a person’s family members and friends may also be targeted, by way of retribution and with the aim of silencing a relative in exile or forcing their return.
Transnational repression can have far-reaching consequences, including a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression and association. While there is no formal legal definition, the framing of transnational repression, which encompasses a wide range of rights abuses, allows us to better understand it and propose victim-centered responses.
What tactics are used?
Documented tactics of transnational repression include killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, unlawful removals, online harassment, the use of digital surveillance including spyware, targeting of relatives, and the abuse of consular services. Interpol’s Red Notice system has also been used as a tool of transnational repression, to facilitate unlawful extraditions. Interpol has made advances in improving its vetting systems, yet governments continue to abuse the Red Notice system by publishing unlawful notices seeking citizens who have fled abroad on spurious charges. This leaves targets vulnerable to arrest and return to their country of origin to be mistreated, even after they have fled to seek safety abroad.
Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?
No, the practice of governments violating human rights beyond their borders is not new. Civil society organizations have been documenting such abuses for decades. What is new, however, is the growing recognition of transnational repression as more than a collection of grave incidents, but also as an increasing phenomenon of global concern, requiring global responses. What is also new is the increasing access to and use of sophisticated technology to harass, threaten, surveil and track people no matter where they are. This makes the reach of transnational repression even more pervasive.
Where is transnational repression happening?
Transnational repression is a global phenomenon. Cases have been documented in countries and regions around the world. The use of technology such as spyware increases the reach of transnational repression, essentially turning an infected device, such as a mobile phone, into a portable surveillance tool, allowing targeted individuals to be spied on and tracked around the world.
Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?
While many authoritarian states resort to repressive tactics beyond their own borders, any government that seeks to silence dissent by targeting critics abroad is committing transnational repression. Democratic governments have also contributed to cases of transnational repression, for example through the provision of spyware, collaborating with repressive governments to deny visas or facilitate returns, or relying upon flawed Interpol Red Notices that expose targeted individuals to risk.
Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression?
Increasingly, human rights organizations, UN experts and states are documenting and taking steps to address transnational repression.
For example, Freedom House has published several reports on transnational repression and maintains an online resource documenting incidents globally. Human Rights Watch has published reports, including one outlining cases of transnational repression globally and another focusing on Southeast Asia. Amnesty International has published a report on transnational repression in Europe. Many other nongovernmental organizations are increasingly producing research and reports on the issue. In her report on journalists in exile, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression dedicated a chapter to transnational repression. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights used the term in a June 2024 statement.
Certain governments are increasingly aware of the harms posed by transnational repression. Some are passing legislation to address the problem, while others are signing joint statements or raising transnational repression in international forums. However, government responses are often piecemeal, and a more cohesive and coordinated approach is needed.
What should be done?
Governments should speak out and condemn all cases of transnational repression, including by their friends and allies. They should take tangible steps to address transnational repression, including by adopting rights-respecting legal frameworks and policies to address it. Governments should put victims at the forefront of their response to these forms of repression. They should be particularly mindful of the risks and fears experienced by refugee and asylum communities. They should investigate and appropriately prosecute those responsible. Interpol should continue to improve vetting process by subjecting governments with a poor human rights record to more scrutiny when they submit Red Notices. Interpol should be transparent on which governments are continually abusing the Red Notice system, and limit their access to the database.
At the international level, more can be done to integrate transnational repression within existing human rights reporting, and to mandate dedicated reporting on cases of transnational repression, trends, and steps needed to address it.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/12/qa-transnational-repression
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
-
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
A claim emerged in media posts that the mayor of the South Korean city of Daegue had asked China for giant pandas as a gift.
But the claim is false. The mayor only requested that the pandas be leased. In 1982, China announced that it would no longer gift pandas to other countries due to the rare animals’ shrinking natural habitat and would only lease them.
The claim was shared on pro-Beijing media outlet Guancha on June 3, 2024.
“On May 31, Chinese Ambassador to South Korea Xing Haiming visited Daegu to meet with Mayor Hong Jun-pyo. Yonhap news agency reported that Hong expressed his hope that China would present a pair of giant pandas to the Daegu Great Park, which will be completed in 2027,” the report reads in part.
The claim was published by other media outlets, including Hong Kong’s Sing Tao Daily and Russia’s Sputnik News.
Pro-Beijing media outlets reported that Daegu’s mayor requested a pair of giant pandas from China. (Screenshots/Guancha, Sputnik and Sing Tao Daily) The news quickly became the hottest topic on China’s Weibo social media platform. Netizens criticized South Korea’s requests as “shameless” and “begging”.
News of the request soon sparked interest and critiques by Chinese netizens on Weibo. (Screenshot/Weibo) But the claim is false.
Source of the claim
Guancha cited a report published by South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency.
Keyword searches found that Yonhap did publish a story on May 31, containing the phrase “gift giant pandas” in its headline.
However, as of June 3, Yonhap had updated the report and changed the phrase to “asked China to lease giant pandas”.
