radiofree.asia

Category: China

  • Chinese students face uncertain future as US imposes visa crackdown

    Chinese students who account for about one quarter of overseas students in the United States voiced anxiety Thursday as the Trump administration paused visa interviews and announced tougher screening of applicants to American universities.

    In the U.S., Chinese students expressed worries they may not be able to travel freely, and one student who is a human rights activist said she now felt pressure both from the Chinese government and U.S. government.

    “The current situation in the U.S. feels increasingly uncertain — even dangerous,” Mary, who graduated from an American college this month, told Radio Free Asia. She requested a pseudonym for security reasons. “This dual threat is devastating,” she said.

    In China, prospective students also took to social media to express confusion and distress after the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Wednesday that the U.S. will work “aggressively” to revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or studying in critical fields.

    The U.S. will also revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Hong Kong, Rubio said, in a statement titled “New Visa Policies Put America First, Not China.”

    U.S. lawmakers have long raised concerns about China acquiring access to sensitive technology and know-how through American colleges.

    But China’s government said it “firmly opposes” the decision and has protested to the U.S. for using ideology and national security as a pretext for taking actions that are “fully unjustified.”

    “This politically motivated and discriminatory move exposes the U.S. hypocrisy over freedom and openness. It will further damage the image and reputation of the U.S. itself,” Mao Ning, spokesperson for the Chinese government, said at a press briefing on Thursday.

    Mao said the move “seriously hurts” the rights and interests of international students from China and disrupts people-to-people exchanges between the two countries.

    A U.S. State Department announcement on May 28, 2025, to scrutinize and
    A U.S. State Department announcement on May 28, 2025, to scrutinize and “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students.”
    (U.S. State Department)

    Rubio’s announcement risks deepening tensions in a U.S.-China relationship already strained over trade.

    It follows other steps by the Trump administration to deter international students, including ordering embassies to pause new student visa appointments amid enhanced social media vetting.

    While the U.S. has only a few hundred students in China, Chinese students only rank behind India in their numbers in the U.S.

    There were 277,398 Chinese students in the U.S. during the 2023-24 academic year, second to India, at 331,602, according to the U.S. State Department-sponsored “Open Doors report on International Educational Exchange”. Together, India and China accounted for 54% of all the international students, the report showed.

    Rubio’s announcement on Wednesday generated hundreds of comments on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu, known as RedNote in English, including questions of what subjects of study would be impacted.

    “Cognitive neuroscience, brain science, computational linguistics, biomedical engineering — are any of these considered critical fields?” asked one netizen named Nailong.

    Rubio did not specify which fields were considered “critical.” Neither was there any clarification provided on what “connections to the CCP” would be scrutinized. It could account for a major chunk of China’s student body.

    The Communist Youth League of China, for example, had around 75.32 million members aged 14-28 by end-2024, and roughly 2 million related organizations at schools, colleges, and universities, with around 98.5 million members.

    Darkest moment

    Mary, the human rights activist who just graduated in the U.S., said she was urgently reassessing her future career plans and was now considering seeking job opportunities abroad.

    “For Chinese students, international students, and the entire education sector, this week may have marked a darkest moment,” Andrew Chen, Vice-Chair of China Member Interest Group at NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, said in a video posted on WeChat.

    “But everyone must take responsibility for their own growth and future. Every family needs to make choices quickly — to improve their academic and employment abilities,” said Chen, who advised that Chinese students keen on pursuing further studies in the U.S. eschew defense-related majors and sensitive institutions within China.

    Chinese students accounted for a quarter of overseas students in the United States during the 2023-2024 academic year.
    Chinese students accounted for a quarter of overseas students in the United States during the 2023-2024 academic year.
    (Tenzin Pema/RFA)

    Chinese students who are already in the U.S. should work to improve their profile “as fast as possible,” so they can find a job in the country more easily in the near future, he added.

    On social media platforms, Chinese students currently based in the U.S. expressed worries they may not be able to travel freely amid the stricter visa measures.

