Category: China

  • Omicron strains break out in China. China warns against further US sanctions. Majority of global South countries refuse to adopt sanctions against Russia. Poor sanitary conditions are cited in instant noodle factories. There is an increase in anti-imperialist views among Chinese youth.

    The post News on China | No. 91 first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The war in Ukraine has focused attention on the shifts taking place in the world order. Russia’s military intervention has been met with sanctions from the West as well as with the transport of arms and mercenaries to Ukraine. These sanctions will have a major impact on the Russian economy as well as the Central Asian states, but they will also negatively impact the European population who will see energy and food prices rise further. Until now, the West has decided not to intervene with direct military force or to try and establish a ‘no-fly zone’. It is recognized, sanely, that such an intervention could escalate into a full-scale war between the United States and Russia, the consequences of which are unthinkable given the nuclear weapons capacities of both countries.

    The post We Are In A Period Of Great Tectonic Shifts appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Chiharu Shiota (Japan), Navigating the Unknown, 2020.

    Chiharu Shiota (Japan), Navigating the Unknown, 2020.

    The war in Ukraine has focused attention on the shifts taking place in the world order. Russia’s military intervention has been met with sanctions from the West as well as with the transport of arms and mercenaries to Ukraine. These sanctions will have a major impact on the Russian economy as well as the Central Asian states, but they will also negatively impact the European population who will see energy and food prices rise further. Until now, the West has decided not to intervene with direct military force or to try and establish a ‘no-fly zone’. It is recognised, sanely, that such an intervention could escalate into a full-scale war between the United States and Russia, the consequences of which are unthinkable given the nuclear weapons capacities of both countries. Short of any other kind of response, the West – as with the Russian intervention in Syria in 2015 – has had to accept Moscow’s actions.

    To understand the current global situation, here are six theses about the establishment of the US-shaped world order from 1990 to the current fragility of that order in the face of growing Russian and Chinese power. These theses are drawn from our analysis in dossier no. 36 (January 2021), Twilight: The Erosion of US Control and the Multipolar Future; they are intended for discussion and so feedback on them is very welcome.

    Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun (Canada), The One Percent, 2015.

    Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun (Canada), The One Percent, 2015.

    Thesis One: Unipolarity. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, between 1990 and 2013–15, the United States developed a world system that benefitted multinational corporations based in the United States and in the other G7 countries (Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Canada). The events that defined overwhelming US power were the invasions of Iraq (1991) and Yugoslavia (1999) as well as the creation of the World Trade Organisation (1994). Russia, weakened by the collapse of the USSR, sought entry into this system by joining the G7 and collaborating with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as a ‘Partner for Peace’. Meanwhile, China, under presidents Jiang Zemin (1993–2003) and Hu Jintao (2003–2013), played a careful game by inserting its labour into the US-dominated global system and not challenging the US in its operations.

    Thesis Two: Signal Crisis. The US overreached its power through two dynamics: first, by overleveraging its own domestic economy (overleveraged banks, higher non-productive assets than productive assets); and second, by trying to fight several wars at the same time (Afghanistan, Iraq, Sahel) during the first two decades of the 21st century. The signal crises for the weakness of US power were illustrated by the invasion of Iraq (2003) and the debacle of that war for US power projection, and the credit crisis (2007–08). Internal political polarisation in the US and a crisis of legitimacy in Europe followed these developments.

    Olga Bulgakova (Russia), Blind Men, 1992.

    Thesis Three: Sino-Russian Emergence. By the second decade of the 2000s, for different reasons, both China and Russia emerged from their relative dormancy.

    China’s emergence has two legs:

    1. China’s domestic economy. China built up massive trade surpluses and, alongside these, it built up scientific and technological knowledge through its trade agreements and its investment in higher education. Chinese firms in robotics, high-tech, high-speed rail, and green energy leapfrogged over Western firms.
    2. China’s external relations. In 2013, China announced the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which proposed an alternative to the US-driven International Monetary Fund’s development and trade agenda. The BRI extended out of Asia into Europe as well as into Africa and Latin America.

    Russia emerged on two legs as well:

    1. Russia’s domestic economy. President Vladimir Putin fought some sections of the large capitalists to assert state control of key commodity export sectors and used these to build up state assets (notably oil and gas). Rather than merely leech Russian assets for their overseas bank accounts, these Russian capitalists agreed to subordinate part of their ambitions to rebuilding the power and influence of the Russian state.
    2. Russia’s external relations. Since 2007, Russia began to edge away from the Western global agenda and drive its own project, first through the BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) agenda and then later through increasingly close relations with China. Russia leveraged its export of energy to assert control of its borders, which it had not done when NATO expanded in 2004 to absorb seven countries that are near its western boundary. Russian intervention into Crimea (2014) and Syria (2015) used its military force to create a shield around its warm water ports in Sebastopol (Crimea) and Tartus (Syria). This was the first military challenge to the US since 1990.

    In this period, China and Russia deepened their cooperation in all fields.

    Ibrahim el-Salahi (Sudan), Reborn Sounds of Childhood Dreams I, (1961-65).

    Ibrahim el-Salahi (Sudan), Reborn Sounds of Childhood Dreams I, (1961-65).

    Thesis Four: Global Monroe Doctrine. The United States took its 1823 Monroe Doctrine (that asserted its control over the Americas) global and proposed in this post-Soviet era that the entire world was its dominion. It began to push back against the assertion of China (Obama’s Pivot to Asia) and Russia (Russiagate and Ukraine). This New Cold War driven by the US, which includes hybrid warfare through sanctions against thirty countries such as Iran and Venezuela, has destabilised the world.

    Thesis Five: Confrontations. The confrontations hastened by the New Cold War have inflamed the situation in Asia – where the Taiwan Strait remains a hot zone – and in Latin America – where the United States attempted to create a hot war in Venezuela (and attempted but failed to project its power in places such as Bolivia). The current conflict in Ukraine – which has its origins in many factors, including the demise of the Ukrainian pluri-national compact – is also over the question of European independence. The US has used ‘Global NATO’ as a Trojan horse to exercise its power over Europe and keep it subordinated to US interests even if it harms Europeans as they lose energy supply and natural gas for the food economy. Russia violated the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine, but NATO created some of the conditions which accelerated this confrontation – not for Ukraine but for its project in Europe.

    Olga Blinder (Paraguay), A mi maestra (‘To My Teacher’), 1970.

    Olga Blinder (Paraguay), A mi maestra (‘To My Teacher’), 1970.

    Thesis Six: Terminal Crisis. Fragility is the key to understanding US power today. It has not declined dramatically, nor does it remain unscathed. There are three sources of US power that are relatively untouched:

    (1) Overwhelming Military Power. The United States remains the only country in the world that is able to bomb any of the other UN member states into the stone age.
    (2) The Dollar-Wall Street-IMF regime. Due to the global reliance on the dollar and to the dollar-denominated global financial system, the US can wield its sanctions as a weapon of war to weaken countries at its whim.
    (3) Informational Power. No country has as decisive control over the internet, both its physical infrastructure and its near monopoly companies (such as Facebook and YouTube, which remove any content and any provider at will); no country has as much control over the shaping of world news due to the power of its wire services (Reuters and the Associated Press) as well as the major news networks (such as CNN).

    There are other sources of US power that are deeply weakened, such as its political landscape, which is deeply polarised, and its inability to marshal its resources to send China and Russia back inside their borders.

    People’s movements need to grow our own power, by organising the people into powerful organisations and around a programme that has the capacity to both answer the immediate problems of our time and the long-term question of how to transition to a system that can transcend the apartheids of our time: food apartheid, medical apartheid, education apartheid, and money apartheid. To transcend these apartheids leads us out of this capitalist system to socialism.

    In the past week, we have lost many comrades, old and young. Amongst them, our Senior Fellow Aijaz Ahmad (1941–2022), one of the great Marxists of our time, left us at the age of 81. When Marxism was under attack after the fall of the USSR, Aijaz held the line, teaching generations of us about the necessity of Marxist theory; that theory remains necessary because it continues to be the most powerful critique of capitalism and, as long as capitalism continues to structure our lives, that critique remains boundless. For us at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, Aijaz’s mentorship was invaluable. In fact, the dossier Twilight, which helped us orient ourselves in the current conjuncture, was written after substantial discussion with Aijaz.

    We also lost Ayanda Ngila (1992–2022), who was the deputy chairperson of eKhenana land occupation, part of South Africa’s militant shack dwellers movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM). Ayanda was a courageous leader of AbM who had recently been released from a second spell of being held in prison on trumped up charges. He was a kind comrade to his peers and a student and teacher at the Frantz Fanon School. When he was gunned down by his adversaries in the African National Congress, Ayanda was wearing a t-shirt with a quote from Steve Biko: ‘It’s better to die for an idea that is going to live than to live for an idea that is going to die’. On the walls of the Frantz Fanon School, the comrades at AbM painted their ideals clearly: Land, Decent Housing, Dignity, Freedom, and Socialism.

    We concur. So would Aijaz.

    The post We Are in a Period of Great Tectonic Shifts first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • How to solve the territorial disputes in the South China Sea that have flummoxed diplomats for decades and stoked fears of superpower conflict?

    Actually, it’s quite simple, according to British scholar Bill Hayton. Just acknowledge that the current occupiers of each feature have the best claim to sovereignty over it.

    Hayton, associate fellow in the Asia-Pacific Program at Chatham House, a U.K. think-tank, shared his views in a recent commentary in “Perspective,” a publication of the Singapore-based ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

    He argues that researchers now “know enough about the history of the South China Sea to resolve the competing territorial claims to the various rocks and reefs.”

    The basic facts of the South China Sea disputes are well-known. Six parties – Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam – have competing territorial claims. China holds the biggest claim, up to 90 percent of the sea, demarcated by a so-called nine-dash line. It says it has historical rights to the area – a position rejected by an international tribunal in 2016 that Beijing has refused to acknowledge. China’s stance has also put it at loggerheads with Western powers, particularly the U.S.

    The disputes are not just about claims to the tiny islets and reefs scattered across the South China Sea, but also claims to jurisdiction over maritime zones associated with these features.

    Because of that, a seventh country, Indonesia, also has a stake. Although it does not regard itself as a party to the South China Sea dispute, China claims historic rights to parts of the sea overlapping Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone.  

    Hayton says that of the six formal claimants, all claim at least one islet, and “a few islets are claimed by at least five states.” The rival claims have always been thought to be “too complicated to ever sort out.”

    “There are too many rocks and reefs, too many claimants, too much history. Trying to understand and disentangle all the overlapping claims is just impossible, or so people thought,” said Hayton.

    “I don’t think that’s true,” he said.

    “Territorial issues in the South China Sea only started in the beginning of the 20th century so you don’t have to look at thousands of years of history.”

    The Chinese-built base at Fiery Cross Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands, pictured in an Aug. 20, 2021, satellite image. Credit: Planet Labs Inc.
    The Chinese-built base at Fiery Cross Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands, pictured in an Aug. 20, 2021, satellite image. Credit: Planet Labs Inc.
    The role of the International Court of Justice

    “The real problem is different claimants have framed their claims to claims to island groups. It would be very hard to try to work out who has the best claim to the whole island group,” Hayton explained.

    China and Vietnam, for example, claim the whole of the Paracel and Spratly island chains.

    “But once you try to disentangle and desegregate the claims and look at who has the best claim to specific features, then things become a lot easier.”

    “No particular country, or state or regime ever controlled the whole of the South China Sea,” he said.

    In Hayton’s opinion, breaking down expansive claims to entire island groups into specific claims to named features would open a route to compromise and the resolution of the disputes.

    The scholar pointed out that there have been successful precedents in Southeast Asia. Indonesia and Malaysia resolved their dispute over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan in 2002; as did Malaysia and Singapore over three sets of uninhabited rocks in the Singapore Straits in 2008. In both cases, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) played an important role.

    “By ruling out vague claims to sovereignty “from time immemorial” and demanding specific evidence of physical acts of administration, the ICJ also gave the South China Sea claimants a route out of their impasse,” Hayton suggested.

    The historical evidence of physical acts of administration on the disputed rocks and reefs suggests, with a few exceptions, that the current occupiers of each feature have the best claim to sovereignty over it, according to the British scholar.

    The main exception would be the Paracel Islands where Vietnam occupied about a half until China took over in 1974 after a bloody battle that saw 74 Vietnamese soldiers killed.

    “Southeast Asian states have an interest in recognising each other’s de facto occupation of specific features and then presenting a united position to China,” Hayton added.

    In the case some countries are unwilling to make use of the ICJ and international law, he suggested that non-governmental organisations could get involved to create a so-called ‘Track Two Tribunal’. Track two typically describes informal or unofficial discussions by people outside of government to help find solutions to complex diplomatic issues.

    Hayton said they could “collect rival pieces of evidence, test the claimants’ legal arguments, and present the likely outcomes of any future international court hearing to the claimants and their publics.”

