Category: China

  • US President Joe Biden speaks at the George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center on August 10, 2023 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Photo: AFP

    US President Joe Biden speaks at the George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center on August 10, 2023 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Photo: AFP

    At a political fundraising event in Park City, Utah on Thursday, US President Joe Biden said China was “in trouble” because of economic and population issues and slammed China’s economic situation as “a ticking time bomb” in many cases. He also said, “When bad folks have problems, they do bad things.” The remarks have been splashed across the American media. Bloomberg described the comments as “some of his most direct criticisms yet about the US’s top geopolitical and economic rival.”

    As well-known American writer Mark Twain revealed in his book Running for Governor, American elections are full of shameless tricks such as lies, fraud, smears and slander. As some activities related to the US general election are kicking off, multiple candidates are not offering good strategies in terms of national governance, but focusing a lot on attacking each other and attacking China.

    As the atmosphere in American society toward China has been severely poisoned by Washington, speaking harshly about China has become one of the cheapest ways for politicians to quickly attract attention, and Biden is no exception. We need to view Biden’s shocking remarks in this context, which are of the same nature as the more intense remarks on China by Republican candidates such as Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. Based on past experience, as the election campaign progresses, Washington’s bottom line will sink lower and lower, and more sensational claims are likely to come out. The unscrupulous smearing and attacking of China has made the US nastier and nastier.

    But it must be said that Biden is not only a candidate, but also the incumbent president of the US and the head of state of a superpower. It is highly inappropriate for him to make inflammatory statements that go against basic facts and do not match his identity. It is not difficult for us to understand that Biden’s purpose in saying these words is nothing more than to score points for his campaign, to show his tough stance toward China, and to boast about his ability to deal with “threats and challenges” from China.

    From Donald Trump to the current President Biden, the US presidents, like many politicians in Washington, keep talking tough about China. But what is interesting is that Trump and Biden, who are at odds with each other on many issues, have similar tones and arguments when it comes to China, and they talk more about what China is doing better than the US and in what aspects China is about to surpass the US, so as to stimulate the sense of crisis and urgency in the US to support the White House’s strategic competition against China.

    As a result, the sum of Biden’s remarks on China contain obvious contradictions. Washington just issued an “unprecedented” administrative order to curb and suppress the development momentum of China’s high-tech, then it turned around and insisted that “China is in trouble.” A stronger China is a threat in the eyes of the Americans, while a “weaker” China has become a “ticking time bomb.” What then should China do so the US can have a healthy mentality toward China? The reality is that China not only has to be blamed for the frustration of US’ development, but also bear the belittling when Washington boasts of its achievements, and finally has to be responsible for the mental disorder of the US.

    Unlike the US, China never threatens other countries with force, does not form military alliances, does not export ideology, does not go to other countries’ doorsteps to provoke troubles, does not infringe on other countries’ territories, does not initiate trade wars, and does not suppress the companies of other countries for no reason. China insists on putting the development of the country and the nation on the basis of its own strength. In the face of a turbulent and changing world, China has always stood in the right direction of historical progress and has always been a positive force for world peace and development. If there are “ticking time bombs,” they are planted by the US around the world.

    Some people summed up the seven laws of American diplomacy, one of which is, “If the US suspects that you have done something bad, the US must have done it itself.” This can explain the strange logic of the US that no matter if China is strong or weak, it is a threat. When the US became strong, it launched the Iraq War and the Afghan War; when it declined relatively, it began to engage in unilateralism and camp confrontation. The inner world of Washington’s politicians may be dirty, but they should not think that everyone else is like them.

  • (Photo Credit:  Lapaz Telesur)

    On June 27, 1986, the World Court condemned the United States for illegal war and aggression against Nicaragua and ordered the US to compensate Nicaragua for damages estimated to run to US$17 billion dollars, what today would be more than US$55 billion. On June 27 of this year, President Daniel Ortega demanded that the US fulfill its obligation. He stated:

    On June 27, 1986, the International Court of Justice condemned the US and directed it to compensate Nicaragua for all damages caused as a consequence of military activities against Nicaragua. In a situation of armed aggression such as that carried out by the US, no amount of reparations – neither economic nor moral – could compensate for the devastation of the country, the loss of human lives and the physical and psychological wounds of the Nicaraguan people. The Court decided that the United States had a legal obligation to make economic reparations to Nicaragua for all the damages caused.

    The President continued:

    The compensation due to Nicaragua remains unpaid… Instead of receiving compensation as is morally and legally due, Nicaragua continues to be the object of a new form of aggression, which consists of sanctions and an attempted coup d’état.

    In finishing, Ortega said that:

    Nicaragua takes this opportunity to recall that the judgments of the ICJ are final and of obligatory compliance, and therefore the United States has the obligation to comply with the reparations ordered by the ruling of June 27, 1986.

    In June the Sao Paulo Forum approved a resolution in support of Nicaragua’s demand for compliance with the 1986 ruling of the World Court. The Sao Paulo Forum is the premier forum of revolutionary organizations, movements and parties of Latin America and the Caribbean. The Sao Paulo Forum declared itself in support of Nicaragua’s demand that the US comply with the ICJ sentence, and compensate Nicaragua to the full extent of that historic ruling.

    The Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Azerbaijan in June issued a joint declaration in which the member countries expressed their support for Nicaragua’s request for US compliance and compensation for damages in accordance with the ruling. The statement highlights that “the persistent refusal of the United States to comply with the Judgment of the International Court of Justice issued 37 years ago, is a flagrant violation of international law and of the ruling of the highest court of justice in the world.”

    Nicaragua showed it will not bend to US coup attempts and destabilization when it tried and convicted Nicaraguan agents who participated in violent actions in an attempt to overthrow the government in 2018. Then on February 9, 2023, Nicaragua decided to deport 222 prisoners convicted of treason and other crimes to the US. “In accordance with the Law for the Defense of the Rights of the People, Independence, Sovereignty and Self-Determination … the immediate and effective deportation of 222 persons is ordered…The deportees were declared traitors and punished for different serious crimes (that would be serious crimes in any nation) and their citizenship rights are perpetually suspended.” [Note: The new law under which Nicaraguans can lose their citizenship because of treasonous acts is very similar to US Code 1481 under which a person can lose US citizenship by “committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, … by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.]

    In another example of demanding respect for sovereignty, Nicaragua suspended the placet it had granted to Fernando Ponz as European Union ambassador. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Denis Moncada Colindres said in a statement:

    In view of the interfering and insolent communiqué of this day, which confirms the imperialist and colonialist positions of the European Union, this April 18, on the eve of the National Day of Peace, the sovereign and dignified government of the Republic of Nicaragua … has decided to suspend the placet that had been granted to Mr. Fernando Ponz as ambassador of that subjugating power. We reiterate to the neocolonialist gentlemen and women of the European Union our condemnation of all their historic genocide and we demand justice and reparation for these crimes against humanity and for their virulent, greedy and rapacious plundering of our wealth and cultures. In these circumstances and in the face of the permanent siege on the rights of our people to national sovereignty, we will not receive their representative.

    On January 24, at the VII Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (CELAC) held in Argentina, Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Denis Moncada rejected foreign intervention in any form, including aggressions, invasions, interferences, blockades, economic wars, offenses, threats, humiliations, occupations as well as sanctions, which are nothing more than “aggressions, all illegal, arbitrary and unilateral.” His message also called on the CELAC countries to resist and reject everything that endangers the future, “the luminous horizon of our peoples, where we do not allow any more plundering of our natural and cultural resources, and where the genocide imposed on us for centuries by the colonialist powers is not only denounced, but [our resistance] becomes … songs that demand peace.” He went on to say, “The world urgently needs justice and peace…respectful cooperation and solidarity. The world needs understanding, comprehension and affection. The better world that we all want to create urgently needs … the ability to live together”….

    Strategies for Development Despite Sanctions

    In 2018, the same year of the coup attempt, the US passed a first round of sanctions called the Nica Act. Then, under President Joe Biden, more sanctions were passed called “RENACER.” Currently, Senators Marco Rubio and Tim Kaine have introduced a new bill to reauthorize and amend the previous sanctions making them even harsher.

    All of these sanctions are illegal coercive measures and the US applies them not because Nicaragua has done something wrong, but exactly because Nicaragua is using the riches it produces for the social welfare of its people and not acting as a US colony. Sanctions tend to primarily affect economic growth and studies show they have the biggest effect on the poor and vulnerable.

    Nicaragua has developed three essential areas that make it resilient even in the face of this form of war: Nicaragua produces about 90% of the food that people eat; Nicaragua has increased renewable energy from 20% to 70% so every year it is less dependent on petroleum imports; and it has developed excellent infrastructure in health, education, roads and bridges, energy, water and sewage. And because of more benefits like free universal health and education, more affordable housing possibilities as well as more opportunities for youth and women, a very high percentage of the population approves of the government – currently nearly 83%.

    And Nicaragua is developing new relationships of respect with many other countries: In the first six months of 2023 Nicaragua received high level visits from China, Russia and Iran.

    The Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergei Lavrov, visited Nicaragua on April 19 and said that together with Nicaragua they will continue to work hand in hand against interference and intervention. “Thanks to the efforts of Daniel Ortega, the country remains stable,” he said. “I would like to wish all Nicaraguans peace, prosperity and stability; I am convinced that the bilateral relations between Russia and Nicaragua will facilitate this process.” Multipolarity is a process that cannot be stopped, but Westerners under the auspices of the US try to spread their hegemony in conflicts such as the one in Ukraine and will try to increase their influence in the region looking towards the Pacific, among others,” he said. Russia has helped Nicaragua develop vaccine production such as the influenza vaccine now produced locally.

    Cooperation with China began in December 2021 when Nicaragua recognized that there is only one China. Recently, on July 11 of this year, Nicaragua and China signed three agreements: China will donate 1,481 metric tons of wheat, 2,595 metric tons of urea, and 500 buses to Nicaragua. President Ortega thanked the President of China, Xi Jinping, for this cooperation that is provided in solidarity and unconditionally through the China International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA) for the benefit of Nicaraguan families. Lou Zhaohui, the President of CIDCA, said China will continue to support the efforts of Nicaragua to meet its goals of poverty reduction and human development. And as of May, Nicaragua can export seafood, beef, and textiles to China free of tariffs.

    On February 1, 2023, Nicaragua hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Dr. Hossein Amir-Abdollahián. Then, on June 13 and 14, Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi visited Nicaragua to deepen relations and begin cooperation in the areas of science and technology. Raisi said that the United States wanted to paralyze its people through threats and sanctions; however, Iran was not paralyzed in its path and has turned threats and sanctions into opportunities and through those opportunities it has achieved great progress in many areas. “Although the enemy wants to discourage the revolutionary peoples, the peoples have to know that the new world order is being formed in favor of the resistance of the people and against imperialist interests,” Raisi stated.

    President Daniel Ortega Emphasizes the Importance of Peace

     This year, April 19 was declared the National Day of Peace. On this day in 2018, at the beginning of the attempted coup, the first three people were killed by US-backed agents, including a policeman, a young Sandinista and a passer-by.

    In his speech on April 19 President Ortega said:

    I want to remind all Nicaraguans to think for a moment what Nicaragua was like five years ago. Could you walk on these streets; could you live in peace in your homes? Everyone was terrified. And the deaths every day; those who were killed were blamed on the government, on the police, and the police were in their barracks, which was the decision we had taken.

    President Ortega frequently emphasizes the importance of peace and how essential peace is to end poverty and for the development of all sectors of the country. On the 40th anniversary of the revolution in 2019, the president asked “What is the way to be able to work, study, receive health care, build schools, roads, show solidarity to get our Nicaraguan brothers and sisters who are still in these conditions out of poverty and extreme poverty? What is the fundamental condition?” Everyone answered with one voice that it is peace. He affirmed that a community needs peace to work and to live.

    Residents of Leon march for peace carrying the blue and white flags of Nicaragua and the red and black flags of the FSLN. (Photo Credit:  Nicaraguan photographer, Jairo Cajina)

    On January 9 of this year, at the swearing in the of National Assembly, President Ortega pointed out that:

    No matter how well-intentioned a government may be, if there is no peace, social programs cannot go forward. Without peace, schools, roads, hospitals simply cannot be built. We already know how terrible war is, the war that Nicaragua has lived through, the attempted coups that Nicaragua has lived through, how much blood, how much pain caused by terrorists, how much damage to the economy. But in the midst of the coup d’état, we were still inaugurating infrastructure and, after security and peace were restored for all Nicaraguans, then came this new push, because the country had been acting with enormous strength from 2007 until the coup attempt.

    Nicaragua does all it can to have peace, independence and sovereignty in order to advance well-being for its population. Nicaragua is a revolution that works!

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • haofood dumplings
    3 Mins Read

    Shanghai food tech brand Haofood, known for its plant-based chicken made from peanuts, has launched soup dumplings filled with peanut-based pork mince. The first plant-based meat brand to use peanut protein as the base ingredient, this marks the company’s second type of vegan meat.

    Xiaolongbaos (or soup dumplings) traditionally contain a minced pork filling, but Haofood’s vegan version swaps them for a peanut-based alternative that mimics the original’s taste and texture. The soup itself is a black truffle flavour, and the dumplings are packed with protein and dietary fibre, and free of trans fats.

    Launched in 2020, Haofood co-founder Astrid Prajogo exhibited the peanut mince dumplings at the Berlin headquarters of ProVeg Incubator – the brand had participated in the 12-week accelerator programme in 2020. The new product comes on the heels of a report that puts China at the top of the list of countries with the greatest market potential for alt-meat.

    peanut meat
    Haofood co-founder Astrid Prajogo exhibited the new peanut-based pork dumplings in Berlin | Courtesy: Haofood/LinkedIn

    Haofood’s peanut-powered journey

    “We started with the aspiration of helping foodies reduce their meat consumption without losing the pleasure of eating the familiar dishes that they love,” Prajogo told ProVeg in 2020. “That’s why we are developing a plant-based chicken that is specifically designed to be cooked as Asian fried chicken.”

    Now, the brand has three products in its portfolio: vegan pulled chicken in naked, black pepper and Xinjiang-spiced flavours; crispy chicken patties in original and spicy variants; and a plant-based chicken chop.

    In 2021, Haofood partnered with five Shanghai restaurants to add its peanut-based chicken to their menu offerings, like mini-burgers, wraps and bowls. It also struck a distribution deal with Chinese convenience store giant Lawson last year to stock its plant-based chicken in 2,300 retail stores nationwide. This came a month after it announced a $3.5M seed funding round, which included the likes of ProVeg, Monde Nissin CEO Henry Soesanto, and Big Idea Ventures, among others.