The wording of Yonhap’s original report claiming that the mayor of Daegu had asked China to “gift” a pair of giant pandas (left) was later amended to the more accurate “lease” (right). (Screenshot/Yonhap News Agency) A Daegu city official told AFCL that they had only asked China to lease a pair of pandas, adding that the term “gifting” was a mistake by Yonhap, which had since been corrected.
In 1982, China announced that due to the rapid loss of suitable habitat for giant pandas, it would stop gifting pandas to other countries and would only lease them.
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 environmentL. 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 Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
Taiwan is seeking to enhance its ability to sustain the Republic of China Air Force (RoCAF)’s Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter aircraft fleet by acquiring spares, repair parts and associated equipment worth US$300 million. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 5 June that the US Department of State has approved two Foreign Military […]
The post Taiwan aims to boost F-16 fleet readiness with parts buy appeared first on Asian Military Review.
This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.
-
The Philippine navy is “monitoring” Vietnam’s island building activities in the West Philippine Sea — part of the South China Sea within Manila’s exclusive economic zone, a naval official said.
The spokesperson for the West Philippine Sea, Commodore Roy Vincent Trinidad, told a radio station that both the navy and the department of foreign affairs were watching the situation.
Manila claims jurisdiction over a group of reefs and rocks, called the Kalayaan island group in the Philippines. Most of the reefs are within the Spratly archipelago, which is contested by several countries in the region.
The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) think tank said in a recent report that in six months Vietnam had created as much new land in the South China Sea as the previous two years combined.
Vietnam has reclaimed a total area of 955 hectares, about half the area that China has built up throughout the years, according to AMTI.
Namyit Island on May 16, 2024 (AMTI/Maxar Technologies) The Philippines’ measured response to the report of Vietnamese land reclamation in areas that it also claims comes after a period of intensifying confrontation between Manila and Beijing over other features in disputed waters.
The Philippines and Vietnam have “friendly relations,” Trinidad told the Super Radyo dzBB station. “Vietnam does not initiate illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive actions against us, unlike China,” he added.
Earlier, another Philippine official said that Vietnam was reclaiming features that it occupied before a 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
“Vietnam focuses on minding their own affairs,” Philippine coast guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela told reporters.
“They do not engage in harassing our fishermen or illegally deploying coast guard vessels and maritime militia in the waters surrounding our occupied maritime features,” Tarriela added.
Divisive issue
The Philippines has in the past issued a formal diplomatic protest against Vietnam’s island building, which was the usual practice in response to any such foreign activity in the West Philippine Sea, said Jay Batongbacal, a maritime legal expert.
“It was more about the concern over the environmental impact of such activities as the Philippines gives great value to marine habitats and species diversity,” Batongbacal told RFA. “This has not affected Vietnam-Philippines relations overall.”
Botongbacal said the two countries had been engaged in constant dialogue as two claimants from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, in accordance with the 1992 ASEAN Declaration of Conduct for parties in the South China Sea and the 2002 Declaration of Conduct between the block and China.
Manila and Hanoi established a strategic partnership in 2015 and have been working together to manage their overlapping claims in the South China Sea amid new maritime challenges posed by their big neighbor China.
The Philippine Ambassador to Vietnam, Meynardo LB. Montealegre, on Wednesday called Vietnam “our twin brother in the ASEAN region,” and that the two countries are “sharing the South China Sea as our common space for growth, our life-giving source for development and equally essential for our co-existence.”
Yet Vietnam’s recent efforts could become a divisive issue between them.
A recent article by Rigoberto Tiglao in the Manila Times named Vietnam the Philippines’ “other threat.”
“As sure as the sun rises in the East, if China vacates its occupied artificial islands in the South China Sea, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam will be landing its troops on each and every island, and it has been preparing to do so for a decade,” he wrote.
The Manila Times, commonly seen as pro-China, previously published reports on Vietnam’s militarization of its outposts in the South China Sea, citing leaked documents from its defense ministry. There has been no independent verification of the documents and experts casted doubt on their authenticity.
However, after the articles were published, a group of Filipinos held a protest and tore down Vietnam’s flag in front of its embassy in Manila, prompting Vietnamese officials to ask Philippine authorities to “handle the incident seriously.”
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
6 Mins Read
New research shows that health is the priority for Chinese consumers when it comes to plant-based food – and the more they know about the benefits, the more they’ll eat it.
When you inform people in China about the benefits of a vegan diet, nearly all of them (98%) would be willing to eat more plant-based foods, according to a new survey.
This number stays the same for flexitarians, though this demographic has more people displaying a ‘strong willingness’ to add plant-based foods (64%, versus 57% of the total). This makes sense considering that flexitarian by definition refers to people actively reducing their meat intake – but even amongst meat-eaters (or omnivores), 54% are willing to up their vegan consumption once learning about the benefits.
The results are from a poll carried out by Kantar for ProVeg International, covering 1,000 consumers from Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. It found that nearly a third (32%) of Chinese people identify as flexitarians, though the incidence of vegetarianism (1.5%) and veganism (0.9%) is low.
They were presented with 15 benefit statements about plant-based foods, 14 of which were based on peer-reviewed research. These included preventing or lowering the risk of type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, and antibiotic resistance; lowering body mass index (BMI); cutting greenhouse gas emissions; reducing global hunger; and being a source of delicious and satisfying meals (among others).