    A file photo showing Vietnamese activists during a gathering to commemorate the 42nd anniversary of China's occupation of the disputed Paracels in the South China Sea, in Hanoi, January 19, 2016. China took full control of the Paracels in 1974 after a naval showdown with Vietnam. Credit: Reuters
    A file photo showing Vietnamese activists during a gathering to commemorate the 42nd anniversary of China’s occupation of the disputed Paracels in the South China Sea, in Hanoi, January 19, 2016. China took full control of the Paracels in 1974 after a naval showdown with Vietnam. Credit: Reuters
    ‘Difficult tasks’

    Hayton, however, admitted that the process would not be easy.

    “Populations in different countries would be claiming that this is some terrible sell-out but frankly, all of the countries are working on the basis that this is the status quo that they’re going to accept. They need to turn that into a political commitment,” he said.

    Hayton’s proposal “would have merit in an ideal world,” said Mark Valencia, a scholar at the Chinese National Institute for South China Sea Studies.

    “But unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and nationalist-infused domestic politics would likely prove a fatal stumbling block to acceptance and implementation of this proposal,” Valencia said, adding that most politicians in Southeast Asian countries “would try to stay as far away as possible.”

    The maritime analyst also warned that since China would not accept and adhere to a formal arbitration ruling against it for maritime space, “it is highly unlikely to accept the verdict of an unofficial Track Two Tribunal regarding territory.”

    Furthermore, the idea that each claimant keeps what it currently occupies and drops its claims to other features has been proposed before without any takers, he said.

     


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Authorities in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong have repatriated dozens of Vietnamese migrant workers found working illegally at a factory in Yangjiang, with four Myanmar nationals awaiting repatriating, RFA has learned.

    The 48 Vietnamese workers were sent home recently following their arrests on Jan. 20 during a raid on the Yangjiang Huaqiang Hardware Factory by local police, a police officer who answered the phone at the Baisha police station near the factory told RFA on Thursday.

    “This case is being handled by the Jiangcheng branch of the Yangjiang police department, and we assisted them by sending officers,” an officer surnamed Guan told RFA. “They are foreigners who aren’t allowed to work here … without a work visa, so they should be deported.”

    Repeated calls to the Jiangcheng police station rang unananswered during office hours on Thursday, as did calls to the factory.

    While some Myanmar nationals managed to evade arrest during the raid, four — who hail from Sittwe county, Pauktaw township and Myauk U township — are now awaiting repatriation, sources told RFA.

    According to family members, the arrested workers were identified as Maung Maung Chay (or Nay Myo Aung) of Kundaung Village, Ponnagyun Township, Min Thein Naing and Nga Soe Aung from Nga-wet-swei village, Pauktaw township, and Moun San Myint from Mrauk-U township, all in Rakhine state.

    Myanmar sources in China said the workers had been smuggled into China by labor agents and employed illegally, Hla Hla Win, the wife of one of the arrested men, Min Thein Naing, said police once used to notify the factory of raids in advance, but hadn’t done so for the Jan. 20 raid.

    “He was arrested by police on the morning of Jan. 20,” she told RFA. “I think they were working in cahoots with the factory owner because it was going to be closed down on Jan 26.”

    “The factory has two gates. Usually, when the police would come for an inspection, the guards at the gate would inform the supervisors. But there was no warning that day,” Hla Hla Win said.

    “We think the owner worked with the police because he owed the workers two months of salary amounting to about three million kyat (around U.S.$1,700) each.”

    Hla Hla Win, who also worked at the factory but managed to escape during the raid, said she now faces repaying two months’ worth of her husband’s salary to the agent who brought him to China.

    Meanwhile, Khin Than Maung, the father of arrested worker Maung Maung Chay, from Rakhine’s Ponayun township, said he is worried about his son and daughter, Hla Hla Win.

    “I don’t know what is happening to him, and because he is overseas, so I won’t hear about it,” he said. “When my son was in Myanmar I could at least ask how the was doing.”

    “I’m worried he is in trouble, and I’m also very sad … how is he living right now?”

    Myanmar nationals Maung Maung Chae (aka Nay Myo Aung) (L) and Min Thein Naing were arrested in China's Guangdong province, Jan. 20, 2022. Credit: Maung Maung Chae/Min Thein Naing
    Myanmar nationals Maung Maung Chae (aka Nay Myo Aung) (L) and Min Thein Naing were arrested in China’s Guangdong province, Jan. 20, 2022. Credit: Maung Maung Chae/Min Thein Naing
    Remittances support families

    He said Maung Maung Chay had been working in China for the past four years to help out with the family’s financial difficulties, and the family had relied heavily on his remittances.

    His wife Oo Khin Yin, mother of Maung Maung Chay and Hla Hla Win, said she wanted the two released as soon as possible.

    “We have had no contact with them since that day,” she told RFA. “My daughter said she had has no contact with the two men and she didn’t know where they were being held.”

    She added: “I just want them released as soon as possible. If the owner doesn’t want to pay, it’s okay. I just want my son released as soon as possible.”

    Min Thein Naing’s sister, Daw Ma Win Nwe, said all family members were worried because they hadn’t been able to contact him.

    “It makes me very worried that I haven’t been in contact with him,” she said. “Where are they now? How are they doing? All the brothers and sisters are worried.”

    “Honestly speaking, their families depend on them,” she said. “The money they would send was enough for us to live on. Now that they are in trouble, their families are in trouble too.”

    Hundreds of thousands of people from Myanmar work in China in any given year, crossing into the southwestern province of Yunnan by border checkpoints at Muse or Chin Shwe Haw, yet there is no formal agreement between China and Myanmar about how to handle this migrating workforce.

    Ko Htay, head of the Humanitarian Aid Network for Migrant Workers based in Muse, Shan State on the Chinese border, said Myanmar nationals working in mainland China are suffering due to the lack of any agreement.

    “You can just compare Thailand with China,” Ko Htay said. “On the Thai side, there is an MOU, a memorandum of understanding for workers.”

    “According to their laws, the Chinese are not wrong [to arrest people]. If you cross the border and work illegally, you break the law. I would like to advise workers to travel there only after China and Myanmar sign a labor agreement,” he said.

    Repeated calls to the Myanmar embassy in Beijing requesting comment had met with no response by the time of writing.

    The Chinese embassy in Myanmar told RFA in an email dated Mar. 10 that it was unaware of the details of the arrests.
     
    It said China welcomes foreigners wishing to work in China, but will punish those who break the law.

    No legal status

    According to its website, Huaqiang Hardware Factory makes kitchen, bathroom, office and stationery products that are sold to more than a dozen countries and regions in China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States.

    Zhang Shengqi, a businessman who is familiar with the situation in Myanmar said labor agents are currently recruiting young people between the ages of 25 and 35 to work in Chinese factories, mostly in Guangdong and Yunnan provinces.

    “They have no work or income in Myanmar; they can only farm. They may have passports, and there is also a red book [pass], which is a pass for residents of Myanmar’s border areas to travel to and from China,” he said.

    But he said working in China wasn’t easy.

    “The wages are relatively low, because they have no legal status,” Zhang said.

    China currently allows Myanmar nationals to work in the border towns of Dehong and Jinghong without a work permit, but not the rest of China.

    “Once they leave that area to work elsewhere in China, they are considered illegal workers,” he said. “Now they will probably not be sent back to Myanmar if they are caught, but to [border regions of Yunnan] where they are let go.”

    Article 80 of China’s Exit and Entry Administration Law says illegal foreign workers can be fined up to 150,000 yuan and deported. Zhang said employers face fines of up to 300,000 yuan for hiring illegal foreign workers.

    Translated by Khin Maung Nyane and Luisetta Mudie.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Qiao Long and RFA’s Myanmar Service.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ANALYSIS: By Sue Ahearn

    As China seeks greater influence in the South Pacific, its manipulation of local news outlets is having a serious impact on media independence.

    Most Pacific media organisations are struggling financially, many journalists have lost their jobs and China is offering a way for them to survive — at the cost of media freedom.

    It’s not just the “no strings attached” financial aid and “look and learn” tours of China for journalists; it’s about sharing an autocratic media model.

    Prominent journalists and media executives say Pacific leaders are copying Chinese media tactics and stopping them from doing their jobs.

    China is one of the worst countries in the world for media freedom. It ranks 177 on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index.

    Now it’s trying to influence media around the world, especially in countries which have signed up to its Belt and Road Initiative. That includes 10 Pacific island nations. Four remain with Taiwan.

    China has spent an estimated US$6.6 billion over 13 years strengthening its global media presence. It took over Radio Australia’s shortwave transmitter frequencies in the Pacific when the ABC shut down its shortwave service in 2017.

    Satellite service for Vanuatu
    China’s national television service is about to start broadcasting by satellite into Vanuatu.

    In a 2020 report, the International Federation of Journalists warned that foreign journalists were wooed by exchange programs, opportunities to study in China, tours and financial aid for their media outlets. Beijing also provides free content in foreign newspapers and ambassadors write opinion pieces for local media.

    The federation’s report found that journalists frequently think their media is strong enough to withstand this influence, but a global survey suggests that’s not the reality and China is reshaping the media round the world.

    These attempts at ‘sharp power’ go beyond simply telling China’s story, according to Sarah Cook, research director for China, Hong Kong and Taiwan at Freedom House. Their sharper edge often undermines democratic norms, erodes national sovereignty, weakens the financial sustainability of independent media, and violates local laws.

    Journalists say this is an ideological and political struggle, with China determined to combat what it sees as decades of unchallenged Western media imperialism.

    There’s mounting evidence from the Pacific of the impact of Beijing’s worldwide campaign, particularly in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

    The situation for journalists in Solomon Islands has rapidly changed since the country swapped diplomatic allegiance from Taipei to Beijing in 2019. Media freedom has deteriorated and journalists say leaders are now taking their cues from China.

    Vulnerable media outlets
    Media outlets are vulnerable to offers of financial help. Many journalists have lost jobs and others haven’t been paid for months. It’s estimated there are just 16 full-time journalists left in Honiara.

    There’s been little advertising since the November 2021 riots, a situation exacerbated by the covid pandemic. The only income for one privately owned media outlet is from the small street sales of its newspapers.

    Earlier this month, the Solomon Islands government held its first news conference for 2022 after months of pressure to talk to journalists. The government denied there were restrictions on media freedom.

    As the media struggles to survive, China’s ambassador is offering support, such as more trips to China (after the pandemic) and donations including two vehicles to the Solomon Star and maintenance of the newspaper’s printing presses. In the experience of other media, these offers are often followed with pressure to adhere to editorial positions congruent with those of the Chinese embassy.

    While some journalists are resisting the pressure and holding a strong line, others are being targeted by China with rewards for “friends”.

    Chinese embassies throughout the South Pacific are active on social media. In Solomon Islands, the embassy’s Facebook site includes posts about its aid assistance for covid-19, joint press releases with the Solomons government and stories from official Chinese news outlets.

    There are numerous examples of the growing impact on media freedom.

    Harassment over investigation
    A freelance journalist has relocated to Australia after her investigations into the relationship between Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and a Chinese businessman resulted in harassment from police. She said police told her an order for her arrest came directly from the prime minister.

    She was advised by Australia’s high commissioner to move to Australia for her safety.

    Veteran journalist Dorothy Wickham was among a group of Solomon Islands journalists who accepted an invitation for a “look and learn” tour of China soon after the Sogavare government swapped allegiance to China in 2019.

    She said the trip left her concerned about how Solomon Islands would deal with its new diplomatic partner.

    “By the time our tour concluded in Shanghai, I was personally convinced that our political leaders are not ready or able to deal effectively with China. Solomon Islands’ regulatory and accountability mechanisms are too weak,” she says.

    “We have already shown some spirit with our attorney-general rejecting a hasty deal to lease the island of Tulagi, the capital of one of our provinces, to a Chinese company, but I fear how fragile and weak my country is against any large developed nation let alone China,’ she wrote in an article for The Guardian.

    One senior media executive that said if his own government, Australia, and New Zealand didn’t assist, he would look to China.

    “There is too much talk about the role of media in democracy,” he said. He thought the Chinese ambassador understood that his organisation had its own editorial policy.

    Soon after that, though, he was asked to publish a press release word for word.

    No expense spared
    Another media executive said he only had to ring the Chinese embassy and help arrived. He said China was rapidly moving into his country’s media space with no expense spared.

    High-profile Vanuatu journalist Dan McGarry says he has no doubt that some Pacific governments are following China’s lead and adopting its contempt for critical speech and dissent.

    In 2019, McGarry left Vanuatu to attend a forum in Australia, but his visa was revoked and he was banned from re-entering Vanuatu. He told the ABC’s Media Watch programme at the time that he had no doubt it was because of a story he wrote about the secret deportation of six Chinese from Vanuatu.

    The six were arrested and detained without charge on the premises of a Chinese company with numerous large government contracts before being escorted out of Vanuatu by Chinese and Vanuatu police. McGarry said he was summoned by the prime minister, who told him he was disappointed with his negative reporting.