    Plant-based dumplings on the rise

    vegan dumplings
    Courtesy: OmniPork

    Haofood’s latest offering joins a host of other companies in the budding vegan dumpling category in Asia. While its xiaolongbaos are the first of their kind to launch to market, brands like OmniPork and Plant Sifu (both Hong Kong-based brands) have debuted various ready-to-eat dumpling ranges in recent years in retail and in foodservice. Omni famously partnered with Wanchai Ferry, Hong Kong’s dumpling-famous frozen meal brand, on two OmniPork-filled SKUs in 2020.

    Plant Sifu, meanwhile, uses a proprietary fat technology to create a juicy and fragrant pork alternative ideal for dumpling fillings. The brand claims its product is cholesterol- and MSG-free, and contains less salt and fewer calories than conventional pork.

    Vegan dumplings are equally popular around the world including the US: seaweed startup Triton Algae Foods has teamed up with Too Good to Be Foods to launch vegan pork dumplings and San Francisco brand Sobo Foods has soft-launched its plant-based dumplings at select retailers in the Bay area.

    The post Peanut Meat Brand Haofood Unveils Vegan Pork Mince Soup Dumplings first appeared on Green Queen.

    The post Peanut Meat Brand Haofood Unveils Vegan Pork Mince Soup Dumplings appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • By Grace Auka Salmang in Port Moresby

    It isn’t every day that a doctor will follow up with a patient and check how he or she is doing all the way to their very doorstep in Papua New Guinea.

    For one family from Eboa village in Mekeo LLG, Kairuku in Central Province, their weekend was filled with a pleasant surprise as a team of doctors paid a visit to their little warrior named Taylor.

    Three-month-old baby boy Taylor is a miracle, said Dr Liu Zhenqui, who is deputy captain of the 12th China Medical Team and also an associate professor of paediatrics at the Port Moresby General Hospital (PMGH).

    Little Taylor’s story is one filled with love of a mother, support of a family, and little Taylor’s determination and resilience to live. Taylor was born with a severe respiratory failure which posed a significant threat to his life.

    “We learned from the video that just a few months ago newborn Taylor faced a severe respiratory failure, posing a significant threat to his life,” Dr Liu said.

    “However, through the combined efforts of the China Medical Team and the SCN at PMGH, we employed cutting-edge techniques called ventilation and advanced medical care to save Taylor’s precious life.

    “Taylor’s journey to recovery can only be described as a miracle.

    “From the day he came under our care, we knew that every second was crucial.

    “Our dedicated healthcare professionals worked tirelessly day and night, leaving no effort spared to provide Taylor with the best possible care,” he added.

    Dr Liu said that the “love and dedication poured into his treatment” not only saved his life but also strengthened the bond between the medical team and the local community”.

    It was also an honour to have Sister Kuman, the head nurse of Special Care Nursery at PMGH, with the team, he said.

    Since they had missed out on how Taylor’s life began at the hospital, his relatives all gathered around a laptop to watch the video and were deeply moved and amazed by his determination and resilience.

    “Today, witnessing Taylor’s radiant smile and remarkable progress fills our hearts with immense joy, serving as compelling evidence of the boundless potential in every newborn.

    “He stands as a living example, proving that with the right medical care, love, and support, even the tiniest of lives can overcome challenges and flourish,” Dr Liu said.

    In fact, Dr Liu was a retained member of the China Medical Team — he had been due to return to China in July last year.

    However, he made the decision to stay because of witnessing a mother’s sorrow.

    “One day in early last year, a full-term baby was diagnosed with asphyxia and meconium aspiration syndrome, precisely the same diagnosis as Taylor.

    “Unfortunately, due to severe respiratory failure, the child passed away.

    “The mother, overwhelmed with grief, fainted upon seeing her baby’s lifeless body.

    “From that moment on, ‘I made a silent vow in my heart to do something to change this situation,’” Dr Liu said.

    Grace Auka Salmang is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

  • This week’s News on China.

    • Argentina will pay the IMF in yuans
    • Yuan overtakes the dollar in China’s bilateral trade
    • Floods in the north of the country
    • Cunchao, the rural soccer phenomenon

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Sixty-eight organisations sign letter amid fears Lu Siwei could be deported at request of Chinese authorities

    Sixty-eight human rights groups have signed an open letter calling on the Laos government to release Lu Siwei, a Chinese former human rights lawyer detained by Laotian police near Vientiane last week.

    Lu was seized by police on Friday as he attempted to board a train from Laos to Thailand, where he planned to catch a flight to the US to join his wife and daughter. Nearly one week later, he appears to still be held in Laotian immigration detention, despite reportedly being told that he would be deported to China.

    Continue reading…

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

  • ANALYSIS: By Ravindra Singh Prasad

    In a historic first visit to an independent Pacific state by a sitting French president, President Emmanuel Macron has denounced a “new imperialism” in the region during a stop in Vanuatu, warning of a threat to the sovereignty of smaller states.

    But, earlier, during a two-day stop in France’s colonial outpost, Kanaky New Caledonia, he refused to entertain demands by indigenous Kanak leaders to hold a new referendum on independence.

    “There is in the Indo-Pacific and particularly in Oceania a new imperialism appearing, and a power logic that is threatening the sovereignty of several states — the smallest, often the most fragile,” he said in a speech in the Vanuatu capital Port Vila on July 27.

    “Our Indo-Pacific strategy is above all to defend through partnerships the independence and sovereignty of all states in the region that are ready to work with us,” he added, conveniently ignoring the fact that France still has “colonies” in the Pacific (Oceania) that they refuse to let go.

    Some 1.6 million French citizens live across seven overseas territories (colonies), including New Caledonia, French Polynesia (Tahiti), and the smaller Pacific atolls of Wallis and Futuna.

    This gives them an exclusive economic zone spanning nine million sq km.

    Macron uses this fact to claim that France is part of the region even though his country is more than 16,000 km from New Caledonia and Tahiti.

    An ‘alternative’ offer
    As the US and its allies seek to counter China’s growing influence in the region, France offered an “alternative”, claiming they have plans for expanded aid and development to confront natural catastrophes.

    The French annexed New Caledonia in 1853, reserving the territory initially as a penal colony.

    Indigenous Kanaks have lived in the islands for more than 3000 years, and the French uprooted them from the land and used them as forced labour in new French plantations and construction sites.

    Tahiti’s islands were occupied by migrating Polynesians around 500 BC, and in 1832 the French took over the islands. In 1946 it became an overseas territory of the French Republic.

    China is gaining influence in the region with its development aid packages designed to address climate change, empowerment of grassroots communities, and promotion of trade, especially in the fisheries sector, under Chinese President Xi Jinping’s new Global Development Initiative.

    After neglecting the region for decades, the West has begun to woo the Pacific countries lately, especially after they were alarmed by a defence cooperation deal signed between China and Solomon Islands in April 2022, which the West suspect is a first step towards Beijing establishing a naval base in the Pacific.

    In December 2020, there was a similar alarm, especially in Australia, when China offered a $200 million deal to Papua New Guinea to establish a fisheries harbour and a processing factory to supply fisheries products to China’s seafood market, which is the world’s largest.

    Hysterical reactions in Australia
    It created hysterical reactions in the Australian media and political circles in Canberra, claiming China was planning to build a naval base 200 km from Australia’s shores.

    A stream of Western leaders has visited the region since then while publicly claiming to help the small island nations in their development needs, but at the same time, arm-twisting local leaders to sign defence deals for their navies, in particular to gain access to Pacific harbours and military facilities.

    While President Macron was on a five-day visit to New Caledonia, Vanuatu and PNG, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin were in Tonga and PNG, respectively, negotiating secret military deals.

    At the same time, Macron made the comments of a new imperialism in the Pacific.

    Defence Secretary Austin was at pains to explain to sceptical journalists in PNG that the US was not seeking a permanent base in the Pacific Islands nation. It has been reported in the PNG media that the US was seeking access to PNG military bases under the pretext of training PNG forces for humanitarian operations in the Pacific.

    Papua New Guinea and the US signed a defence cooperation agreement in May that sets a framework for the US to refurbish PNG ports and airports for military and civilian use. The text of the agreement shows that it allows the staging of US forces and equipment in PNG and covers the Lombrum Naval Base, which Australia and US are developing.

    There have been protests over this deal in PNG, and the opposition has threatened to challenge some provisions of it legally.

    China’s ‘problematic behavior’
    Blinken, who was making the first visit to Tonga by a US Secretary of State, was there to open a new US embassy in the capital Nuku’alofa on July 26. At the event, he spoke about China’s “problematic behavior” in the Pacific and warned about “predatory economic activities and also investments” from China, which he claimed was undermining “good governance and promote corruption”.

    Tonga is believed to be heavily indebted to China, but Tongan Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni later said at a press conference that Tonga had started to pay down its debt this year and had no concerns about its relationship with China.

    Pacific leaders have repeatedly emphasised that they would welcome assistance from richer countries to confront the impact of climatic change in the region, but they do not want the region to be militarised and get embroiled in a geopolitical battle between the US and China.

    This was stated bluntly by Fiji’s Defence Minister at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last year. Other Pacific leaders have repeated this at various forums since then.

    Though the Western media reports about these visits to the Pacific by Western leaders as attempts to protect a “rules-based order” in the region, many in the Pacific media are sceptical about this argument.

    Fiji-based Island Business news magazine, in a report from the New Caledonian capital Noumea, pointed out how Macron ignored Kanaks’ demands for independence instead of promoting a new deal.

    President Macron has said in Noumea that “New Caledonia is French because it has chosen to remain French” after three referendums on self-determination there. In a lengthy speech, he has spoken of building a new political status in New Caledonia through a “path of apology and a path of the future”.

    Macron’s pledges ring hollow
    As IB reported, Macron’s pledges of repentance and partnership rang hollow for many indigenous Kanak and other independence supporters.

    In central Noumea, trade unionists and independence supporters rallied, flying the flag of Kanaky and displaying banners criticising the president’s visit, and as IB noted, the speech was “a clear determination to push through reforms that will advantage France’s colonial power in the Pacific”.

    Predominantly French, conservative New Caledonian citizens have called for the electoral register to be opened to some 40,000 French citizens who are resident there, and Macron has promised to consider that at a meeting of stakeholders in Paris in September.

    Kanaky leaders fiercely oppose it, and they boycotted the third referendum on independence in December 2022, where the “No” vote won on a “landslide” which Macron claims is a verdict in favour of French rule there.

    Kanaks boycotted the referendum (which they were favoured to win) because the French government refused to accept a one-year mourning period for covid-19 deaths among the Kanaks.

    Kanaky independence movement workers’ union USTKE’s president Andre Forest told IB: “The electorate must remain as is because it affects citizens of this country. It’s this very notion of citizenship that we want to retain.”

    Independence activists and negotiator Victor Tutugoro said: “I’m one of many people who were chased from our home. The collective memory of this loss continues to affect how people react, and this profoundly underlies their rejection of changes to the electorate.”

    ‘Prickly contentious issues’
    In an editorial on the eve of Macron’s visit to Papua New Guinea, the PNG Post-Courier newspaper sarcastically asked why “the serene beauty of our part of the globe is coming under intense scrutiny, and everyone wants a piece of Pasifica in their GPS system?”

    “Macron is not coming to sip French wine on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific,” noted the Post-Courier. “France still has colonies in the Pacific which have been prickly contentious issues at the UN, especially on decolonisation of Tahiti and New Caledonia.

    “France also used the Pacific for its nuclear testing until the 90s, most prominently at Moruroa, which had angered many Pacific Island nations.”

    Noting that the Chinese are subtle and making the Western allies have itchy feet, the Post-Courier argued that these visits were taking the geopolitics of the Pacific to the next level.

    “Sooner or later, PNG can expect Air Force One to be hovering around PNG skies,” it said.

    China’s Global Times, referring to President Macron’s “new colonialism” comments, said it was “improper and ridiculous” to put China in the same seat as the “hegemonic US”.

    “Macron wants to convince regional countries that France is not an outsider but part of the region, as France has overseas territories there,” Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies told Global Times.

    “But the validity of France’s status in the region is, in fact, thin, as its territories there were obtained through colonialism, which is difficult for Macron to rationalise.”

    “This is why he avoids talking about it further and turns to another method of attacking other countries to help France build a positive image in the region.”

    Meanwhile, during his visit to the 7th Melanesia Arts and Cultural Festival in Port Vila, four chiefs from the disputed islands of Matthew and Hunter, about 190 km from New Caledonia, handed over to the French President what they called a “peaceful demand” for independence. IDN-InDepthNews

    Ravindra Singh Prasad is a correspondent of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate. This article is republished with permission.

  • Introduction

    Western media never stop warning us of China: it menaces Taiwan, threatens its neighbors and shipping lanes in the South China Sea, and sticks military bases on Cuba. China, we are told, spies on us by the most devious means, through TikTok, Huawei 5G, and weather balloons. And China, say our media, ensnares Africa with debt traps. Meanwhile, the US government and its media-echo decry China’s abuses of its own people. China, the US says, has committed “cultural” and literal genocide against Uyghur muslims in Xinjiang. As for the Covid-19 pandemic, the West with whiplash-inducing self-contradiction accuses China of mishandling the crisis by imposing both draconian lockdowns and lockdowns that were too lax, as well as premature reopenings and reopenings that were too-long delayed.

    Meanwhile, the liberal and left-liberal West shakes its ideological finger at China, declaring it to practice an idiosyncratic communism-capitalism that sometimes features the worst of both worlds.

    In the western imagination, China’s citizens are feared for their abject discipline and uncanny competence. Yet the West pities them too, thinking they are ruled by communist overlords in a dictatorship devoid of individual liberties.

    In short, to the western world, China is an iconic picture of tyranny, malevolence, and exploitation. Still, China is not unique in its status as a US bogeyman. Whenever the West targets a country militarily or economically, the press always turns the country into a cartoon, invariably the same cartoon: authoritarian, autocratic, led by an evil/mad dictator; e.g., Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, etc.

    Which is why we should be grateful for the picture of China drawn in this elegantly concise and easily read book, The East Is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century, by Carlos Martinez (Praxis Press, 2023, 210 pp.). Of its 210 pages, nearly 60 are taken up with source citations, a 5-page index, reading recommendations, and photographs.

    Despite its brevity, the book expertly refutes the West’s blizzard of charges against China. It also sketches China’s 20th century history, its economics and political system, and the ideology that accompanied the Chinese people’s astonishing advance. Martinez analyzes and answers two questions preoccupying many on the political left: Is China socialist? Is it imperialist? (Martinez argues Yes, and No, respectively.)