“We found that most people are concerned that they eat healthy food and that once they know just how healthy and climate-friendly plant-based food is, they will eat a lot more of it,” said Shirley Lu, managing director and Asia and China representative at ProVeg.
Health high on the agenda for China’s consumers
Courtesy: ProVeg International The survey participants were asked to agree or disagree with each of the statements, while also rating which ones would be the most effective in persuading them to eat plant-based food. Using this data, the pollsters created a four-quadrant Agreement/Persuasion Matrix.
Seven of the top 10 statements that respondents agreed with were related to health. The most popular was the one that suggested plant-based diets lowered BMI and reduced obesity rates, therefore also reducing rates of heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. More than half (56%) of Chinese people believe this is true.
The BMI statement was also the most persuasive in encouraging increased plant-based consumption, leading the first quadrant of the matrix. The three other statements in this quadrant – which combined strong agreement with strong persuasion – were health-related too. They stated that plant-based diets are high in calcium and bioavailability (52% agreement), provide adequate protein (49%), and are iron-rich (51%).
In quadrant 2, which highlights benefits that were met with low agreement but still tend to be influential in increasing uptake of plant-based foods, the top statement suggests that these foods lower the risk of developing antibiotic resistance. This was also the most persuasive statement overall, and was followed in this quadrant by the statements that animal agriculture makes up 80% of rainforest destruction, beef and dairy are among the biggest sources of methane, and vegan diets can help reduce world hunger.
In contrast, the idea that plant-based foods are more energy-efficient and use fewer natural resources was the least persuasive argument, despite 49% agreeing with this. The statement people agreed with the least was that animal agriculture accounts for up to 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions, something that was also one of the most insignificant benefits for respondents.
Who should plant-based companies market to?
Courtesy: ProVeg International This reflects the emphasis Chinese consumers put on health over the environment. Overall, the main reasons for consuming plant-based food were health (46%), nutrition (39%) and food safety (35%). Only 24% are motivated by the fact that they are climate-friendly.
Conversely, the biggest barriers are dissatisfaction with the freshness of ingredients (cited by 36%) and the taste (31%), and uncertainty about the nutritional completeness (30%).
For food manufacturers, targeting the right demographic is key to hit home your message. While more women (59%) expressed a strong willingness to change their diet than men (41%), responses were very similar across the age ranges of both sexes, at between 24% for those aged 18-24 and 27% for 40- to 60-year-olds.
Meanwhile, 36% of flexitarians displayed a strong willingness to eat more plant-based food. Among income groups, it seemed the richer the person, the less willing they were to change. People earning between ¥15,000 and ¥25,000 ($2,000-$3,300) each month were most happy to shift to a plant-based diet (29%), and those on the highest household income (above ¥40,000/5,400) were the least likely to do so (16%).
Courtesy: ProVeg International The report recommends companies leverage the high-awareness and high-persuasion factors from the matrix, amplify the benefits that had low agreement but were still highly convincing, and market popular benefits with low persuasion rates in ways that can be more relevant to consumers.
Spotlight health, whether it’s produce or plant-based meat
In 2016, the Chinese government introduced the Healthy China 2030 policy, which stipulated that public health should be a precondition for all future socio-economic development. And four years later, it announced the 30-60 policy, committing to hit peak emissions by 2030 and become carbon-neutral by 2060.
Last year, a study by Singapore-based firm Asia Research Engagement found that China – the world’s largest producer of pork, fish and eggs – is expected to see animal consumption increase by 2030 despite falling population numbers. But if it is to meet the 1.5°C goal, 50% of all protein consumption in the country must be from alternative sources by 2060.
There are several things industry players can do to help nudge more plant-based consumption. Social media was found to be the most effective marketing tool, while a focus on nutritional transparency and lower price points will go a long way too.
Courtesy: GFI APAC Companies need to improve the knowledge and awareness of nutrition and food processing, and finance R&D efforts to develop healthier and tastier plant-based meat products. More investment in consumer education about meat analogues’ health benefits is crucial too.
Finally, vegetables that are high in protein, iron and calcium are particularly appealing to consumers, so marketing strategies that highlight the nutritional value of both fresh produce and meat and dairy analogues can be highly influential.
“China boasts a rich heritage of plant-based diets and a wealth of healthy plant ingredients. Government agencies, educational institutions, and plant-based food businesses can leverage this study to educate consumers about the benefits and impact of plant-based diets,” said Lu.
“By highlighting the health, environmental, and culinary advantages, we can collectively work towards transforming our food system to one that is beneficial for humans, plants, and animals alike.”
The post When Told About the Benefits, Almost Everybody in China Would Eat More Plant-Based Foods appeared first on Green Queen.
This post was originally published on Green Queen.
-
China has delivered six patrol boats to Myanmar’s military junta, fulfilling a promise made in 2020 to the country’s previous democratically elected civilian government, the Chinese Embassy said in a statement on Wednesday.
The patrol boats that were handed over in Yangon on Tuesday will be used in law enforcement efforts to control gambling and drug trafficking and in rescue and water resources protection activities, the embassy said.
