In March, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, began receiving top secret messages from national security officials in the Trump administration after he’d been inadvertently added to an internal Signal chat. Many of those same officials oversaw recent military strikes against Iran. On this week’s More To The Story, host Al Letson sits down with Goldberg to discuss what “Signalgate” taught him about the Trump White House and his concerns for the future of American democracy.
Producer: Josh Sanburn, with help from Steven Rascón, Artis Curiskis, and Julia Haney | Editor: Kara McGuirk-Allison | Theme music: Fernando Arruda and Jim Briggs | Digital producer: Nikki Frick | Interim executive producers: Brett Myers and Taki Telonidis | Executive editor: James West | Host: Al Letson
By the end of the annual meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in The Hague in June 2025, it became clear that everything was about money. In fact, the final communiqué was perhaps the shortest of any NATO meeting – only five points, two about money and one to thank the Netherlands for hosting the summit. The Hague Declaration was only 427 words, whereas in the previous year, the Washington Declaration was 5,400 words and ran to 44 paragraphs. This time, there was not the granular detail about this or that threat, nor the long and detailed assessments of the war in Ukraine and how NATO supports that war without limit (“Ukraine’s future is in NATO”, the alliance said in 2024, a position no longer repeated in the brief statement of 2025).
Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month.
The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilise, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the US-Israeli dyad.
The good news for my region is that Iran’s resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the US pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China.
There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth. Iran is the weakest. If Iran falls, war in our region — intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely.
Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs.
“Tomorrow”, people in this part of the world naively think, “will always be like yesterday”.
That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here’s why.
US chooses war to re-shape Middle East Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn’t supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries.
In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi’s Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all — the Islamic Republic of Iran.
One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success — if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of.
With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years. A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft.
Now — with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered (“We came, we saw, he died”, Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine — the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns — or, rather, bombs — on the great prize: Iran.
Iran’s missiles have checked US-Israel for time being Things did not go to plan. Former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours.
Iran’s missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the US will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over — a serious pivot to Asia.
Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into powderkeg? For us in Asia-Pacific a major US pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric — all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg.
Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world — bellum Americanum — as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask?
Back in the days of George W Bush, radical American thinkers like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld created the Project for a New American Century and developed the policy, adopted by succeeding presidents, that promotes “the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of US military forces”.
It reconfirmed the neoconservative American dogma that no power should be allowed to rise in any region to become a regional hegemon; anything and everything necessary should be done to ensure continued American primacy, including the resort to war.
What has changed since those days are two crucial, epoch-making events: the re-emergence of Russia as a great power, albeit the weakest of the three, and the emergence of China as a genuine peer competitor to the USA. Professor John Mearsheimer’s insights are well worth studying on this topic.
The three pillars of multipolarity A new world order really is being born. As geopolitical thinkers like Professor Glenn Diesen point out, it will, if it is not killed in the cradle, replace the US unipolar world order that has existed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Many countries are involved in its birthing, including major players like India and Brazil and all the countries that are part of BRICS. Three countries, however, are central to the project: Iran, Russia and, most importantly, China. All three are in the crosshairs of the Western empire.
If Iran, Russia and China survive as independent entities, they will partially fulfill Halford MacKinder’s early 20th century heartland theory that whoever dominates Eurasia will rule the world. I don’t think MacKinder, however, foresaw cooperative multipolarity on the Eurasian landmass — which is one of the goals of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) – as an option.
That, increasingly, appears to be the most likely trajectory with multiple powerful states that will not accept domination, be that from China or the US. That alone should give us cause for hope.
Drunk on power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has launched war after war and brought us to the current abandonment of economic sanity (the sanctions-and-tariff global pandemic) and diplomatic normalcy (kill any peace negotiators you see) — and an anything-goes foreign policy (including massive crimes against humanity).
We have also reached — thanks in large part to these same policies — what a former US national security advisor warned must be avoided at all costs. Back in the 1990s, Zbigniew Brzezinski said, “The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran.”
Belligerent and devoid of sound strategy, the Biden and Trump administrations have achieved just that.
Can Asia-Pacific avoid being dragged into an American war on China? Turning to our region, New Zealand and Australia’s governments cleave to yesterday: a white-dominated world led by the USA. We have shown ourselves indifferent to massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression launched by our team.
To avoid war — or a permanent fear of looming war — in our own backyards, we need to encourage sanity and diplomacy; we need to stay close to the US but step away from the military alliances they are forming, such as AUKUS which is aimed squarely at China.
Above all, our defence and foreign affairs elites need to grow new neural pathways and start to think with vision and not place ourselves on the losing side of history. Independent foreign policy settings based around peace, defence not aggression, diplomacy not militarisation, would take us in the right direction.
Personally I look forward to the day the US and its increasingly belligerent vassals are pushed back into the ranks of ordinary humanity. I fear the US far more than I do China.
Despite the reflexive adherence to the US that our leaders are stuck on, we should not, if we value our lives and our cultures, allow ourselves to be part of this mad, doomed project.
The US empire is heading into a blood-drenched sunset; their project will fail and the 500-year empire of the White West will end — starting and finishing with genocide.
Every day I atheistically pray that leaders or a movement will emerge to guide our antipodean countries out of the clutches of a violent and increasingly incoherent USA.
America is not our friend. China is not our enemy. Tomorrow gives birth to a world that we should look forward to and do the little we can to help shape.
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
The BRICS, the influential bloc of emerging geopolitical powers, demanded an immediate end to the cycle of violence in West Asia following the recent attacks against Iran. The group also pushed for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the region as a whole, a crucial measure to ensure long-term stability,
The Brazilian government, the current president of the bloc, issued the forceful statement on Tuesday, June 24. The statement responds directly to the recent United States and Israeli military attacks against Iran, events that have dangerously escalated regional tensions.
The League of Social Democrats, a pro-democracy party with a 19-year history, has announced it will hold a press conference Sunday to announce its disbandment, signaling the disappearance of pro-democracy parties from Hong Kong’s political landscape.
“Next year would have marked the 20th anniversary of our founding, but we will not make it to that day,” LSD said in a media notice on Friday. “We are announcing our dissolution.”
A source told RFA Cantonese that LSD was warned several times, beginning in April, that it must dissolve before July 1 or risk being forcibly disbanded.
Incumbent LSD chairperson Chan Po-ying has previously declined to comment. On Friday, she again said she would not respond before the press conference.
“No Resistance, No Change”
Founded in 2006, LSD’s slogan was “No resistance, no change.” The party made headlines in 2008 when it secured three seats in the Legislative Council with Wong Yuk-man, Leung Kwok-hung, and Albert Chan, becoming the third-largest pro-democracy party. Known for its confrontational style, LSD lawmakers famously threw bananas at then-Chief Executive Donald Tsang during a LegCo session, becoming a symbol of the city’s radical democrats. Outside the legislature, LSD organized and participated in numerous protests and civil disobedience campaigns.
In 2009, LSD and the Civic Party launched the “Five Constituencies Referendum” campaign, in which five lawmakers resigned and re-contested their seats to demand universal suffrage. All five, including LSD’s Leung Kwok-hung, Wong Yuk-man, and Albert Chan, and Civic Party’s Alan Leong and Tanya Chan, were re-elected in the May 2010 by-election.
Pro-democracy activists Chung Yiu-wa, Cheung Say-yin, former Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Wing-tat, baptist minister Chu Yiu-ming, 74, law professor Benny Tai, 54, sociology professor Chan Kin-man, 59, lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun, and League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong, chant before entering the West Kowloon Magistrates Court in Hong Kong on Nov. 19, 2018. (Anthony Wallace/AFP)
Legislative filibusters and internal splits
In 2011, LSD launched a “vote repayment” campaign targeting the Democratic Party for its role in pushing forward Beijing-approved electoral reforms. Internal disagreements over strategy led to a split, with Wong Yuk-man and Albert Chan forming People Power. Leung Kwok-hung then took over as LSD chair. The party retained only one LegCo seat in the 2012 and 2016 elections but continued legislative filibusters and budget protest actions alongside People Power.
In 2016, Leung Kwok-hung was disqualified from LegCo for holding a yellow umbrella and tearing up a copy of the NPC’s “831” decision during his oath-taking. Since then, LSD has had no seats in the legislature but continued grassroots activism and protest actions.
Leung Kwok-hung still imprisoned
Many LSD members have served jail time for civil disobedience. Leung Kwok-hung, now 69, remains in prison as a defendant in the 47 democrats’ national security case. LSD vice-chair Jimmy Sham, also one of the 47, was released last month after serving his sentence.
Even after other pro-democracy parties such as the Democratic Party and Civic Party disbanded, LSD continued street actions under the National Security Law era — addressing issues like labor importation and minimum wage.
Earlier this year, the party planned a protest outside government headquarters on Budget Day but canceled due to “immense pressure.” Some LSD members also had their bank accounts frozen or closed, and several were charged for “unauthorized fundraising in public” and “unauthorized display of posters.”
Edited by Greg Barber
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Cantonese.