    “If you’re in the U.S., you can’t go home anymore. I miss home,” wrote one netizen, Chaochao, on RedNote.

    Other Chinese nationals also expressed worries about their future. “Will this affect an EB-1 application?,” asked one netizen named QuQ, referring to a U.S. employment-based visa for people with extraordinary abilities in their respective fields.

    According to NAFSA, a U.S.-based nonprofit association focused on international education, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported 378,175 jobs during the 2023-2024 academic year.

    For every three international students, one U.S. job is created and supported through spending by international students on accommodation, higher education, dining, retail, health, telecommunications, and transportation, it added.

    The U.S. House Select Committee on the CCP welcomed Rubio’s Wednesday announcement. Chairman John Moolenaar on Thursday said, “America’s student visa system has become a Trojan horse for Beijing, providing unrestricted access to our top research institutions and posing a direct threat to our national security.”

    “If left unaddressed, this trend will continue to displace American talent, compromise research integrity, and fuel China’s technological ambitions at our expense,” Moolenaar said.

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A Sketch of the Origins of Jiang Jieshi’s Relationship with the United States

    A public opinion poll in 2023 found that 64% of likely United States voters thought that our government should officially recognize the Island of Taiwan as an independent nation, while a poll this year found that 82% of them believe that Taiwan “is” independent. A few months ago the U.S. State Department removed a line from their website stating that the US does not support Taiwan independence, triggering a rebuke from Beijing that this “sends a seriously erroneous message to the separatist forces” in Taiwan. Consistent with such views among U.S. citizens and State Department officials, the number of U.S. military personnel on Taiwan has increased recently. It was previously known that the number stationed there was 41; now, according to the testimony of retired Navy Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery on 15 May, there are approximately 500.

    U.S. experts speak of war with China. The U.S. and China are apparently preparing for it (Peter Apps, “US Prepares for Long War with China that Might Hit Its Bases, Homeland,” Reuters, 19 May 2025). And according to opinion polls, a large percentage of Americans, if not the majority, do support using U.S. troops to defend Taiwan. Thus it is important in 2025 to understand Taiwan’s special status and U.S.-China relations.

    The civil war between the Nationalist Party (Guomindang) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continued intermittently from 1927 until 1949, when the Communists won control over mainland China. The war resulted in the premature deaths of millions of people, with a large portion of those non-combatants. In 1949 the head of the Guomindang, Chiang Kaishek (1887-1975), known today as “Jiang Jieshi” by most mainland Chinese speakers, retreated to the Island of Taiwan with the remnants of his forces and “established a relatively benign dictatorship” there, executing one thousand farmers, workers, intellectuals, students, labor union activists, and apolitical civilians during the White Terror in the 1950s. (Po Chien CHEN and Yi-hung LIU, “A Spark Extinguished: Worker Militancy in Taiwan after World War II [1945-1950],” Ivan Franceschini and Christian Sorace, eds., Proletarian China: A Century of Chinese Labour, Verso, 2022). The martial law that Jiang Jieshi imposed in 1949 lasted for nearly four decades, until 1987.

    Under his reign there were two Taiwan Strait crises in which a hot war between the Guomindang and the CCP almost broke out. The most dangerous, in terms of the prospects for decent human survival, was probably the second crisis, in 1958. It almost resulted in a nuclear war, according to the late Daniel Ellsberg. At a point in time when U.S.-backed Jiang Jieshi aspired to take back all of China, the U.S. had a secret plan to “hit every city in the Soviet Union and every city in China.” The U.S. military was prepared to annihilate 600 million people, a “hundred Holocausts,” Ellsberg explained. Today the Island of Taiwan may or may not be the “most dangerous place on Earth,” as the Economist called it (Justin Metz, “The Most Dangerous Place on Earth,” The Economist, 1 May 2021), but given the constant tension between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (i.e., Taiwan) during the last three quarters of a century, the fact that the U.S. and the PRC are both nuclear powers, the fact that U.S. intelligence leaders have recently called the CCP the “most consequential threat” to U.S. national security, and the fact that the Trump administration is riddled with China hawks underscores how important it is, for our species as a whole, and especially for people in East Asia, that sincere agents of peace understand Taiwan.