    McGarry said he had no evidence that China tried to influence the Vanuatu government over his residence, but he’d seen a tendency in Pacific leaders to emulate behaviour they saw elsewhere.

    Now back in Vanuatu, he said the decision to refuse his work permit was still under judicial review and he’s seeking financial compensation.

    In 2018, Papua New Guinea journalist Scott Waide was suspended by EMTV under pressure from Prime Minister Peter O’Neill for a story he wrote about a diplomatic Chinese tantrum and a scandal over the purchase of Maserati cars for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Port Moresby.

    Waide told the ABC that Pacific governments were taking lessons from China in dealing with their critics using media clampdowns and intimidation. That didn’t necessarily involve direct instructions from Beijing, “but people watch, people learn”.

    Head of news sacked
    A dispute over media freedom has escalated with the sacking of the head of news and 24 journalists at EMTV in PNG. They were initially suspended but later terminated for supporting their editor over interference from a government minister about a story involving an Australian man charged with drug trafficking.

    On March 9, the EMTV news manager was sacked for insubordination. The network has since hired a new team of recent graduates with little experience — just months before the scheduled elections in June.

    These examples give a sharper edge to concerns about China’s growing influence in the South Pacific and the lack of an Australian media voice there. The ABC’s presence has been described as a whisper.

    There’s only one Australian journalist based in the region, the ABC’s Natalie Whiting in PNG. Meanwhile, Xinhua has a correspondent based in Fiji and China has recently been recruiting Pacific journalists for its global TV network.

    The situation worries Australia’s national broadcaster. ABC managing director David Anderson told a Senate hearing in February 2022 of growing Chinese influence in the Pacific.

    “The single biggest piece of information that comes back to us from the public broadcasters is concern over the pressure the Chinese government put on them to carry content,” he said.

    In November 2019, the Melanesian Media Freedom Forum at Griffith University expressed concern about growing threats to media freedom. It called on Pacific governments to fund public broadcasters properly to ensure they have sufficient equipment and staff to enable their services to reach all citizens and to adequately play their watchdog role.

    Australian journalist, media development consultant and trainer Jemima Garrett says media executives are at risk of being captured by China.

    She has no doubt that China’s growing influence is a major story, but with so few Australian journalists based in the region, even significant developments in the China story are going unreported.

    Sue Ahearn is the creator and co-editor of The Pacific Newsroom and co-convenor of the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative. She was a senior executive at ABC Radio Australia and is currently studying Pacific development at the Australian National University. Image: Media Association of Solomon Islands/Facebook. This article was first published by The Strategist and is republished with the author’s permission.

    • Author’s note: Some of the Pacific journalists in this story have asked not to be named or identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Although China is downplaying its hypersonic testing, recent demonstrations are showing an increase in missile maturity. On 27 October the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), General Mark Milley, confirmed that China had tested a new hypersonic weapon system, noting that the test launch was a “very significant” and “very concerning” development […]

    The post China’s Hypersonic Testing Surge appeared first on Asian Military Review.

  • A person is transferred onto a bus outside Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Hong Kong on March 10, 2022, as the government announced the hospital will be used only for COVID-19 patients.

    The method of testing wastewater to detect virus levels within a whole population has been around since the days of polio, but it took a March 2020 outbreak of COVID-19 in Austria to turn the technique into a mainstay in the pandemic fight. In the U.S., where the last president fled even the idea of mass COVID testing for fear of harming his reelection campaign, wastewater testing has become one of the best and only ways to track viral trends among broad swaths of the population.

    That’s the good news. The bad news? The numbers are inching up, again. “A wastewater network that monitors for Covid-19 trends is warning that cases are once again rising in many parts of the U.S., according to an analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data,” reports Bloomberg News. “More than a third of the CDC’s wastewater sample sites across the U.S. showed rising Covid-19 trends in the period ending March 1 to March 10, though reported cases have stayed near a recent low.”

    This brings to bear a number of disturbing possibilities. Scientists have been watching the BA.2 subvariant with growing levels of concern; it is already making a strong showing in China and parts of Europe. It is entirely possible BA.2 is already present here in the U.S., and is at least partially responsible for the rise in cases across the country. If so, the damage done by Delta and Omicron will be instructive in the weeks and months to come.

    It has been wisely said, however, that one should not think of zebras upon hearing hoofbeats. Occam’s Razor suggests an exhausted nation is shedding its personal COVID protections on the gossamer promise that a corner has been turned. Mask mandates are all but gone except in a few key and continually contentious arenas, such as school districts and commercial airlines. Thus, the current rise in cases could be due to a segment of the populace letting down its defenses because the TV said, “Everything’s cool now, y’all, come on out and be capitalists again.”

    The news may tell you we’re returning to “normalcy,” but 8,000 dead a week tells a different story; if this uptick continues, it runs the risk of taxing our already-battered health care infrastructure if/when BA.2 does come knocking.

    The new COVID outbreak in China, on the other hand, has the potential to rattle the entire world. The Chinese government has instituted a full-scale lockdown in several regions, which is directly impacting tech giants like Foxconn, Tencent and Huawei. Any significant disruption could further undermine the global supply chain, and risks exacerbating growing inflationary pressures. Foxconn, whose client list includes Apple, informed CNN upon query that the “date of factory resumption is to be advised by the local government.”

    Meanwhile, Russia’s bloody war in Ukraine is having a ruinous effect on another global supply chain, this one involving food. “At least 50 countries depend on Russia and Ukraine for 30 percent or more of their wheat supply,” reports the Guardian, “and many developing countries in northern Africa, Asia and the near east are among the most reliant. Poor countries are bearing the brunt of the price increases. Many of the poorest countries were already struggling financially, with some facing debt crises, amid the pandemic.”

    War, famine, pestilence… three horsemen of the apocalypse as devised by John of Patmos. The fourth? “And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.”

    I’ve never been the praying type, so let’s keep it simple and bring it all back to the wastewater: We’re in deep shit, friends.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Monday, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan held seven-hour talks in Rome with Yang Jiechi, one of China’s top foreign policy officials. According to the White House, the two officials had a “substantial discussion” on Russia and Ukraine.

    In recent years, China and Russia have grown closer together as they both have faced similar pressure from the US and its allies. A Biden administration official told reporters that the US has “deep concerns about China’s alignment with Russia at this time” and said Sullivan warned China of potential “consequences” for certain actions.

    “What we have conveyed — and what was conveyed by our national security adviser in this meeting — is that, should they provide military or other assistance that of course violates sanctions or supports the war effort, that there will be significant consequences,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said.

    The post High-Level US-China Talks In Rome Focus On Russia-Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • For asylum seekers, Norway is a sanctuary but even in remote towns, Muslim refugees say they face surveillance and threats

    In a remote corner north of the Arctic Circle, Memettursun Omer gazes out the window at the swirling snowstorm outside as the tinny voice of a Chinese official blares from the mobile phone in his hand.

    An Uyghur Muslim from China’s remote north-west Xinjiang region, Omer has travelled about as far as he can go to escape the Chinese authorities – to the small Norwegian town of Kirkenes.

    Continue reading…

  • 3 Mins Read The APAC Society for Cellular Agriculture (APAC-SCA) announced its launch this week as a new coalition with a mission to offer member companies developing cultivated meat and seafood access to shared information. Its key priorities include interacting with consumers, building knowledge and acceptance and developing straightforward regulatory frameworks. In a joint statement by APAC-SCA’s management committee, […]

    The post New APAC Cellular Agriculture Coalition Aims To ‘Foster A Harmonized Industry’ Ahead Of Commercialization appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • 4 Mins Read Hong Kong startup Good Food Technologies, which makes plant-based pork meat, has announced the closure of an oversubscribed HK$12 million (approx. US$1.5 million) seed round led by pan-Asian VC Gobi Partners, in their first investment into the alternative protein sector, with further participation from LeverVC, DayDayCook and Brinc. Good Food manufactures plant-based products designed for […]

    The post Hong Kong Plant-Based Pork Meat Startup Bags HK$12 Million For Mainland China Expansion appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Australia’s ”defence and strategic policy think tank” ASPI finally has a new war, one that will be a financial boon for its murky weapons maker backers. Backed by Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, this “independent” think tank is a key player in drumming up a pre-election China threat. Marcus Reubenstein reports.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Authorities in China locked down most of the northeastern province of Jilin on Monday in a scramble to contain a highly transmissible variant of COVID-19, deploying troops to the region to keep order and aid in a mass testing and quarantine operation.

    The National Health Commission said it had confirmed 1,337 locally transmitted cases of the “stealth” omicron variant B.A.2 during the last 24 hours, 895 of which were in Jilin, where police permission is now being required to leave the province or travel within it.

    Some 7,000 reservists were sent to Jilin, using drones to carry out aerial spraying and disinfection, according to state broadcaster CCTV.

    Several buildings in Beijing were sealed off at the weekend, while Shanghai reported 713 cases so far this month, of which 632 were asymptomatic. All schools in Shanghai moved to online teaching from Monday.

    Hong Kong on Monday reported 26,908 new cases and 249 deaths during the past 24 hours, but its figures include results from home tests using rapid antigen tests, as well as PCR tests conducted by health authorities and labs.

    But chief executive Carrie Lam stopped short of imposing further restrictions on a city where authorities are currently using sewage monitoring and other test data to lock down specific buildings and neighborhoods at a time, and where there is a ban on public gatherings of more than two people.

    Across the internal border in Shenzhen, authorities reported 75 newly confirmed cases on Sunday, prompting the city government to order a week-long, citywide lockdown from Monday pending three rounds of compulsory mass PCR testing.

    Public transportation has been suspended, and residential communities closed to people coming or going, with employees ordered to work from home.

    Video footage uploaded to social media showed long lines for PCR testing, and empty shelves in local supermarkets after households stocked up on essentials ahead of the lockdown.

    “The supermarket normally has vegetables, grains, rice, which are all normal daily supplies,” a resident says in one video clip. “Shenzhen is a first-tier city, but we can’t get a hold of vegetables or rice now, because the whole city has to fight this outbreak.”

    Residents queue to undergo nucleic acid tests for the Covid-19 coronavirus in Yantai, in China's eastern Shandong province, March 14, 2022. Credit: AFP
    Residents queue to undergo nucleic acid tests for the Covid-19 coronavirus in Yantai, in China’s eastern Shandong province, March 14, 2022. Credit: AFP
    Door-to-door testing

    Some districts, including Longhua, Nanshan, Futian and Luohu, are under particularly stringent measures, with residents banned from leaving their homes, and forced to wait for door-to-door testing teams.

    Shenzhen officials played down fears on social media, seeking to reassure residents that there would be enough rice, noodles, oil, meat, eggs and poultry for everyone, with the authorities taking measures to prevent hoarding and price-gouging.

    In neighboring Dongguan, mass PCR testing was also under way, with public transportation suspended, residential compounds under lockdown and factories, businesses and industrial sites closed, with schools moving to online teaching.

    Shanghai resident Gu Guoping said the constant rounds of mass testing were “a waste of resources … inconveniencing people and delivering benefits to particular vested interests.”

    Another Shanghai resident surnamed Zhang said there are partial lockdowns in the city’s Xuhui district, as well as on university campuses.

    “Many schools, residential compounds, hospitals, where they have had cases or contacts of cases have been closed, and nobody is allowed to leave Shanghai right now,” she said.

    “More than 50 percent of people are still allowed to go out, while the rest have to stay home eating takeout,” Zhang said. “It’s very hard to get takeout now, and everyone is hoarding, rushing to buy stuff, so groceries are hard to come by.”

    In the northern province of Hebei, traffic restrictions are in place in Lanfang, downtown Cangzhou and Qingxian county, with roadblocks on major and minor roads in and out of Guangyang district.

    Chinese infectious disease expert Zhang Wenhong warned that China is likely only at the very start of an exponential rise in COVID-19 cases, as rail operators cut train services and offered free refunds to people who had already bought tickets.

    Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Qiao Long, Raymond Chung and Chingman.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Latin America and the Caribbean is partnering with China on multi-billion dollar development projects and while turning down assistance offered by the United States.

    The post Latin America Is Rejecting U.S. Assistance appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In an unusually bold move, the Vietnam government has commemorated the 34th anniversary of a battle against the Chinese navy in the South China Sea with a ceremony led by the prime minister and a front page editorial Monday in the ruling party’s mouthpiece.

    Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh made an unprecedented visit to the Memorial for the Johnson South Reef Battle in the south-central province of Khanh Hoa province at the weekend. He paid tribute to the 64 Vietnamese soldiers who were killed in the incident on March 14, 1988. Chinh was the first top Vietnamese leader to lead such a commemoration of the fallen soldiers.

    Johnson South, or Gac Ma in Vietnamese, is a reef in the Spratly islands in the South China Sea. In mid-March 1988, the Vietnamese navy sent two transport ships and a landing ship to try to claim some of the reefs in the disputed Union Banks, including Johnson South.

    While the Vietnamese soldiers were moving construction material onto the reef and putting up a flag, they came under fire from the Chinese troops. According to China, the Vietnamese opened fire first.