    Life in China Today

    First, some bullet points on life in China today, with facts gleaned from the book. (Citations are to the print edition.)

    • Life expectancy in China is now 78.2 years and literacy is 97%. For comparison, in the US the figures are 76.4 and 79, respectively. (95)

    • Infant mortality is 5.4/1000 in 2020, just under the US figure of 5.69/1000. (95)

    • The majority of students in higher education are women, while before the 1949 revolution the vast majority of women received no education at all. (31)

    • Since 2000 China has revived universal health insurance, a minimum 9-year free compulsory education, pensions, subsidized housing, and other income support. (67-68)

    • 98% of poor villages have optical fiber communications and 4G technology. (99)

    • Extreme or “absolute” poverty has been eliminated. (31) This meant lifting over 800 million people (now 10% of humanity) out of poverty in the last 40 years. 1 (89) However, to say that China has eliminated “absolute poverty” but not “poverty” is technically true but vastly understates the accomplishment. China’s poverty elimination program considers that each and every citizen must have adequate food and clothing, access to medical services, safe housing with drinking water and electricity, and at least nine years of free education. To do this, “Three million carefully selected cadres were dispatched to poor villages, forming 255,000 teams that reside there. Living in humble conditions for generally one to three years at a time, the teams worked alongside poor peasants, local officials, and volunteers, until each household was lifted out of poverty.” 2 (97)

    • China’s response to public health emergencies was very recently tested. After Covid-19 emerged in Wuhan, China identified and suppressed the virus, sequenced and published the genome, and reopened after a few months. This rapid response was unprecedented, as noted by the World Health Organization and many other authoritative bodies. China literally saved millions of lives through its public health administrative virtuosity, while the West, on the other hand, sacrificed millions. (At the time, this reviewer wrote about China’s initial response to COVID-19, here.) (113)

    • China’s per capita incarceration rate is less than 20% that of the US. (122)

    • 93% of China’s population are satisfied with their central government, according to a study by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. (54)

    To see how impressive this all is, consider that by global standards China is anything but a rich country. According to the World Bank, in 2022 China’s nominal GDP per capita was about one-sixth of that of the US, but its purchase-price-parity GDP per capita is now comparable to that of the US. 3 This is consistent with China’s status as a peripheral or semi-peripheral country in the global system, 4 sending most of the surplus value it produces to the global north. 5 But it also tells us that China has created a domestic market that provides a much higher national standard of living than that in many other peripheral and semi-peripheral countries.

    History

    Martinez’s summary of China’s recent history explains that the current quality of life and popular sovereignty in China are rooted in the first half of the 20th century.

    In 1949, year of the revolution, China was among the poorest countries in the world. The US under President Truman then imposed a near total blockade on China. (94) This crushing, existential impediment to China’s development, eventually forced it into the 1979-1980 US-China agreements with the US under President Nixon. China then devised the economic strategy that it now calls “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

    But China’s progress did not begin with the US-China deal and the economic changes of the late 1970s-80s known as “Reform and Opening Up.” From the revolution in 1949 until the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, life expectancy in China rose 31 years, the fastest ever recorded in a major country. In the same period, literacy went from 20% to 93%. (17) China’s unprecedented triumph over poverty simply continued the practice that began before the 1949 revolution, in the Communist-liberated zones, beginning with the Jianxi-Fujian Soviet in 1931. (90) After the 1949 revolution, life expectancy rose from 36 to 67 in the three decades that followed, well-exceeding the global increase. (91-92) Even the World Bank praised China’s successful development over the four decades before 1983. (90)

    Development Strategy

    China’s economic changes of the later 20th century were not just a development strategy, but a strategy of coping with the existential threat presented by the West. China intended to integrate itself into the global production chain so thoroughly that it would make the cost of Western aggression against it too high. (36-37, 47)

    China’s economic system now depends on its popular government’s control of the commanding heights of the economy, including banking and all the leading industries, avoiding the scourge of privatization that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the devastation of its people in the 1990s. In China, even land ownership has not been privatized in the western sense.

    Notice that this development strategy abjured the development strategy of the Western bloc, which depends, in the first instance, on centuries of colonialism, imperialism, plunder, and in the second, on the continuing imposition on the Global South of dependent underdevelopment, unequal exchange, violence, coups, sanctions and other malign practices required to enforce the unequal international order.

    Global Leadership in Tech, Science, Climate Mitigation

    China’s success is not just in its internal development, but in its global leadership. When the US trumpets its own “global leadership,” it looks nothing like what most of us would like the phrase to mean. China, on the other hand, really does lead, not only in world poverty reduction but in technology, scientific research, and climate mitigation efforts.

    Some more bullet points, with facts gleaned from the book.

    • China leads the world in renewable energy, digital networking, quantum computing, space exploration and nanotechnology. (xv)

    • China leads the world in scientific research publication and patent grants. (xv)

    • In 2007 over 80% of China’s electricity came from coal. By 2022, this dropped to 56%, about the same as Australia, a country with a per capita GDP (nominal) about five times China’s. (139)

    • In 2021, China accounted for 46% of the world’s new solar and wind power capacity. (140)

    • International energy analyst Tim Buckley observed that China is the world leader in “wind and solar installation, in wind and solar manufacturing, in electric vehicle production, in batteries, in hydro, in nuclear, in ground heat pumps, in grid transmission and distribution, and in green hydrogen… they literally lead the world in every zero-emissions technology today.” (140)

    • China is reforesting, planting forests the size of Ireland in a single year, and doubling forest coverage from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 2020, while the global trend is in the opposite direction. (144-145)

    • China also is leading in green foreign direct investment through the Belt and Road Initiative, in Pakistan, Argentina, Zambia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Central African Republic. (149-150)

    Imperialism? Debt Traps? ‘Belt and Road’ Bad?

    The book offers a detailed analysis of the charge that China is imperialist. For example, as theorized by Lenin, one central imperial criterion is the export of capital. Martinez writes that in the past, “China’s ‘export of capital’ was limited largely to foreign aid projects in Africa, most famously the Tazara Railway linking Tanzania and Zambia, which aside from enabling regional development, broke Zambia’s dependency on apartheid-ruled territories (Rhodesia [now Zimbabwe], South Africa, Mozambique).”

    Nor could China be considered imperialist in the 1980s and 1990s: “[R]ather, it was the recipient of enormous volumes of foreign capital, from Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the US and Europe… China opened itself up to exploitation by the imperialist powers so as to develop technological capacity and insert itself into global value chains.” (36-37)

    The charge of imperialism overlaps the charge that China ensnares African states in “debt traps.” This is ironic, given that the charge is made by Africa’s historical trapper-in-chief, the West. 6

    Martinez dispenses with this claim too. He describes the economic relations between Africa and China and how little they resemble imperialist relations.

    [T]he structure of the Chinese economy is such that it doesn’t impel the domination of foreign markets, territories, resources and labor in the same way as free market capitalism does. The major banks—which obviously wield a decisive influence over how capital is deployed—are majority-owned by the state, responsible primarily not to shareholders but to the Chinese people,” as are “the key industries,” which are “subjected to heavy regulation by a state that does not have private profit maximization as its primary objective. (38)

    Greek economist and politician Yanis Varoufakis notes, “the Chinese are non-interventionist in a way that Westerners have never managed to fathom… they went to Addis Ababa and said to the government, ‘we can see you have some problems with your infrastructure, we would like to build some new airports, upgrade your railway system, create a telephone system, and rebuild your roads.’” (42)

    China is now Africa’s largest trading partner: $254 billion in 2021. Compare US-Africa trade, at $64 billion. In addition to trade, China “provides vast low-cost loans for infrastructure projects, with Chinese banks now accounting for around a fifth of all lending to Africa.” Due in part to Chinese finance and expertise, ‘Ethiopia in 2015 celebrated the opening of the first metro train system in sub-Saharan Africa, along with Africa’s first fully electrified cross-border railway line, the Ethiopian-Djibouti electric railway. The African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa was funded by the Chinese government as a gift to the AU.’” China is also building Zimbabwe’s parliament building gratis, and funding construction of Africa’s CDC, just opened in January 2023. (40)

    China makes loans differently too. At the time of the book’s writing, the average interest rate on private sector loans was about 5%, but Chinese public and private lenders charged half that. Austerity is never a condition of a Chinese loan, unlike Western loans that are made under IMF and World Bank strictures. (41)

    China’s policy on foreign investment and loans is not an accident. China follows explicit rules for African investment, as outlined by President Xi in 2018: “No interference in African countries’ internal affairs; no imposition of our will on African countries; no attachment of political strings to assistance to Africa; and no seeking of selfish political gains in investment and financing cooperation with Africa.” (43-44)

    China initiated its famous “Belt and Road Initiative (BRI),” a global infrastructure development strategy, ten years ago. As of last year, 150 countries (the United Nations General Assembly has 193) have signed up with BRI. “Politically, the project fits into China’s longstanding approach of using economic integration to increase the cost (and thereby reduce the likelihood) of confrontation.” (47) “Nearly every country in the Global South has signed up” with BRI, “including 43 out of 46 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.” (48)

    Martinez quips, “Surely not all the turkeys are voting for Christmas?” (48)

    Xinjiang

    Perhaps the most vicious tale the West tells about China concerns Xinjiang and its Uyghur population. The US government and its media echo, joined by other western governments, accuse China of physical, cultural and religious genocide of Uyghurs, imprisoning a million of them, and subjecting them to forced labor.

    Martinez debunks the Xinjiang myth point by point. But for this review, lets skip the details of China’s policy and practices in Xinjiang (largely a social work approach to terrorism). Let’s also forget the singular and bizarre source of the Xinjiang tales, one Adrian Zenz, exposed by a number of articles from The Grayzone. (120-122) Even without all that, the fraud is revealed by circumstantial evidence alone, as these bullet points show.

    • Between 2010 and 2018 the Uyghur population has increased by 25%, from 10.2 million to 12.7 million; in the same period the majority Han Chinese population increased by only 2%. (117)

    • China’s one-child policy implemented in 1978 and ending in 2015 exempted China’s dozens of ethnic minorities, including Uyghurs. (117)

    • Life expectancy in the region has increased from 30 years in 1949 to 75 years today. (117)

    • No refugee crisis exists or has been reported along the border with Pakistan, Kazakhstan or elsewhere. Indeed, Time magazine reported in 2021 the US had not admitted a single Uyghur refugee in the previous 12 months. (117)

    • The total number of deaths caused by Covid-19 in Xinjiang is three. (118)

    • All the schools in Xinjiang teach in both Standard Chinese and one minority language, most often Uyghur. (118)

    • Chinese banknotes have five languages: Chinese, Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongolian, and Zhuang. (118-9)

    • There are over 25,000 mosques in Xinjiang, three times the number there were in 1980 and one of the highest rates per capita in the world. (119)

    • The Xinjiang Islamic Institute is headquartered in Xinjiang’s capital Urumqi. Thousands of students attend Islamic schools and the religion is practiced freely. (119)

    • “During the 50th session of the Human Rights Council in 2022, members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation overwhelmingly co-sponsored the statement supporting China’s position (by 37 to 1).” Elsewhere in the Global South results were similar: Africa (33 to 2); Asia (20 to 2). (119)

    In short, the Xinjiang story perpetrated by the West exemplifies the “big lie,” as theorized by an astute Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf:

    [I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

    Speaking of Hitler, an iconic offense in modern thought and discourse is the factual denial of the Nazi Holocaust. We might register the same disgust for the factual denial of any historically established mass genocidal event (e.g., in Guatemala). Is there any reason not to treat the wilful fabrication of a non-existent genocide with the same revulsion?

    The South China Sea

    The West accuses China of trying to militarize the South China Sea, including through island-building.

    Martinez cites China scholar Jude Woodward: “Woodward observed that China’s island-building was carried out largely in response to the actions taken by other states in the region: ‘In its actions on these disputed islands, China can with justice argue that it has done no more than others… It [is] rarely mentioned that Taiwan has long had an airstrip on Taiping, Malaysia on Swallow Reef, Vietnam on Spratly Island and the Phillipines on Thitu.’” (50)

    Moreover, China’s presence in the South China Sea is for economic and military securtity. It is China’s major shipping route, “as central to Asia as the Mediterranean is to Europe,” writes Robert Kaplan. (50) A blockade by the US or other hostile powers would present an existential threat. (50) This is not an imaginary threat, given US naval provocations and exercises in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, and US military and diplomatic relations with China’s separately-governed province of Taiwan. Indeed, it is the US which has sought to militarize and control the region.

    Conclusion: The US Menace

    The book’s last chapter urges us to work to oppose the West’s new Cold War on China. This war is multifaceted, including the 2012 US “pivot to Asia,” the banning of TikTok and WeChat, the kidnapping of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, the long-standing US encirclement of China and Russia with perhaps half of its 800 to 1100 overseas military bases, and US military aggression in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.  (167)

    US policy is explicit: “Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival…that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union… Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor.” (US Defense Planning Guidance for 1994-1999)  (169)

    Again citing China expert Jude Woodward, author of The US vs China: Asia’s new Cold War? (Manchester University Press, 2017), Martinez observes that current US policy toward China shows “a chilling resemblance” to US-USSR relations at the height of the Cold War, when the US sought to isolate the USSR economically, politically, and militarily. (170) Quoting Woodward, “The USSR was variously surrounded by a tightening iron noose of US military alliances, forward bases, border interventions, cruise missiles and naval exercises. Economically it was shut out of international trade organizations, subjected to bans and boycotts and excluded from collaboration on scientific and technological developments. It was diplomatically isolated, excluded from the G7 group of major economies and awarded an international pariah status. It was designated as uniquely undemocratic. Any opponents of this ‘Cold War’ and accompanying nuclear arms race were stigmatized as disloyal apologists, closet ‘reds’ or spies and subjected to McCarthyite witch-hunts.” (170)

    “Propaganda wars can also be war propaganda,” writes Martinez. (110) And so it is with western demonization of China.

    For those of us overwhelmed and frightened by the West’s prolific fictions about China and who wish to share a more accurate picture of the country with friends, families and fellow activists, in the hope of stopping the war before it starts, we might give them this book.

    END NOTES

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US Secretary of State Antony Blinken just wrapped up his visit to South Pacific island countries. During the visit, he tried to sow discord between China and these countries. In recent years, such practices have become the must-do and highlights of the visits by US officials such as Blinken and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Nonetheless, Tongan Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni said he was not concerned about the large amount of money his country had borrowed from China; Foreign Affairs Minister of New Zealand Nanaia Mahuta shut the door on joining the AUKUS alliance; Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea said his country welcomes cooperation with China and that “USA does not need PNG’s ground to be a launching pad for any offensive anywhere in the world.” All these remarks have embarrassed the US. It can be said that Blinken and Austin have met “soft nails” in the South Pacific.