    Over the course of nearly half a century, Jiang Jieshi and his party received constant diplomatic support, weapons, and billions of dollars in aid from the U.S.  Our government has recently even “quietly unfrozen about $870 million in security assistance programs for Taiwan.” With all this U.S. “support” for, or U.S. domination of, Taiwan, what does the word “sovereignty” mean in Taiwan’s case? And what does it mean for an island of 23 million people to prepare to fight with the PRC, with its population of 1.4 billion? How can Lai Ching-te say that they must prepare for war?

    To understand the fight between the Republic of China and the PRC, and the intervening/interfering role of the U.S., one must have a basic understanding of the nature of this fight. A little study of the historical context in which Jiang Jieshi first seized power a century ago might help. This month marks 100 years since the start of the May Thirtieth Movement, when Chinese workers stood up against the imperialism of the West and Japan, while at the same time taking on the greedy business class and the power-hungry warlords of China.

    Chinese Workers Struggle for Dignity in 1925

    Back in 1925, Shanghai was known as “the Paris of the East,” and like Paris, it was a place where the rich could have fun as they liked and the poor had to suffer as they must. The workers of Shanghai suffered the injustices of colonialism and racism. Rich Europeans and Japanese colonizer-parasites had carved up the city and set up their own “International Settlement,” that they, rather than the Chinese, governed. This Settlement allowed them to live among and exploit the local laborers even as they disrespected them with the pejorative “coolies.” Some Japanese said they were “worthless” and called them “foreign slaves” (S.A. Smith, Like Cattle and Horses: Nationalism and Labor in Shanghai, 1895-1927, Duke UP, 2002, page 163).

    Shanghai had been a frequent site of labor “unrest” for some time. It was not a coincidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had been founded there in 1921. Early in 1925 a Japanese company that owned a cotton mill had rejected an agreement made by the striking workers and a mediation board. The conflict reached a head on the 15th of May that year when the managers of the mill locked out the workers and stopped paying their wages. (Apo Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement to the Canton Strike,” Proletarian China: A Century of Chinese Labour). In this conflict, Japanese supervisors physically beat several workers and one foreman shot and killed a 20-year-old worker, a Communist, by the name of Gu Zhenghong.

    This was not the first time that foreign bosses had murdered Chinese workers, but it was said that “Japanese capitalists treat Chinese laborers like cattle and horses” (S.A. Smith, Like Cattle and Horses 164). Many people, not only workers and students but also Chinese business persons, were fed up that year, in 1925. On the 30th of May nearly 10,000 demonstrators marched through the streets of Shanghai to the International Settlement where the British, French, Japanese, and other privileged foreigners lived. It was guarded by foreign soldiers and police. (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”). The British chief of police gave orders to fire on the protesting workers and students, and thirteen people were killed, shot at “point-blank range” (Working Class History, PM Press, 2020, page 111-12).  Dozens were injured. This triggered what is known today as the May Thirtieth Movement. Through the cooperation of workers, students, and many Chinese businesses, a general strike was organized in Shanghai. There were at least 135 solidarity strikes in other regions. (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”).

    By one estimate, there were already 84,000 unionized workers in Shanghai at this time and many unions had contributed to building worker solidarity (Smith, Like Cattle and Horses 154). Up until the May Thirtieth Incident, the Shanghai Federation of Syndicates (SFS) had been a leading labor organization, if not the leading organization in Shanghai. It had been established in 1924, mainly by right-wing members, but also by many anarchists, such as Shen Zhongjiu (1887–1968), the editor of the anarchist journal Free Man (Ziyou ren) and later the chief editor of Revolution (Geming). Anarchism was the “central radical stream” in China after the First World War. And there had been a “long-standing indigenous libertarian tradition” in China (Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, PM Press, 2010, page 519).