But a former army officer, who wished not to be named for security reasons, told RFA that the vessels could also be useful for naval military operations in Rakhine state, which has several well-traveled rivers and an Indian Ocean coastline.
Rakhine state has seen intense fighting between military junta troops and the ethnic minority insurgent Arakan Army since last November.
“If these boats are modified a little bit, weapons could be installed,” the former army officer said.
A navy patrol boat donated by China is docked at Lanmataw jetty in Yangon, Myanmar, June 12, 2024. (RFA) Four of the patrol boats are 48 meters long (157 feet), and the other two are 28 meters long (91 feet), the embassy said.
The civilian government under the National League for Democracy first requested the vessels in 2018.
China’s projects in Rakhine
An agreement was made in 2020 during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s two-day visit to Myanmar, in which several deals were signed to implement multibillion dollar infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative.
The projects include a US$1.3 billion deep-sea port in Rakhine state’s Kyaukphyu, as well as the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, a 620 km (1,000 mile) high-speed railway and road network that will run from China’s Kunming city through Myanmar’s major economic hubs and on to the port.
The corridor will ultimately give China crucial access to the Indian Ocean at Kyaukphyu.
The military junta removed the civilian government and seized power in February 2021.
A resident of Kyaukphyu township who closely monitors the Chinese projects told RFA that the Chinese ambassador visited Kyaukphyu on Monday.
Human Rights Watch found in 2022 that the Myanmar junta had used Japan-funded passenger ships during military operations in Rakhine state.
“The Myanmar junta’s misuse of Japanese development aid for military purposes effectively makes Japan a backer of the junta’s military operations,” Asia program officer Teppei Kasai said at the time.
When asked via email on Wednesday if the patrol boats could be used for military purposes, the Chinese Embassy in Myanmar directed RFA to a statement posted on its Facebook page.
RFA’s attempts to contact junta spokesman Major Gen. Zaw Min Tun to ask about the patrol boats were unsuccessful on Wednesday.
Translated by Aung Naing. Edited by Matt Reed and Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Burmese.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
The U.S. government does not seek “regime change” in China akin to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said Wednesday at a forum in Washington.
Responding to a question about a recent article in Foreign Affairs penned by a high-profile former lawmaker and a former Trump administration official calling for the United States to adopt the goal of defeating communism in China, Campbell said he disagreed.
He told the forum at the Stimson Center that such an objective would be “reckless and likely unproductive” for U.S. interests amid multiple global crises that are already stretching Washington’s capabilities.
“We need to accept China as a major player and [accept] that doing constructive diplomacy with them is in American strategic interests,” Campbell said, listing the invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza conflict, famine in Africa and “challenges in the Red Sea” as priorities.
“The world is dangerous and unpredictable enough right now,” he said. “I do not believe it is in our interest at the current juncture to add to our list: Let’s try to topple the other leading power on the global stage.”
The article was written April 10 by Mike Gallagher, a now former Republican lawmaker who chaired the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Matt Pottinger, who was former President Donald Trump’s deputy national security advisor.
It argued the Biden administration’s policy of “managing competition” with China was short-sighted and that Washington should return to a Cold War-style foreign policy aimed at “winning” the competition by removing a communist regime and replacing it with a democracy.
‘Overestimated our ability’
Campbell was confirmed as the deputy U.S. secretary of state in February after serving since 2021 as Biden’s chief Indo-Pacific foreign policy adviser on the White House’s National Security Council.
President Joe Biden, right, greets China’s President President Xi Jinping, left, at the Filoli Estate in Woodside, USA, Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2023. (Doug Mills/The New York Times via AP) He previously served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs from 2009 to 2013 under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the Obama administration, and said his experience told him the world views U.S. efforts at “regime change” poorly.
Allies throughout Asia “would be highly critical of an effort to depart along this path” and could reconsider their support for America if regime change was the objective, the No. 2 U.S. diplomat said.
He also suggested it was not certain that a non-communist government in Beijing would adopt foreign policy positions any more palatable to Washington than those of the current Chinese government.
“For years we have overestimated our ability to fundamentally influence the direction of Chinese foreign policy,” Campbell said, advocating for “a high degree of modesty of what we think is possible with respect to fundamental changes in how China sees the world.”
The world’s two major powers had to learn to live together, he added.
“Despite our differences, I do think, at the current juncture, it makes more sense to … send clear signals of areas where we have red lines and concerns, but also to do what you can to coexist,” he said.
Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Alex Willemyns for RFA.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
A Dutch frigate operating in the East China Sea in support of a multinational coalition enforcing United Nations sanctions on North Korea – the Pacific Security Maritime Exchange (PSMX) – was allegedly harassed by Chinese military aircraft, the Dutch Ministry of Defence (MoD) said in a 7 June announcement. According the MoD, the two Chinese […]
The post Netherlands accuses China of unsafe conduct towards frigate appeared first on Asian Military Review.
This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.