    This is not accidental, because the US has encountered quite a lot of such “soft nails” in many other places across the world. For example, when the US went to Africa with a so-called aid plan to counter China, what it received was a vigilant response. When US Vice President Kamala Harris visited Africa earlier this year, President of Ghana Nana Akufo-Addo said, “There may be an obsession in America about Chinese activity on the continent, but there is no such obsession here.” In ASEAN, whether senior US officials go to ASEAN or Washington invites ASEAN to the US for a meeting, “not taking sides” is the basic principle repeatedly and publicly emphasized by ASEAN countries. In the Middle East and other places, the situation is the same. When the same situation occurs time and again, it is indeed necessary for the US to reflect on why this is the case.

    In fact, the reason is very simple. It is difficult for a person who is unwilling to listen and respect others to be welcomed. The signal received by the US has been strong enough, that is, the world is unwilling to fall into division and confrontation, and hopes for more peace and cooperation. This has become a trend. Washington seems to have noticed these signals, but it still doesn’t pay attention. On the surface, it holds the bait of “cooperation,” but its heart is full of how to use these “cooperation” to undermine China’s influence. The similar scenes that appeared repeatedly during Blinken’s visit this time are enough to illustrate the deep-seated problems of the current US diplomacy. To put it simply, the goals of US diplomacy have formed a huge dislocation, or even contradiction and antagonism, with the vital interests of quite a number of countries.

    Take the South Pacific countries as an example. These countries value a peaceful and stable environment and sustainable economic development. In addition, due to geographical factors, South Pacific countries also pay special attention to climate change and marine environmental issues, such as Japan’s reckless plan to dump nuclear-contaminated wastewater. In these respects, China has been their most reliable partner. Now the US came to tell these countries that the pair of shoes they are wearing does not fit, take that pair off off quickly, and put on the pair brought by the US. Whether the shoes fit or not, don’t the people who wear them know?

    After all, people in any country want to live a peaceful life, and what meets this need is positive energy, otherwise it is negative energy. As some scholars have said, Washington today must adapt to a new reality: developing countries are becoming more mature and more capable of independent decision-making. When American officials make a visit, their pockets are often full of rhetoric to smear China that no one needs. Creating uneasiness and distrust between a country and its largest and most reliable partner is a despicable act, which is a scourge to the country and its people, and is life-threatening.

    In recent years, in order to counter China, the US has launched various “grand” plans, but basically much is said but little is done. For example, the Build Back Better World in 2021 almost copied the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative, but even the Americans called it a “Waterloo.” What’s more, even when the US invests in certain projects, most of them are either not feasible, or feed the pockets of those in charge.

    These practices make the US look like a malicious bidder in the international community. It disrupts the normal cooperation of others, but it takes no responsibility for cooperation at all, allowing those projects to remain unfinished. Ultimately, it’s a mixture of hegemony and rogue thinking. Perhaps the US feels that it has big fists and is not afraid of anyone coming to hold it accountable. But what is certain is that if the US does not change this behavior, it will encounter more and more “soft nails.”

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Mackenzie Smith and Toby Mann of ABC Pacific Beat

    Concerns have been raised about foreign influence in Pacific media after it was revealed Solomon Islands’ longest-running newspaper received funding from China in return for favourable coverage.

    Earlier this week the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) revealed how China has been attempting to gain influence in media outlets in Palau and Solomon Islands.

    In Palau, a failed media deal pushed by China has revealed how Beijing was seeking to exert its influence in the Pacific region by using political pressure and funding to capture local elites, including in the media.

    The OCCRP report published in Asia Pacific Report on Monday 31 August 2023
    The OCCRP report published in Asia Pacific Report on Monday. Image: OCCRP

    The OCCRP said at least one front page story had been supplied by an initiative that was backed by investors with ties to China’s police and military.

    China had even more success gaining favour in Solomon Islands, where it has steadily been increasing its presence and influence since the Pacific nation switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 2019.

    There, according to the OCCRP,  the Solomon Star newspaper received Chinese money after giving assurances it would push messages favourable to Beijing.

    Desperate for funding, editors at the Solomon Star wrote up a proposal to China’s embassy in Honiara in July last year.

    Paper struggling to keep up
    The paper was struggling to keep up and needed assistance — its printing machines were deteriorating and papers were often hitting the streets a day late, according to the proposal the Solomon Star sent to China.

    Its radio station, Paoa FM, was having difficulty broadcasting into remote provinces.

    “Reporters obtained a July 2022 draft funding proposal from the Solomon Star to China’s embassy in Honiara in which the paper requested 1,150,000 Solomon Islands dollars ($206,300) for equipment including a replacement for its ageing newspaper printer and a broadcast tower for its radio station, PAOA FM,” OCCRP said.

    “The Solomon Star said in the proposal that decrepit equipment was causing editions to come out late and ‘curtailing news flow about China’s generous and lightning economic and infrastructure development in Solomon Islands’.”

    According to the proposal, seen by the ABC’s Pacific Beat programme, China stood to gain “enormously”.

    “The intended outcome of this project . . .  is that Solomon Star newspaper will be produced on time for the benefits of its readers, subscribers and the advertising community,” it said.

    “China’s timely intervention in Solomon Islands’ infrastructure and economic development will also benefit enormously as news about this new-found partnership is published.”

    OCCRP has confirmed the printing equipment the Solomon Star wanted was delivered earlier this year.

    Alfred Sasako, Solomon Star’s editor, said the newspaper maintained its independence.

    He told the OCCRP that any suggestion it had a pro-Beijing bias was “a figment of the imagination of anyone who is trying to demonise China”.

    Sasako told the OCCRP the paper had tried unsuccessfully for more than a decade to get funding from Australia.

    Financial desperation drives ailing paper to Chinese backers
    Ofani Eremae, a journalist and co-founder at In-depth Solomons who used to work at the Solomon Star, said it has been struggling financially since COVID, and the majority of staff have left.

    “They are really in a very, very bad financial situation, so they are desperate,” he told the ABC.

    “I think this is what’s prompting them to look for finances elsewhere to keep the operation going.

    “It just so happens that China is here and they [Solomon Star] found someone who’s willing to give them a lot of money.”

    The Solomon Star building
    The Solomon Star newspaper is based in Honiara. Image: OCCRP

    Taking the assistance from China has raised questions about the paper’s independence, he said.

    “It’s a paper with the reputation people trust but in situations like that, you lose your credibility, you lose your independence and of course you become some kind of organisation that’s been controlled by outsiders,” Eremae told the ABC.

    Government spending on advertisements in the paper could help it somewhat, but Eremae said “democratic countries, especially the US” should step in and help.

    ‘Have to defend democracy’
    “They have to defend democracy, they have to defend freedom of the press in this country,” he told the ABC.

    “Otherwise China, which seems to have a lot of money, they could just easily come in and take control of things here.”

    University of South Pacific associate professor of journalism Shailendra Singh said “the Chinese offer hit the right spot” with the paper facing financial challenges due to covid and advertising revenues going to social media.

    “If you look across the region, governments are shaking hands with China, making all kinds of deals and also receiving huge amounts of funds,” he told the ABC.

    Dr Singh said media outlets had become part of the competition between large countries vying for influence in the region and warned other struggling Pacific media companies could be tempted by similar offers.

    “They would seriously consider surrendering some of their editorial independence for a new printing press, just to keep them in business,” he said.

    “Let’s just hope that this does not become a trend.”

    The concerns these kind of deals bring was clear.

    ‘Risk of compromising editorial independence’
    “This is simply because of the risk of compromising editorial independence,” Dr Singh told the ABC.

    “There is concern the country’s major newspaper is turning into a Chinese state party propaganda rag.”

    If China managed to sway both the Solomon Islands government and its main newspaper, that would create an “unholy alliance”, Dr Singh said.

    “The people would be at the mercy of a cabal, with very little — if not zero — public dissent,” he said.

    Despite the concerns, Dr Singh said there were some sound reasons for the Solomon Star to enter the deal.

    “If they don’t sign the deal they will continue to struggle financially and it might even mean the end of the Solomon Star,” he told the ABC.

    Only the Solomon Star publisher and editor had a full grasp of the situation and the financial challenges the paper faced, he said.

    ‘Makes business sense’
    “From our lofty perch we have all these grand ideas about media independence in theory, but does anyone consider the business realities?”

    “It may not make sense to the Americans or the Australians, but makes perfect sense to the Solomon Star from a business survival point of view.”

    Solomon Islands and Pacific outlets have been funded for media development by Australia and other governments.

    Third party organisations such as the ABC International Development supports the media community across the Pacific to promote public interest journalism and hold businesses, governments and other institutions to account.

    But Solomon Islands opposition MP Peter Kenilorea Junior said he was concerned by direct support given to the Solomon Star by a foreign government.

    “It’s totally inappropriate for any government — let alone the Chinese government — to be involved in our newspaper publications, because that is supposed to be independent,” he told the ABC.

    “I don’t think standards are kept when there is this, according to the report, involvement by the Chinese to try and perhaps reward the paper for saying or passing on stories that are positive about a particular country.”

    Georgina Kekea, president of the Media Association of Solomon Islands, said the financial support did not come as a surprise as most businesses were struggling.

    “It’s quite difficult for us to ensure that the media industry thrives when they are really floundering, where companies are finding it hard to pay their staff salary,” she told the ABC.

    "Solomon Star condemns [unrelated] attack by US-funded OCCRP"
    “Solomon Star condemns [unrelated] attack by US-funded OCCRP” reply by the main Honiara daily newspaper. Image: OCCRP

    Solomon Star says ‘stop geo-politicising’ media
    Following the OCCRP report, the Solomon Star on Tuesday published an response on page six headlined “Solomon Star condemns unrelated attack by US-funded OCCRP”.

    “It is sad to see the US-funded OCCRP through its agent in Solomon Islands, Ofani Eremae, and his so-called ‘In-depth Solomons’ website making unrelented attempts to tarnish the reputation of the Solomon Star Newspaper for receiving funding support from China,” the paper said.

    “One thing that Solomon Star can assure the right-minded people of this nation is that we will continue to inform and educate you on issues that matter without any geopolitical bias and that China through its Embassy in Honiara never attempted to stop us from doing so . . .  Solomon Star also continued to publish news items not in the favour of China and the Chinese Embassy in Honiara never issued a reproachment.

    “It is indeed sad to see the OCCRP-funded journalists in Solomon Islands and the Pacific trying to bring geopolitics into the Pacific and Solomon Islands media landscape and Solomon Star strongly urges these journalists and their financiers to stop geo-politicising the media.”

    OCCRP said it “is funded worldwide by a variety of government and non-government donors”.

    “OCCRP’s work in the Pacific Islands is currently funded by a US-government grant that gives the donor zero say in editorial decisions,” it said.

    Dr Singh said whether aid came from China, the US or Australia: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

    The ABC has sought comment from the Solomon Star and the Chinese Embassy in Solomon Islands.

    Republished from ABC Pacific Beat with permission.

  • Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

    John V. Walsh (@JohnWal97469920) is an antiwar writer who is well versed on China. Recently, he wrote an article titled “Arming Taiwan is an Insane Provocation.” Insane, yes, but it is also a blazing sign of desperation. A plethora of American words and actions touching on mainland China reveal a jittery seat of empire — nervous because the empire seems to be tottering. Meanwhile, China’s prominence continues to rise. But China doesn’t want an empire; it doesn’t aspire to a number one ranking as a powerful nation because it doesn’t deal with nation states according to some ranking. What matters for China is building a relationship based on all sides coming out winners. Nations are flocking toward the self-effacing China which does not foist its ideology on others or mess around in their domestic affairs. Thus, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, and BRICS have several potential members knocking on the door, and many of these door-knockers have already started de-dollarizing.

    So what does a faltering hegemon that is desperate to hang on to its self-described status as a full-spectrum dominant, above-the-law, exceptional, indispensable beacon-on-the-hill do? Flex its military muscle by surrounding a perceived challenger with military bases and finding nearby allies to arm against up-and-comers. Sanction the perceived challenger, demonize it and its leader in media, accuse the challenger of the crimes that it commits (e.g., genocide, human rights abuses, interference in other countries’ elections, espionage, cyber crimes, predatory lending).

    A potent card in the imperial hegemon’s pocket is to get the foot soldiers of vassal states to fight the hegemon’s wars.

    Walsh considers whether the US can recruit the Republic of China (Taiwan) to fight a proxy war, an internecine war, against the People’s Republic of China (mainland China). Note: both the ROC and PRC claim to encompass the other. I agree with Walsh that willingly resorting to or courting war is insane. Below is an interview, conducted by email, exploring Walsh’s consideration of a US push for a proxy war fought through Taiwan against its brethren across the Taiwan Strait.

    *****
    Kim Petersen: Actions speak louder than words is an oft-heard aphorism. After American government actions with Republic of China (ROC) separatists, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will often respond with strident language denouncing the provocation and follow that up with military manoeuvres around Taiwan. Whether right or wrong, it seems obvious to this outside observer that condemnations by the mainland Chinese side and showcasing of its military might have had negligible effect in curbing American or Taiwanese separatist provocations. Do you see the Chinese response as effective in deterring American interference in China’s domestic affairs?

    John Walsh: Thank you, Kim, for opening up a discussion. This is certainly a very important topic.

    Let me preface my answers to your questions with a remark on what motivated me to write the article that prompted this discussion. The purpose of my piece was, first, simply to provide a primer on the importance of Taiwan island in the First Island Chain strategy of the US. Second, and more importantly, the purpose was to raise the danger of arming Taiwan for those in the US anti-interventionist movement who have paid insufficient attention to it. Up to now there has been little challenge to the idea that the US is simply helping out a beleaguered country with armaments whereas the arms in fact are a provocation to China. Arming Taiwan is something that peace activists in the US should raise and seek to end. Arms are pavement on the road to war.

    Your first question is excellent.

    I don’t know how effective the Chinese response has been. A major question is whether it is effective in deterring the separatist forces on Taiwan Island. So far, the polling shows that the overwhelming sentiment in Taiwan is for sticking with the status quo. And it makes sense for the Taiwanese to feel that way. I am sure that they have heard some version of the African aphorism, “When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.” And although the circumstances are different, the Taiwanese must know that Ukraine is being destroyed because it has become a battleground for the conflict between the US and Russia with the US cynically and cruelly employing Ukrainians as cannon fodder. That is the key similarity between Ukraine and Taiwan.