    Many SFS labor activists distrusted the Communist Party because they felt that CCP intellectuals tried to speak for the workers. The SFS had a “vaguely anarchist orientation,” but did not espouse federalism. (Smith, Like Cattle and Horses 155-59). Chinese anarchists in general, regardless whether they were members of SFS, had vocally opposed the CCP’s statist goals and promotion of “proletarian dictatorship” and “iron discipline.” But the fledgling CCP was on the ball. They “instantly launched a campaign calling for solidarity with the textile workers, a boycott of Japanese products, and a public funeral” for Gu Zhenghong (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”).

    In the city of Guangzhou, already an industrial center near Hong Kong then, anarchists had established at least 40 unions by 1921, and had been collaborating since 1924 with the Guomindang labor leaders in the syndicalist movement. The Guomindang was founded in 1924 by Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925) in Guangzhou, and many anarchists and communists had collaborated with them for years.  In May 1925 the “Second National Labour Conference” was held in Guangzhou. The All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) was established, representing 166 trade unions and 540,000 members. It was a national umbrella organization that functioned as a platform to coordinate different forces among workers, including non-party actors. After the Shanghai Massacre, the ACFTU called for a demonstration on 2 June and a solidarity strike. In the wake of the Massacre, many more workers joined unions (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”).

    Union leaders organized a strike in Guangzhou and in nearby Hong Kong. This strike began on 19 June. Soon, 250,000 workers hand had joined and many students in Hong Kong were also mobilized. In fact, half the labor force of Hong Kong was on strike, paralyzing the city. By the 21st of June, there was a full embargo against the foreign powers, and on the 23rd of June, a public procession in solidarity with the May Thirtieth Movement. The joint foreign security force with police from multiple countries opened fire on students and killed fifty-two people.

    1925 was the beginning of a period of very active worker resistance, that is sometimes called the “Revolution of 1925-1927.” It was a time of many large uprisings, often or usually very violent, and a time of dedicated labor organizing. Through this revolution, Chinese workers regained some dignity, but true liberation was put on the back burner. According to the historian Gotelind Müller, “the CCP worked on Comintern instructions in a united front with the Guomindang, an authoritarian party populist in rhetoric but tied in practice to defending the interests of China’s business groups and rural elites. The terms of the alliance required the CCP’s subordination to the Nationalist [i.e., Guomindang] leaders and the submersion of its membership.” She explains that, just as with anarchists elsewhere, “Chinese anarchists were at first sympathetic to the Bolsheviks but by the mid-1920s they saw the regime in Moscow as oppressive.”

    Meanwhile, Mao Zedong knew that something was happening, and he became very interested in this movement in the summer of 1925 (Rebecca Karl, Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth Century World, Duke UP, 2010, page 29). In addition to labor unions in the city, peasant unions were also forming, appearing in Hunan and surrounding provinces. Mao saw revolutionary potential among them, even more than among workers in the cities. This put him in opposition to the orthodox Marxist approach.

    A Year of Strikes: 1926

    There were even more strikes in 1926 than in 1925, and some of the rulers of China resorted to violence to keep them down. “During 1926 in Shanghai there were, according to one official survey, 169 strikes affecting 165 factories and companies and involving 202,297 workers.” Half of them were “wholly or partially successful.” (Harold Isaacs, The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution, 1938). In May 1926 the Third Labor Congress was held in Guangzhou, with the participation of 699 labor organizations, who claimed to represent 1.24 million workers.

    And it was at this point, when things were going so well for the workers, that Jiang Jieshi started abandoning them and dismissed his Soviet advisors (Dennis Showalter, “Bring in the Germans,” The Quarterly Journal of Military History 28:1, page 60). It was the Soviets who had urged the Communists of China to work with the Guomindang.

    On 18 March, there was a massacre of anti-imperialist protesters in front of Beiyang Government headquarters. The Beiyang Government was run by warlords like Duan Qirui (1865-1936), who was tight with Japan. They were the main government of China between 1912 and 1928, and were based in Beijing.