The Caribbean region is an important geostrategic location for the United States, not only due to regional proximity, but also due to the continued importance of securing sea routes for trade and military purposes. It is the geostrategic location of the Caribbean that has historically made the region a target for domineering empires and states. As both geopolitical site and geostrategic location, U.S. foreign policy articulations of Caribbean people and the region have been effectively contradictory, but the contradiction has allowed the U.S. to maintain its hegemonic position: Caribbean peoples in U.S. foreign policy are rendered backwards, unstable, and dangerous or targets of xenophobic harassment; while the physical region is rendered as a place where U.S. foreign policy must maintain one-sided power relations, lest these sites come under the influence of other states that the U.S. views as impinging upon its sphere of influence.
A new poll by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union shows that almost half of respondents oppose the Cook Islands having automatic New Zealand citizenship.
Thirty percent of the 1000-person sample supported Cook Islanders retaining citizenship, 46 percent were opposed and 24 percent were unsure.
The question asked:
The Cook Islands government is pursuing closer strategic ties with China, ignoring New Zealand’s wishes and not consulting with the New Zealand government. Given this, should the Cook Islands continue to enjoy automatic access to New Zealand passports, citizenship, health care and education when its government pursues a foreign policy against the wishes of the New Zealand government?
Taxpayers’ Union head of communications Tory Relf said the framing of the question was “fair”.
“If the Cook Islands wants to continue enjoying a close relationship with New Zealand, then, of course, we will support that,” he said.
“However, if they are looking in a different direction, then I think it is entirely fair that taxpayers can have a right to say whether they want their money sent there or not.”
But New Zealand Labour Party deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni said it was a “leading question”.
‘Dead end’ assumption
“It asserts or assumes that we have hit a dead end here and that we cannot resolve the relationship issues that have unfolded between New Zealand and the Cook Islands,” Sepuloni said.
“We want a resolution. We do not want to assume or assert that it is all done and dusted and the relationship is broken.”
The two nations have been in free association since 1965.
Relf said that adding historical context of the two countries relationship would be a different question.
“We were polling on the Cook Islands current policy, asking about historic ties would introduce an emotive element that would influence the response.”
Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the decision was made because the Cook Islands failed to adequately inform his government about several agreements signed with Beijing in February.
‘An extreme response’
Sepuloni, who is also Labour’s Pacific Peoples spokesperson, said her party agreed with the government that the Cook Islands had acted outside of the free association agreement.
“[The aid pause is] an extreme response, however, in saying that we don’t have all of the information in front of us that the government have. I’m very mindful that in terms of pausing or stopping aid, the scenarios where I can recall that happening are scenarios like when Fiji was having their coup.”
In response to questions from Cook Islands News, Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown said that, while he acknowledged the concerns raised in the recent poll, he believed it was important to place the discussion within the full context of Cook Islands’ longstanding and unique relationship with New Zealand.
“The Cook Islands and New Zealand share a deep, enduring constitutional bond underpinned by shared history, family ties, and mutual responsibility,” Brown told the Rarotonga-based newspaper.
“Cook Islanders are New Zealand citizens not by privilege, but by right. A right rooted in decades of shared sacrifice, contribution, and identity.
“More than 100,000 Cook Islanders live in New Zealand, contributing to its economy, culture, and communities. In return, our people have always looked to New Zealand not just as a partner but as family.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Opponents of the war with Iran say that the war is not in American interests, seeing that Iran does not pose any visible threat to the United States.
This appeal to reason misses the neoconservative logic that has guided U.S. foreign policy for more than a half century, and which is now threatening to engulf the Middle East in the most violent war since Korea.
That logic is so aggressive, so repugnant to most people, so much in violation of the basic principles of international law, the United Nations, and the U.S. Constitution, that there is an understandable shyness in the authors of this strategy to spell out what is at stake.
On Saturday local time, the US announced that it had launched airstrikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran. This marks the first time the US has officially intervened militarily in this round of the Iran-Israel conflict, drawing widespread shock from the international community. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said on social media that the move was “a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.” China’s Foreign Ministry also strongly condemned the US attacks on Iran. US action, which seriously violates the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, not only heightens tensions in the Middle East but also risks triggering a wider crisis.
Attacking nuclear facilities is extremely dangerous. Due to their unique nature, damage to such sites could lead to severe nuclear leaks, potentially resulting in humanitarian disasters and posing grave risks to regional safety. The tragic past lessons of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents already showed that the consequences of nuclear leaks don’t pose a threat to a single country – they impact neighboring nations and the global security environment.
By using “bunker-buster” bombs to “accomplish what Israel could not,” the US has deliberately escalated the level of weaponry used, pouring fuel on the flames of war and pushing the Iran-Israel conflict closer toward an uncontrollable state.
What the US bombs have impacted is the foundation of the international security order. By attacking nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Washington has set a dangerous precedent. This action, in essence, bypasses both the UN Security Council and the IAEA framework, attempting to unilaterally “resolve” the Iranian nuclear issue through force. This is a serious violation of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, as well as a rejection of the principled position of the international community, including China and the European Union, which has dealt with the Iranian nuclear issue through multilateral negotiations for many years. Washington’s boast of close cooperation with Israel “as a team” confirms its nature of dragging its ally against international morality and multilateralism.
For Iran, the strike is a blatant provocation. After responding that it “reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests and people,” Tehran on Sunday launched the powerful Kheibar Shekan missile targeting Israel for the first time. According to media reports, Ismail Kowsari, a member of the National Security Commission of the Parliament in Iran, said the country’s parliament voted to approve the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council is expected to weigh in and make a final decision on the matter. Iran is located in the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, which around one-fifth of the world’s total oil and gas consumption transits through. Once this channel is blocked by the war, international oil prices are bound to fluctuate dramatically, while global shipping security and economic stability will face serious challenges.
The US military’s “direct involvement” has further complicated and destabilized the Middle East situation, drawing more countries and innocent civilians into the conflict and forcing them to face a loss. Even the Associated Press called the airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities a “perilous decision,” while the New York Times warned that US military action against Iran would “bring risks at every turn.” What is also receiving a lot of attention is that due to US strike on Iran, Yemen’s Houthis announced it would resume attacks on US ships in the Red Sea. The region is already entangled in a complex web of sectarian divisions, proxy wars and external interventions. The facts show that US involvement is causing the Iran-Israel conflict to spill over. Within just one day, international investors rushed to sell off risk assets, and discussions of a “sixth Middle East war” surged across media platforms, reflecting the global community’s growing anxiety over the region’s spiraling instability.
China has consistently opposed the threat and abuse of using force. It advocates resolving crises through political and diplomatic means. In a recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward a “four-point proposal” regarding the Middle East situation: promoting a cease-fire and ending the hostilities is an urgent priority; ensuring the safety of civilians is of paramount importance; opening dialogue and negotiation is the fundamental way forward; and efforts by the international community to promote peace are indispensable. This proposal reflects China’s long-standing and farsighted security vision. History in the Middle East has repeatedly shown that external military intervention never brings peace – it only deepens regional hatred and trauma. The false logic behind US coercion by force runs counter to peace. Hopefully, the parties involved, especially Israel, will implement an immediate cease-fire, ensure the safety of civilians and open dialogue and negotiation to restore peace and stability in the region.
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China.
The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after the latter failed to provide satisfactory answers to Aotearoa’s questions about its partnership agreement with Beijing.
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
Helen Clark (middle) . . . Cook Islands caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China. Image: RNZ Pacific montage
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Foreign Minister Winston Peters said had not been honoured.
Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown both have a difference of opinion on the level of consultation required between the two nations on such matters.
“There is no way that the 2001 declaration envisaged that Cook Islands would enter into a strategic partnership with a great power behind New Zealand’s back,” Clark told RNZ Pacific on Thursday.
Clark was a signatory of the 2001 agreement with the Cook Islands as New Zealand prime minister at the time.
“It is the Cook Islands government’s actions which have created this crisis,” she said.
Urgent need for dialogue
“The urgent need now is for face-to-face dialogue at a high level to mend the NZ-CI relationship.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has downplayed the pause in funding to the Cook Islands during his second day of his trip to China.
Brown told Parliament on Thursday (Wednesday, Cook Islands time) that his government knew the funding cut was coming.
He also suggested a double standard, pointing out that New Zealand had also entered deals with China that the Cook Islands was not “privy to or being consulted on”.
Prime Minister Mark Brown and China’s Ambassador to the Pacific Qian Bo last year. Image: RNZ Pacific/ Lydia Lewis
A Pacific law expert says that, while New Zealand has every right to withhold its aid to the Cook Islands, the way it is going about it will not endear it to Pacific nations.
Auckland University of Technology senior law lecturer and a former Pacific Islands Forum advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific that for Aotearoa to keep highlighting that it is “a Pacific country and yet posture like the United States gives mixed messages”.
“Obviously, Pacific nations in true Pacific fashion will not say much, but they are indeed thinking it,” Tekiteki said.
Misunderstanding of agreement
Since day dot there has been a misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on, and the word consultation has become somewhat of a sticking point.
The latest statement from the Cook Islands government confirms it is still a discrepancy both sides want to hash out.
“There has been a breakdown and difference in the interpretation of the consultation requirements committed to by the two governments in the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration,” the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Immigration (MFAI) said.