    And then there is the question of whether there is sufficient democracy in Taiwan to allow the people to choose their path. Here again Ukraine is instructive. In the 2014 coup there, the US and neo-Nazi elements installed a regime which was prowar, overthrowing a duly elected president who wished to get along with Russia. And after that, in 2019, the Ukrainians elected Zelensky who ran as a peace candidate; but once in office he turned into a hawk. Was he a fake all along? Or was he “turned” by US forces which included Neo-Nazi elements?

    Could martial law be established in Taiwan if the people there proved resistant to fighting as proxies for the US? What control does the US have over the Taiwanese military after all the years of interaction? When I read reports about the buildup of “civil defense forces” on Taiwan and polls claiming 75% of Taiwanese are willing to fight Mainland forces, I wonder how intense and hawkish the anti-Mainland propaganda on Taiwan Island has become. And how suicidal? These are all questions for which I have no answer; but I fear the worst.

    KP: You use the US response to a rumored Chinese listening post in Cuba, because of its proximity to the US mainland, as a useful analogy to the situation between Taiwan and mainland China. I submit another apt analogy would be if the PRC started funding and arming Hawaiian separatists or Puerto Rican separatists. This would be especially revelatory since these territories were annexed through US militarism against the Indigenous populations (as was the entirety of the mainland US landmass) while in the PRC-ROC case there is no annexation and Han Chinese are the predominant population on both sides, each claiming to belong to the entirety of China. Besides, how would the US respond if Chinese ships entered Hawaiian or Puerto Rican harbors without US-government approval, unloaded their weapons and military equipment, and then stationed Chinese soldiers there? Would the US respond only with heated condemnations? Would the Chinese ships even be able to dock? Never mind the US permitting the Chinese military to be stationed there. My suspicion is that there would be an emphatic difference in the Chinese and American responses.

    JW: I agree with you. I think that Hawaii and Puerto Rico are very useful analogies for the reasons you give. Cuba came to my mind when I wrote about this, because it has been in the news recently on just this question.

    I shudder to think what the US response to China’s putting troops in Hawaii or Puerto Rico would be. China can afford to be restrained because it is a rising power and time is on its side.  Its history and culture also offer a striking contrast with the colonizing, aggressive West. For many reasons, I believe that China’s statements that it wishes to settle the Taiwan question peacefully is sincere.

    With China’s peaceful rise, the US sees its colossal ambition of total global hegemony, an aspiration since 1940, slipping away. As a result, the US may well be tempted to do something desperate or rash. Stephen Wertheim’s book, Tomorrow the World, gives an account of the birth of US aspiration for global hegemony which goes way beyond any previous ambitions of Empire, save perhaps for the Thousand Year Reich. Its most recent expression in US foreign policy is the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

    I would say this is an entirely new stage of imperialism. The Chinese Foreign Ministry properly labels it Hegemony. This US goal explains its gargantuan military expenditures, larger than those of the next 10 most powerful militaries combined.

    KP: As for the polling from 2022, it is carried out by a body called Election Study Center at National Chengchi University. One can surmise that because this body is collecting data on democracy (however that is defined) that it tends to align with the separatist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and against reintegration with the PRC. Furthermore, the Election Study Center was formalized in 1989 during the tenure of Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui who, albeit a Guomindang (KMT) member, is considered the “Godfather of Taiwan secessionism” on the mainland. The polling results may be accurate, but the polling takes place under a ROC government, one backed by the US that is at ideological loggerheads with the PRC to which it is losing ground for economic supremacy. The polling results indicate that substantial upticks occurred from 12.8% for “maintain status quo, move toward independence” in 2018 to 25.2% in June 2022. A look at the polling date from 1996 to June 2022 indicates that while there has been an overall uptick that the largest uptick occurs during the terms of US presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, both of who engaged in anti-China rhetoric and began militarizing Taiwan. Do you consider that such polls have validity given that they take place in a Chinese province that has long been separated from the mainland by Japanese and US imperialism?

    JW: You raise excellent points about polling which is always affected by the mainstream media and the other institutions for manufacturing consent.  These institutions are certainly highly influenced by the US. For example, Karl Gershman, until recently head of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), tells us that the NED has been active in Taiwan for 29 years now. And we can be confident that the NED is only the tip of the US iceberg.

    Although the category of “maintain status quo, move toward independence” has shown an uptick in polls, as you point out, the category calling for immediate independence remains small at ~5%. Maintaining the status quo, no matter the qualification about what comes later, is all that the Mainland appears to be asking for.

    Conversely, a declaration of independence or secession right now, immediately, is the red line that it is dangerous to cross. If the people of Taiwan retain sufficient agency, then it seems this red line will not be crossed. But many things could happen to deprive the Taiwanese of agency, for example a false flag operation designed to make the Taiwanese feel that war was inevitable and that they must do as the US asks and offer themselves up as cannon fodder. Let’s hope that does not happen. Better, let us in the US act to get our government to back off from its provocations that move us closer to that war.

    KP: You wrote that “a secessionist Taiwan, as an armed ally of the U.S., represents to China a return to the ‘Century of Humiliation’ at the hands of the colonial West.” I understand that China is patient, strategically astute, and seeks peace as the way forward, but how does it appear when China does not control which country’s ships dock in its territory? Rather than a “return to the ‘Century of Humiliation’ at the hands of the colonial West,” might it not be more accurate to call it a continuance of a Century-plus of Humiliation at the hands of the colonial West and Japan? Assuredly, China wants Taiwan back unscathed, so is China playing it smart by biding its time?

    JW: I certainly feel that China is playing it smart by biding its time and sticking to peaceful reunification. That approach preserves peace; so everyone should welcome it. The problem, as I am sure the Chinese recognize, is that Chinese restraint might lead some other countries to perceive China as a “paper tiger” and lead them to take a more belligerent attitude toward China. That in turn could lead to more strife and perhaps war.

    But I would hope instead that other countries would respect China for its peaceful restraint even though it possesses enormous power. That restraint should make other countries feel that they can live in peace with China and that they do not need the help of outside forces to side with them in whatever disagreements with China may arise.

    KP: Agreed. You write, “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. is trying to gin up a proxy war that would engulf East Asia, damaging not only China but other U.S. economic competitors like Japan and South Korea.” Except, it seems that this would not be a proxy war as is being waged by the US-NATO via Ukraine. China is much better situated to regulate shipping (as Russia seems now to be doing in the Black Sea) and aircraft that may enter Taiwan. Thus, the PRC is able to intercept weaponry destined for the island province. I submit, therefore, that using Taiwan in a proxy war would be extremely difficult. Also, depending on the timetable, since the US (and its European vassals) admit to being out of artillery to supply to Ukraine at present, how is it supposed to carry out proxy wars on two fronts?

    JW: I agree with you that using Taiwan as a proxy in a conflict with China presents the US with great difficulties if victory is the goal of the US. But even if the US “loses” such a war, it will engulf East Asia in conflict which will set back the region’s development considerably and leave it at the mercy of the West.

    Here again we can take the Ukraine crisis as an example. Both Russia and the EU, with Germany at its heart, are competitors of the US. So far, the West’s sanctions have damaged both the EU, especially Germany, and Russia although Russia has proven unexpectedly resilient. As Alexander Mercouris observes, even the Russians were a bit surprised at how well they have done. Of course, that has been possible because Russia has decisively “turned to the East,” that is toward China. China offers an economic alternative to those who are bullied by the US. Similarly, the dynamic economies of East Asia, not simply China, are competitors with the US. A conflict between China and her neighbors would damage both – and the US would profit.

    Now, can this imperial divide and conquer strategy work? This scenario is essentially a replay of WWII, WWII redux; and WWII was a great boon for the US. But the ability to forestall WWII redux depends on China, its neighbors and on us here in the US. The countries of the EU have succumbed to this self-destructive approach and bought into the US proxy war on Russia – at least for the moment. The countries of East Asia seem less inclined to do the same and treat China as an enemy. But what they do in the end remains to be seen.

    As I see it, the bottom line is that the US has set out to pursue this strategy. Whether it is able to do so successfully is quite another matter as you correctly point out. But if the US does go ahead, great damage will be done. For that reason we in the US must win the people to opposing it.

    KP: You proffer, “So, we in the U.S. must stop our government from arming Taiwan. And we need to get our military out of East Asia. It is an ocean away, and no power there is threatening the U.S.” No argument with this. I appreciate how you dispel the falsity of the threat of China. The genuine threat is adduced by the ring of US military bases around China. Why is it so difficult to realize what should be readily apparent from looking at a map of China surrounded by several US military bases while China has none in the western hemisphere? Is it the propagandizing of the western mass media or is it simply an appeal to patriotism?

    JW: A good question. Part of the reason is that such a map of US bases is rarely seen in the mainstream media. In fact, recently the political comedian Jimmy Dore has shown such a map on his YouTube channel in a way that suggests it is news to his audience which is by and large anti-interventionist. That level of ignorance even with an audience like Jimmy Dore’s is a tribute to the power of the msm.

    I am not sure that patriotism has much to do with it. It is due to fear of China that is relentlessly stoked in the body politic. Certainly, the relentless demonization of China and the repeated characterization of it as an aggressive, threatening power with evil leaders takes an enormous toll on the American psyche. Countering the lies about China will not be easy. But we have to work at it – otherwise the human race may not survive.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Bernadette Carreon and Aubrey Belford

    A major daily newspaper in Solomon Islands received nearly US$140,000 in funding from the Chinese government in return for pledges to “promote the truth about China’s generosity and its true intentions to help develop” the Pacific Islands country, according to a leaked document and interviews.

    The revelation comes amid Western alarm over growing Chinese influence over the strategically located country, which switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 2019 and then signed a surprise security agreement with Beijing last year.

    Solomon Islands journalists have complained of a worsening media environment, as well as what is perceived to be a growing pro-China slant from local outlets that have accepted funding from the People’s Republic.

    A document obtained by OCCRP shows how one of these outlets, the Solomon Star newspaper, received Chinese assistance after providing repeated and explicit assurances that it would push messages favorable to Beijing.

    Reporters obtained a July 2022 draft funding proposal from the Solomon Star to China’s embassy in Honiara in which the paper requested SBD 1,150,000 (about $137,000) for equipment, including a replacement for its aging newspaper printer and a broadcast tower for its radio station, PAOA FM.

    The Solomon Star said in the proposal that decrepit equipment was causing editions to come out late and “curtailing news flow about China’s generous and lightning economic and infrastructure development in Solomon Islands.”

    The document shows the Chinese embassy had initially offered SBD 350,000 in 2021, but revised this number upward in recognition of the newspaper’s needs.

    A dozen pledges
    In total, the proposal contains roughly a dozen separate pledges to use the Chinese-funded equipment to promote China’s “goodwill” and role as “the most generous and trusted development partner” in Solomon Islands.

    In interviews, both the Solomon Star’s then-publisher, Catherine Lamani, and its chief of staff, Alfred Sasako, confirmed the paper had made the proposal, but declined to speak in detail about it.

    Sasako said the newspaper maintained its independence. He said any suggestion it had a pro-Beijing bias was “a figment of the imagination of anyone who is trying to demonise China.”

    Sasako said the paper had tried unsuccessfully for more than a decade to get assistance from Australia’s embassy in the country. Other Western countries, such as the United States, had neglected Solomon Islands for decades and were only now showing interest because of anxiety over Chinese influence, he added.

    “My summary on the whole thing is China is a doer, others are talkers. They spend too much time talking, nothing gets done,” he said.

    Press delivered
    OCCRP was able to confirm that the printing equipment the Solomon Star had requested was indeed purchased and delivered earlier this year.

    “I can confirm what was quoted was delivered in February and the payments came from the Solomon Star,” said Terry Mays, business development manager of G2 Systems Print Supply Division, the Brisbane, Australia, based supplier named in the proposal.

    The Solomon Star funding is just one part of a regional push to get China’s message out in the Pacific Islands, as well as build relationships with the region’s elites, reporters have found.

    Earlier this month, OCCRP reported on an aborted deal in the northern Pacific nation of Palau involving the publisher of the country’s oldest newspaper and a Chinese business group with links to national security institutions.

    Bernadette Carreon and Aubrey Belford report for the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). OCCRP is funded worldwide by a variety of government and non-government donors. OCCRP’s work in the Pacific Islands is currently funded by a US-government grant that gives the donor zero say in editorial decisions.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • This week’s News on China.

    • Fewer Chinese researchers in the US
    • Shenzhen magnetic resonance machine
    • Relics affected by climate change

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Activists and family members fear Lu Siwei will be deported back to China, where he could be sent to prison

    A Chinese rights lawyer stripped of his licence for taking on sensitive cases has been arrested in Laos, and activists and family members are worried he will be deported back to China, where he could be jailed.

    Lu Siwei was seized by Laotian police on Friday morning while boarding a train for Thailand. He was on his way to Bangkok to catch a flight to the US to join his wife and daughter.

    Continue reading…

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

  • By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific

    An international relations professor says that if New Zealand joins AUKUS it could impact on its relations with Pacific countries.

    AUKUS is a security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which will see Australia supplied with nuclear-powered submarines.

    That has raised concern in the Pacific, which is under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.

    The topic has come up while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited New Zealand.

    The visit came after he visited Tonga.

    Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, said New Zealand’s views on non-nuclear security are shared by the majority of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and also the Pacific Island states.

    “Even if New Zealand joined AUKUS in a non-nuclear fashion, technically, it may be seen through the eyes of others as diluting our commitment to that norm,” Professor Patman said.

    Sharing defence information
    Professor Patman explained that “pillar 1” of AUKUS is about providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia over two or three decades, and “pillar 2” is to do with sharing information on defence technologies.

    “We haven’t closed the door on it, but it’s a considerable risk from New Zealand’s point of view, because a lot of our credibility is having an independent foreign policy.”

    Professor Robert Patman
    Professor Robert Patman . . . the Pacific may not view New Zealand joining AUKUS favourably – if it is to happen in the future. Image: RNZ Pacific

    Asked about New Zealand’s potential membership in AUKUS, Blinken said work on pillar 2 was ongoing.

    “The door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate,” he said.

    “New Zealand is a deeply trusted partner, obviously a Five Eyes member.

    “We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues.”

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the government was exploring pillar 2 of the deal.

    Not committed
    But she said New Zealand had not committed to anything.

    Mahuta said New Zealand had been clear it would not compromise its nuclear-free position, and that was acknowledged by AUKUS members.