    Among those injured during the 18 March massacre was the leader Li Dazhao (1889-1927), who had co-founded the CCP with Chen Duxiu (1879-1942). Chen Duxiu had also founded the progressive journal New Youth (Xin Qingnian) in 1916, advocating human rights, democracy, science, and even Esperanto. Influenced by the October Revolution, it was openly promoting communism in 1920.

    The great writer Lu Xun, who is often credited with modernizing Chinese literature, wrote about the March 1926 massacre in some detail in “In Memory of Miss Liu Hezhen.” Lu Xun wrote, “On March 18 in the fifteenth year of the Republic of China, Duan Qirui’s government ordered guards with guns and bayonets to surround and slaughter the unarmed protesters in front of the gates of the State Council, the hundreds of young men and women whose intent was to lend their support in China’s diplomatic dealings with foreign powers. An order was even issued, slandering them as ‘mobsters’!” (Lu Xun, “In Memory of Liu Hezhen,” Jottings Under Lamplight, Harvard UP, 2017, page 72).

    Meanwhile in June, Jiang Jieshi was put in charge of the Northern Expedition aimed at removing the warlords from power and unifying the country.

    Jiang Jieshi’s 1927 Slaughters

    In 1927 rich men slaughtered workers like never before. Early on, the CCP suspected that something was up. On 26 January an internal Party memo read, “The most important problem which requires our urgent consideration at the moment is the alliance of foreign imperialism and the [Guomindang] right wing with the so-called moderate elements of the [Guomindang], resulting in internal and external opposition to Soviet Russia, communism, and the labor and peasant movements” (Michael D. Wilson, United States Policy and the Nationalist Revolution in China, 1925-1928, UCLA dissertation, 1996, page 121). The Communists knew that the Guomindang was allied with the “Powers,” i.e., the empires of the West and Japan. Yet they still encouraged workers to trust the Guomindang.

    Around this time in early 1927, a powerful Communist-led union called the Shanghai General Labour Union (GLU) launched two insurrections. Their first insurrection was a general strike from the 19th to the 22nd of February, and their second was a strike supported by an armed militia from the 21st to 22nd of March. The strike in February “shut post offices, all cotton mills, and most essential services” (S.A. Smith, “The Third Armed Uprising and the Shanghai Massacre,” Proletarian China: A Century of Chinese Labour, and Working Class History 41). This contributed greatly to the popularity of both the Guomindang and the CCP in Shanghai.

    For their second insurrection in March, the GLU’s plan was “to take control of the city first and then welcome” Jiang Jieshi. But the British, the Americans, and the Japanese in Shanghai already knew the script. Written in 1938, Harold Isaacs’ historical account got to the heart of the matter:

    The prevailing attitude among them during those early weeks of 1927 seemed to be to hear and protect the evils they had rather than fly to others they knew not of. For to your foreign business man, banker, soldier, consul, and missionary, this incomprehensible unrest, these endless slings and arrows for which they were the quivering targets, seemed the blows of a universally outrageous fortune. They could not make out who were the hares and who the hounds. So they barricaded their settlements behind gates and barbed wire. From overseas came regiment after regiment and whole fleets to protect them against all contingencies. Only the keenest among them understood from the beginning that their bread was buttered on the same side as that of the Shanghai bankers and oriented themselves accordingly. They knew Chiang Kai-shek [Jiang Jieshi] as a politically-minded militarist who wore a coat of many colours. If the Shanghai bankers were ready to back him, they knew they could follow suit. Only the workers of Shanghai stood between them and the consummation of the deal. Chiang’s coming would remove this obstacle. Thus by February when Chiang’s troops advanced into Chekiang, the situation was vastly clarified for all concerned except the workers and the Communist leaders for whom Chiang still remained the hero-general of the revolution. (Harold Isaacs, The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution, 1938).