-
Vietnam’s new President To Lam has asked that Beijing respect Hanoi’s rights and interests in disputed waters, days after Vietnamese officials protested against what they called “China’s illegal activities” in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Last Thursday, a Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesperson denounced the operation of the Chinese navy survey vessel Hai Yang 26 in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and said that Vietnam “has engaged in multiple diplomatic exchanges” with China to demand the ending of such operations.
To Lam, while not mentioning the Hai Yang 26, told Chinese ambassador to Vietnam Xiong Bo that the two neighbors should strictly implement bilateral agreements, better control and resolve disagreements at sea, as well as respect each other’s legitimate rights and interests, his office said in a statement .
The two countries should also actively seek appropriate ways to settle maritime disputes in accordance with international law, especially the U.N. Convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS), he said.
The new president stressed that Vietnam saw its relationship with China as a “strategic choice and top priority” of its foreign policy.
Lam was sworn in as Vietnam’s state president on May 22 amid an unprecedented reshuffle of the communist party’s leadership following the “burning furnace” anti-graft campaign initiated by party chief Nguyen Phu Trong.
Xiong Bo became the first foreign ambassador to pay Lam a courtesy call to congratulate him on his new post.
Hai Yang 26
In last week’s unusually strong rebuke, foreign ministry spokeswoman Pham Thu Hang said that Vietnam was “deeply concerned,” resolutely opposed, and demanded that China immediately stop the “illegal survey activities” of the Hai Yang 26 in Vietnam’s waters and not repeat them.
Hang told reporters in Hanoi that the Vietnamese government “has engaged in multiple diplomatic exchanges” with the Chinese side over the case.
Chinese survey vessels have frequently operated in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone but it has seldom publicly protested, giving preference to quieter bilateral channels.
Caption: The Chinese navy survey vessel Hai Yang 26 on an unspecified date. (Vietnam Foreign Ministry) A Vietnamese analyst, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that the new leader – who was seen as a hard-liner because of his public security background — may want to show that he is not pro-China, as some critics say.
Another analyst, Hoang Viet, told RFA that the foreign ministry’s reaction was due to the severity of the event, as well as to partially direct attention to Vietnam amid increased tensions between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.
Hai Yang 26 is one of nine Type 636A hydrographic survey vessels in service with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army navy.
This kind of survey ship is thought to be utilized by the navy for mapping the underwater topography map in areas where submarines operate, as well as to conduct marine surveys, such as the study of ocean acoustics.
The fact that Vietnam had “multiple diplomatic exchanges” with China over the vessel suggested it had been operating in Vietnam’s waters for a prolonged period.
China has yet to respond to Vietnam’s protest but a Chinese think tank, the South China Sea Probing Initiative, wrote on the social media platform X that the Hai Yang 26 only conducted a freedom of navigation operation, a type of patrol that China itself has deemed provocative on numerous occasions when conducted by other navies.
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
The UN Human Rights Council will hold its 56th regular session at Palais des Nations in Geneva from 18 June and 12 July 2024. And as always the excellent Alert of the International Service for Human Rights permits me to hightlight what concerns HRDs most. To stay up-to-date you can follow @ISHRglobal and #HRC56 on X, and look out for the Human Rights Council Monitor.
Civil Society Access and Participation The UN is facing a severe liquidity crisis due to member states not paying their membership dues in full and on time. This shortfall is impacting victims and survivors of human rights violations. The crisis risks being used to impose restrictions on civil society participation, although online and hybrid modalities offer cost-effective and environmentally friendly solutions. Over 100 human rights organisations have called on all states to promptly pay their dues to address the liquidity crisis. Additionally, this session States have the opportunity to continue to build on the good practices adopted in the past years and allow for a broader, more inclusive, effective and climate-friendly human rights system, including by providing remote access to informal consultations on HRC resolutions that can greatly benefit from the analysis and lived experiences of human rights defenders.
Thematic issues Issues on the agenda At this 56th session, the Council will discuss a range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights through dedicated debates with the mandate holders and the High Commissioner, including with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, the Special Rapporteur on promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance In addition, the Council will hold dedicated debates on the rights of specific groups including with: The Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Internally Displaced Persons, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, the Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers
The Council will also hold debates on interrelation of human rights and thematic issues including with: The High Commissioner on new and emerging technologies.
The new incoming Independent Expert on violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, Graeme Reid, will present his first report focusing on freedom of expression, assembly and association.
Environment and Climate Justice The Special Rapporteur on Internally Displaced Persons will present her report on planned relocations of people in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters. This report is building up on previous reports by other mandates and will also look at laws and policies at the national, regional, and international levels. The newly appointed Special Rapporteur on Climate Change will also present her first report looking at the upcoming priorities and some reflections of the progress achieved on some issues in the last 5 years. The report will also provide a snapshot of some other key topics and the impacts on some particular groups. The Special Rapporteur will also present two country visits reports: Honduras and the Philippines. There is currently a call for inputs for her upcoming General Assembly report on access to information on climate change and human rights. The Working Group on Business and Human Rights will present its report on investors, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) approaches and human rights. The report will raise awareness of the responsibilities of investors and will clarify responsibilities on how to align their ESG approaches to human rights. On Thursday 20 June, the President of the Human Rights Council is organising a high-level informal Presidential discussion on ‘The important link between climate change, food security and health security’. The discussion should address the important role of environmental human right defenders in promoting and securing the full realisation of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment; and recognition of the obligation of States to prevent, protect and promote their work in an enabling environment.