    In just a couple of hours, 64 mostly unarmed Vietnamese soldiers were killed and nine were captured, the largest loss suffered by the Vietnamese military at sea since the end of the Vietnam War. Johnson South Reef has been under China’s control since.

    For a long time, the battle was not talked about in public and up to now, is still not included in the school curriculum. When mentioned by Vietnamese state-controlled media, they tend to omit the word “China” and replace it with “foreign forces.” Vietnamese leaders have seemingly wanted to avoid offending China, and for the public not to dwell on the command mistakes that might have led to the defeat.

    Netizens and activists, however, have been asking on internet forums why the soldiers were not armed and why were they not allowed to fight back.

    A screenshot of Nhan Dan daily's frontpage on March 14, 2022. The main article at the foot of the page is an editorial with the headline: “Eternal glory to the sea defenders.” Credit: Nhan Dan.
    A screenshot of Nhan Dan daily’s frontpage on March 14, 2022. The main article at the foot of the page is an editorial with the headline: “Eternal glory to the sea defenders.” Credit: Nhan Dan.
    Front page news

    Things have changed this year.

    Nhan Dan daily, the Communist Party’s official newspaper, on Monday ran three articles on the Johnson South Reef battle and the Spratlys on its front page.

    The main article, titled “Eternal glory to the sea defenders,” condemned the Chinese navy for being “a blatant force, ignorant of justice and reason,” and said their military action was totally unprovoked.

    Another report covered an “incense-offering ceremony to commemorate the martyrs on the 34th anniversary of the Gac Ma Battle” in Danang.

    The top article reported on Prime Minister Chinh’s visit to Khanh Hoa province, the administrative headquarters of Vietnam’s Spratly islands.

    Chinh was quoted as ordering the local government to develop the Spratlys into “an economic, cultural and social center” in the South China Sea.

    “This is a clear message of maritime sovereignty and self-reliance,” said a Vietnamese analyst who doesn’t want to be named as he is not authorized to speak to foreign media.

    Another political analyst and prominent blogger, Huy Duc, wrote on his Facebook page: “This [the prime minister’s order] is a strategic step towards setting up our ‘policy fortress’ to defend Vietnam’s sovereignty at sea and our islands.”

    “No country can pick its neighbors but a dignified nation would never be imprisoned by geography,” Duc said.

    Zachary Abuza, a professor at the National War College in Washington, D.C., said that the Vietnamese government is “trying to signal resolve, especially as the world is pre-occupied with the war in Ukraine.”

    “I think you also have to look at it in the context of the war in Ukraine,” Abuza said.

    In his opinion, the Vietnamese government has been “overtly pro-Russia and abstained on the U.N.vote against Moscow due to their long historical relations and the fact that they are one of the largest consumers of Russian weaponry.”

    “And yet the [Ukrainian] war should leave the Vietnamese very nervous,” Abuza warned.

    “(President Vladimir) Putin‘s justifications to launch an offensive war on the flimsy basis of having once controlled that territory and historical affinity sets a very dangerous precedent for Chinese aggression in Southeast Asia, in general, and Vietnam, in particular,” he said.

    China claims sovereignty over all of the Spratly islands, where Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam all have claims. 


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Protestors march down Willis Street during a protest in support of the Black Lives Matter movement on June 14, 2020, in Wellington, New Zealand.

    In her book, Killing Rage: Ending Racism, the late bell hooks communicates the weight of what feels like an axiomatic truth: “All black people in the United States, irrespective of their class status or politics, live with the possibility that they will be terrorized by whiteness.” As we bear witness to the authoritarian violence imposed upon Ukraine by Vladimir Putin’s deployment of Russia’s military might, and to his perverse fantasy of a “New Russia,” we must never forget that anti-Black racism in the U.S. is inextricably linked to the perverse fantasies of white supremacism and operates according to vicious, racist violence. This is one reason why, for me, all the oppressed people of the world — the colonized, the violated and the marginalized — must be heard, and their pain made legible on its own terms. At the end of the day, however, I know that, as Black, I am deemed by many to be the most racially abject monstrosity that there is. I continue, though, to be shocked by the global degree to which Black people experience anti-Black racism.

    Adele N. Norris is senior lecturer in sociology and social policy in the faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, and coeditor of Neo-Colonial Injustice and the Mass Imprisonment of Indigenous Women. In my engaging discussion with Norris, which follows, she illuminates the harsh reality of the similarities of the U.S.’s anti-Black racism and that of New Zealand, which was also colonized by the British.

    Whiteness as a normative structure pervades New Zealand. Indeed, the Indigenous Māori are disproportionately imprisoned, and Black bodies experience forms of anti-Black racist stereotyping that are found within the U.S. and places like Finland and Sweden. As a scholar who engages Black feminist methodologies to explore state-sanctioned violence against Black, Brown and Indigenous people, Norris explicates these contemporary dehumanizing forces with clarity and autobiographical insight.

    George Yancy: In my own work, I have argued that the Black body is deemed the site of the racially deviant, the racially monstrous, the racially abhorrent and the racially abject. In the U.S., Black bodies are disproportionately stopped and placed under surveillance, incarcerated and rendered “criminal” as a “self-evident” truth. This vicious and racist treatment of Black people is not confined to the U.S. The Western world, out of which the concept of race developed, has historically operated under myths about Black bodies and the trope of blackness as “evil,” “sinister” and “ugly.” Whiteness, of course, was valorized as the apex of civilization, the most intelligent and the most aesthetically beautiful. It is this last issue that I wish to discuss with you. Here in the U.S., there have been laws passed against hair discrimination vis-à-vis Black people. This cuts at the heart of Black aesthetic integrity, agency and humanity. As you may know, Afro-Finns have started an annual celebration in the form of a “Good Hair Day” to deal with complex aspects of the racialization of hair. The denigration of Black hair has also been experienced by Black people in Sweden, especially mixed-race people who have suffered from being stared at and rendered “exotic” and “strange” because of their hair. You’ve written about the issue of Black hair and anti-Black racism. Are you surprised that such a form of racism continues to exist in the 21st century? And what are your thoughts on the psychological toll that this sort of anti-Black racism has on Black people?

    Adele Norris: I remember with the election of President Barack Obama how eager people were to mark his presidency as the beginning of a post-racial era. For me, that moment is marked by the many ways his Black wife, former first lady Michelle Obama, was vilified at a national level — from her body, hair texture, to her facial expressions. A wider-white-elite society, in expressions of outrage, compared Mrs. Obama to men and monkeys. The same with Venus and Serena Williams’s appearance undergoing pervasive scrutiny over their 20-year careers. What this shows is that Black women rising to the heights of global success are not exempt from the white dehumanizing gaze. The corresponding psychological burden is felt and carried within us all when we see Black women’s appearance picked apart and disparaged. The night of Donald Trump’s presidential election, a New Zealand colleague asked me if I thought Michelle Obama would run for president. I could tell the question was meant to virtue signal, which was confirmed after my response: “Seeing her [Mrs. Obama] compared with monkeys every day, I hope not.” My colleague was visibly baffled and walked away. People are so desensitized to and comfortable with a certain amount of anti-Blackness that it hardly registers in the minds of non-Black people, including people of color.

    In places where Black bodies are recent and few, there is a paucity of a language for anti-Blackness and Black racial discrimination. The language is not well-developed in academic, political and social discourses. Anti-Blackness, in these contexts, is understood primarily through the ways it is expressed in the United States, especially in its most extreme forms. Last year, a 12-year-old Black girl (Zimbabwean and Samoan) from Rotorua, New Zealand, made headlines for being called the N-word and teased for her hair texture by her classmates. I remember reading that she asked her principal to address her school about the harms associated with the N-word. She said the kids are learning it from somewhere and have been using it since she began school at the age of 6. Children who have never lived in the United States possessed an understanding of Black subordination. What I found most interesting about this case was the applause the young girl received for starting an anti-Black bullying and racism initiative at her school. She’s only 12. Why are her adolescent years spent engaging in work that schools and parents should do? These cases are everywhere (e.g., Britain, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, the U.S.).

    The psychological and emotional toll related to hair discrimination is massive for Black youth, [but] gets rarely classified as anti-Black racism. Black people’s experiences of state-sanctioned violence are so severe that cases of hair discrimination are peripheral to extreme cases of police brutality against Black bodies, but they are [also] violent and disturbing. It is important to see that hair discrimination and police brutality are products of the same system.

    I would argue that the stigmatizing of Black hair is one mode of visual anti-Blackness. It has to do with the anti-Black dimensions of the white imaginary and the white gaze. White people have created a world within which what they see and what they imagine are what they deem to be the only legitimate ways to see and to imagine. As a result, Black people — and I would include people of color, as Frantz Fanon would say — suffer in their bodies, because their bodies are bombarded with racist fictions and racist stereotypes. Talk about anti-Blackness and how it operates within New Zealand (or Aotearoa, its Māori name). Do Black people find themselves facing and resisting the toxic reality of being reduced to their epidermis, where they suffer under forms of anti-Black surveillance?

    Experiences of anti-Blackness are often muted or subsumed by a fascination with Black culture and aesthetics. I think Black people can be deceived by non-Black people’s fascination with Black entertainers and athletes and fail to understand that Black culture can be consumed by holders of anti-Black beliefs. The two are not mutually exclusive. One of the first things I noticed teaching “Introduction to Sociology” in New Zealand was how students’ responses and understandings of racial stereotypes and social inequalities mirrored [those of] U.S. students. While there is a deeper understanding of the effects of colonization, which is the result of a powerful Indigenous presence, notions of Black and Indigenous people as “criminal,” “deviant” and “lazy” are embedded beliefs Black people engage with daily.

    Also, people may be familiar with Brown bodies, but they have rarely lived next door to a Black person or worked with one. There is an expectation for Black people to make the people around them feel comfortable, which typically involves the Black person assuming a posture of subordination. Many U.S. scholars have written extensively about this. In many ways, I think my research agenda, which heavily engages with anti-Black racism and racial inequalities, protects me. People know exactly who I am when I show up because I am not just a Black body. For example, I was approached by a white colleague to collaborate on a project for which he wanted to critique U.S. Black women’s scholarship in relation to Marxism. I asked him to name five Black women authors. He stared blankly, and I walked off. While he took pride in his love for Bob Marley, he had never cited a Black woman in his 20+ years in the academy.

    However, I am not surprised when I meet other Black people who are accustomed to racialized surveillance and consider racism an American invention. Some Black people from the African diaspora have spoken and written about daily experiences of racial profiling in New Zealand. With so few Black people, they are not likely supported or validated. I do think being from the U.S. links me to a tradition of resistance and a knowledge of whiteness where it does not take me long to identify covert forms of anti-Blackness and respond accordingly.

    The point about your white colleague is so powerful. He wanted to critique the work of Black women without being able to cite a single Black woman author. This says to me that he doesn’t really give a damn about what Black women actually think. You know, I can imagine Black people and people of color from the U.S. visiting New Zealand and thinking that they will finally experience a reprieve from the daily insults of racist microaggressions. Given the global dimensions of anti-Black racism, however, I would not be surprised how deeply anti-Black racism runs in New Zealand. Could you say more about how you have dealt with anti-Black racism in New Zealand?

    Being from Mississippi, I am often asked how it feels to have left. Mississippi is one of those places recognized — and rarely contested — for its brutal history of white hostility toward Black people. People feign a look of shock when I respond that the world is like Mississippi. Mississippi just owns what it is. It is like in 2018 when Cindy Hyde-Smith, the Republican senator from Mississippi, said, “If he [a cattle rancher] invited me to a public hanging, I’d be on the front row.” Hyde-Smith was still elected for saying exactly how she felt. Two years later, the world held a front-row viewing of George Floyd’s public lynching. For those white people seeing a large Black man rendered powerless, and his life slowly and brutally taken from him as others watched, is reminiscent of the Jim Crow era, post-slavery, where the lynching of Black people by ordinary white citizens in collaboration with law enforcement was a sanctioned practice. Floyd’s public lynching represented for many people that all was right in the world and order had been restored. I work with and engage with many people like Cindy Hyde-Smith on a daily basis.

    During Trump’s presidential campaign, extreme-right groups around the world mobilized and expanded exponentially. Growing visibility of white supremacist groups — the True Blue Crew and United Patriots Front in Australia, and the New Zealand National Front and Right Wing Resistance in New Zealand — hardly received media and academic attention. Yet, statements such as “We are not as bad as the U.S.” are commonplace. If the U.S. is your point of reference, you are doing pretty bad. Like the U.S., there is unwillingness to name and confront white supremacy here. Even after the Christchurch massacre in 2019, when Brenton Harrison Tarrant, a white supremacist, murdered 51 people at two mosques, New Zealanders were quick to point out that the gunman was Australian. A massacre of this scale should have signaled white supremacy as a national threat. Racism is seen as something that happens elsewhere.