“An issue that the Cook Islands is determined to address as a matter of urgency”.
Tekiteki said that, unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration was not “legally binding” per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in “recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years”.
He said the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security.
However, he added that there was a commitment of the parties to “consult regularly”.
This, for Clark, the New Zealand leader who signed the all-important agreement more than two decades ago, is where Brown misstepped.
Clark previously labelled the Cook Islands-China deal “clandestine” which has “damaged” its relationship with New Zealand.
RNZ Pacific contacted the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment but was advised by the MFAI secretary that they are not currently accommodating interviews.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.
The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.
“[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”
Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.
“Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”
Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.
Ensured good outcomes
Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.
“I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.
“Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”
The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.
The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.
In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.
The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.
‘Beg forgiveness’
Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.
“[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.
“It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.
“What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”
Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.
Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
In its war on Iran, the US empire seeks to impose hegemony in West Asia (aka the Middle East), destroy the Axis of Resistance, colonize Palestine, destabilize the revolutionary Iranian government, preserve the petrodollar system, prevent de-dollarization, divide BRICS, and break up the Iran-Russia-China partnership.
The United States and Israel are jointly waging war on Iran, but why? What are their real goals?
What the US empire would like to accomplish is the following:
Maintain US hegemony in West Asia (aka the Middle East)
Destroy the anti-colonial Axis of Resistance, making possible the total colonization of Palestine
Prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear capabilities
Overthrow or at least weaken Iran’s independent, revolutionary government
Scare other countries in the region that may seek to move away from the US and the dollar (especially the Gulf monarchies)
The second China-Central Asian summit concluded in Astana, Kazakhstan on Tuesday with countries signing a treaty on eternal good neighborliness, friendship, and cooperation as well as a joint Astana declaration.
The summit was attended by Chinese President Xi Jinping and the five Cental Asian presidents, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan (the host country, Sadyr Japarov of Kyrgyzstan, Emomali Rahmon of Tajikistan, Serdar Berdimuhamedov of Turkmenistan, and Shavkat Mirziyoyev of Uzbekistan.
The Astana declaration, signed by all the participants, talks about enhancing cooperation in agriculture, energy, technology and transport sectors apart from intensifying cooperation on the global platforms with a common objective of upholding the basic principles of the UN charter and developing a joint stand against hegemonic politics.
A number of observant commentators have raised questions about Peoples’ China’s Belt and Road Initiative and more broadly, the foreign policy of the PRC.
Reliable left observers like Ann Garrison, writing in Black Agenda Report, have voiced concerns about Chinese investments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, based on Siddharth Kara’s book, Cobalt Red, How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives. Kara contends that Chinese are engaged in a brutal competition to acquire a raw material essential to battery manufacturing, participating in the highly exploitative practice of artisanal cobalt mining.
More recently, Razan Shawamreh has challenged the PRC’s economic engagement with Israel. Writing in Middle East Eye. Shawamreh cites three different Chinese state-owned companies heavily invested in Israeli firms servicing or operating in illegal settlements — ChemChina, Bright Foods, Fosum Group — that own or have a majority stake in an Israeli corporation. She charges Peoples’ China of hypocritically publicly denouncing Israeli policies while quietly aiding the cause of Israeli settlers.
On May 22, Kim Petersen posted a thoughtful, well reasoned piece on Dissident Voice, entitled “Palestine and the Conscience of China.” Petersen persuasively lauds the many achievements of Peoples’ China. It is easy to forget the century of humiliation that this once proud, advanced society suffered at the hands of European imperialism. After 12 years of fighting Japanese invaders and enduring a bloody civil war costing tens of millions of casualties, China’s advance since — under the leadership of the Communist Party of China — has been truly remarkable.
As Peoples’ China celebrates meeting its goal of becoming a “moderately prosperous” society, it is important to see how far it has come from 1949. When Western apologists for the market economy brag of the aggregate economic gains that global markets have brought to the developing world, they are largely talking about China (and, more recently, Vietnam and India).
By any measure of citizen satisfaction with their government by international surveys, the PRC consistently ranks at or near the top.
At the same time, Petersen raises questions about the seeming inconsistency of the Chinese government’s vocal criticism of Israel’s genocidal policies in Gaza and Peoples’ China’s continuing economic engagement with Israel. The PRC accounts for over 20% of Israeli imports.
Petersen quotes Professor T.P. Wilkinson: “Non-interference is China’s top principle — business comes first. If there is any morality it only applies in China.” And it is precisely China’s moral conscience that Petersen finds wanting.
However, not everyone is trying — or even pretending — to distance themselves from Tel Aviv right now. The People’s Republic of China, for example, is actually seeking to strengthen its ties with Israel.
After initially siding with Palestine (and Hamas) following October 7, Beijing is now looking to rebuild ties with Israel. Just four days ago, as Israel’s Defence Forces were unleashing coordinated attacks on aid depots, China’s ambassador to Israel Xiao Junzheng discussed “deepening China-Israel economic and trade cooperation” with Israel’s Minister of Economy and Industry, Nir Barkat.
Still others ask why Peoples’ China, a self-described socialist country, has failed to replace the Soviet Union in guaranteeing the economic vitality of tiny socialist Cuba– a country starved by a US blockade and harsh sanctions upon anyone defying that blockade. It is difficult to reconcile the PRC’s modest economic aid to Cuba with China’s $19 billion dollars of annual exports to proscribed Israel.
China’s Foreign Policy in Retrospect
China’s foreign policy is a direct reflection of the political line of the Communist Party of China, a line changing often in the Party’s history. At the 10th National Congress (August, 1973) — the last before Mao’s death — Zhou Enlai delivered the main report. He affirmed that:
In the last fifty years our Party has gone through ten major struggles between the two lines… In the future, even after classes have disappeared… there will still be two-line struggles between the advanced and the backward and between the correct and the erroneous… there is the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road, there is the danger of capitalist restoration… The Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Documents), p. 16 [my emphasis]
Zhou explains that the opposition in the last two Congresses — led by Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao — advocated that the main contradiction facing the party was “not the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but that ‘between the advanced socialist system and the backward productive forces of society’”. In short, the two lines continually challenging the Party, as explained at the tenth congress, were that of the “productionists” — those giving priority to the development of the productive forces — and that of the class warriors — those giving priority to political struggle.
The CPC’s failure to simultaneously advance the productive forces and, at the same time, carry out a consistent, comprehensive class line accounts for its often inconsistent foreign policy.
Since the “opening” — the Deng reforms, beginning in 1978 — the productionist line has held sway in the Communist Party of China.
From the time of the rebuilding of the Party based on the rural peasantry after the destruction of its urban working-class base in 1927, Mao had sided with the class warriors.
Even in the era of the united front against Japanese aggression, Mao wrote in On New Democracy (1940) of the necessity of a cultural revolution, a focus on political and cultural struggle over other forms:
A cultural revolution is the ideological reflection of the political and economic revolution and is in their service. In China there is a united front in the cultural as in the political revolution… and the cultural campaign resulted in the outbreak of the December 8th Movement of the revolutionary youth in 1935. And the common result of both was the awakening of the people of the whole country… The most amazing thing of all was that the Kuomintang’s cultural “encirclement and suppression” campaign failed completely in the Kuomintang areas as well, although the Communist Party was in an utterly defenceless position in all the cultural and educational institutions there. Why did this happen? Does it not give food for prolonged and deep thought? It was in the very midst of such campaigns of “encirclement and suppression” that Lu Hsun, who believed in communism, became the giant of China’s cultural revolution… New-democratic culture is national. It opposes imperialist oppression and upholds the dignity and independence of the Chinese nation. It belongs to our own nation and bears our own national characteristics… [my emphasis]
The centrality of cultural revolution likely comes from the class base shaping the trajectory of Chinese Communism. Because the Kuomintang wiped out the CPC’s urban working-class centers in 1927, the Party became based in the rural peasantry, as Mao freely concedes in On New Democracy:
This means that the Chinese revolution is essentially a peasant revolution…. Essentially, mass culture means raising the cultural level of the peasants… And essentially it is the peasants who provide everything that sustains the resistance to Japan and keeps us going. By “essentially” we mean basically, not ignoring the other sections of the people, as Stalin himself has explained. As every schoolboy knows, 80 per cent of China’s population are peasants. So the peasant problem becomes the basic problem of the Chinese revolution and the strength of the peasants is the main strength of the Chinese revolution. In the Chinese population the workers rank second to the peasants in number…
On New Democracy suggests that Mao places primacy of place in the struggle for the support of the peasantry, a struggle that is cultural in form and national in scope. While Mao locates the Party’s battles within the world revolutionary process, he doesn’t see it as an immediate fight for socialism, but apart from it, for China’s national liberation:
This is a time … when the proletariat of the capitalist countries is preparing to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, and when the proletariat, the peasantry, the intelligentsia and other sections of the petty bourgeoisie in China have become a mighty independent political force under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Situated as we are in this day and age, should we not make the appraisal that the Chinese revolution has taken on still greater world significance? I think we should. The Chinese revolution has become a very important part of the world revolution… [my emphasis]
The separation between the proletariat’s role in the capitalist countries and the Party’s “independent” role in shaping a multi-class force could not be clearer.