    But as evidenced by the quote from the CCP internal Party memo, the Communist leaders, too, knew what was happening, that Jiang Jieshi was not on their side.

    “On 21 March between 600,000 and 800,000 workers struck in demand for an end to militarist rule of the city. Among the workers who played key roles were the printers, postal workers, and mechanics. Several thousand radicals also formed an armed militia that occupied key sections of the city” (St. James Encyclopedia of Labor History Worldwide: Major Events in Labor History and Their Impact).

    On the same day that these Communist supporters of Jiang Jieshi launched their violent take-over of Shanghai, Guomindang troops took control of the City of Nanjing, attacked foreigners and looted foreign property there, “including the American, British, and Japanese consulates.” (Wilson, United States Policy and the Nationalist Revolution in China, 1925-1928, page 111). Foreigners were frightened by these attacks and they blamed it on communists, not on Jiang Jieshi. “Actually, however, the nationalists [i.e., Guomindang] were the perpetrators of this series of attacks on foreign civilians. Some foreign officials, such as the Japanese Consul General, thus advised [Jiang Jieshi] to crack down on the radical elements in the city” (St. James Encyclopedia…). This is remembered as the “Nanking Incident of 1927.”

    On 22 March, the stage was set for the great betrayal and a years-long bloodbath. On that day, a subordinate of Jiang Jieshi, called off the strike in Shanghai and ordered the suppression of the labor unions and other radical groups (Wilson 110). With thousands of soldiers in toe and at his command, Jiang Jieshi himself arrived on 26 March and began meeting with members of the local Guomindang, the Shanghai business community, and the gangsters. He was promised financial support “if he broke from the communists and pledged to ‘regulate’ the relationship between labor and capital” (St. James Encyclopedia…).

    April 1927: Let the Reign of Terror Begin

    Jiang Jieshi agreed with these parasitic foreigners that the changes being proposed by the workers and the Communists were too radical. “It should have come as no surprise to anyone that [Jiang Jieshi] decided to move against the radicals, as he had already done so in several other cities in late March” (St. James Encyclopedia…), but many Chinese workers as well as French, German, and Russian communists continued to believe in him.

    After the Guomindang’s attack on Westerners and Japanese in Nanjing (i.e., the Nanking Incident of March 1927), Jiang Jieshi started to seek support from Japan and the U.S. rather than the USSR and the CCP (Wilson 33, 72, 134).

    Jiang Jieshi viewed the success of the peasants and the workers as a threat to his party’s political, military, and social control, and this is one reason why he initiated the April 12th Shanghai Massacre, in which the Guomindang slaughtered communists in Shanghai and other places. According to Vincent Kolo, the “capitalist class and rural landowners whose sons were well represented in the officer corps of the [Guomindang] armies grew fearful of the increasingly radical demands of the working class (for shorter work hours and against the terror regime in many factories) and the peasantry (for land reform and against the crushing taxes of the landlord class)” (Kolo, “90 Years since Chiang Kai-shek’s Shanghai Massacre,” Chinaworker.info).

    On 5 April Jiang Jieshi “instituted martial law and ordered the disarming of all bearers of arms not properly registered with the Nationalist Army” (Wilson 123). On the 11th, Wang Shouhua [the President of the GLU] was thrown in a sack and “buried alive” (Smith, “The Third Armed Uprising”). By the morning of the 12th, the worker militias “had been crushed,” according to historian S.A. Smith. That day, Jiang Jieshi hired hundreds of armed gangsters to massacre labor leaders and communists (Wilson, page 124).

    Even so, the tenacious workers, led mainly by the GLU, called a general strike for the 13th of April. “240,000 workers walked out” (Smith, “The Third Armed Uprising”). Machine gunners opened fire on their parade. “Attackers” engaged in “stabbing, shooting, and clubbing the panic-stricken crowd.” One hundred were killed. But even on the 14th, the majority of striking workers did not give up.