International Solidarity Civil society and international experts have continued to raise grave concern at the attacks on fundamental freedoms when advocating for the human rights of Palestinians by authorities in Western countries, including in universities. The High Commissioner deplored the ‘sharp rise in hatred globally – including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia’. In her report to the Council, the Independent Expert on International Solidarity called on States to ‘eliminate the criminalization of international solidarity expressions and symbols and calls for accountability for violations of public international law norms, such as calls for peace, self-determination or decolonization and the ending of apartheid or genocide […] stressing that States ‘should not conflate them with ‘manifest support of terrorism’ or antisemitism in relevant legislation or regulations’. The Special Rapporteur on racism also raised concern at ‘accusations of antisemitism on the basis of legitimate criticism of treatment of Palestinians by Israel’ in her report following her visit to the United States.
The Special Rapporteur on Education, following her visit to the United States, stressed that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism is being used to crackdown against pro-Palestinian protesters, including individuals who ‘self-identify as belonging to the Jewish community or represent Jewish student associations’. The Rapporteur addressed violations against students following the organisation of ‘mass encampments at nearly 40 universities in more than 25 states across the country’, including the detention of more than 2000 individuals, raids by fully armed police on university campuses requested by educational institutions to ‘disperse demonstrators and dismantle encampments’. During the session, and especially in the ID with the experts on International Solidarity, Education, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly and Association, we urge States to call for an end to the repression and criminalisation of groups and individuals advocating for the human rights of the Palestinian people, including through the instrumentalization of anti-Semitism (IHRA definition) and anti-terrorism policies, including in universities, and especially in the West (including in Austria, France, Germany, Italy, United States, United Kingdom).Reprisals
HRC56 is a key opportunity for States to raise concerns about specific cases of reprisals and demand that governments provide an update on any investigation or action taken toward accountability. This month ISHR launched a new campaign regarding cases. ISHR urges States to raise these cases in their statements:Cao Shunli was a prominent Chinese human rights defender, who sought to share information on the human rights situation in China with the United Nations in Geneva. Cao was arbitrarily detained and died in prison 10 years ago. [for more saee: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/cao-shunli/]
Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja is a Bahraini-Danish advocate known for his unwavering commitment to freedom and democracy. In April 2011 during the Bahrain chapter of what is known as the ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings, while he was leading peaceful demonstrations, Abdulhadi was violently arrested. He went missing for two months and, in June 2011, after a military trial, he was condemned to life-imprisonment on terrorism-related charges, despite grave concerns from the international community about unfair trials. [s`eae also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/11/29/mea-laureate-abdulhadi-al-khawaja-facing-new-charges-for-protesting-injustice-in-jau-prison/ and https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/4d45e316-c636-4d02-852d-7bfc2b08b78d]
Pham Doan Trang is an author, blogger, journalist and pro-democracy activist from Viet Nam. Trang was prosecuted for her articles and reports on the human rights situation in Viet Nam, including an analysis of a 2016 report on the Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Plant environmental disaster that was shared with the United Nations. See also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/fe8bf320-1d78-11e8-aacf-35c4dd34b7ba and https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/pham-doan-trang/].
Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraj are two Kashmiri human rights defenders. They have conducted ground-breaking and extensive human rights documentation in the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, including through their work within the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS). In 2016, Indian authorities arrested Khurram a day after he was barred from traveling to Geneva to attend the 33rd session of the Human Rights Council. See also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/81468931-79AA-24FF-58F7-10351638AFE3 and https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/khurram-parvez/. Meanwhile, on 20 March 2023, Irfan was summoned for questioning and arbitrarily detained by the NIA in Srinagar also under provisions of the UAPA and other laws. The NIA targeted Irfan for being ‘a close associate of Khurram Parvez.’ Both Khurram and Irfan are presently in pre-trial detention in the maximum-security Rohini prison in New Delhi, India.
Country-specific issues on the agenda
The Council will consider updates, reports on and is expected to consider resolutions addressing a range of country situations, in some instances involving the renewal of the relevant expert mandates. These include: Interactive Dialogues with the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar Enhanced Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan Interactive Dialogue with the Independent international fact-finding mission for the Sudan Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Belarus Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Burundi Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on Venezuela Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on Libya Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on Central African Republic Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on Ukraine and interim report of SG on Crimea Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on Colombia
Afghanistan On 18 June, Richard Bennett, Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan will present his most recent report on the ‘phenomenon of an institutionalized system of discrimination, segregation, disrespect for human dignity and exclusion of women and girls’ (HRC res. 54/1). The report provides a multidimensional understanding of the design, commission and impact of the harms resulting from the Taliban’s institutionalized system of gender-based oppression. We welcome the Special Rapporteur’s view expressed in the report that the framing of gender apartheid most fully encapsulates the institutionalized and ideological nature of the abuses in the country. We note that the report of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women to be presented at this session also noted the pattern of large-scale systematic violations of women’s and girls’ fundamental rights in Afghanistan ‘constitutes an institutionalized framework of apartheid based on gender and merits an unequivocal response.’ ISHR considers that the pursuit of justice for Afghan women and girls demands a multifaceted approach harnessing the strengths of various accountability mechanisms, including the establishment of an accountability mechanism for crimes against humanity; with strategic coordination exerting heightened pressure on the Taliban.