    Evasive tactics deployed to explain away systemic racism are most evident in the reluctance to use the terms “race/racism.” For example, racial segregation as a result of housing discriminatory practices becomes “cultural bubbles” or “ethnic clustering,” and racism becomes “unconscious bias.” Racism is viewed as something people would not do knowingly. When I informed my colleagues of my first experience of many instances of racial profiling, they responded that people are just curious. Yet, two months later when I disagreed or could not undertake a task a colleague asked of me, I was called an “uppity Negro,” twice. Of course, I was not outraged or surprised. Navigating white hostility and other forms of anti-Blackness (anti-African Americanness) has been a transnational burden. As a daughter of Jim Crow survivors, white hostility was always discussed in my home so that when we saw it, we could identify it and not internalize it.

    The structure of whiteness is to obfuscate its reality. Your insights suggest global instances of white mystification. When I think about the European imperialist violence brought to bear upon the Indigenous Māori in New Zealand, I think about the suffering, misery and death of Indigenous peoples in both North America and Australia. Collectively, I think about the themes of land dispossession, cultural ruptures in language, religious rituals and broader questions of cultural identity. European imperialism is about domination, usurpation and dehumanization. Death and dying are inextricably tied to European arrogance, xenophobia, exoticization and hatred of those deemed “less than human.” Could you talk about how the Indigenous Māori continue to face contemporary forms of discrimination, inequality and oppression?

    Coming from the U.S. with an understanding of the racist laws and policies — such as Black codes, Pig Laws and Jim Crow that eroded the progress Black people made during Reconstruction — I saw the effects of Indigenous land dispossession, but I also saw features of Jim Crow, though it was not codified like in the U.S. Many Indigenous people were urbanized and relocated to urban hubs like many Black people, but on a much smaller scale. While segregation was not codified in New Zealand in the same way as in the U.S. via Native reservations and redlining, Māori were encouraged to migrate from rural areas where they owned land and were targeted for social housing to meet the demand of cheap labor and to further facilitate land dispossession. Like the U.S., social housing means lack of home ownership that disrupts the creation of generational wealth.

    Urbanized hubs of predominantly Indigenous and Polynesian people were singled out as in need of targeted policing and social control. When I first arrived in 2015, I looked up the imprisonment rate. I thought it was a typo. While New Zealand is a small country of 5 million people, the imprisonment rate per capita for Māori is higher than the imprisonment of Native Americans. Māori women represent roughly 16 percent of the total population of women, yet Māori women represent 65 percent of women imprisoned (over four times their representation). Māori rate of imprisonment follows the trend of Indigenous people in Australia, Canada and the U.S., which is often framed through a lens of deviancy with little attention toward state-sanctioned and colonial violence. My collaboration with Indigenous colleagues strives to fill this gap in New Zealand criminal justice scholarship.

    Speaking about the issue of criminal justice, what impact did the killing of George Floyd by a white police officer in the U.S. have on bringing light to bear upon the disproportionate effect of policing of Māori people? I ask because I am aware of how the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in the U.S. galvanized protests in Australia that brought attention to the large number of deaths of Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples there while in police custody. While there are differences, there are so many shared patterns of carceral violence experienced by Indigenous peoples who are subjected to racialized and colonial oppression. This speaks to overwhelming proof that there are fundamental links between processes of otherization, race, white supremacist state power and criminalization.

    Issues raised by BLM protests resonated with many Indigenous, Black and Brown New Zealanders. Many Indigenous people have firsthand experiences of racialized policing, surveillance and imprisonment, and understand the implications via lived experiences. BLM became a rallying cry reinvigorating attention toward Māori mass imprisonment. However, in places like West Papua, where Black Indigenous people are experiencing genocide under Indonesia’s rule, BLM was easily incorporated alongside the Free West Papua movement, which has a large New Zealand base.

    While I was thrilled to see how quickly BLM traveled and spoke to specific issues in this context, I did not recognize parts of it. What happens to Black social movements when they migrate, and Blackness is not centered or understood? If we are not careful, it is like consuming Black culture. BLM was adopted in ways that did not shine light on the Black experience. Expressions of anti-Blackness in the U.S. were acknowledged, but how anti-Blackness is experienced in New Zealand was not. Black children being called the N-word by white people and [non-Black] people of color is a huge problem in a place like New Zealand, but it rarely gets attention. I only use this example to show the interesting power dynamics that influence how Blackness is articulated, if at all, when movements like BLM travel outside of the U.S.

    Many people who champion BLM also regard experiences of all marginalized people as being on par, when they are not. I explain to my class that Black and Indigenous bodies are read as deviant and violent by white society and by other people of color. I remember a couple of faculty members discussing a large, irate student roaming the halls. The student was described in such a way that the two people knew who the student was except for me. I was envisioning someone at least six-feet tall around 250 pounds. Finally, someone said to me that they saw me speaking with the student. The exact words were, “He accosted you in the hallway.” I think I would have remembered being accosted. The student they spoke of was a young, thin Black male nowhere close to six-feet tall. I found him quite timid. He always smiled when he saw me, because I always acknowledged him and inquired about his studies. Yet, it was amazing how two white faculty members held the same image of a “giant.”

    The implications of the perceptions of Black bodies go unexamined in New Zealand. Yet, it is a truth of Black life for which BLM shines a spotlight. In some cases, BLM became a tool people used to leverage visibility and space without a particular focus on various forms of institutional racism. Under such conditions, anti-Blackness remained at the periphery if at all acknowledged.

    Could you provide a sense of how you envision ways in which Black communities, though small in New Zealand, must resist anti-Black surveillance? Also, how are Indigenous communities fighting against various modes of discrimination?

    Aretina Hamilton advanced a concept called “white unseen” in 2020 to explicate how deeply embedded the erasure of Blackness is as it relates to Black pain, Black anxiety and Black despair. The sanctioning of this erasure is evidenced by the fact that it is so deeply normalized that it takes severe disruptions, like in the case of George Floyd, for Black rage to gain validity.

    White unseen, as Hamilton describes, is an intentional thought pattern and epistemological process where the everyday actions, terrors, ruptures, and tensions faced by Black and Indigenous people are rendered invisible. As Black people, it is important for us not to fall into this thought pattern as well, such that we do not register something like hair discrimination as a form of anti-Blackness or consider it too minor of an issue to warrant action. The insidious nature of white supremacy renders something like hair discrimination as “race neutral” compared to police violence that led to the premature deaths of Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain, Mike Brown, Atatiana Jefferson, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray, and many more. Like racial profiling, hair discrimination reveals the insidious nature of the global white gaze that demands Black subordination. Black people are expected to acquiesce under the white gaze, and everyone knows it.

    We saw how Black people were treated in China when COVID-19 first emerged. We see as the world watches Russia invade Ukraine how Black people are not allowed to flee Ukraine and have been forcefully removed from buses by Ukrainian police. We are witnessing in real time how Black lives do not matter globally. The initial step is seeing anti-Blackness as a global phenomenon, a pandemic — not something existing solely in the United States. It is important for us to see these connections and combine our energies to make them visible.

    This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This week’s News on China in 2 minutes. Among the news items is China’s introduction of Algorithm Law to protect people from Big Tech manipulating public opinion.

    The post News on China | No. 90 first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A roundup of the coverage of the struggle for human rights and freedoms, from International Women’s Day in Istanbul to ‘kill the bill’ protests in Cambridge

    Continue reading…

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

  • The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been amplifying Russian government propaganda claiming that the U.S. is financing biological weapons labs in Ukraine, as the two countries embark on a “no limits” alliance that appears to include a global disinformation war.

    Foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian referred to the claim as if it were factual when speaking to reporters in Beijing on Thursday.

    “This Russian military operation has uncovered the secret of the U.S. labs in Ukraine, and this is not something that can be dealt with in a perfunctory manner,” Zhao told a regular news briefing. “It is not something they can muddle through by saying that China’s statement and Russia’s finding are disinformation, and are absurd and ridiculous.”

    Pentagon press secretary John Kirby has dismissed the claim as “Russian malarkey.”

    But CIA Director William Burns said there is grave concern that Russia might be laying the groundwork for a chemical or biological attack of its own, which it would then blame on the fabricated lab operation.

    “This is something, as all of you know very well, is very much a part of Russia’s playbook,” Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. “They’ve used these weapons against their own citizens, they’ve at least encouraged the use in Syria and elsewhere, so it’s something we take very seriously.”

    Moscow has also claimed that its invading forces had found evidence of hasty attempts to conceal biological weapons research in Ukraine.

    Russian military figures and foreign minister Sergey Lavrov have repeated the claims, saying they are “ethnically targeted.”

    The story has been picked up in Chinese state media, which has been ordered to publish only pro-Russian material since the start of the war, while video footage of Russian defense officials repeating the claims had garnered more than 10 million views on the Chinese social media platform Sina Weibo.

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, seen in a file photo of a daily media briefing in Beijing on April 8, 2020, has repeatedly  been called out for spreading conspiracy theories about the coronavirus, Afghanistan and other controversial topics.
    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, seen in a file photo of a daily media briefing in Beijing on April 8, 2020, has repeatedly been called out for spreading conspiracy theories about the coronavirus, Afghanistan and other controversial topics.
    Changchun lockdown

    The story was amplified in China as authorities placed the northeastern city of Changchun — home to some nine million people — under lockdown, amid a wave of new COVID-19 infections.

    Residents must stay home, with one person allowed out every two days to buy essential supplies only, and public transportation, schools and businesses shut down.

    China reported 1,396 new cases of COVID-19 during the past 24 hours, compared with less than 100 just three weeks ago.

    Meanwhile, authorities in Shanghai have shut down schools, and are requisitioning properties in one residential district, possibly to use as enforced quarantine facilities.

    The Xuhui district government issued an emergency notice on Thursday, requisitioning a long-term apartment-style hotel, making the current residents homeless overnight, they told RFA.

    Tenants who used the hotel were typically highly-salaried professionals who wanted a place close to the office, and were ordered to leave with no compensation or alternative arrangements, staff said.

    “Xuhui district government imposed a requisition order,” a member of staff who answered the phone on Friday told RFA. “If they are paying monthly to stay, that costs around 10,000 yuan a month.”

    “I don’t know anything else about it.”

    A Shanghai resident surnamed Wang said local officials had reported 11 newly confirmed COVID-19 cases, including 64 asymptomatic infections.

    A resident undergoes a nucleic acid test for the Covid-19 coronavirus in Changchun in China's northeastern Jilin province, March 11, 2022. Credit: AFP
    A resident undergoes a nucleic acid test for the Covid-19 coronavirus in Changchun in China’s northeastern Jilin province, March 11, 2022. Credit: AFP
    Reporters pressed to spread conspiracies

    Repeated calls to the Shanghai municipal health commission rang unanswered during office hours on Friday, while an official at the Xuhui district health bureau referred inquiries to the district-level center for disease control and prevention (CDC).

    Calls to the Xuhui CDC also rang unanswered on Friday.

    One journalist told RFA they had been ordered not to carry out their own reporting into the COVID-19 wave, but instead to repost claims that the U.S. funded a biolab in Ukraine specializing in the study of pathogens that can be transmitted from bats to humans.

    Media worker Liu Xiao said China’s zero-COVID strategy is looking less and less realistic in the face of the new wave of omicron variant infections, which is better able to escape China’s homegrown vaccines than imported vaccines.

    “You can’t get the Pfizer jab; they’re not approving it,” Liu told RFA. “Everyone I know, including the director of a hospital, have all been given the Chinese-made jabs.”

    “My son is still pretty sick, and he’s saying that the Chinese-made vaccines aren’t effective … Also, a lot of people are getting their immunity levels tested, but nobody is managing to get a Pfizer jab,” he said.

    “Not even people in Beijing, who are very well-connected.”

    Liu said nobody knows why it’s impossible to get imported jabs.

    “We daren’t talk about it too much,” he said.

    Political, not scientific policies

    Cases continued to surge in Laixi city near the eastern port city of Qingdao, with a number of local officials punished for “allowing” the disease to spread at the No. 7 High School.

    Shandong province had 121 newly confirmed cases on Friday, including 103 in Qingdao.

    A Qingdao resident who gave only the nickname John said it made no sense to blame officials when the omicron variant is so highly transmissible.

    “I don’t think it makes any sense, because … the virus will always spread faster than the speed of human prevention and control,” he said. “But after they did that, local officials were walking through the streets every day to oversee prevention and control efforts.”

    Most flights have been canceled at Qingdao International Airport, with online video showing rows of empty check-in desks.
     
    Current affairs commentator Zhang Jianping said the zero-COVID policy is political rather than scientific.

    “This virus will keep coming back, and they always use political means to deal with what should be a matter for science,” Zhang said.

    Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Xiaoshan Huang, Chingman and Qiao Long.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • On February 2nd, eagle-eyed pro-China activist Arnaud Bertrand revealed that WEghur Stories, a podcast “working to create a conversation within and about the global Uyghur diaspora” that has been aggressively promoted on Facebook and Spotify, is funded by Washington’s French diplomatic mission—and that John Bair, its co-creator, co-host and producer, is a former CIA operative.

    Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) / Twitter
    Arnaud Bertrand [Source: mobile.twitter.com]

    No trace of Bair’s deep-state background can be detected from the podcast’s website, where he is merely referred to as a former “foreign policy analyst, political speechwriter, and narrative consultant.” However, his LinkedIn profile—which characterizes him as a “narrative development” specialist—reveals an eight-year stint with the Agency from 2004 to 2012, the first seven of which were spent as an intelligence officer.

    Since then, he has enjoyed a colorful, diverse career in a number of fields, serving as ghostwriter for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and foreign policy and national security adviser to Pete Buttigieg’s in 2020, which overlapped with a three-and-a-half year spell at Threat Pattern LLC.

    WEghur Stories | Podcast on Spotify
    [Source: open.spotify.com]

    The latter company uses CIA “intelligence and counterintelligence analysis techniques to protect corporate brands and assets.” Trade outlet Intelligence Online describes the firm as “a CIA and Wall Street alliance”—in March 2015, Michael Sulick, the Agency’s long-time Clandestine Service Director, joined as senior partner.

    Michael Sulick - Wikipedia
    Michael Sulick, the Agency’s long-time Clandestine Service Director. [Source: wikipedia.org]


    Bair, moreover, sits on the board of Foreign Policy for America, a D.C.-based advocacy group founded in the weeks following the 2016 presidential election, “as a home for Americans who support principled American engagement in the world.” In other words, to shill for empire after the victory of Donald Trump, in the event his isolationist, anti-war rhetoric on the campaign trail turned out just to be hot air—which it did, of course.

    Lately, he has worked as content director for Thresher, a company offering corporate clients a range of products combining “signal-rich proprietary data, AI-powered technology, and world-class expertise to help decision makers understand China.” Thresher claims to rely on “the best technology the world has to offer, incubated at Harvard and leveraging innovations from Silicon Valley.”

    Deep-state liberal performing arts collective

    Since January 2014 too, Bair has been part of The New Wild, “a multidisciplinary art lab that brings together artists, writers, scholars, and technologists in a rigorously collaborative environment to create large-scale theater, opera, and spectacles.”

    It is as part of this group that Bair produces WEghur Stories, and wrote Tear a Root from the Earth, an elaborate musical about the legacy of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan that has been performed at theaters across America. Additionally, he served as communications director for Everybody Is Gone, an immersive “art installation and performance” seeking to provide “reparative spaces to the Uyghur community” and “counteract the Chinese government’s objectives.”

    Little information on The New Wild can be derived from its website—there isn’t even a means of contacting the troupe—although its “collaborators” section is intriguing, for behind the handsome hipsteriffic headshots often lurk deep-state backgrounds.

    For example, Jessica Batke, creator of Everybody Is Gone and Tear a Root from the Earth’s music director, was previously a foreign affairs research analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

    A person wearing glasses Description automatically generated with low confidence
    Jessica Batke [Source: thenewwild.org]

    She currently serves as senior editor of the opaquely funded ChinaFile, where she manages its China NGO Project, and has published numerous bizarre, scaremongering stories about Beijing subsequently picked up by the mainstream media.

    In late January, for example, Batke authored a report framing as sinister a network of youth centers across China, at which attendees can, among other things, have their umbrellas repaired and watch showings of The Dark Knight for free. This while earning “points” for showing “respect for their elders and family, righteousness and trustworthiness, pleasure in helping others, hard work, and thrift in running their household affairs” that can be redeemed for essential products in supermarkets.

    The Wall Street Journal was widely ridiculed for presenting this mundane youth engagement program as a malign, insidious Communist Party plot “to quietly [insert] itself into everyday life” in China.

    Johnny Walsh, a cellist who co-authored Tear a Root from the Earth and composed its score, is a veteran U.S. foreign policy apparatchik currently occupying a senior post at intelligence cutout USAID, while Nicolas Benacerraf, director and scenographer, is an academic studying “advertising as a means of theatrical population control,” and its relevance to “political theater,” in his spare time.

    New Wild founder Marina McClure—a theater director “who grew up internationally,” with an extensive dramatic résumé and virtually no social media presence—has since 2019 received grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the U.S. government’s regime-change arm, which financed the production of Everybody Is Gone.

    Image of Marina McClure
    Marina McClure [Source: willamette.edu]

    The NED has since 2004 funded propaganda operations surrounding the purported Uyghur genocide to the tune of millions annually, bankrolling a nexus of advocacy groups, human rights NGOs and media operations to further the controversial narrative, among them right-wing, anti-communist separatists, in order to discredit and ostracize China.

    All along, the U.S. has frequently clashed with Uyghur militants in Afghanistan.

    It is surely no coincidence the NED wellspring began flowing the year after publication of The Xinjiang Problem, authored by Graham E. Fuller, former vice chair of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate and CIA station chief in Kabul, and academic S. Frederick Starr, a distinguished Eurasian fellow with the American Foreign Policy Council, a neoconservative Beltway think tank.

    “It would be unrealistic to rule out categorically American willingness to play the ‘Uyghur card’ as a means of exerting pressure on China in the event of some future crisis or confrontation,” they wrote. “Many of China’s rivals have in the past pursued active policies in Xinjiang and exploited the Uyghur issue for their benefit…The possibility cannot be excluded from any survey of possible longer-range futures for the Xinjiang issue.”

    Elsewhere in the text, the authors acknowledged that Uyghurs were in contact with Muslim groups outside Xinjiang, and “some of them have been radicalized into broader jihadist politics in the process, a handful were earlier involved in guerrilla or terrorist training in Afghanistan, and some are in touch with international Muslim mujahidin struggling for Muslim causes of independence worldwide.”

    There is reason to believe the U.S. may be providing covert support to these same militants. In 1999, a CIA operative was recorded as saying:

    The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia [emphasis added].

    East, Turkestan, Islamic, Movement, Party, training
    Purported members of the Uyghur-led East Turkestan Islamic Movement [ETIM] in training video. Inspired by the Taliban, the ETIM led a violent insurgency against the Chinese government from the late 1990s until 2017, according to Newsweek, “in a bloody bid to weaken China’s resolve in Xinjiang.” Ironically, for many years, the ETIM was on Washington’s terrorist list, and was targeted in airstrikes by the Pentagon in Afghanistan up until 2018. [Source: newsweek.com]

    “We love the CIA,” Ben Affleck writes

    Intriguingly, John Bair’s biography on The New Wild website notes that, after his lengthy run as an intelligence officer, he served in the CIA’s entertainment liaison office, which consults directly with TV, streaming and movie productions. Via this mechanism, Langley exerts enormous, insidious and little-known influence over a wide variety of popular culture, influencing scripts and narratives in its own malign interests.

    During this time, the résumé notes, Bair served as consultant on several high-profile projects, including the 2012 movies Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. This is striking, for production of those films was heavily influenced by Langley, creating a truly extraordinary situation in which two pictures vying against each other for numerous industry awards that year were both effective CIA propaganda infomercials.

    Argo tells the real-life tale of the CIA rescuing six American diplomats who evaded capture during the storming of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, via the cunning connivance of dispatching operatives to the Iranian capital under the guise of scouting for shooting locations for a sci-fi movie.

    It was a story the Agency had wanted someone to adapt for the silver screen for some time—in December 2007, an essay by Tony Mendez, who led the daring operation, outlining the experience was published on a section of the CIA’s website which regularly suggests possible storylines writers and producers should pursue.

    WarnerBros.com | Argo | Movies
    [Source: warnerbros.com]

    In Argo, Mendez was played by Ben Affleck, who also directed the movie. Email exchanges between the actor and CIA liaison office during the production process unearthed by academic Matt Alford speak to an extremely chummy and affectionate rapport, with actors and production staff receiving rare private tours of Langley, and being provided with exclusive archive photos. All Agency personnel identities are redacted in the emails, although there are many written by and mentioning names short enough to be “John Bair.”

    “We would love, in brief, to film a quick bit walking through the lobby, something in the parking lot and a wide shot of the building as an establishing shot,” Affleck wrote to the CIA in one missive. “We love the Agency and this heroic action and we really want the process of bringing it to the big screen to be as real as possible.”

    In return for its assistance, the CIA was provided with multiple drafts of the script—Langley was very taken with the writer’s efforts, with one entertainment liaison office representative commenting, “the Agency comes off looking very well, in my opinion, and the action of the movie is, for the most part, squarely rooted in the facts of the mission.”

    Upon release though, Argo was widely criticized for its historical inaccuracies, such as determinedly diminishing Canada’s prominent role in the mission, falsely charging that the British embassy refused to help the diplomats, and fabricating whole-cloth a daring runway escape scene.

    Neglecting to highlight how the CIA’s 1953 coup had helped destroy Iranian democracy and provoke the 1979 Islamic Revolution, it was also harshly condemned for universally depicting Iranians—with the exception of a single character—as rabid, aggressive, violent, moronic and possessed of surging anti-Western animus. This did not prevent the movie from securing three Academy Awards though, including Best Picture.

    “Grossly inaccurate and misleading”

    Zero Dark Thirty dramatizes the CIA’s decade-long worldwide manhunt for Osama bin Laden following the 9/11 attacks, culminating with the Navy SEAL team raid on his secret compound in Pakistan in May 2011.

    The film generated even more controversy than Argo, due to its depiction of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and false implication that they were fundamental to locating the al-Qaeda chief, with even the CIA’s then-acting chief Michael Morrell expressing grave concern about this fundamental aspect of the narrative.

    ZERO DARK THIRTY | Sony Pictures Entertainment
    [Source: sonypictures.com]

    A bipartisan group of senior U.S. senators—including notorious war hawk John McCain—were so outraged by it that they wrote a joint letter to Sony Pictures, Zero Dark Thirty’s distributor, slamming the movie as “grossly inaccurate and misleading,” and declaring the company had a “social and moral obligation” to make categorically clear torture played no role in bin Laden’s location.

    The executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA’s torture program, declassified two years later, confirmed that “the vast majority of intelligence” which helped track down the al-Qaeda chief was not only “originally acquired from sources unrelated” to the program, but “the most accurate information acquired from a CIA detainee was provided prior [emphasis added] to the CIA subjecting the detainee to enhanced interrogation techniques.”

    The enormous and unprecedented support provided to Zero Dark Thirty by not only the CIA but the Pentagon was well-publicized at the time of its release, although it would be some time before internal documents revealing in detail how its narrative was directly shaped by deep-state interests were declassified.

    Among the tranche was an internal memo describing how the film’s writer consulted directly Agency representatives—which may well have included Bair—on the script over four separate conference calls. In turn, they dictated what should be changed or even removed from the screenplay, in order to protect Langley’s image.

    For example, a spy “[firing] a celebratory burst of AK-47 gunfire into the air” at a party, and the use of a dog during an interrogation, were both cut, the latter because “such tactics would not be used by the Agency.”

    Interestingly though, the filmmakers were moreover explicitly told to stick to torture techniques already in the public domain—suggesting they may have been made party to classified information, and the CIA did not want that leaking out.

    Curiously, the aforementioned Senate report also reveals that the CIA had been planning to “publicly attribute” the operation to the success and efficacy of the torture program two months before its execution, with the Agency’s Office of Public Affairs specifically deployed for the purpose. After the raid, the CIA “engaged the media directly in order to defend and promote the program.” Was Zero Dark Thirty the product of this perverse propaganda push?

    Whatever the truth of the matter, the relationship between the CIA and the filmmakers over the course of Zero Dark Thirty’s production was so concerningly intimate and intensive that it triggered three separate internal investigations, probing lavish gifts to Agency operatives, possible granting of classified material to the studio, and more generally the ways in which Langley engaged with the entertainment industry.

    [Source: scribd.com]

    A number of ethics violations were identified, and various processes reformed, but no one was prosecuted or fired.

    Bair had left the CIA by the time of the film’s release, and long prior to the investigations being launched, after just one year in the liaison post. It is unclear if he was pushed in advance of potential censure, or left of his own accord, and it remains an open question what he was doing and where over the 18-month gap following his departure and next stated role on LinkedIn.

    Still, it can only be considered utterly grotesque that an individual so intimately involved in the production of clandestine state propaganda demonizing the Islamic world and justifying the unspeakable criminal excesses of the War on Terror—to say nothing of whatever evils he himself may have perpetrated over his intelligence career during the same period –now plays the public role of a committed friend and humanitarian protector of Uyghur Muslims within and without China.

    As the New Cold War grows hotter every day, we can expect its cultural component to become correspondingly turbocharged.

    Theater-goers are an ideal target audience for anti-China propaganda—overwhelmingly liberal, educated, wealthy, and influential opinion formers, their support for or acquiescence to dangerously rising tensions with Beijing provides absolutely crucial grease for the imperial war machine’s ever-churning wheels.