    By the 15th, the GLU estimated that three hundred trade union activists had been killed. It is estimated that by the end of the year, two thousand “Communists and worker militants” had lost their lives. The Guomindang killed “thousands of worker activists” in Shanghai, Wuhan, and Guangzhou (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”). “Over the following twelve months, more than three hundred thousand people would be killed in the Guomindang’s anti-communist purges” (Working Class History 80-81).

    The police of “Qingbang and Hongbang brutally executed the captured communist and union members by slaughtering them and putting them in the crater of a locomotive.” (“4.12 Shanghai Coup,” Namuwiki, 15 April 2025). Communists refer to the following years of Guomindang massacres as the “White Terror.” By one estimate, this White Terror resulted in the deaths of one million people (Karl, Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth-Century World 33). Enabled by the governments of the U.S. and other countries, Jiang Jieshi began in 1947 another White Terror on the Island of Taiwan. It did not end until 1987.

    This is the way that Jiang Jieshi thanked the peasant and worker revolutionaries who had propelled his party to power. His rewards for this great achievement of “unifying” the nation included generous financial support from the business class of Shanghai (David Lowe, “Generalissimo,” The Weekly Standard 9:27:22, page 43), lots of help of various kinds from the Powers of the West and Japan, and recognition from the Empires that he was the legitimate ruler of China.

    With his solid track record of bullying into submission Chinese workers, the U.S. showered Jiang Jieshi with treasure for decades, until his death in 1975. The U.S. was the first foreign country to step forward and grant recognition to his new regime (in 1928), and soon the U.S. would begin supporting him financially and militarily, too, even when informed U.S. observers, such as John King Fairbank (1907-91) labeled his Party as “proto-fascist.” For Fairbank, the Guomindang were a “small political group holding tenaciously to power…with hopes of using industrialization as a tool of perpetuating their power and with ideas which are socially conservative and backward-looking” (Wilson 2).

    Yokomitsu Riichi, the Japanese ultra-rightist author who wrote the novel Shanghai (1931), presented in that story a surprisingly similar picture of the political and economic situation of China, a country where parasites of the West, Japan, and even China committed state violence against them and stole the fruits of their labor. For example:

    He [Sanki] fell silent. He had detected the strength of will of the authorities who had hired Chinese to kill Chinese.

    [Fang Qiu-lan, a woman to whom Sanki is attracted and a Communist who organizes workers in Japanese textile factories:]  “That’s right. The craftiness of the British authorities isn’t new. The history of the modern Orient is so filled with the crimes of that country that if you tried to add them up, you’d be paralyzed. Starving millions of Indians, disabling Chinese with the opium trade. These were Britain’s economic policies. It’s the same as using Persia, India, Afghanistan, and Malaysia to poison China. Now we Chinese must resist completely.” (Yokomitsu Riichi, Shanghai: A Novel by Yokomitsu Riichi, Dennis Washburn, trans., Center of Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 2001, page 153).

    Since 1950, the United States has sold Taiwan nearly $50 billion in “defense equipment and services, with a number of large sales during recent U.S. administrations.” Is this how we deliver “power to the people” and peace in East Asia? Were we promoting industrial democracy by increasing the wealth and power of Jiang Jieshi even after he committed massacres of Chinese workers with impunity? Don’t the people of Taiwan, the vast majority of whom are Han Chinese, deserve credit for sprouting democracy even under the sun-starved, U.S.-backed dictatorship of Jiang Jieshi? Where in the U.S. is there any recognition of the crimes that the U.S. committed against the Han Chinese and other ethnic groups of Taiwan and the rest of China? How solid is the foundation on which the current President Lai Ching-te stands, the man who called himself a “pragmatic worker for Taiwan independence” in 2017? When we spend 250 million U.S. dollars on an upgrade on our “informal,” 10-acre embassy in Taiwan, is that an example of how we adhere to our One China policy? Even merely with the foregoing brief exploration of the history of the obvious class struggle in China a century ago, and quick examples of U.S. support for Jiang Jieshi’s attacks on the working class of China, one can see that U.S. dollars were spent on death, destruction, and tyranny rather than on democracy and peace.