Sudan On 18 June, the Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan will provide its first oral update to the HRC. Since the conflict erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on 15 April 2023, more than 30 thousand people have been killed while 10 million and a half have been displaced, a majority of which are women and children. Half of the population is now on the verge of famine, and 2.5 million could die of starvation by September. The continued fighting in El Fashir portends a repeated massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Masalit in El Geneina last year. In Aljazeera at least one hundred people were killed by RSF on 5 June, the area is facing grave human rights violations since last December. Meanwhile, the attacks on women’s rights groups and local response initiatives continue unabated.bHumanitarian responders get arbitrarily arrested, and smeared as traitors by the warring parties, some sentenced for up to 2 years and even killed. States should call for an immediate ceasefire, protection of civilians and adherence to international law by all parties in the conflict.
Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel On 19 June, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel will present its report addressing the 7 October attacks by Palestinian armed groups and the commencement of Israel’s war on Gaza.
Venezuela The High Commissioner will present his report on 3 July with his Office staff still operating from Panama. The Maduro government has still not permitted the return of the Office on the terms of its original mandate. With Presidential elections to be held on 28 July, concerns increase about the safety of human rights defenders and opposition figures. Uncertainty has recently been increased by the re-introduction (and then rapid postponement of adoption) of the NGO Law. HRDs Javier Tarazona and Rocío San Miguel remain wholly unjustifiably detained. States must engage actively in the dialogue with the High Commissioner to make clear their support of the essential work of human rights defenders and of the UN’s essential, multifaceted regime scrutinising the human rights situation in the country. Situations of concern that are not on the Council’s agenda
Algeria The sustained repression against the pro-democracy movement and human rights defenders in Algeria was addressed in the end-of-session statements of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly as well as the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders who conducted official visits to Algeria in 2023. These were the first visits since 2016 by UN mandate holders to the country. The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly and Association addressed the ‘criminalisation of civil society work‘, and the ‘suspension or dissolution of political parties and associations, including prominent human rights advocacy organisations’ (including RAJ and LADDH), as well as ‘overly restrictive laws and regulations’ hindering their work.
Bahrain Thirty-three civil society organisations reiterated that thirteen years since Bahrain’s popular uprising, systemic injustice has intensified and political repression targeting dissidents, human rights defenders, clerics and independent civil society has effectively shut any space for the peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression or peaceful activism in the country. Despite the recent royal pardon issued on 8 April 2024, which included the release of more than 650 political prisoners, marking a change in State policy from previous royal pardons, the pardon excluded many individuals who played significant roles in the 2011 pro-democracy uprising, with an estimated 550 political prisoners remaining behind bars. HRC56 provides an important opportunity to address these developments in States’ national and joint statements, including during the Interactive Dialogues with the Special Rapporteurs and Independent Expert on Health, Freedom of Expression, Peaceful Assembly and Association, Independence of Judges and Lawyers and International Solidarity. We urge States to call for the release of all those arbitrarily, including human rights defenders and opposition activists Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, Abduljalil Al-Singace, Hassan Mushaima and Sheikh Ali Salman as well as death row inmates Mohammed Ramadhan and Husain Moosa, who have now spent over a decade unlawfully detained following torture and unfair trials and remain at immanent risk of execution.
China The adoption on 4 July of the outcome of China’s fourth UPR review, which exposed strong international condemnation over grave abuses in January, is a key opportunity for States to urge China to fully implement recommendations emanating from existing findings by UN bodies. Any rejection by the Chinese government of UPR recommendations referring to UN expert mechanisms or to constructive cooperation with the UN system should be promptly condemned. Ahead of the second anniversary of the publication of the damning OHCHR Xinjiang report, and its authoritative findings of possible crimes against humanity in the Uyghur region, States should request updates on the implementation of the report’s recommendations. To uphold the integrity of its mandate and put an end to China’s exceptionalism, the HRC must also establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the country, as repeatedly called for by over 40 UN experts and hundreds of human rights groups globally. States should further urge the UN High Commissioner to strengthen follow-up action on his Office’s Xinjiang report, including through public calls for implementation, through translation of the report, and through an assessment of its implementation. States should raise serious concerns at the repression of peaceful protests by over 100 Tibetans who opposed a hydropower project in Derge County, affecting villages and monasteries. States should unequivocally call out the adoption of yet-another national security law further criminalising dissent and human rights promotion in Hong Kong, considered a ‘regressive step’ by High Commissioner Türk. States should echo the latter’s call to ‘release immediately and unconditionally all those arbitrarily arrested and detained under these laws.’ States should further ask for the prompt release of human rights defenders arbitrarily detained or disappeared, including feminist activist Huang Xueqin, human rights lawyers Ding Jiaxi, Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan, legal scholar Xu Zhiyong, Uyghur doctor Gulshan Abbas, Hong Kong lawyer Chow Hang-tung, and Tibetan climate activist A-nya Sengdra.Occupied Western Sahara ISHR is concerned over the situation of Saharawi human rights defenders, including lawyer M`hamed Hali, who has been arbitrarily deprived of his right to practice in the Moroccan judicial system due to opinions expressed in support of the right to self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. His hearing is scheduled on 27 June in front of Morocco´s highest court. We urge States to address the crackdown on Sahrawi civil society including: during the Interactive Dialogues with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression, Peaceful Assembly and Association, to call on Morocco to immediately put an end to ‘the systematic and relentless targeting of human rights defenders in retaliation for exercising their rights to freedom of association and expression to promote human rights in Western Sahara’; during the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to call on Morocco to reinstate M’hamed Hali’s right to practice as a lawyer, stressing that this case sets a dangerous precedent for the independence of lawyers; and during the Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on International Solidarity to reiterate the recommendation of the expert that ‘States should eliminate the criminalization of international solidarity expressions and symbols and calls for accountability for violations of public international law norms, such as calls for peace, self-determination or decolonization […]’ in the case of Western Sahara.