Absent from the 1940 statement of Mao’s vision is any endorsement of the Communist International’s broad principles of solidarity. Instead, the Party operated under the Three Principles of the People, the CPC’s revision of Sun-Yat Sen’s original Three Principles. On New Democracy defines them as:
Three Great Policies of alliance with Russia, co-operation with the Communist Party and assistance to the peasants and workers. Without each and every one of these Three Great Policies, the Three People’s Principles become either false or incomplete in the new period…
Thus, “alliance with Russia” (USSR) became central to China’s foreign policy and expanded to alliance with other socialist countries. After liberation in 1949, the PRC practiced that line by aiding the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, especially in repelling the US and its allies as they invaded DPRK territory. The PRC military fought in the DPRK until the armistice of 1953. Over 183,000 Chinese died resisting the invasion of the North.
The CPC established ties with various liberation movements after the Korean War, with Peoples’ China offering military aid and training to many movements in Asia and Africa. At the same time, the PRC adopted Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to lead foreign relations: respect for territory and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs, equality and cooperation for common benefit, and peaceful coexistence.
The Five Principles were strikingly similar to the natural-law doctrines adopted by the early mercantilist theorists of bourgeois international relations; they constituted an even less robust version of the eight points of the 1941 Atlantic Charter crafted by Roosevelt and Churchill. Nonetheless, they were enshrined in the constitution of Peoples’ China:
China pursues an independent foreign policy, observes the five principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, mutual noninterference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence, keeps to a path of peaceful development, follows a mutually beneficial strategy of opening up, works to develop diplomatic relations and economic and cultural exchanges with other countries, and promotes the building of a human community with a shared future. [my emphasis]
By the end of the 1950s, The CPC had rejected the first of the “three great policies”: the “alliance with Russia”. The PRC had embarked on a period of bitter conflict with the USSR, culminating with a split in the unity of the World Communist Movement. It is source of great irony that many of the charges the CPC made against the Soviets in the Mao era were and are features of China today that have drawn the same charges from some on the left: The Chinese attacked the Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence with the US, taunting the US as a paper tiger; they accused the Soviets of being “social-imperialist” intent on global hegemony; they claimed a restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union; they accused the Soviet Party of revising Marxism-Leninism. All charges that resonate for some in current policies of Peoples’ China.
It is difficult to reconcile the Five Principles with the PRC support for the US proxies in the former Portuguese African colonies. For over a decade, the PRC sided with South Africa, Israel, the US, and bogus liberation movements in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau, delivering weapons, training, and material support to surrogates fighting the internationally recognized freedom fighters. It was left for thousands of Cuban internationalists to give their lives to finally close the door on this ugly chapter and open the door to the fall of Apartheid.
It is difficult to reconcile the Five Principles with the PRC 1979 invasion of Vietnam, ostensibly in response to Democratic Vietnam’s overthrow of the Khmer Rouge — an intervention, if principally motivated, that cannot be squared with the PRC’s vocal denunciation of the Warsaw alliance’s engagement in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
It is difficult to reconcile the twists and turns of Peoples’ China’s foreign policies with its once radical denouncement of Soviet foreign policy as “social-imperialist.” The late, estimable Al Szymanski– a scrupulous researcher– met those charges in great detail (“Soviet Socialism and Proletarian Internationalism” in The Soviet Union: Socialist or Social-Imperialist?, 1983), showing that Soviet “export of capital” outside of the socialist community was minimal, largely limited to establishing enterprises that expedited trade. Soviet assistance was limited almost entirely to countries outside of or escaping the tyranny of global markets. Soviet trade was minimal — Szymanski argued that it was the world’s most self-sufficient system (no doubt often through forced isolation). Its importing of raw material was minimal: “In short the Soviet economy, unlike those of all Western imperialist countries… has no… need to subordinate less developed countries to obtain raw materials.”
Also, the Soviet Union frequently paid higher prices for imported goods than market prices. Citing Asha Datar, “[O]f the 12 leading export commodities studied…, six were consistently purchased by the USSR at higher than their world prices, three usually purchased at prices higher than those paid by the capitalist countries, and two purchased on a year to year basis sometimes above and sometimes below the world market price.”
Suffice it to say, the Soviet Union substantially subsidized trade with fraternal countries, especially within the socialist community (CMEA), Cuba receiving especially generous terms of exchange.
It would be interesting to compare the PRC’s current foreign policy with the internationalist standards set by the former Soviet Union.
Nonetheless, Peoples’ China — since the victory of the productionist line under Deng’s leadership — has largely been a force for stability in international relations. Over the last thirty or so years, the PRC has sought to maintain a peaceful stage for its trade-based economic expansion while the US and its capitalist allies have engaged in one bloody, imperialist adventure after another. Entry into the global market and acceptance into its market-based institutions has been well served by its Five Principles foreign policy.
But it has been naive to expect capitalist great powers to respect the high-minded, Enlightenment values of the Five Principles and simply stand by while the PRC rises to challenge their dominance of the world economy. Since Engels’ early writings, Marxists have understood that competition is the motor of the commodity-based economy. And since Lenin, Marxists have understood that competition between monopoly capitals and their hosts have spawned aggression and war.
It is equally naive — or disingenuous — to equate the Five Principles with the proletarian internationalism, class solidarity that has been embraced by the international Communist movement throughout the twentieth century. From Comintern activity, to the internationalist sacrifices made for democratic Spain, to the generous support for liberation movements, and the aid to the people of Vietnam, militant, principled internationalism differs fundamentally from the neutrality embodied in the Five Principles. The Five Principles serve a world with no injustice, a world without class struggle, a world without aggression and war.
Indeed, the solidarity advocated in the PRC constitution — “China consistently opposes imperialism, hegemonism and colonialism, works to strengthen its solidarity with the people of all other countries, supports oppressed peoples and other developing countries in their just struggles to win and safeguard their independence and develop their economies, and strives to safeguard world peace and promote the cause of human progress” — is inconsistent with the neutrality and non-intervention of the Five Principles, in any realistic sense.
Where neutrality may have borne few negative consequences during the PRC’s isolation from global markets, China’s profound economic relations with virtually every country in the twenty-first century, do have consequences, consequences of enormous moral impact.
Like other countries that engage economically or refrain from engaging economically (sanctions, tariffs, boycotts, blockades, etc.), the PRC must be judged by that engagement.
With the daily slaughter of Gazan civilians, the brutal actions of Israel cannot be separated from its trading partners: China, the US, Germany, Italy, Turkiye, Russia, France, South Korea, India, and Spain, in descending order of dollar volume of exports to Israel.
And now with the brazen, unprovoked Israeli attack on its putative “friend” Iran, the neutrality of the Five Principles is even less defensible. The “win-win” strategy of many CPC leaders and their allies is a utopian dream that social justice cannot afford.
New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year.
This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local political leader calling it “a significant escalation” between Avarua and Wellington.
A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Cook Islands did not consult with Aotearoa over the China deals and failed to ensure shared interests were not put at risk.
On Thursday (Wednesday local time), Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown told Parliament that his government knew the funding cut was coming.
“We have been aware that this core sector support would not be forthcoming in this budget because this had not been signed off by the New Zealand government in previous months, so it has not been included in the budget that we are debating this week,” he said.
The agreements focus in areas of economy, infrastructure and maritime cooperation and seabed mineral development, among others. They do not include security or defence.
However, to New Zealand’s annoyance, Brown did not discuss the details with it first.
Prior to signing, Brown said he was aware of the strong interest in the outcomes of his visit to China.
Afterwards, a spokesperson for Peters released a statement saying New Zealand would consider the agreements closely, in light of the countries’ mutual constitutional responsibilities.
The Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand. The country governs its own affairs, but New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief and defence.
Cook Islanders also hold New Zealand passports entitling them to live and work there.
In 2001, New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a joint centenary declaration, which required the two to “consult regularly on defence and security issues”.
The Cook Islands did not think it needed to consult with New Zealand on the China agreement.
Peters said there is an expectation that the government of the Cook Islands would not pursue policies that were “significantly at variance with New Zealand’s interests”.
A spokesperson for Peters said at the time said the New Zealand government noted the mining agreements and would analyse them.
How New Zealand reacted On Thursday morning, Peters said the Cook Islands had not lived up to the 2001 declaration.
Peters said the Cook Islands had failed to give satisfactory answers to New Zealand’s questions about the arrangement.
“We have made it very clear in our response to statements that were being made — which we do not think laid out the facts and truth behind this matter — of what New Zealand’s position is,” he said.
“We’ve got responsibilities ourselves here. And we wanted to make sure that we didn’t put a step wrong in our commitment and our special arrangement which goes back decades.”
Officials would be working through what the Cook Islands had to do so New Zealand was satisfied the funding could resume.
He said New Zealand’s message was conveyed to the Cook Islands government “in its finality” on June 4.
“When we made this decision, we said to them our senior officials need to work on clearing up this misunderstanding and confusion about our arrangements and about our relationship.”
Asked about the timing of Luxon’s visit to China, and what he thought the response from China might be, Peters said the decision to pause the funding was not connected to China.