    Patman said that statement was reassurance for Pacific Island states.

    “[New Zealand is] party to the Treaty of Rarotonga,” he said.

    “We have to weigh up whether the benefits of being in pillar 2 outweigh possible external perception that we’re eroding our commitment, to being party to an arrangement which is facilitating the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.”

    He said New Zealand had also been in talks with NATO about getting access to cutting-edge technology, so it was not dependent on AUKUS for that.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific

    An international relations professor says that if New Zealand joins AUKUS it could impact on its relations with Pacific countries.

    AUKUS is a security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which will see Australia supplied with nuclear-powered submarines.

    That has raised concern in the Pacific, which is under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.

    The topic has come up while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited New Zealand.

    The visit came after he visited Tonga.

    Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, said New Zealand’s views on non-nuclear security are shared by the majority of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and also the Pacific Island states.

    “Even if New Zealand joined AUKUS in a non-nuclear fashion, technically, it may be seen through the eyes of others as diluting our commitment to that norm,” Professor Patman said.

    Sharing defence information
    Professor Patman explained that “pillar 1” of AUKUS is about providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia over two or three decades, and “pillar 2” is to do with sharing information on defence technologies.

    “We haven’t closed the door on it, but it’s a considerable risk from New Zealand’s point of view, because a lot of our credibility is having an independent foreign policy.”

    Professor Robert Patman
    Professor Robert Patman . . . the Pacific may not view New Zealand joining AUKUS favourably – if it is to happen in the future. Image: RNZ Pacific

    Asked about New Zealand’s potential membership in AUKUS, Blinken said work on pillar 2 was ongoing.

    “The door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate,” he said.

    “New Zealand is a deeply trusted partner, obviously a Five Eyes member.

    “We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues.”

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the government was exploring pillar 2 of the deal.

    Not committed
    But she said New Zealand had not committed to anything.

    Mahuta said New Zealand had been clear it would not compromise its nuclear-free position, and that was acknowledged by AUKUS members.

    Patman said that statement was reassurance for Pacific Island states.

    “[New Zealand is] party to the Treaty of Rarotonga,” he said.

    “We have to weigh up whether the benefits of being in pillar 2 outweigh possible external perception that we’re eroding our commitment, to being party to an arrangement which is facilitating the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.”

    He said New Zealand had also been in talks with NATO about getting access to cutting-edge technology, so it was not dependent on AUKUS for that.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Today marks the 70th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice, which brought a cessation of hostilities between the opposing parties, but left the peninsula locked in a permanent state of war. Article IV of the armistice stipulates: “​Within three months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides beheld by representatives…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Exclusive: China appears to have expanded use of high-security prisons as tool of repression in Tibet, researchers say

    There has been a pattern of increased activity in recent years at high-security detention facilities in Tibet, according to a new study measuring night-time lighting usage, suggesting a potential rise in harsher imprisonments by Chinese authorities.

    The report, by the Rand Europe research institute, said the findings added rare new clues about the Chinese government’s “stability maintenance” policies of control in the highly securitised Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), which it described as an “information black hole”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • PNG Post-Courier

    French President Emmanuel Macron jets into Port Moresby late tomorrow for his historic visit to Papua New Guinea and will be met by Prime Minister James Marape with a 21-gun salute and other ceremonies.

    Marape yesterday expressed profound enthusiasm for the upcoming visit of President Macron — currently in New Caledonia — considering it a significant milestone in the nation’s global engagement.

    President Macron’s visit marks the first time a French president has visited an independent country in the Pacific, showcasing Papua New Guinea’s growing connectivity with the world, Marape said.

    “This historic visit by President Macron exemplifies the profound connectivity that Papua New Guinea, under my leadership, is forging with the international community,” he said.

    “In today’s interconnected virtual realm of commerce, real-time trade, and foreign relations, the visit by the esteemed French president bodes exceedingly well for PNG.

    “We eagerly anticipate strengthening our ties with this influential G7 economy.”

    This meeting follows a previous encounter between President Macron and Prime Minister Marape earlier this year in Gabon, Central Africa, during the “One-Forest” Summit.

    Bilateral cooperation
    The forthcoming visit further cements the amicable relations between the two leaders and enhances bilateral cooperation.

    In recent months, the Prime Minister has had fruitful discussions with several world leaders, demonstrating PNG’s growing prominence on the global stage.

    A one-day state visit of Indonesia’s President, Joko Widodo, resulted in tangible benefits, including the establishment of direct flights between Port Moresby and Bali.

    Discussions with the President of the Republic of Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, during the Korea-Pacific Islands Summit, fostered constructive engagements and cooperation between the nations.

    Papua New Guinea also hosted leaders such as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, further strengthening ties and fostering positive developments.

    Leaders of all Pacific countries were also present for the visit of Prime Minister Modi.

    Critical issues
    Reflecting on these milestones, Marape expressed his commitment to advancing bilateral relations and addressing critical issues of mutual concern with visiting dignitaries.

    He hailed the visit of Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, earlier this year, which marked a turning point in the relationship between Papua New Guinea and Australia after 47 years of independence.

    “In anticipation of President Macron’s visit, Papua New Guinea stands ready to engage in productive dialogues and explore new avenues of cooperation with France.

    “The visit bears the potential to further elevate PNG’s global presence and unlock new opportunities for mutual growth and prosperity,” Marape said.

    President Macron will also be visiting Vanuatu and Fiji.

    Republished with permission.

    French President Emmanuel Macron pays a tribute at the customary Senate
    French President Emmanuel Macron pays a tribute at the customary Senate in New Caledonia yesterday. Image: @EmmanuelMacron

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Eleisha Foon, journalist

    France has deployed Rafale jet fighters during a military ceremony in New Caledonia, marking President Emmanuel Macron’s first official day in the Pacific.

    Macron arrived in Noumea overnight on a visit aimed at bolstering his Indo-Pacific strategy and reaffirming France’s role in the region.

    The historic five-day trip includes a visit to Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. It is the first time a French president has visited independent Pacific Islands, according to French officials.

    A big focus will be asserting France’s role in what Macron has called a “balancing force” between the United States and China.

    France assumes sovereignty for three Pacific territories: New Caledonia, French Polynesia and Wallis and Futuna.

    However, not everyone was happy about the presidential visit.

    New Caledonia was politically divided and seeking a way forward after three referendums on independence.

    Referendum boycott
    The outcome of all three polls was a “no” to independence but the result of the third vote, which was boycotted by Kanaks, was disputed.

    Rallies were expected during the French President’s visit.

    Local committees of the main pro-independence party the Caledonian Union have called for “peaceful” but determined rallies.

    Their presence will be felt particularly when Macron heads north today to the east coast town of Thio, as well as when he gathers the New Caledonian community together tomorrow afternoon for a speech, where he is expected to make a major announcement.

    About 40 percent of the population are indigenous Kanak, most of whom support independence. Pro-independence parties, which have been in power since 2017, want full sovereignty by 2025.

    Macron is expected to meet with all sides in Noumea this week.

    A large delegation has joined Macron on his visit, including Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna and Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu.

    Foreign minister in Suva
    Colonna will also travel to Suva, Fiji today, the first visit of a French foreign affairs minister to the country.

    She will meet with the Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and the Pacific Islands Forum Deputy Secretary General Filimon Manoni.

    The move was to “strengthen its commitment in the region”, French officials have said.

    Meetings have also been set with Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape when the delegation travels there on Friday.

    France has investments in PNG to develop its gas resources under French-owned multinational oil and gas company TotalEnergies.

    Vanuatu chiefs appeal
    Emmanuel Macron will be in Port Vila on Wednesday.

    Vanuatu’s Malvatumauri National Council of Chiefs want Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau to let President Macron know that the Mathew and Hunter Islands belong to Vanuatu and are not part of New Caledonia.

    Tanna chief Jean Pierre Tom said ni-Vanuatu people were expecting his visit to be a “game changer and not a re-enforcement of colonial rule”.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Island of Taiwan has been turned into a “powder keg” by the infusion of U.S. weaponry, pushing the Taiwanese people into the “abyss of disaster.”  These are the words of the Chinese Defense Ministry in reaction to the recent $440 million sale of U.S. arms to the island.  And now the U.S.is also giving, not selling, arms to Taiwan, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

    The “First Island Chain” Strategy of the U.S.

    Taiwan is but one in a series of islands along the Chinese coast, often called “The First Island Chain,” which now bristles with advanced U.S. weapons. These are accompanied by tens of thousands of supporting U.S. military personnel and combat troops.  The “First Island Chain” extends from Japan in the north southward through Japan’s Ryukyu islands which include Okinawa, to Taiwan and on to the northern Philippines.  (U.S. ally, South Korea, with a military of 500,000 active duty personnel and 3 million reserves is a powerful adjunct to this chain.)  In US military doctrine the First Island Chain is a base to “project power” and restrict sea access to China.

    Taiwan is at the center this string of islands and is considered the focal point of The First Island Chain strategy.  When the fiercely hawkish Cold Warrior, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, conceived the strategy in 1951, he dubbed Taiwan America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier.”

    Taiwan is now one source of contention between the U.S. and China.  As is often said but rarely done, the pursuit of peace demands that we understand the point of view of those who are marked as our adversaries.  And, in China’s eyes, Taiwan and the rest of these armed isles look like both chain and noose.

    How would the U.S. react in a similar circumstance? Cuba is about the same distance from the U.S. as the width of the Taiwan Strait that separates Taiwan from the Mainland.  Consider the recent U.S. reaction to rumors that China was setting up a listening post in Cuba.  There was a bipartisan reaction of alarm in Congress and a bipartisan statement that such an installation is “unacceptable.”  What would be the reaction if China armed Cuba to the teeth or sent hundreds of soldiers there as the U.S. has done to Taiwan?  It is not hard to imagine.  One immediately thinks of the U.S. sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and later the Cuban missile crisis.

    Clearly the arming of Taiwan is a provocative act that pushes the U.S. closer to war with China, a nuclear power.

    The Secessionist Movement in Taiwan

    According to the One China Policy, the official policy of the U.S., Taiwan is part of China.  The UN took the same position in 1971 with passage of Resolution 2758 (also known as the Resolution on Admitting Peking) which recognized the Peoples Republic of China as the legitimate government of all of China and its sole representative in the UN.

    In recent decades a secessionist movement has developed on the island of Taiwan, a sentiment represented by the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party).  Currently Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP is President.  But in the local elections of 2022, the DPP lost very badly to the KMT (Kuomintang) which is friendly to the Mainland and wishes to preserve the status quo or “strategic ambiguity,” as it is called. Tsai built the DPP’s 2022 campaign on hostility to Beijing, not on local issues.  And at the same time her government passed legislation to increase the compulsory service time for young Taiwanese males from 6 months to a year.  Needless to say, this hawkish move was not popular with the under 30 set.

    Polling in 2022 showed that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese now want to preserve the status quo.  Only 1.3% want immediate unification and only 5.3% want immediate independence.  Compared to previous years, a record 28.6 percent of those polled said they preferred to “maintain the status quo indefinitely,” while 28.3 percent chose the status quo to “decide at a later date,” and 25.2 percent opted for the status quo with a view to “move toward independence.”  Thus, a total of 82.1% now favor the status quo!  Not surprisingly, every prominent presidential candidate professes to be in favor of the status quo.  However, DPP candidates also contend there is no need to declare independence since in their eyes Taiwan is already independent.

    The stated policy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is to seek peaceful reunification with Taiwan.  Only if the secessionist movement formally declares independence does Beijing threaten to use force.  Clearly the Taiwanese do not wish to find themselves in the position of Ukrainians, cannon fodder in a U.S. proxy war.

    Here we might once more consider how the alleged enemy of the U.S., China, sees things and might react to a formal act of secession and declaration of independence by Taiwan.  And again, we might be guided by our own history.  When the Confederate States seceded from the Union, the U.S. descended into the bloodiest war in its history with 620,000 soldiers dead.   Moreover, a secessionist Taiwan, as an armed ally of the U.S., represents to China a return to the “Century of Humiliation” at the hands of the colonial West.  Given these circumstances, arming Taiwan clearly creates a “powder keg.” A single spark could ignite it.

    It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. is trying to gin up a proxy war that would engulf East Asia, damaging not only China but other U.S. economic competitors like Japan and South Korea.  The US would come out on top.  It is the neocon Wolfowitz Doctrine put into play.  But in the nuclear age such stratagems amount to total insanity.

    If some Taiwanese hope that the U.S. will come to its aid, they should ponder carefully the tragedy of Ukraine.  Somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost their lives so far and millions turned into refugees.  A similar U.S. proxy war in Taiwan could easily turn into a full-scale conflict between the world’s two largest economies, certainly triggering a global depression and perhaps a nuclear exchange.  And Biden has committed to send troops to fight the Peoples Liberation Army should hostilities break out.  So, the situation is even more perilous than the one in Ukraine!

    No arms to Taiwan

    When all this is considered, arming Taiwan is asking for trouble on a global scale.  Taiwan and Beijing can settle their disagreements by themselves.  Frankly put, disagreements between the two are none of America’s business.

    So, we in the U.S. must stop our government from arming Taiwan.  And we need to get our military out of East Asia.  It is an ocean away, and no power there is threatening the U.S.  We do not have Chinese warships off our Pacific Coast, nor do we have Chinese troops or Chinese military bases anywhere in our entire hemisphere.

    China calls for peaceful coexistence and a win-win set of relationships between us.  Let’s take them up on that.

    And let’s bring all those troops, submarines, bombers, rockets and warships out of East Asia before they stumble into a conflict or become the instrument of a false flag operation.  We should keep in mind the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, a fake report of a Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, a de facto declaration of war against Vietnam.  In the end millions lost their lives in Southeast Asia in that brutal, horrific war.  Even that will look like a schoolyard squabble compared to the conflagration unleashed by a U.S.-China war.

    • This article was first published at Antiwar.com

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Carl Zha talks to RT about Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi visiting Kenya and vowing to strengthen trade ties and Belt and Road Initiative partnership. How China investing and infrastructures across Africa is strengthening BRICS and bringing on the multipolar world.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • It was a photo op for the ages: a visibly well-disposed President Xi Jinping receiving centenarian “old friend of China” Henry Kissinger in Beijing.

    Mirroring meticulous Chinese attention to protocol, they met at Villa 5 of the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse – exactly where Kissinger first met in person with Zhou Enlai in 1971, preparing Nixon’s 1972 visit to China. The Mr. Kissinger Goes to Beijing saga was an “unofficial”, individual attempt to try to mend increasingly fractious Sino-American relations. He was not representing the current American administration.