Saudi Arabia On 4 July, the Council will consider Saudi Arabia’s fourth UPR outcome, as the authorities announce whether they have accepted or rejected recommendations issued by States in January. The recommendations address widespread and systematic rights violations in the Kingdom, and have the potential to bring about significant change. They include, but are not limited to: calls for the release of prisoners of conscience, many of whom are serving decades-long prison sentences for peacefully exercising their basic rights, and the repealing of travel bans imposed on human rights defenders following their release; the abolition of the death penalty for child defendants, with several young men at imminent risk of execution for alleged crimes committed as minors; and a raft of legislative measures, including ratifying key international human rights treaties and revising repressive laws. States should use this key opportunity to urge Saudi Arabia to accept them in good faith, and crucially implement them.
Tunisia In May 2024, Tunisian authorities waged an unprecedented crackdown against Black migrants and refugees, and civil society organisations defending their rights. On 6 May, in the opening address to a National Security Council meeting, Tunisian President Kais Saied reiterated discriminatory and hateful remarks against Sub-Saharan migrants and refugees while inciting against civil society organisations, describing them as ‘traitors and [foreign] agents’ and ‘rabid trumpets driven by foreign wages’, because of their receipt of foreign funding and their ‘insulting’ of the state. The president questioned the sheltering of asylum seekers and refugees by the Tunisian Council for Refugees (CTR) – a nongovernmental organization, partner of the UNHCR, which supports the registration of asylum claims – and described asylum seekers and refugees residing in Tunisia as illegal. President Saied suggested that CSOs should only work with the state and under its instructions. Since 3 May, Tunisian authorities have arrested and opened investigations against the heads or members of at least six organisations working on migrant and refugee rights and against racial discrimination, including the CTR. Five people, including WHRD Saadia Mosbah, President of Mnemty, have remained in pre-trial detention, under unfounded accusations of financial crimes. On 14 May, the Prime Minister announced that a new association law is being finalized, which would replace Decree-Law 88, an internationally lauded legislation that that safeguards Tunisia’s right to the freedom of association. During the interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Assembly and Association, and Freedom of Expression, we urge States to call on Tunisia to put an end to the crackdown on civil society, immediately release all those arbitrarily detained, including individuals providing support or advocating for the rights of migrants and refugees, and to firmly condemn the escalating smear campaign and stigmatisation of human rights and humanitarian organisations receiving foreign funding and working with migrants and refugees, supported by the president’s speeches, often making use of discriminatory and racist language against Black migrants and Black people.Adoption of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reports During this session, the Council will adopt the UPR working group reports on Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo, Jordan, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal. ISHR supports human rights defenders in their interaction with the UPR. This session of the Council will provide an opportunity for Chad, China, Congo, Mauritius, Nigeria to accept recommendations made in relation to human rights defenders, as proposed in ISHR’s briefing papers.
Side events
19 June at 13:00 (room XXV): ISHR will hold a side event to launch the Declaration +25: A supplement to the UN Declaration on human rights defenders. See https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/06/08/launch-of-the-hrd-declaration25/.
Open Society Institute will hold a side event on human rights in Afghanistan 19 June at 15:00:
American Civil Liberties Union will hold a side event on human rights in the United States of America
On 25 June at 16:00: Center for Justice and International Law will hold a side event on human rights in Guatemala
26 June at 14:00: Amnesty International will hold a side event on the protection of freedom of expression and assembly
On 27 June at 14:00: International Bar Association will hold a side event on gender apartheid: Case studies
On 3 July at 12:00: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung will hold a side event on climate change and human mobility
On 3 July at 17:00: Third World Network will hold a side event on business accountability in the context of armed conflict
On 4 July at 15:00: Earthjustice will hold a side event on Protection of Environmental Human Rights Defenders #HRC55:
Alert to the Human Rights Council’s 56th session
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