He said he had raised the matter with his China counterpart Wang Yi, when he last visited China in February, and Wang understood New Zealand’s relationship with the Cook Islands.
Concerns in the Cook Islands Over the past three years, New Zealand has provided nearly $194.6 million (about US$117m) to the Cook Islands through the development programme.
Cook Islands opposition leader Tina Browne said she was deeply concerned about the pause.
Browne said she was informed of the funding pause on Wednesday night, and she was worried about the indication from Peters that it might affect future funding.
She issued a “please explain” request to Mark Brown:
“The prime minister has been leading the country to think that everything with New Zealand has been repaired, hunky dory, etcetera — trust is still there,” she said.
“Wham-bam, we get this in the Cook Islands News this morning. What does that tell you?”
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown (left) and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters in Rarotonga in February last year. Image: RNZ Pacific/Eleisha Foon
Will NZ’s action ‘be a very good news story’ for Beijing? Massey University’s defence and security expert Dr Anna Powles told RNZ Pacific that aid should not be on the table in debate between New Zealand and the Cook Islands.
“That spirit of the [2001] declaration is really in question here,” she said.
“The negotiation between the two countries needs to take aid as a bargaining chip off the table for it to be able to continue — for it to be successful.”
Dr Powles said New Zealand’s moves might help China strengthen its hand in the Pacific.
She said China could contrast its position on using aid as a bargaining chip.
“By Beijing being able to tell its partners in the region, ‘we would never do that, and certainly we would never seek to leverage our relationships in this way’. This could be a very good news story for China, and it certainly puts New Zealand in a weaker position, as a consequence.”
However, a prominent Cook Islands lawyer said it was fair that New Zealand was pressing pause.
Norman George said Brown should implore New Zealand for forgiveness.
“It is absolutely a fair thing to do because our prime minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”
Brown has not responded to multiple attempts by RNZ Pacific for comment.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
On the early morning of 13 June, Israel launched an aerial assault on Iran, killing over 224 people to date. This is the gravest breach of Iranian sovereignty since the US-backed Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, widely understood as a proxy effort to dismantle the nascent Islamic Republic.
In its opening salvo, Tel Aviv assassinated top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, scientists, and academics, striking residential blocks and faculty housing. The war continues into its fifth day, with Israel and Washington openly seeking to collapse the Islamic Republic and crush the region’s anti-imperialist resistance.
Hong Kong authorities are declining to provide details of six recent arrests under a national security law, fueling growing concerns about government transparency as it tightens controls on dissent.
Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee said Tuesday that since the promulgation of the National Security Law in 2020, 332 individuals have been arrested. That was an increase of six arrests since Secretary for Security Chris Tang stated on June 1 that 326 people had been arrested under the law, with 165 convictions.
When local media asked about the new arrests, the Security Bureau said detailed breakdowns of arrest figures are “classified information related to safeguarding national security in the HKSAR and thus will not be made public.” HKSAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Political commentator Sampson Wong said that in the past the Hong Kong government rarely used national security as a reason to withhold information, and now the public’s basic right to know was being damaged.
“At this point, reporters can still detect some of these arrests, but how long will that last? In the future, will people be arrested without anyone knowing?” Wong asked.
“Anything could be labelled a breach of confidentiality. If this continues, the truth will be completely under the control of national security authorities,” he said.
A March 21, 2023, photo shows Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee in Hong Kong.(Louise Delmotte/AP)
The National Security Law was adopted after massive pro-democracy protests in 2019 as Beijing tightened controls over Hong Kong, which had enjoyed greater civic freedoms than mainland China and greater government transparency, including by police. China maintains the 2020 law was required to maintain order.
Last month, the Hong Kong government bypassed Legislative Council procedures and unilaterally enacted two new subsidiary laws under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which significantly expanded the powers of Beijing’s office overseeing national security in the city.
Under the measures, it is prohibited to disclose or film the office’s operations; civil servants must cooperate with and support national security operations; and any act that obstructs national security officers from performing their duties is criminalized.
While it remains unclear which six arrests happened in the past two weeks, on June 2, the National Security Department arrested one man and four women for allegedly conspiring to commit terrorist activities. The suspects had reportedly used phones, emails, and messaging apps to send messages threatening to bomb central government offices and a sports park, while also promoting pro-independence messages for Taiwan and Hong Kong.
On June 6, prominent democracy advocate Joshua Wong, who is already serving a four-year-and-eight-month sentence for subversion, was formally arrested on an additional charge of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.”
Last week, authorities also launched a national security investigation into six unnamed persons on suspicion of “colluding with a foreign country.” But the Security Bureau clarified that no arrests had been made as yet related to that probe.
Edited by Mat Pennington.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Cantonese.
Why is the South China Sea such a flashpoint between China, the U.S., and Southeast Asia? In this eye-opening video, Professor Kishore Mahbubani breaks down the deeper truth behind the conflict that mainstream media often overlooks. With decades of diplomatic experience and sharp geopolitical insight, he explains what’s really at stake—and why the West’s narrative may not tell the full story. Watch till the end to understand the hidden forces shaping this critical region.
The head of China’s central bank pledged to expand the international use of the digital yuan and called for the development of a multi-polar global currency system, where several currencies dominate the world economy. China will establish an international operation centre for e-CNY in Shanghai, People’s Bank of China governor Pan Gongsheng said on Wednesday…
On June 17, Trump demanded the unconditional surrender of Ayatollah Khamenei, and said “Our patience is wearing thin.”
On June 16, Trump posted to his Truth Social and to Facebook, this warning for everyone in Tehran to evacuate the City:
He has said there that America is in this war not to invade Iran but to protect Israel. However if Iran will have any success, then Americans, and not ONLY Israelis, will be bombing Iran. (And, of course, virtually all of Israel’s weapons do already come from America.)
So, this invasion of Iran IS the policy of the U.S. Government, and not (as the propaganda describes it) ONLY the policy of Israel’s Government.
And here was Trump’s Truth Social post on that day:
In that post, he unintentionally made clear that he never actually “negotiated” with Iran; he ORDERED Iran to do Netanyahu’s bidding. And, NOW, he and Netanyahu intend to forcibly (militarily) regime-change Iran, simply because Iran refused to comply with Netanyahu’s (and Trump’s, and Biden’s) DEMAND (that Iran be subordinated to Israel).
This is now heading into WW3. On June 16, the excellent news-site, which analyzes international-policy issues of protecting Russia from the U.S. empire’s constant aggressions to weaken or replace Russia’s Government, en.topcor.ru/news/, headlined “CRINK Air Force Could Help Iran Stand Up to Israel,” and here was its grim but entirely realistic analysis:
The military defeat of Iran, if it also leads to the beginning of the process of disintegration of the Islamic Republic into a number of quasi-states, will become the gravest geopolitical defeat[that the] informal anti-Western alliance CRINK led by Russia and China [have faced]. The ally [member, actually: Iran is the “I” in “CRINK”] must be saved, but how, exactly?
At the moment, the war between Israel and Iran is characterized by a remote exchange of air strikes using aircraft, ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones, as well as sabotage and terrorist attacks by Israeli special services in the Iranian rear.
Given that they have no common border and the US’s stated non-interference, large-scale ground operations are out of the question, so sending international brigades of Russian, North Korean or Chinese volunteers to help the Persians makes no sense. However, Tehran would certainly not refuse help in the fight against Israeli aviation, so it is worth remembering that something similar has already happened in modern history.
“Flying Tigers”
Let us recall that even before the start of World War II, a war between the Chinese Republic and the Japanese Empire that had attacked it had already begun in the European theater of operations in Southeast Asia on July 7, 1937. At the same time, the Japanese were taking out the poorly prepared Chinese aviation with one hand. However, in that historical period, China enjoyed support not only from the USSR, but also from the USA.
Retired US Air Force Major Claire Lee Chennault, sent there as a military adviser, proposed creating a special air unit in which the pilots would be American volunteers flying American planes. And that was done. President Roosevelt officially allowed US Air Force pilots to take leave and fight on a purely volunteer basis on the side of China against Japan.
A special aviation unit called the Flying Tigers was then created, consisting of three fighter squadrons flying American aircraft purchased under Lend-Lease. Its pilots signed a contract with the Chinese private firm CAMCO (Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company), under the terms of which they received $500 for each enemy aircraft destroyed.
American volunteers successfully fought on the side of the Chinese Republic until 1942, after which the Flying Tigers were withdrawn from the Chinese Air Force and included in the 23rd Fighter Group of the 10th Air Force of the US Army, and in 1943 it was transformed into the 14th Air Force of the US Army, consisting of 60 bombers and more than 100 fighters. Their commander, Claire Lee Chennault, became a general.
Legion “Condor”
Around the same time, the Condor Legion, created in Nazi Germany to help the future Franco regime in Spain, was operating in the European theatre of military operations. The number of this “volunteer” unit was relatively small, reaching 5,5 thousand people.
However, in the Third Reich, Condor was seen as a training ground for personnel, a testing ground for modern weapons, and a source of up-to-date combat experience. In addition to four bomber squadrons and four fighter squadrons, the legion included anti-aircraft and anti-tank defense units, an armored group of four battalions, transport sections, anti-tank artillery, and flamethrower units.