    There’s the rub. Everyone involved in geopolitics is aware of the legendary Kissinger formulation: To be the US’s enemy is dangerous, to be the US’s friend is fatal. History abounds in examples, from Japan and South Korea to Germany, France and Ukraine.   As quite a few Chinese scholars privately argued, if reason is to be upheld, and “respecting the wisdom of this 100-years-old diplomat”, Xi and the Politburo should maintain the China-US relation as it is: “icy”.

    After all, they reason, being the US’s enemy is dangerous but manageable for a Sovereign Civilizational State like China. So Beijing should keep “the honorable and less perilous status” of being a US enemy.

    The World Through Washington’s Eyes

    What’s really going on in the back rooms of the current American administration was not reflected by Kissinger’s high-profile peace initiative, but by an extremely combative Edward Luttwak. Luttwak, 80, may not be as visibly influential as Kissinger, but as a behind-the-scenes strategist he’s been advising the Pentagon across the spectrum for over five decades. His book on Byzantine Empire strategy, for instance, heavily drawing on top Italian and British sources, is a classic.

    Luttwak, a master of deception, reveals precious nuggets in terms of contextualizing current Washington moves. That starts with his assertion that the US – represented by the Biden combo – is itching to do a deal with Russia.

    That explains why CIA head William Burns, actually a capable diplomat, called his counterpart, SVR head Sergey Naryshkin (Russian Foreign Intelligence) to sort of straighten things up “because you have something else to worry about which is more unlimited”. What’s “unlimited”, depicted by Luttwak in a Spenglerian sweep, is Xi Jinping’s drive to “get ready for war”. And if there’s a war, Luttwak claims that “of course” China would lose. That dovetails with the supreme delusion of Straussian neocon psychos across the Beltway.

    Luttwak seems not to have understood China’s drive for food self-sufficiency: he qualifies it as a threat. Same for Xi using a “very dangerous” concept, the “rejuvenation of the Chinese people”: that’s “Mussolini stuff”, says Luttwak. “There has to be a war to rejuvenate China”.

    The “rejuvenation” concept – actually better translated as “revival” – has been resonating in China circles at least since the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in 1911. It was not coined by Xi. Chinese scholars point out that if you see US troops arriving in Taiwan as “advisors”, you would probably make preparations to fight too.

    But Luttwak is on a mission: “This is not America, Europe, Ukraine, Russia. This is about ‘the sole dictator’. There is no China. There is only Xi Jinping,” he insisted. And Luttwak confirms the EU’s Josep “Garden vs. Jungle” Borrell and European Commission dominatrix Ursula von der Leyen fully support his vision. Luttwak, in just a few words, actually gives away the whole game: “The Russian Federation, as it is, is not strong enough to contain China as much as we would wish”. Hence the turn around by the Biden combo to “freeze” the conflict in the Donbass and change the subject. After all, “if that [China] is the threat, you don’t want Russia to fall apart,” Luttwak reasons.

    So much for Kissingerian “diplomacy.”

    Let’s Declare a “Moral Victory” and Run Away

    On Russia, the Kissinger vs. Luttwak confrontation reveals crucial cracks as the Empire faces an existential conflict it never did in the recent past. The gradual, massive U-turn is already in progress – or at least the semblance of a U turn. US mainstream media will be entirely behind the U turn. And the naïve masses will follow. Luttwak is already voicing their deepest agenda: the real war is on China, and China “will lose”

    At least some non-neocon players around the Biden combo – like Burns – seem to have understood the Empire’s massive strategic blunder of publicly committing to a Forever War, hybrid and otherwise, against Russia on behalf of Kiev. This would mean, in principle, that Washington can’t just walk away like it did in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Yet Hegemons do enjoy the privilege to walk away: after all they exercise sovereignty, not their vassals. European vassals will be left to rot. Imagine those Baltic chihuahuas declaring war on Russia-China all by themselves.

    The off-ramp confirmed by Luttwak implies Washington declaring some sort of “moral victory” in Ukraine – which is already controlled by BlackRock anyway – and then moving the guns towards China.

    Yet even that won’t be a cakewalk, because China and the about-to-expand BRICS+ are already attacking the Empire at its foundation: dollar hegemony. Without it, the US itself will have to fund the war on China. Chinese scholars, off the record, and exercising their millennia-old analytical sweep, observe this may be the last blunder the Empire ever made in its short history.

    As one of them summarized it, “the empire has blundered itself to an existential war and, therefore, the last war of the empire. When the end comes, the empire will lie as usual and declare victory, but everyone else will know the truth, especially the vassals.”

    And that brings us to former national security adviser Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski’s 180-degree turn shortly before he died, aligning him today with Kissinger, not Luttwak. “The Grand Chessboard”, published in 1997, before the 9/11 era, argued that the US should rule over any peer competitor rising in Eurasia. Brzezinski did not live to see the living incarnation of his ultimate nightmare: a Russia-China strategic partnership. But already seven years ago – two years after Maidan in Kiev – at least he understood it was imperative to realign the global power architecture”

    Destroying the “Rules-Based International Order”

    The crucial difference today, compared to seven years ago, is that the US is incapable, per Brzezinski, to “take the lead in realigning the global power architecture in such a way that the violence (…) can be contained without destroying the global order.” It’s the Russia-China strategic partnership that is taking the lead – followed by the Global Majority – to contain and ultimately destroy the hegemonic “rules-based international order”.

    As the indispensable Michael Hudson has summarized it, the ultimate question at this incandescent juncture is whether economic gains and efficiency will determine world trade, patterns and investment, or whether the post-industrial US/NATO economies will choose to end up looking like the rapidly depopulating and de-industrializing post-Soviet Ukraine and Baltic states or England.”

    So is the wet dream of a war on China going to change these geopolitical and geoeconomics imperatives? Give us a -Thucydides – break. The real war is already on – but certainly not one identified by Kissinger, Brzezinski and much less Luttwak and assorted US neocons.

    Michael Hudson, once again, summarized it: when it comes to the economy, the US and EU “strategic error of self-isolation from the rest of the world is so massive, so total, that its effects are the equivalent of a world war.”

  • First published at Sputnikglobe.com.
  • This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • This week’s News on China.

    • US companies call for end to sanctions on China
    • China’s GDP grows 5.5% in the first half of 2023
    • China plans to reach the Moon in 2030
    • Shijiazhuang: City of Rock

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • While the United States, along with its allies, left Afghanistan in August 2021 in spectacularly humiliating circumstances, the departure was never entirely complete, nor bound to be permanent.  Since then, Washington has led the charge in handicapping those who, with a fraction of the resources, defeated a superpower and prevailed in two decades of conflict.

    In a fit of wounded pride, the United States has, in turn, sought to strangulate and asphyxiate the Taliban regime, citing human rights and security concerns.  The Taliban’s Interim Foreign Minister, Mawlawi Amir Khan Muttaqi, makes the not unreasonable point that “the ongoing crisis is the imposition of sanctions and banking restrictions by the United States.”

    In May this year, Idaho Republican Senator Jim Risch, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led 18 of his righteous colleagues in introducing the Taliban Sanctions Act, promising more chastising.  Ostensibly, the Act seeks to impose “sanctions with respect to terrorism, human rights abuses, and narcotics trafficking committed by the Taliban and others in Afghanistan.”

    The brief for prosecuting an even more aggressive stance against the Taliban never ceases to bulk, be it to arrest the mistreatment of women and their inexorable marginalisation, or the claim that the country is now essentially a bandit state which is both a danger to itself and its neighbours.  “Over a year into Taliban rule, breakdown of the state, bankruptcy of financial institutions, economic collapse and diplomatic isolation have pushed Afghan society to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe,” writes a former senior advisor to Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister, Arian Sharifi, currently an academic at Princeton University’s School of International Affairs.

    Sharifi goes on to analyse the Taliban in what resembles a portrait of the ramshackle government he served.  “The Taliban today is deeply divided, making it unable to pursue a unified course of action.”  They also ruled a country with “more than 20 terrorist groups with a long-standing presence in Afghanistan.”

    In typical good taste, Sharifi delicately ignores his role in having advised a corrupt government whose strings were firstly pulled, then abandoned, by Washington and its allies.  His poisonous pen fails to acknowledge the attempt by his own past sponsors to systematically contribute to that very failure, bankruptcy and ruin.  He can, however, take some hope in recent reports suggesting that Afghanistan will again become a playground for what British imperialists dubbed in the 19th century the Great Game, the Anglo-Russian competition for influence over Central Asia.

    In recent months, Afghanistan has again piqued the interest of eager strategists drawing their salaries from the US government and assorted think tanks.  Such interest has nothing at all to do with the good citizenry of the Taliban-controlled state, be it the welfare of women or purported links to terrorist groups.  They concern the presence of lithium reserves in the Chapa Dara district of Kunar province and, almost inevitably, a fear that the People’s Republic of China might muscle in.

    In 2010, a US Department of Defense memorandum valued the extent of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth as between $1 trillion and $3 trillion.  And that was before the skyrocketing value of specific minerals that are becoming critical in the global energy transition.

    As the Washington Post reports, the eightfold rise in the mineral’s market price around the time of the Taliban takeover in August 2021 enticed “hundreds of Chinese mining entrepreneurs to Afghanistan.”  The paper describes in tones of awe and alarm Chinese traders filing Kabul’s hotels, then making their way to the hinterlands to seek lithium reminiscent “of a 19th-century gold rush.”

    Foreign Policy columnist Lynne O’Donnell also points an accusing finger at China for yet again “mucking about in Afghanistan’s mineral-rich playground.”  Doing so is evidently the prerogative of Western states.  She mocks the suggestion that this move in the energy transition stakes might “mean that billions of dollars will be pouring into securing a prosperous future for one of the world’s poorest countries.  It probably won’t.”  Remarkably, China is reproached for treating the country as a political, rather than economic matter.

    The interest in such minerals is bound to only grow; the International Energy Agency, predicts that the growth in demand for lithium by 2040 will be by a factor 40 times, with graphite, cobalt and nickel in the order of 20-25 times.

    The Post also seems troubled by another fact: that the Taliban have woken up to the value of lithium, and its vital role in the manufacture of Electric Vehicles (EVs) and battery storage.  (How dare they?)  “The tremendous promise of lithium […] could frustrate Western efforts to squeeze the Taliban into changing its extremist ways.”  The absence of the United States also meant that Chinese companies could “aggressively” position themselves to exploit the resource, thereby tightening Beijing’s “grasp of much of the global supply chain for EV minerals.”

    In April, the Taliban’s Ministry of Mine and Petroleum announced the interest of a Chinese company, Gochin, in investing $10 billion in the country’s lithium deposits.  According to the Ministry, some 120,000 direct jobs would arise from the investment, with a million indirect jobs being created.

    Whatever the merits of such extravagant announcements (China’s 2007 copper mining project valued at $3 billion failed to provide predicted returns), it was the sort of thing bound to make the Washington establishment livid.  The object of the Biden administration has been to corner the rare minerals market and prize out China, best seen in efforts to classify Australia as a “domestic source” for US defence interests.  Doing so would give unqualified access to the island continent’s own impressive lithium reserves.  (53% of the world’s lithium supply is mined in Australia.)

    A traditional, potentially violent rivalry over the resources of yet another country, is in the offing.  Only this time, the narrative will be slightly different: the competitors, notably the United States, habitually prone to cant and hustling, will argue that the mission to secure such minerals will be less a case of manifest destiny than environmental duty.  The cry will be: Save the Planet; Invade Afghanistan.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Bassim Al Shaker (Iraq), Symphony of Death 1, 2019

    The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) held its annual summit on 11–12 July in Vilnius, Lithuania. The communiqué released after the first day’s proceedings claimed that ‘NATO is a defensive alliance’, a statement that encapsulates why many struggle to grasp its true essence. A look at the latest military spending figures shows, to the contrary, that NATO countries, and countries closely allied to NATO, account for nearly three-quarters of the total annual global expenditure on weapons. Many of these countries possess state-of-the-art weapons systems, which are qualitatively more destructive than those held by the militaries of most non-NATO countries. Over the past quarter century, NATO has used its military might to destroy several states, such as Afghanistan (2001) and Libya (2011), shattering societies with the raw muscle of its aggressive alliance, and end the status of Yugoslavia (1999) as a unified state. It is difficult, given this record, to sustain the view that NATO is a ‘defensive alliance’.

    Currently, NATO has thirty-one member states, the most recent addition being Finland, which joined in April 2023. Its membership has more than doubled since its twelve founding members, all countries in Europe and North America that had been part of the war against the Axis powers, signed its founding treaty (the Washington Treaty or the North Atlantic Treaty) on 4 April 1949. It is telling that one of these original members – Portugal – remained under a fascist dictatorship at the time, known as Estado Novo (in place from 1933 until 1974).

    Article 10 of this treaty declares that NATO members – ‘by unanimous agreement’ – can ‘invite any other European state’ to join the military alliance. Based on that principle, NATO welcomed Greece and Turkey (1952), West Germany (1955), and Spain (1982), expanding its membership at the time to include sixteen countries. The disintegration of the USSR and communist states in Eastern Europe – the purported threat that compelled the need for NATO to begin with – did not put an end to the need for the alliance. Instead, NATO’s increasing membership has doubled down on its ambition to use its military power, through Article 5, to subdue anyone who challenges the ‘Atlantic Alliance’.

    Nino Morbedadze (Georgia), Strolling Couple, 2017.

    The ‘Atlantic Alliance’, a phrase that is part of NATO’s name, was part of a wider network of military treaties secured by the US against the USSR and, after October 1949, against the People’s Republic of China. This network included the Manila Pact of September 1954, which created the Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO), and the Baghdad Pact of February 1955, which created the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO). Turkey and Pakistan signed a military agreement in April 1954 which brought them together in an alliance against the USSR and anchored this network through NATO’s southernmost member (Turkey) and SEATO’s westernmost member (Pakistan). The US signed a military deal with each of the members of CENTO and SEATO and ensured that it had a seat at the table in these structures.

    At the Asian-African Conference held in Bandung, Indonesia in April 1955, India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru reacted strongly to the creation of these military alliances, which exported tensions between the US and the USSR across Asia. The concept of NATO, he said, ‘has extended itself in two ways’: first, NATO ‘has gone far away from the Atlantic and has reached other oceans and seas’ and second, ‘NATO today is one of the most powerful protectors of colonialism’. As an example, Nehru pointed to Goa, which was still held by fascist Portugal and whose grip had been validated by NATO members – an act, Nehru said, of ‘gross impertinence’. This characterisation of NATO as a global belligerent and defender of colonialism remains intact, with some modifications.