    Unlike Washington’s battle against Soviet Communism though, this time around the CIA does not have to rely on covertly co-opting academics, authors, creatives and musicians—there are clearly enough creatively minded veteran deep-state operatives out there who can be relied upon to faithfully execute the West’s informational assault on global perceptions regarding China in a variety of innovative ways.

  • First published at Covert Action Magazine.
  • The post The Uyghur Podcast Brought to You by a CIA Torture Propagandist first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Russia's President Vladimir Putin and China's President Xi Jinping pose during a meeting at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China, on February 4, 2022.

    Just as the relentless grinding of the earth’s tectonic plates produces earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, so the endless superpower struggle for dominance over Eurasia is fraught with tensions and armed conflict. Beneath the visible outbreak of war in Ukraine and the U.S.-Chinese naval standoff in the South China Sea, there is now an underlying shift in geopolitical power in process across the vast Eurasian landmass — the epicenter of global power on a fast-changing, overheating planet. Take a moment to step back with me to try to understand what’s now happening on this increasingly embattled globe of ours.

    If geology explains the earth’s eruptions, geopolitics is the tool we need to grasp the deeper meaning of the devastating war in Ukraine and the events that led to this crisis. As I explain in my recent book, To Govern the Globe: World Orders and Catastrophic Change, geopolitics is essentially a method for the management of empire through the use of geography (air, land, and sea) to maximize military and economic advantage. Unlike conventional nations, whose peoples can be readily mobilized for self-defense, empires are, by dint of their extraterritorial reach and the perils inherent in any foreign military deployment, a surprisingly fragile form of government. To give an empire a fighting chance of survival against formidable odds requires a resilient geopolitical architecture.

    For nearly 100 years, the geopolitical theories of an obscure Victorian geographer, Sir Halford Mackinder, have had a profound influence on a succession of leaders who sought to build or break empires in Eurasia — including Adolf Hitler, U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and, most recently, Vladimir Putin. In an academic essay published in 1904, when the Trans-Siberian Railway was completing its 5,700-mile crawl from Moscow to Vladivostok, Mackinder argued that future rails would knit Eurasia into a unitary landmass that, along with Africa, he dubbed the tri-continental “world island.” When that day came, Russia, in alliance with another land power like Germany — and, in our time, we might add China — could expand across Eurasia’s endless central “heartland,” allowing, he predicted, “the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would be in sight.”

    As the Versailles Peace Conference opened in 1919 at the end of World War I, Mackinder turned that seminal essay into a memorable maxim about the relationship between East European regions like Ukraine, the Central Asian heartland, and global power. “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland,” he wrote. “Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island. Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”

    At the core of recent conflicts at both ends of Eurasia is an entente between China and Russia that the world hasn’t seen since the Sino-Soviet alliance at the start of the Cold War. To grasp the import of this development, let’s freeze frame two key moments in world history — Communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s Moscow meeting with the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin in December 1949 and Vladimir Putin’s summit in Beijing with Xi Jinping just last month.

    To avoid facile comparisons, the historical context for each of those meetings must be kept in mind. When Mao came to Moscow just weeks after proclaiming the People’s Republic in October 1949, China had been ravaged by a nine-year war against Japan that killed 20 million people and a five-year civil war that left seven million more dead.

    In contrast, having defeated Hitler, seized an empire in eastern Europe, rebuilt his socialist economy, and tested an atomic bomb, making the Soviet Union a superpower, Stalin was at the peak of his strength. In contrast to China’s army of ill-equipped infantry, the Soviet Union had a modern military with the world’s best tanks, jet fighters, and missiles. As the globe’s top communist, Stalin was “the boss” and Mao came to Moscow as essentially a supplicant.

    When Mao Met Stalin

    During his two-month trip to Moscow starting in December 1949, Mao sought desperately needed economic aid to rebuild his ravaged land and military support for the liberation of the island of Taiwan. In a seemingly euphoric telegram sent to his comrades in Beijing, Mao wrote:

    “Arrived in Moscow on the 16th and met with Stalin for two hours at 10 p.m. His attitude was really sincere. The questions involved included the possibility of peace, the treaty, loan, Taiwan, and the publication of my selected works.”

    But Stalin surprised Mao by refusing to give up the territorial concessions in northern China that Moscow had won at the 1945 Yalta conference, saying the issue couldn’t even be discussed until their subsequent meeting. For the next 17 days, Mao literally cooled his heels waiting during a freezing Moscow winter inside a drafty dacha where, as he later recalled, “I got so angry that I once pounded the table.”

    Finally, on January 2, 1950, Mao cabled the communist leadership in Beijing:

    “Our work here has achieved an important breakthrough in the past two days. Comrade Stalin has finally agreed to… sign a new Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship.”

    With Russia giving up its territorial claims in exchange for assurances about demilitarizing the long border between the two countries, their leaders signed a Treaty of Friendship and Alliance in February 1950. It, in turn, sparked a sudden flow of Soviet aid to China whose new constitution hailed its “indestructible friendship” with the Soviet Union.

    But Stalin had already planted the seeds for the Sino-Soviet split to come, embittering Mao, who later said Russians “have never had faith in the Chinese people and Stalin was among the worst.”

    At first, the China alliance proved a major Cold War asset for Moscow. After all, it now had a useful Asian surrogate capable of dragging the U.S. into a costly conflict in Korea without the Soviets suffering any casualties at all. In October 1950, Chinese troops crossed the Yalu River into a Korean maelstrom that would drag on for three years and cost China 208,000 dead troops as well as 40% of its budget.

    Following Stalin’s death in May 1953 and the Korean armistice two months later, the new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev tried to repair relations by presiding over a massive, yet distinctly inequitable program of economic aid to China. However, he also refused to help that country build an atomic bomb. It would be a “huge waste,” he said, since China was safe under the Soviet nuclear umbrella. At the same time, he demanded the joint development of uranium mines Soviet scientists had discovered in southwest China.

    Over the next four years, those initial nuclear tensions grew into an open Sino-Soviet split. In September 1959, Khrushchev visited Beijing for a disastrous seven-hour meeting with Mao. In 1962, Mao finally ended diplomatic relations entirely, blaming Moscow for failing to launch a nuclear strike on the U.S. during that year’s Cuban missile crisis.

    In October 1964, China’s successful test of a 22-kiloton nuclear bomb marked its arrival as a major player on the world stage. That bomb not only made it an independent world power but transformed the Sino-Soviet split from a war of words into a massive military confrontation. By 1968, the Soviet Union had 16 divisions, 1,200 jet aircraft, and 120 medium-range missiles arrayed along the Sino-Soviet border. Meanwhile, China was planning for a Soviet attack by building a nuclear-hardened “underground city” that spread for 30 square miles beneath Beijing.

    Washington’s Cold War Strategy

    More than any other event since World War II, the short-lived Sino-Soviet alliance changed the course of world history, transforming the Cold War from a regional power struggle over Eastern Europe into a volatile global conflict. Not only was China the world’s largest nation with 550 million people, or 20% of all humanity, but its new communist government was determined to reverse a half-century of imperialist exploitation and internal chaos that had crippled its international influence.

    The rise of China and the conflict in Korea forced Washington to radically revise its strategy for fighting the Cold War. Instead of focusing on NATO and Europe to contain the Soviet Union behind the Iron Curtain, Washington now forged mutual defense pacts from Japan to Australia to secure the offshore Pacific littoral. For the past 70 years, that fortified island rim has been the fulcrum of Washington’s global power, allowing it to defend one continent (North America) while dominating another (Eurasia).

    To tie those two axial ends of Eurasia into a strategic perimeter, Cold War Washington ringed the Eurasian continent’s southern rim with chains of steel -– including three navy fleets, hundreds of combat aircraft, and a string of mutual-defense pacts stretching from NATO in Europe to ANZUS in the South Pacific. It took a decade, but once Washington accepted that the Sino-Soviet split was the real thing, it belatedly began to cultivate an entente with Beijing that would leave the Soviet Union ever more geopolitically isolated, contributing to its ultimate implosion and the end of the Cold War in 1991.

    That left the U.S. as the world’s dominant power. Nonetheless, even without a near-peer rival on the planet, Washington refused to cash in its “peace dividend.” Instead, it maintained its chains of steel ringing Eurasia — including those three naval fleets and hundreds of military bases, while making multiple military forays into the Middle East (some disastrous) and even recently forming a new Quadrilateral alliance with Australia, India, and Japan in the Indian Ocean. For 15 years following Beijing’s admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001, a de facto economic alliance with China also allowed the U.S. sustained economic growth.

    When Putin Met Xi

    Last month, when Vladimir Putin met Xi Jinping in Beijing at the start of the Winter Olympics, it proved a stunning reversal of the Stalin-Mao moment 70 years earlier. While Russia’s post-Soviet economy remains smaller than Canada’s and overly dependent on petroleum exports, China has become the planet’s industrial powerhouse with the world’s largest economy (as measured in purchasing power) and 10 times the population of Russia. Moscow’s heavy-metal military still relies on Soviet-style tanks and its nuclear arsenal. China, on the other hand, has built the world’s largest navy, its most secure global satellite system, and its most agile missile armada, capped by cutting-edge hypersonic missiles whose 4,000 miles-per-hour speed can defeat any defense.

    This time, therefore, it was the Russian leader who came to China’s capital as the supplicant. With Russian troops massing at Ukraine’s borders and U.S. economic sanctions looming, Putin desperately needed Beijing’s diplomatic backing. After years of cultivating China by offering shared petroleum and natural-gas pipelines and joint military maneuvers in the Pacific, Putin was now cashing in his political chips.

    At their February 4th meeting, Putin and Xi drew on 37 prior encounters to proclaim nothing less than an ad-hoc alliance meant to shake the world. As the foundation for their new “global governance system,” they promised to “enhance transport infrastructure connectivity to keep logistics on the Eurasian continent smooth and… make steady progress on major oil and gas cooperation projects.” These words gained weight with the announcement that Russia would spend another $118 billion on new oil and gas pipelines to China. (Four-hundred billion dollars had already been invested in 2014 when Russia faced European sanctions over its seizure of Crimea from Ukraine.) The result: an integrated Sino-Russian oil-and-gas infrastructure is being built from the North Sea to the South China Sea.

    In a landmark 5,300-word statement, Xi and Putin proclaimed the “world is going through momentous changes,” creating a “redistribution of power” and “a growing demand for… leadership” (which Beijing and Moscow clearly intended to provide). After denouncing Washington’s ill-concealed “attempts at hegemony,” the two sides agreed to “oppose the… interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights.”

    To build an alternative system for global economic growth in Eurasia, the leaders planned to merge Putin’s projected “Eurasian Economic Union” with Xi’s already ongoing trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative to promote “greater interconnectedness between the Asia Pacific and Eurasian regions.” Proclaiming their relations “superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era,” an oblique reference to the tense Mao-Stalin relationship, the two leaders asserted that their entente has “no limits… no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation.” On strategic issues, the two parties were adamantly opposed to the expansion of NATO, any move toward independence for Taiwan, and “color revolutions” such as the one that had ousted Moscow’s Ukrainian client in 2014.

    Given the Ukraine invasion just three weeks later, Putin got what he so desperately needed. In exchange for feeding China’s voracious appetite for energy (on a planet already in a climate crisis of the first order), Putin got a condemnation of U.S. interference in “his” sphere. In addition, he won Beijing’s diplomatic support — however hesitant China’s leadership might actually be about events in Ukraine — once the invasion started. Although China has been Ukraine’s main trading partner since 2019, Beijing set aside those ties and its own advocacy of inviolable sovereignty to avoid calling Putin’s intervention an “invasion.”

    A Planet Mackinder Would Hardly Recognize

    In fact, even before the invasion of Ukraine, Russia and China were pursuing a strategy of ratcheting up slow, relentless pressure at both ends of Eurasia, hoping the U.S. chains of steel ringing that vast continent would sooner or later snap. Think of it as a strategy of push-push-punch.

    For the past 15 years, Putin has been responding to NATO in just that manner. First, through surveillance and economic leverage, Moscow has tried to keep client states in its orbit, something Putin learned from his four years as a KGB agent working with East Germany’s Stasi secret police in the late 1980s. Next, if a favored autocrat is challenged by pro-democracy demonstrators or a regional rival, a few thousand Russian special forces are sent in to stabilize the situation. Should a client state try to escape Moscow’s orbit, however, Putin promptly moves to massive military intervention and the expropriation of buffer enclaves, as he did first in Georgia and now in Ukraine. Through this strategy, he may be well on his way to reclaiming significant parts of the old Soviet sphere of influence in East Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

    Due south of Moscow in the ever-volatile Caucasus Mountains, Putin crushed NATO’s brief flirtation with Georgia in 2008, thanks to a massive invasion and the expropriation of the provinces of North Ossetia and Abkhazia. After decades of fighting between the former Soviet republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russia recently sent in thousands of “peace-keeping” forces to resolve the conflict in favor of the loyal, pro-Moscow regime in Azerbaijan. Further east, when democratic protesters challenged Moscow’s local ally in Kazakhstan in January, thousands of Russian troops — under the rubric of Moscow’s version of NATO — flew into the former capital, Almaty, where they helped crush the protests, killing dozens and wounding hundreds.