    The post A Sketch of the Origins of Jiang Jieshi’s Relationship with the United States first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US curbs chip design software and other shipments to China

    The United States has ordered a broad swathe of companies to stop shipping goods to China without a license and revoked licenses already granted to certain suppliers, said three people familiar with the matter. The new restrictions – which are likely to escalate tensions with Beijing – appear aimed at choke points to prevent China…

    The post US curbs chip design software and other shipments to China appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Serbia’s Organized Chaos

    Serbia is a small country which used to be a favorite of Western Allied powers like France and Britain for its heroic resistance to Austrian and German invasion in two world wars. 

    They liked it so much that in redrawing European boundaries at Versailles in 1918, they enlarged it into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes which later became Yugoslavia.

    Some Serb leaders at the time felt that this was too much, but at the time, Croat and Slovene leaders were glad to leave the Austro-Hungarian Empire and join the winning side. 

    All this changed abruptly in the 1990s. Germany had been reunited and began to drop its humble post-World War II foreign policy. 

    The post Serbia’s Organized Chaos appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Developing nations face ‘tidal wave’ of debt repayments to China in 2025: report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Geopolitical leverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Impact of debt burden

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Fighting for the Planet means Sovereignty for the Sahel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Manufacturing America’s Contenders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Other policy support even extends to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Nvidia to launch cheaper Blackwell AI chip for China

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

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

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Elon Musk’s Worst Nightmare Is Happening (But Not How You Think)

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

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • FCC bans Chinese labs from testing electronics for US market

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

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

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Thailand’s Submarine Deal: Billions in, No Engine Out!!!

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

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

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Philippines says China Coast Guard fired water cannon at government vessel


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • US lawmakers press hotel giants over ‘Taiwan, China’ label

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Roof of 14th-century tower collapses in China


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Palestine and the Conscience of China

    Illustration by Fourate Chahal El Rekaby, tni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Shields is skeptical:

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

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

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

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

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

    China’s Support for Palestine

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

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

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

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

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

    Moreover,

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

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

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

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

    What is China doing in Israeli Occupied Palestine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Xi Jinping on Israel and Palestine

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

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

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

    The Conscience of China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What Would Meaningful Action Look Like?

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

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

    Geopolitical Realism vs. Moral Idealism

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

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

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

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

    ENDNOTES:

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Unpaid Chinese workers protest over unpaid wages as economic woes persist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Stability unraveling?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Healthcare and sanitation workers face similar issues.

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

    Edited by Tenzin Pema and Mat Pennington.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The West v China: Fight for the Pacific – Episode 1: The Battlefield

    Al Jazeera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Republished from Al Jazeera.

  • South Africa downgrades Taiwan status, signaling more China influence, say experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

  • Trump’s Far-Fetched Attempt To Divide Russia And China Is Clearly Failing

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Free Trade Has Hurt Global Labor Conditions. Trump’s Tariffs Won’t Help Them.

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

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Danish Politiken Smears China Based on CIA, US, EU and NATO Funded Sources

    In Danish here for Danish readers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Today, it can rightly be called PolitPravda.

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

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

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

    *****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    *****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A taste:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    *****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Mass protest by parents prompts reversal of private school closure in China | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • 30 years on, rights groups press China for word of Tibet’s missing Panchen Lama

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Succession of the Dalai Lama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cultural and religious suppression

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

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

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

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

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

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Hong Kong: Targeting of Exiled Activists’ Families Escalates

    Father of Anna Kwok Charged with National Security Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Pentagon Strategy Increases Risk Of Nuclear War With China

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Pentagon Using Fabricated Chinese Threat To Build GE Soldiers

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Elderly Chinese woman’s death fuels public outrage over bank’s rigid withdrawal rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edited by Tenzin Pema.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But following the protest, authorities reversed course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edited by Mat Pennington.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • How undersea cables surrounding Taiwan could be targeted by China | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Whole Process People’s Democracy: The Path Forward

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.