During the Spanish Civil War, the German army trained its best future aces and tested the latest aircraft that later fought in World War II. The Europeans intend to do something similar today, sending a so-called fighter coalition to Ukraine to help the Zelensky regime, which will protect Kyiv and the right bank from Russian missile and air strikes.
CRINK Air Army?
Returning to the topic of Iran, one must ask why, in fact, Russia, the DPRK and China should be interested in Tehran not losing and not following the path of Syria, which lost its sovereignty and turned into a terrorist enclave?
Our country needs Iran as a friendly partner, covering the southern flank and providing access to the Indian Ocean through the Caspian Sea. The oil fields that Israel threatens to bomb already belong to Beijing, which has invested huge amounts of money in the Iranian oil and gas sector. And for Pyongyang, Tehran has long been a technological partner in the development and production of various weapons.
What could the CRINK alliance actually do to help its ally, who has been dealt a vile blow and is being prepared to be destroyed by “Western partners” at the hands of Israel? Based on the above, there are two possible paths.
The first is the creation of an international volunteer unit of Russian, North Korean and Chinese “vacationers” who would receive modern fighters and air defense systems purchased by Iran under Lend-Lease and would go to gain real combat experience in air battles against the ultra-modern Israeli aviation.
Bearing in mind that the Russian Federation is facing a direct conflict with NATO, which has placed its bets on aviation, the DPRK has South Korea right next door, and the AUKUS alliance has already been created against China and a military operation against Taiwan is looming, such relevant experience in air combat would be, to put it mildly, not superfluous. Taking it into account, the Russian and Chinese defense industries could appropriately modify their aircraft and create a center for joint training of pilots from Iran, the DPRK, the Russian Federation and China.
The second path is a little less demonstrative and involves the creation of a hypothetical aviation PMC, for the needs of which Tehran could buy modern aircraft from Russia and China and hire vacationing pilots from the Russian Federation, China and, possibly, North Korea, who would be ready to cover Iran from Israeli air strikes.
There are options, if there is a desire.
All of the propaganda in The West PRESUMES that The West has decency and international law on its side and that all OTHER countries are inferior to it — less good, less decent, than are the U.S.-and-allied nations. The reality is the exact opposite.
The loose alliance generally represented itself in diplomatic addresses and public statements as an “anti-hegemony” and “anti-imperialist” coalition with intentions to challenge what it deemed to be a Western-dominated global order to reshape international relations into a multipolar order according to their shared interests. While not a formal bloc, these nations have increasingly coordinated their economic, military, and diplomatic efforts, making strong efforts to aid each other to undermine Western influence.[1]
Central to its opening paragraph is the Center for a New American Security (CNAS); and, as is made clear at one of the CIA’s NON-approved sites, the “Militarist Monitor”, their article “Center for a New American Security” (which thus is not used as a source by Wikipedia) makes clear that CNAS is totally neoconservative (a marketing-arm of the U.S. weapons-manufacturing industry), but even that site (MM) says nothing about who funds it. Another CIA-banned site, “WSWS”, has a far more comprehensive article about CNAS, titled “Democratic think tank plots war against Russia and China: What is the Center for a New American Security?”, and it makes explicit that CNAS’s main donors are “Defense contractors” (which sell ONLY to the U.S. Government and its allies) and secondarily “High tech” (which sell both to those Governments and to the public). In other words: the CIA represents the billionaires who are heavily invested in those two industries — as well as in the ‘news’-media (such as Wikipedia) that propagandize for America’s armaments companies in their ‘news’, editorials, and ads. (For example: even if a pharmaceutical company is simply advertising in these billionaires’ ‘news’-media, it is thereby funding the necon operation.) In 1922, Walter Lippmann invented the phrase “manufacture of consent” to refer to this then-new type of ‘democracy’; but it became big-time only after Truman started the Cold War and the U.S. global-hegemonic empire, on 25 July 1945.
The hegemonic (or “hegemoniacal”) global empire that U.S. President Truman started on 25 July 1945, needs now, finally, to be defeated decisively. This means without reaching the stage of a nuclear war against Russia, because that could end ONLY in the defeat of both sides and the end of all human civilization. However, I am personally inclined to think that The West have become SO desperate to rule the entire world, so that Russia — and perhaps all of the CRINK — need now to announce publicly that they will NOT allow Iran to be defeated, and that this means that they ARE willing to go nuclear against America and Israel, in order to PREVENT Iran’s defeat — if that’s what would be needed in order to PREVENT the U.S. from providing such backup to Israel’s invasion of Iran.
Trump (like Biden) never planned for that possibility. If there is to be a WW3, then the most evil empire in all of history, America’s empire, must be prevented from starting it (e.g., by extending Israel’s war against Iran into becoming fully a U.S.-Israel invasion of Iran). It must instead be started by their main targets — CRINK — if it MUST start, at all. The initiator of a war (such as Israel and the U.S. are, in regard to their joint war against Iran) always has the advantage of surprise (such as on June 13th), and thus the higher likelihood of eliminating the other side’s central command (as Israel has largely done). That way (by CRINK’s joining with Iran on this war), if there will be any future afterwards, it WON’T be dominated by the world’s most evil nations — the U.S.-empire nations. Planning for a post-WW3 world has now become important, because of Trump’s commitment now of greatly increased U.S. backup of Israel’s war to conquer Iran. Post-WW3 would be hell in any case, but simply allowing the U.S.-Israel-UK empire to take the entire world would LIKEWISE be hell. And that’s what we all are now heading toward.
Chinese workers across industries are facing salary cuts and layoffs as mounting economic woes engulf China’s public and private sectors, sources tell Radio Free Asia.
That’s forcing families to slash spending. It is also triggering deflationary concerns as businesses enter into desperate price wars.
From Beijing’s central government offices to provincial agencies across China, as well as major state-owned enterprises like investment bank China International Capital Corp (CICC), employees have faced substantial pay reductions that have reduced household budgets and fundamentally altered consumer spending patterns.
“I used to earn 6,000 yuan (or US$835) a month but now I only get 5,000 yuan (US$696), and some allowances have been removed too,” Li, an employee at a Beijing-based state-owned enterprise, told RFA. Like many others interviewed for this story, Li wanted to be identified by a single name for safety reasons.
“Some people in my wife’s company have also had their salaries cut and some have received layoff notices, saying they will only work until July-end,” said Li.
In Zhejiang, regarded one of China’s most prosperous provinces, ordinary civil servants have had their annual salaries slashed by 50,000 to 60,000 yuan (or US$6,964-US$8,356) this year, Zheng, a resident of the province’s Zhuji city, told RFA.
Civil servants in more senior positions have seen deeper reductions to their annual pay of around 80,000 to 100,000 yuan (or US$11100-US$13900) and others in still higher levels by about 150,000 yuan (or US$20,890), Zheng said.
“There was already a reduction two years ago. This year’s salary is reduced again,” he added.
The cuts indicate the financial strain on local governments, as domestic economic challenges lead to tepid consumer demand and price pressures. That’s impacting businesses’ ability to pay taxes. Additionally, local governments are grappling with a decline in land transfer sales revenue amid weak property market demand.
For 2025, China’s provincial regions have set cautious fiscal revenue estimates, with an average growth target of 2.8% for their general public budget revenue, which is the sum of tax and non-tax revenue. That’s down 1.6 percentage points from 2024’s target average, as revenue generation challenges continue to weigh on local governments, economists say.
For example, in Shandong, many real estate projects have been suspended for the past two years with no land sales recorded, impacting the local government’s already large fiscal debt levels, said one blogger based in the northeastern coastal province, according to texts and pictures posted on X account @whyyoutouzhele, also known as “Mr. Li is not your teacher,” who posts content on that platform to circumvent Chinese government censorship.
Another Shandong resident, named Geng, told RFA, that county and township level officials in the province have had their salaries slashed by 30%, with payments frequently delayed.
“Now the county-level finances have been depleted, and the benefits for police officers have also been reduced,” Geng, a resident of Qingdao city, said.
Police officers in many other regions have also seen significant cuts to their annual salaries, down to 200,000 yuan (US$27,856) this year from 300,000 yuan (US$41,784) a year ago, said a legal professional based in southeast China’s Guangdong province.
Residents gather to watch a juice mixer machine demonstration at a newly opened Chinese e-commerce platform JD.com shopping mall in Beijing, June 16, 2025.(Andy Wong/AP)
Widespread pay cuts
Employees of major Chinese state-owned commercial enterprises, such as investment bank CICC and China Development Bank, have not been spared either, with companies executing cost-cutting “optimization measures,” including wage reductions and layoffs, amid a government campaign to cap pay ceilings at financial institutions and bring it more on par with other civil servants
But an employee at CICC said the salary cuts have affected virtually all staff levels. “Almost everyone in our building has had their salaries cut. The lowest-level employees have also had their salaries cut by 5%. I heard that the reductions for mid- and high-paid employees are even greater,” he said.