    Slobodan Trajković (Yugoslavia), The Flag, 1983.

    SEATO was disbanded in 1977, partly due to the defeat of the US in Vietnam, and CENTO was shuttered in 1979, precisely due to the Iranian Revolution that year. US military strategy shifted its focus from wielding these kinds of pacts to establishing a direct military presence with the founding of US Central Command in 1983 and the revitalisation of the US Pacific Command that same year. The US expanded the power of its own global military footprint, including its ability to strike anywhere on the planet due to its structure of military bases and armed flotillas (which were no longer restricted once the 1930 Second London Naval Treaty expired in 1939). Although NATO has always had global ambitions, the alliance was given material reality through the US military’s force projection and its creation of new structures that further tied allied states into its orbit (with programmes such as ‘Partnership for Peace’, set up in 1994, and concepts such as ‘global NATO partner’ and ‘non-NATO ally’, as exemplified by Japan and South Korea). In its 1991 Strategic Concept, NATO wrote that it would ‘contribute to global stability and peace by providing forces for United Nations missions’, which was realised with deadly force in Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2003), and Libya (2011).

    By the Riga Summit (2006), NATO was confident that it operated ‘from Afghanistan to the Balkans and from the Mediterranean Sea to Darfur’. Nehru’s focus on colonialism might seem anachronistic now, but, in fact, NATO has become an instrument to blunt the global majority’s desire for sovereignty and dignity, two key anti-colonial concepts. Any popular project that exerts these two concepts finds itself at the end of a NATO weapons system.

    Shefa Salem al-Baraesi (Libya), Kaska, Dance of War, 2020.

    The collapse of the USSR and the Eastern European communist state system transformed Europe’s reality. NATO quickly ignored the ‘ironclad guarantees’ offered by US Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow on 9 February 1990 that NATO’s ‘forces would not move eastward’ of the German border. Several states that bordered the NATO zone suffered greatly in the immediate period after the fall of the Berlin Wall, with economies in the doldrums as privatisation eclipsed the possibility for their populations to live with dignity. Many states in Eastern Europe, desperate to enter the European Union (EU), which at least promised access to the common market, understood that entry into NATO was the price of admission. In 1999, Czechia, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO, followed in 2004 by the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia. Eager for investments and markets, by 2004 many of these countries waltzed into the Atlantic Alliance of NATO and the EU.

    NATO continued to expand, absorbing Albania and Croatia in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020. However, the breakdown of some US banks, the waning attraction of the US as the market of last resort, and the entry of the Atlantic world into a relentless economic depression after 2007 changed the context. No longer were Atlantic states reliable as investors or as markets. After 2008, infrastructure investment in the EU declined by 75% due to reduced public spending, and the European Investment Bank warned that government investment would hit a twenty-five-year low.

    ArtLords (including Kabir Mokamel, Abdul Hakim Maqsodi, Meher Agha Sultani, Omaid Sharifi, Yama Farhard, Negina Azimi, Enayat Hikmat, Zahid Amini, Ali Hashimi, Mohammad Razeq Meherpour, Abdul Razaq Hashemi, and Nadima Rustam), The Unseen Afghanistan, 2021.

    The arrival of Chinese investment and the possibility of integration with the Chinese economy began to reorient many economies, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, away from the Atlantic. In 2012, the first summit between China and central and eastern European countries (China–CEEC summit) was held in Warsaw (Poland), with sixteen countries in the region participating. The process eventually drew in fifteen NATO members, including Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (in 2021 and 2022, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania withdrew from the initiative). In March 2015, six then-EU member states – France, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, Sweden, and the UK – joined the Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Four years later, Italy became the first G7 country to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Two-thirds of EU member states are now part of the BRI, and the EU concluded the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment in 2020.

    These manoeuvres towards China threatened to weaken the Atlantic Alliance, with the US describing the country as a ‘strategic competitor’ in its 2018 National Defense Strategy – a phrase indicative of its shifting focus on the so-called threat of China. Nonetheless, as recently as November 2019, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that ‘there [are] no plans, no proposal, no intention to move NATO into, for instance, the South China Sea’. However, by 2020, the mood had changed: a mere seven months later, Stoltenberg said, ‘NATO does not see China as the new enemy or an adversary. But what we see is that the rise of China is fundamentally changing the global balance of power’. NATO’s response has been to work with its partners – including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea – ‘to address… the security consequences of the rise of China’, Stoltenberg continued. The talk of a global NATO and an Asian NATO is front and centre in these deliberations, with Stoltenberg stating in Vilnius that the idea of a liaison office in Japan is ‘on the table’.

    The war in Ukraine provided new life to the Atlantic Alliance, driving several hesitant European countries – such as Sweden – into its ranks. Yet, even amongst people living within NATO countries there are groups who are sceptical of the alliance’s aims, with the Vilnius summit marked by anti-NATO protests. The Vilnius Summit Communiqué underlined Ukraine’s path into NATO and sharpened NATO’s self-defined universalism. The communiqué declares, for instance, that China challenges ‘our interests, security, and values’, with the word ‘our’ claiming to represent not only NATO countries but the entire international order. Slowly, NATO is positioning itself as a substitute for the UN, suggesting that it – and not the actual international community – is the arbiter and guardian of the world’s ‘interests, security, and values’. This view is contested by the vast majority of the world’s peoples, seven billion of whom do not even reside in NATO’s member countries (whose total population is less than one billion). Those billions wonder why it is that NATO wants to supplant the United Nations.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On 13 July 2023 the ITUC has protested to the Hong Kong authorities, the ILO and the UN over its deep concern about the escalation in the climate of fear, intimidation, arrests, arbitrary prosecutions, threats for the exercise of trade union rights and civil liberties in Hong Kong.

    In particular, the disproportionate and unwarranted extra-territorial application of the National Security Law to target trade unionists, human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates by the Authorities of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) undermines its commitment to fulfil their international obligations.

    The ITUC has called on the HKSAR Chief Executive Officer to respect and fully implement the conclusions and recommendations of ILO supervisory bodies and UN Human Rights bodies, in law and practice, including those regarding the National Security Law.

    And he has been urged to release all those arrested and imprisoned for allegations related to the exercise of civil liberties including freedom of assembly, expression, press and association and those participating in pro-democracy activities.

    On 4 July 2023, the HKSAR authorities announced, under the National Security Law, the issuance of arrest warrants against eight human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates and placed a bounty of HK$ one million on each of their heads.

    ITUC Acting General Secretary Luc Triangle said: “We unequivocally deplore the HKSAR authorities’ criminalisation and securitisation of trade union and democracy-promoting activities. We consider it particularly egregious, especially given the risks to life and safety faced by trade unionists, human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates around the world for their legitimate activities, that the HKSAR authorities approved and announced a bounty on the heads of these eight people for exercising their civil liberties or trade union rights.

    “As a special administrative region of a member State of the ILO, China, the HKSAR is also obliged to respect and promote the fundamental principles and rights at work including freedom of association and treat with the utmost regard, the authoritative guidance of the ILO’s supervisory bodies.”

    The ITUC letter of protest sets out the recent findings of the ILO and other UN bodies on the abuse of workers’ and trade union rights by the HKSAR. It says that seeking to apply the National Security Law in an extraterritorial manner and placing a bounty on the heads of pro-democracy advocates and human rights defenders for alleged crimes related to the exercise of civil liberties and trade union rights is an overreach and certainly not proportionate – its coercive and chilling effective is wide ranging. With the use of the National Security Law in this disproportionate and arbitrary manner, the HKSAR authorities are violating their obligations under the Constitution of the ILO and Convention 87.

    https://www.ituc-csi.org/hong-kong-bounty-enhttps://www.ituc-csi.org/hong-kong-bounty-en

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

  • Australia’s research collaboration activity with China is in freefall, with government funding for partnerships plummeting after allegations of foreign interference and intellectual property theft. Analysis of the drop found that while there is a legitimate foreign interference threat in some areas, the response in Australia has been too blunt. An expert is now arguing for…

    The post ‘Self-censorship’ cuts into Australia-China research collaboration appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Growth in global demand for electricity is expected to slow down in 2023 due to falling electricity consumption in advanced economies, while strong growth is observed in developing and emerging economies like China and India, a report released by a Paris-based energy watchdog said Wednesday.

    The increasing global electricity demand is being driven by the electrification of energy systems gaining momentum as part of the ongoing efforts to decrease global emissions, the International Energy Agency said in its latest Electricity Market report.

    Additionally, with rising temperatures, there is a notable surge in the adoption of air conditioning, further straining world power systems, especially since summers with extreme temperatures are becoming more frequent in many regions.

    “The world’s need for electricity is set to grow strongly in the years to come,” Keisuke Sadamori, the IEA’s director for energy markets and security, said in a statement.

    “And we’re encouraged to see renewables accounting for a rising share of electricity generation, resulting in declines in the use of fossil fuels for power generation.”

    Electricity demand is set to drop to the lowest level in 20 years in the European Union, while it will slow down in the United States and Japan, largely due to the ongoing effects of the global energy crisis and an economic slowdown, the report said.

    The IEA said renewable energy’s contribution to global electricity generation will surpass one-third by next year. Moreover, if favorable weather conditions persist, 2024 might be the first year when renewables outpace coal in worldwide electricity generation.

    Growth and drought pressures Chinese grid

    Following a modest 3.7% yearly rise in electricity demand in 2022, China is projected to experience a 5.3% surge in 2023, according to the IEA.

    Despite the economic recovery not matching some initial expectations after the relaxation of strict pandemic measures, electricity demand is expected to receive an additional boost due to rising cooling requirements during the summer of 2023.

    In 2024, China’s electricity demand will grow at 5.1%, the IEA said.

    As of 2022, 30% of the world’s hydropower generation was in China but the country suffered from droughts in 2022 and 2023, which decreased hydropower output by 23% in the first half of 2023. 

    That means more coal-fired generation to fill the gap, estimated to have increased by almost 8% in the first half of 2023 amid significant growth in demand. 

    The IEA said coal-fired output will likely increase by 4.5% over the rest of the year and then stay roughly flat in 2024, as strong growth in renewables and nuclear power help  tackle reliance on coal. 

    Wind generation grew by about 20% in the first half of this year, supported by installed capacities and favorable weather growth. 

    ENG_ENV_ElectricityConsumption_07192023.2.jpg
    Migrant workers carrying shovels walk to have lunch near a construction site in Beijing, China, April 18, 2011. Credit: AP

    According to the China Electricity Council, peak electricity demand is projected to reach 1,370 Gigawatts in 2023, an 80 GW increase compared to 2022, with the maximum power load expected to rise by an additional 20 GW in the event of extreme weather.

    To prepare for potential large-scale power outages, China conducted its first emergency drill in collaboration with the National Energy Administration and regional governments from East China in June 2023, with various stakeholders participating, including energy regulators, power grid and generation companies, the Shanghai subway network, hospitals and the chemical industry.

    India sees rising demand due to cooling requirements

    In 2022, India experienced a remarkable 8.4% surge in electricity demand due to a robust post-pandemic recovery and intense heat waves. 

    The strong growth trend is projected to continue in 2023, at 6.8% and 6.1% in 2024, when India’s electricity consumption is expected to surpass that of Japan and South Korea combined. 

    According to the IEA, the rising usage of household appliances, a growing reliance on electrical machinery, increasing adoption of electric vehicles, and the expansion of cooling systems all contribute to the sustained growth in India’s electricity needs.

    In March, India’s Central Electricity Authority said that certain sub-regions might face power supply deficits ranging from 4% to 11.3% of their respective peak demand, which could be balanced to some extent since the regions are expected to experience this at different times. 

    India is anticipated to possess a slim 0.7% surplus to fulfill peak electricity demand, which is estimated to be around 230 GW. This indicates a precarious supply situation. Notably, in June 2023, there was already a peak demand of 223 GW, driven by escalating temperatures.

    ENG_ENV_ElectricityConsumption_07192023.1.jpg
    A worker quenches his thirst next to power lines as a heatwave continues to lash the Indian capital, New Delhi on May 2, 2022. Credit; AP


    Though India installed robust solar generation capacity, it is not enough for evening peaks when the sun is not shining, but temperatures remain high. 

    The IEA said India recorded a 3.8% increase in coal-fired generation in the first half of 2023 due to strong demand growth and reduced hydropower output, which decreased by 8%. It is likely to continue increasing until 2024.

    With heat waves expected to cause surges in peak demand due to increased cooling, the government ordered coal plants to run at full capacity from mid-March until the end of September to increase the security of supply. 

    Edited by Mike Firn.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Subel Rai Bhandari for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • RNZ News

    From today readers of rnz.co.nz will see a change to the home page, and a new initiative to tell the stories of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Asian community.

    RNZ.co.nz has added a lineup of four sections which focus on the growing communities of Aotearoa and are placed right at the top of the home page.

    Elevated links have been added to RNZ’s existing Te Ao Māori and Pacific sections.

    RNZ has also launched two new sections for Chinese and Indian New Zealanders and added them at the top of the home page as well.

    Public Interest Journalism Fund
    PUBLIC INTEREST JOURNALISM FUND

    The sections are part of a new initiative to speak to and report on issues in the growing Asian communities of New Zealand.

    The new Indian section features original stories in English by specialist reporters.

    The Chinese section has stories in the simplified Chinese script. Original stories are there as well as translations of RNZ news stories of interest to the Chinese community.

    NZ On Air survey
    RNZ is starting with the simplified script and will then scope whether it is feasible and useful to translate using the traditional script as well.

    The different approaches are a response to a NZ On Air survey which found the Indian and Chinese communities had different language needs and approaches to seeking out news.

    This is one of RNZ’s first steps into daily translated news. Before the launch, RNZ put systems in place to make sure it is getting translations right. The stories are double, and triple checked.

    RNZ is also asking for feedback to make sure it is getting it right on each story and will conduct regular independent audits to make sure our translations are on track. RNZ is keen for feedback.

    The new Indian and Chinese sections are a result of a two-year collaboration with NZ On Air. The unit of reporters and translators is being funded for the first year through the Public Interest Journalism Fund; the second year will be funded by RNZ, with a right of renewal after that.

    Stories from the Asian unit will also be made available to more than 40 media organisations across the country and the Pacific.

    RNZ believes that it is vital that RNZ supplies news to many different communities within Aotearoa New Zealand.

    The Asian population in New Zealand is growing fast, particularly in Auckland.

    In 2018, Asian New Zealanders made up 15 percent of the New Zealand population. The two largest groups are the Chinese and Indian New Zealanders, with about 250,000 people each.

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


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.