According to a report from Beijing-based Caixin media group, 27 government-owned financial enterprises have begun to implement salary cuts, mainly aimed at reaching the goal of capping annual income of staff at these firms at 1 million yuan (US$139,180), as Beijing moves forward with a campaign, known as “common prosperity” drive, to narrow income and wealth inequality.
Ma, who works at a Beijing-based state-owned enterprise, said his company has already conducted two rounds of salary cuts and layoffs since 2023. “The basic salary has shrunk, and the company has also cancelled meal and transportation subsidies,” Ma said. “The work that used to be done by two or three people now has to be done by one person.”
Another employee of a state-owned bank based in Guangdong’s Dongguan city said his salary had been reduced by 30% in the past two years, with performance bonuses “almost completely cut.”
A woman poses for a souvenir picture with a cat mural as shoppers tour a newly opened courtyard-style outdoor shopping mall during a Duanwu Festival holiday, in Beijing, June 1, 2025.(Andy Wong/AP)
Consumer ‘belt-tightening chain’
The salary reductions have sparked a sharp decline in consumer spending, creating deflationary pressures across the economy, as businesses engage in aggressive price cutting in a desperate bid to attract cash-strapped consumers.
“The price war has become the latest struggle for many small businesses,” Meng, a Shandong resident, told RFA.
“For example, the good ribs here only sell for 12 yuan (or US$1.67) a pound, and the purchase price of live pigs is only a few yuan … restaurants are desperately offering discounts to survive. This is not competition, but dragging each other down.”
In Beijing, small supermarkets are “slashing prices like crazy,” said Su, a resident of the city’s Haidian District. “I’m afraid they will all go bankrupt in a few months at this rate.”
In her own home too, Su has observed major changes in spending patterns, with fewer family gatherings and less frequent restaurant meals, as household budgets tighten.
Economist Wu Qinxue warned that the current situation highlights continued decline in local governments’ fiscal levels and is not just a temporary belt-tightening.
“The (local) government has no money to manage people, and no one is willing to spend money,” he said. “From salary cuts within the system to the collapse of consumption among ordinary people, the entire society is quietly forming a top-down (consumer belt-) ‘tightening chain.’”
Written by Tenzin Pema. Edited by Mat Pennington.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.
SIPRI concludes that nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states – the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – continued intensive nuclear modernization programs in 2024, upgrading existing weapons and adding newer versions.
It highlights the rapid growth of China’s arsenal, now estimated to have at least 600 nuclear warheads. It says it has grown by about 100 new warheads a year since 2023.
By January 2025, China had completed or was close to completing around 350 new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos in three large desert fields in the north of the country and three mountainous areas in the east, SIPRI says.
“Depending on how it decides to structure its forces, China could potentially have at least as many ICBMs as either Russia or the USA by the turn of the decade,” the report says.
In December, the U.S. Department of Defense offered a similar estimate of China’s warhead count, tripling its estimated arsenal in just four years.
However SIPRI adds that even if China reaches the maximum projected number of 1,500 warheads by 2035, that will still amount to only about one third of each of the current Russian and U.S. nuclear stockpiles.
Russia and the U.S. together possess around 90 per cent of all nuclear weapons. Both have about 1,700 deployed warheads and more than that each in storage.
On Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun was asked about the SIPRI report, and said China follows a nuclear strategy that focuses of self-defense.
“China always keeps its nuclear capabilities at minimum level required by national security, and never engages in arms race,” Guo told a Beijing news briefing, adding that China has a ‘no first use’ policy on nuclear weapons.
SIPRI estimates that North Korea has assembled around 50 warheads and possesses enough fissile material to produce up to 40 more warheads and is accelerating the production of further fissile material.
It says North Korea “continues to prioritize its military nuclear program as a central element of its national security strategy,” also noting that leader Kim Jong Jun in November called for its “limitless” expansion.
Edited by Mat Pennington.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.
Exclusive: Restrictions to be reviewed as embassy official says ‘UK-China relations are showing a positive momentum’
China is considering lifting the sanctions it imposed on UK parliamentarians in 2021, in the latest sign of warming relations between London and Beijing.
The Chinese government is reviewing the sanctions, which it introduced four years ago in response to what it called “lies and disinformation” about human rights abuses in Xinjiang, according to two UK government sources familiar with the conversations.
Exclusive: Restrictions to be reviewed as embassy official says ‘UK-China relations are showing a positive momentum’
China is considering lifting the sanctions it imposed on UK parliamentarians in 2021, in the latest sign of warming relations between London and Beijing.
The Chinese government is reviewing the sanctions, which it introduced four years ago in response to what it called “lies and disinformation” about human rights abuses in Xinjiang, according to two UK government sources familiar with the conversations.
The app makers call it a “war saga” where gamers can choose a rebel faction from Hong Kong, Taiwan and even Tibet and then play at fighting Chinese communist forces – or if they choose, fight for the communist side instead.
But it seems like whichever side you choose, it could get you into trouble in Hong Kong.
This week, the city’s police issued a stark warning against downloading the mobile app “Reversed Front: Bonfire” on the grounds that the game is “advocating armed revolution and the overthrow of the fundamental system of the People’s Republic of China.”
The police force’s National Security Department, or NSD, said in a statement Tuesday that any person who shares or recommends the app, or makes in-app purchases, may be violating articles of the city’s draconian national security law that punish incitement to secession and subversion. A person who downloads the app would be in possession of a publication with a “seditious intention.”
The statement concluded that such acts are “extremely serious offences” and that police would strictly enforce the law.
“Members of the public should not download the application or provide funding by any means to the relevant developer. Those who have downloaded the application should uninstall it immediately and must not attempt to defy the law,” it said.
Welcome to Hong Kong in 2025, where even gaming apps are in the cross-hairs of authorities.
Until a few years ago, the city was famed for its vibrant civic society and freedoms which had persisted since the territory came under Chinese control in 1997.
“It’s absurd that the government fears this game, especially when players are free to choose any faction—including the Red Army,” one gamer who goes by the alias Fu Tong told Radio Free Asia. “Their reaction just reflects an authoritarian regime’s deep fear of freedom and how brittle the system really is.”
Widening crackdown
The warning, apparently the first issued in Hong Kong against a gaming app, was the latest sign of a widening crackdown on basic freedoms that has ensued since massive anti-government protests that broke out six years ago. That movement was followed by the passage of the 2020 national security law imposed by Beijing and a law enacted by the Hong Kong legislature 2024.
The app’s developer, ESC Taiwan, did not immediately respond to an RFA request for comment on Tuesday’s police statement.
ESC has described itself as a civilian volunteer group that was set up in 2017 to “coordinate with overseas anti-Communist organizations and assist foreign allies with outreach and organizing efforts.” It doesn’t disclose who its members are but says they are mostly Taiwanese, with a few Hongkongers and Mongolians.
The game’s first online version was released in 2020, and a board game version launched in the same year. At the time, China’s state-run Global Times published a critical editorial accusing the game of promoting “Taiwanese independence” and “Hong Kong separatism.”
According to a person familiar with the operations of ESC, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, the developers had raised over HK$6 million (US$760,000) via crowdfunding in Taiwan and Hong Kong in 2019 to develop the game, and a portion of the game’s revenue is donated to anti-China Communist Party organizations abroad.
Players of “Reversed Front: Bonfire” can assume the role of rebels from places such as Hong Kong, Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, Taiwan and the Uyghur region trying to overthrow the communist regime.
“Or you can choose to lead the Communists to defeat all enemies and resume the century-long march of the Communist revolution to the other side of the land and sea!” ESC says in its promo for the app.
For the Hong Kong option, numerous game characters are inspired by the city’s past protest culture. For example, one character, “Ka Yan,” hails from Yuen Long – a town in Hong Kong’s western territories – and wears blue-and-white striped tape often used by Hong Kong police. Another, “Sylvia,” wears a gas mask and a uniform printed with the slogan, “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times.”
The game’s dialogue is also steeped in Hong Kong culture and includes an instrumental version of “Glory to Hong Kong,” a banned anthem that was popular during 2019 pro-democracy protests.
While the police statement on Tuesday appeared to boost interest in the game, The Associated Press in Hong Kong reported that the app was not available in Apple app story by Wednesday morning. It remains available in the United States.
One gamer, Andy, said that after the statement was issued Hong Kong-themed player groups within the game quickly cleared their chat logs fearing they could be trawled by authorities.
He praised the game as reflecting current geopolitical realities, including China’s approach to Taiwan – the self-ruling island that Beijing claims as part of China.
Supporting this game, Andy added, also allows players to symbolically “defend Hong Kong territory.”
Edited by Mat Pennington.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Cantonese.
When it comes to plant-based diets, the V-March campaign says Chinese consumers are motivated primarily by health and food trends.
With China’s protein consumption surpassing that of the US, and a majority of it coming from plants, the potential for a Veganuary-style campaign has never been riper. With its inaugural drive done in March of this year, the China Vegan Society talks to Green Queen about the potential for a plant-based diet shift in its home country.
It’s what spurred the folks at China Vegan Society (CVS) to launch Mangchun Sanyue (Vegan Spring March, or V-March), a 31-day challenge to get people to eat exclusively plant-based. The initiative chose March because the Lunar New Year falls between late January and early February, making it an unsuitable period to ask people to initiate lifestyle changes.
Over 70 restaurants and brands participated, including Oatly, Island Resorts Hotel, and Impact Hub Chongqing. It reached seven million people on social media, with over 70,000 engaging with related content and hundreds joining its official chat groups.
China Vegan Society founder and CEO Jian Yi | Courtesy: China Vegan Society
A small survey by the organisation found that a majority of the participants (77%) were women, and 58% maintained their diet throughout the month. Over half said they intend to stay vegan after V-March, while 22% planned to reduce their intake of animal products.
At the end of the month, CVS collaborated with plant-based organisation Veg Planet to announce the annual China Vegan Day, which will be inaugurated in 2026 and take place on the Spring Equinox each year (usually sometime during March).
“V-March attracted participants from across the country who were motivated to shift towards a plant-based diet for health, ethical, and environmental reasons,” Jian Yi, founder and CEO of CVS, tells Green Queen. “Overall, within our V-March participant groups, we saw people joining and completing the challenge with a very positive attitude.”
We spoke to him about the motivations behind the campaign, the plant-based landscape in China, and what’s next for V-March.
This interview has been edited for clarity and concision.
Green Queen: Why did you decide to launch V-March, and how was it received?
Jian Yi: While there is a successful Veganuary campaign in the west, we noticed a lack of large-scale public initiatives in Mainland China to help people transition to a vegan lifestyle. There was no campaign that offered practical guidance, education, simple recipes, or community support – all of which are crucial for making sustainable lifestyle changes.
That’s exactly why we launched V-March – a campaign inspired by Veganuary and designed to motivate and support people in shifting to a plant-based diet and learning more about veganism. The aim is not only to raise awareness but also to help participants implement vegan principles in their everyday lives.
In its very first year, V-March reached approximately seven million people across China, sparking widespread awareness of conscious food choices and inspiring action toward a more sustainable lifestyle.
Out of those seven million people exposed to V-March content, more than 70,000 actively engaged through comments, shares, and online discussions – expressing interest, support, and enthusiasm for the month-long vegan challenge.
During the campaign, 330 participants joined the official V-March WeChat and RedNote groups, engaging in daily conversations and sharing their meals, personal reflections, and victories in adopting a plant-based lifestyle. In addition, 287 users checked in daily using the China Vegan Society WeChat Mini Program to document their journey.
Courtesy: China Vegan Society
GQ: What is the word for vegan in Chinese? Who chose it?
JY: Like many other languages, the Chinese language did not have a native word to match the English words ‘vegan’ or ‘veganism’. In Chinese, the term most commonly used for ‘plant-based’ is 素 (sù), but it is traditionally limited to food and doesn’t fully reflect the broader vegan lifestyle. It can also refer to vegetarianism or other plant-forward diets, and sometimes carries connotations of blandness or dullness.
To avoid these stereotypes and create a more inclusive and meaningful identity, the Good Food Fund, a Chinese food systems transformation non-profit I founded, launched a national contest inviting people to recommend one native Chinese character to represent ‘vegan’ or ‘veganism’.
More than 10,000 people participated in the contest, and the winning entry was the obsolete traditional character 茻 (mǎng). This character, made up of four grass radicals, symbolises lush growth, thriving nature, and abundance of life, perfectly aligning with the values of a vegan, sustainable lifestyle.
When CVS was founded in 2021, we used 茻 in our official name and started to promote its use nationally. We also conducted a survey, which showed that the top associations with 茻 were sustainable lifestyle, healthy living, and plant-based diet.
GQ: How big is the awareness around vegan diets in China? Do most people know the term?
JY: Awareness of vegan diets in China is growing, especially in first- and second-tier cities and among younger generations. However, it remains relatively niche compared to Western countries.
The terms 纯植物饮食 (plant-based diet) or 严格素食 (strictly vegetarian) are not widely recognized by the general public. Most people are more familiar with 素食 (sùshí), often linked with Buddhism and vegetarianism.
In cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen, awareness is increasing rapidly thanks to influencers promoting the plant-based lifestyle, the rise of plant-based restaurants and cafés, international trends entering the Chinese market, and health and environmental concerns among Gen Z and millennials.
China’s 2016 dietary guidelines recommending a 50% reduction in meat consumption helped spark national conversations. However, challenges remain, such as limited vegan labelling, a lack of understanding about what veganism entails, and confusion in restaurants.
In summary, while veganism is still a niche movement in China, it’s growing steadily in urban, educated, and youth-driven communities.
Courtesy: China Vegan Society
GQ: How many vegans are there in China, and how many vegetarians? Has there been any change in the last few years?
JY: Precise data on vegans is scarce, but a Statista report suggests that about 4% of the population follows a vegetarian diet. That translates to approximately 56 to 70 million people in China.
While it’s unclear how many are strictly vegan, there’s a clear upward trend when it comes to interest in plant-based eating, particularly among urban consumers.
GQ: What are the demographics of vegans in China?
JY: According to the first China vegan lifestyle market survey by CVS, 55% are female and 45% are male. Of these, 41% are from first-tier cities, 41% from second-tier, and 18% from third-tier cities.
People living in first and second-tier cities tend to have better access to plant-based options, higher education, and more awareness about health and environmental issues.
Among V-March participants, 77% were female, 19% male, 2% non-binary, and 2% preferred not to disclose their gender. Plus, 77% had a Bachelor’s degree, 15% a college diploma, and 9% a Master’s degree.
GQ: What are the most popular vegan brands and products in China?
JY: China has a long-standing tradition of plant-based eating. Products like tofu, soy milk, and mock meats are widely consumed, even if not explicitly labelled as vegan.
Popular vegan brands include Oatly, a top advocate for vegan lifestyles, widely available and enjoyed by both vegans and non-vegans; Vitasoy, a familiar plant milk brand; and local vegan restaurants like QingChun Perma, Vege Tiger, and Su Man Xiang, known for affordable and delicious plant-based meals.
However, many packaged snacks or imported foods aren’t recognised as vegan due to a lack of clear labelling or consumer awareness.
Courtesy: China Vegan Society
GQ: It seems like plant-based meat startups have not been very successful in China. Can you share your thoughts on this?
JY: There are several reasons [why this is the case].
Health concerns: Traditional Chinese mock meats and tofu are made from simple ingredients like soy, without the added oils or salt often found in western-style plant meats. Many consumers prefer these cleaner, more natural options.
Pricing: Tofu and traditional alternatives are cheap, widely available, and sold in bulk. Plant-based meats are often significantly more expensive.
Cultural fit and marketing: Plant-based meats are usually presented in Western formats (for example, patties and meatballs), which don’t align with Chinese cooking habits. Meanwhile, traditional alternatives integrate seamlessly into local cuisine.
Surveys suggest that most Chinese consumers choose plant-based diets for health reasons, but many perceive plant-based meats as less healthy than animal products or traditional tofu-based alternatives. Plant-based meat brands need better cultural adaptation, pricing strategies, and public education.
GQ: What are people’s biggest motivators towards reducing animal proteins/eating more plant-based?
JY: Our market survey shows that 36% of consumers chose plant-based diets for health reasons, 22% were influenced by trendiness, and 21% followed religious beliefs.
The V-March survey, meanwhile, found that 23.5% participated for health reasons, 18% for ethical reasons, and 17% for environmental reasons.
Courtesy: China Vegan Society
GQ: Is there strong awareness about reducing meat consumption to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
JY: While specific data is limited, there’s a visible rise in environmental awareness, especially among the younger generation. We’re seeing more content on social media about sustainable living, often including plant-based themes.
In our V-March campaign survey, 17% of participants said they tried plant-based eating for the environment, and 13% said they learned more about food’s environmental impact during the campaign.
GQ: How is Veganuary involved (if at all)? Are you working with any other organisations too?
JY: Veganuary was a major inspiration for V-March. The Veganuary team generously shared resources with us, including starter tips and recipes, and promoted our campaign launch on their Instagram page, helping us gain international exposure.
We didn’t collaborate with international organisations this time, but we worked with several local brands and groups, who supported us by sponsoring gifts for participants.
GQ: What celebrities and influencers are linked to vegan diets in China? Are you working with any of them?
JY: For this year’s V-March, we invited actor Huang Junpeng, who kindly shared our poster and quote on his platform.
Other known vegan celebrities in China include actress Zhang Jingchu, actress Pan Shiqi, actress Tian Yuan, and singer Long Kuan. We hope to collaborate with more public figures in future campaigns.
Courtesy: China Vegan Society
GQ: What is your hope for next year’s campaign?
JY: We aim to professionalise the campaign further, offering participants an even better experience with more practical tips, easy recipes, and accessible guidance.
We also want to simplify the process of joining the challenge by making it sound less intimidating, while still encouraging commitment and rewarding progress.
Most importantly, we want to reach more people, grow our impact, and help make V-March a new post-CNY tradition in China. It’s the perfect time for people to try a lighter diet, explore the benefits of plant-based living, and connect with a like-minded community. We hope to create a strong, supportive movement rooted in compassion, health, and sustainability.
Destroying peace. Illustration: Liu Rui/GT