    In the Middle East where Washington backed the ill-fated Arab spring rebels who tried to topple Syria’s ruler, Bashar al-Assad, Moscow operates a massive air base at Latakia in that country’s northwest from which it has bombed rebel cities like Aleppo to rubble, while serving as a strategic counterweight to U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf.

    But Moscow’s main push has been in Eastern Europe. There, Putin backed Belarus’s strongman, Alexander Lukashenko, in crushing the democratic opposition after he had rigged the 2020 elections, and so making Minsk a virtual client state. Meanwhile, he’s been pressing relentlessly against Ukraine since his loyal client there was ousted in the 2014 Maidan “color revolution.” First, he seized Crimea in 2014 and then he armed separatist rebels in that country’s eastern region adjacent to Russia. Last month, after proclaiming that “modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia,” Putin recognized the “independence” of those two separatist enclaves, much as he had done years before in Georgia.

    On February 24th, the Russian president sent nearly 200,000 troops across the Ukraine’s borders to seize much of the country and its capital, Kyiv, as well as replace its feisty president with a pliable puppet. As international sanctions mounted and Europe considered providing Ukraine with jet fighters, Putin ominously put his nuclear forces on high alert to make it clear he would brook no interference with his invasion.

    Meanwhile, at the eastern end of Eurasia, China has pursued a somewhat similar, if more subtle push-push strategy, with the punch yet to come. Starting in 2014, Beijing began dredging a half-dozen military bases from atolls in the South China Sea, slowly ramping up their role from fishing ports to full-fledged military bases that now challenge any passing U.S. naval patrol. Then came swarming fighter squadrons over the Taiwan Strait and East China Sea, followed, last October, by a joint Chinese-Russian fleet of 10 ships that steamed provocatively around Japan in what had previously been considered unchallenged U.S. waters.

    If Xi follows Putin’s playbook, then all that push/push could indeed lead to a punch — possibly an invasion of Taiwan to reclaim lands Beijing sees as an integral part of China, much as Putin sees Ukraine as a former Russian imperial province that should never have been given away.

    Should Beijing attack Taiwan, Washington might find itself hamstrung to do anything militarily except express admiration for the island’s heroic yet futile resistance. Should Washington send its aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Straits, they would be sunk within hours by China’s formidable DF-21D “carrier-killer” missiles or its unstoppable hypersonic ones. And once Taiwan was gone, Washington’s position on the Pacific littoral could be effectively broken and a retreat to the mid-Pacific preordained.

    All of this looks possible on paper. However, in the grim reality of actual invasions and military clashes, amid the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, and on a planet that’s seen better days, the very nature of geopolitics is likely to be up for grabs. Yes, it’s possible that, if Washington is whipsawed between the eastern and western edges of Eurasia with periodic eruptions of armed combat from the Xi-Putin entente, its chains of steel could strain and finally snap, effectively evicting it from that strategic land mass.

    As it happens, though, given a Sino-Russian alliance so heavily based on the trade in fossil fuels, even if Vladimir Putin doesn’t himself go down thanks to his potentially disastrous invasion of Ukraine, both Beijing and Moscow may find themselves whipsawed in the years to come by a troubled energy transition and climate change. The ghost of Sir Halford Mackinder might then point out to us not just that U.S. power will fade with the loss of Eurasia, but that so much other power may fade as well on an ever hotter, ever more endangered planet he couldn’t in his lifetime have truly imagined.

  • Health authorities in China said on Thursday they are battling a rising wave of COVID-19 infections across 31 provinces and cities, with more than 500 newly confirmed cases in the last 24 hours.

    The National Health Commission said more than 400 cases were locally transmitted, and clustered in the northeastern province of Jilin, the eastern province of Shandong and the western province of Gansu.

    Roads were blocked and residential areas placed under lockdown in 16 provinces and cities on Thursday.

    A resident of Shandong’s Qingdao city who gave only the nickname John said there were 66 newly confirmed cases in the province, and that an expressway had been closed in the vicinity of Laixi, one of the hardest-hit areas, which is administered by Qingdao.

    “The epidemic in Qingdao is in Laixi, where a number of school students were infected,” John told RFA. “The source of the infection is still unclear, so security is very tight everywhere.”

    “All highways in Laixi are closed, and schools have been closed on a large scale, and all classes are now online,” he said. “The schools in the area where I live are also closed.”

    The local government has expanded mass compulsory PCR testing after failing to trace the source of the local outbreak.

    Meanwhile, Shenzhen resident Zhang Hai said the city had reported 15 newly confirmed COVID-19 cases during the past 24 hours, with five new cases reported in Dongguan.

    “The fundamental reason is that there is no truthful, open, impartial and independent investigation that can take place,” Zhang said of the ongoing outbreak, which comes despite the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s insistence on a zero-COVID strategy.

    “If this issue is not clarified, how can you control the spread of the virus?” he said.

    A resident undergoes a nucleic acid test for the Covid-19 coronavirus in Jilin in China's northeastern Jilin province, March 9, 2022. Credit: AFP
    A resident undergoes a nucleic acid test for the Covid-19 coronavirus in Jilin in China’s northeastern Jilin province, March 9, 2022. Credit: AFP
    Tests, closures

    A video clip uploaded by a resident of Guangzhou, the provincial capital of Guangdong, showed long lines of people waited for PCR tests in the city.

    “All staff are undergoing PCR tests now, and they are waiting in line here on Shipu Road,” the person shooting the video comments.

    In another online video clip, authorities ask residents waiting in line to show their smart ID cards and mobile phones.

    “Show your ID cards, your smart phones, and go to Shanghuatou Square,” they call out to those waiting.

    Authorities in the eastern province of Zhejiang issued a “non-essential stay at home” order for residents of some parts of Yongjia county, with all public places closed and all gatherings canceled across the city of Wenzhou.

    Jiangsu resident Zhang Jianping said he was asked by security to show a negative PCR test to get into a court building in Jiangsu’s Wuxi city on Thursday.

    “The court said today that they want me to show more than two PCR test reports [after] I came to Wuxi from Changzhou,” he said. “They refused to let me inside.”

    More than 165 cases of COVID-19 were newly confirmed in Jilin, 134 of which were in Jilin city and 23 in Changchun city, with officials contacting thousands of people in a bid to track the spread of the infections.

    Four new cases were reported in Shanghai since March 9, with 76 asymptomatic infections. Authorities in the city’s Xuhui district have ordered public spaces including cultural, tourist and entertainment venues to close temporarily to halt the spread of the virus.

    Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Qiao Long and Chingman.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A Chinese military aircraft crashed in the South China Sea earlier this month, the Taiwanese intelligence agency said Thursday, providing a possible explanation for China’s closure of a part of the Gulf of Tonkin near Hainan island.

    Chen Ming-tong, director general of the National Security Bureau, told the Parliament’s Foreign and National Defense Committee that the crash prompted the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to set up a navigation exclusion zone in the adjacent waters to carry out search-and-rescue, and also military training.

    Chen didn’t provide any further details, citing sensitivities surrounding the source.

    He did however warn that as the world is focused on the war in Ukraine, China is taking advantage of the situation to “test the limits of the U.S. and other South China Sea claimants.”

    On March 4, the Hainan Maritime Safety Administration issued a navigation warning banning ships from entering an area in the Gulf of Tonkin that was closed for military drills until March 15.

    Part of the area lies within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry protested, asking China to respect its EEZ and continental shelf.

    China’s Foreign Ministry replied, saying that “it is reasonable, lawful and irreproachable for China to conduct military exercises on its own doorstep.”

    Vietnam and China reached an agreement to demarcate their share of most of the Gulf of Tonkin in 2000 but their negotiation on the mouth of the gulf has stagnated.

    China has not acknowledged any plane crash recently and continues to conduct daily incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone.

    A Chinese military spokesperson said at the annual session of the National People’s Congress in Beijing on Wednesday that the PLA will not tolerate any “Taiwan independence” move.

    Wu Qian reiterated the threat that the PLA would “hit every time” there are such moves, according to the state-run Global Times.

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

  • 4 Mins Read In a historic first, China’s President Xi Jinping has referenced alternative proteins in a speech during which he underlined his support for domestic food innovation. Speaking at a meeting with agricultural, social welfare and social security sector figureheads, he made statements that positively impact the country’s burgeoning alternative protein industry. News of President Xi’s perceived […]

    The post President Xi References China’s Alt-Protein Sector In National Food Security Speech appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • One of the most damning accusations against China is the claim the Chinese government is responsible for genocide against the Uyghur population in the province

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.

  •  

    WaPo: ‘China will be China’: Why journalists are taking burner phones to the Beijing Olympics

    The Washington Post‘s headline (1/20/22) seems to sum up why Western journalists saw no need to factcheck claims of Chinese cyberespionage at the Beijing Olympics.

    A persistent trope in Western media coverage of China is the claim that Chinese technology is inherently compromised and used as a nefarious tool by Beijing to spy on unwitting foreigners. However, when one actually looks for evidence behind these claims or innuendos, one often finds unsubstantiated speculation.

    Before the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics began, there was a spate of reports alleging that China could be spying on visiting athletes and journalists. The reports had a sinister tone, implying to Western audiences that China was trying to collect private information for malicious purposes:

    • Quartz (1/20/22): “Beijing Winter Olympics Athletes Have Every Reason to Worry About Their Cybersecurity”
    • BBC (1/18/22): “Winter Olympics: Athletes Advised to Use Burner Phones in Beijing”
    • New York Times (1/18/22): “Security Flaws Seen in China’s Mandatory Olympics App for Athletes”
    • CNN (2/1/22): “FBI Urges Olympic Athletes to Leave Personal Phones at Home Ahead of Beijing Games”
    • Daily Mail (1/31/22): “Over 1,000 Athletes and Coaches Are Using ‘Burner’ Phones at the Winter Olympics Because the Chinese State Has ‘Crazy, Scary’ Spying Tech that Monitors Calls, Reads Texts, Tracks Movements and Can Spot ‘Illegal’ Words in Private Conversations”
    • Washington Post (1/20/22): “‘China Will Be China’: Why Journalists Are Taking Burner Phones to the Beijing Olympics”

    Creating an anaconda

    Yahoo!: China is watching: Olympians go to great lengths to avoid stolen data at 2022 Games

    Yahoo! Sports (2/5/22) closed its article on cyberespionage at the Olympics with an analyst who compared China to an anaconda: “It doesn’t need to bite you. It doesn’t need to spit venom at you. But your behavior will change simply because you know that it exists.”

    Yahoo! Sports (2/5/22) reported on a tech advisory the US Olympic Committee distributed to sports federations that discouraged athletes from bringing their personal smartphones to Beijing. “There should be no expectation of data security or privacy while operating in China,” the advisory warned, a message echoed by other Western national Olympics committees. Yahoo! cited numerous Western officials and cybersecurity experts who claimed that broader fears of Chinese cyberespionage are “absolutely rational,” setting the stage for what Yahoo! called the “Paranoia Olympics.”

    Yahoo! cited a number of Western cybersecurity experts raising concerns for Olympic athletes:

    Their worries stem from a variety of sources, from an alleged technical flaw in an app that all Olympics participants must download to broader anti-China hysteria; from Twitter threads claiming to prove that “all Olympian audio is being collected, analyzed and saved on Chinese servers,” to genuine fears about the Chinese government’s ability and willingness to steal sensitive information and use it.

    Yahoo!’s report cited supposed China experts’ explanation for how the Chinese government doesn’t even need to conduct cyberespionage to deter athletes from causing disturbances:

    It’s a version of what Sinologist Perry Link once termed “The Anaconda in the Chandelier.” It’s a metaphor “used to describe how the Chinese government controls dissent and speech,” explained Neil Thomas, a China analyst at the Eurasia Group. “It basically sits there as a huge anaconda in the chandelier of a room…. It doesn’t need to do anything, this anaconda. It just needs to be there. It doesn’t need to bite you. It doesn’t need to spit venom at you. But your behavior will change simply because you know that it exists.”

    This raises the question: If China merely convincing athletes that it might conduct cyberespionage on them is sufficient to control their behavior, and prevent them from bringing up topics that “might trigger the Chinese government,” then wouldn’t unsubstantiated Western media allegations of a Chinese surveillance program on foreign delegations serve the same function as the supposed Chinese anaconda–regardless of whether such a program exists?

    Citizen Lab’s findings

    DW: DW exclusive: Cybersecurity flaws leave Olympians at risk with Beijing 2022 app

    Deutsche Welle (1/18/22) set the tone for coverage of Citizen Lab’s report on the Beijing Olympics app.

    Is there evidence of a Chinese surveillance program on foreign delegations? Many Western media reports (e.g., BBC, 1/18/22; CBC, 1/18/22; New York Times, 1/18/22) on China’s supposed cyberespionage efforts against foreign delegations to the Olympics can be sourced back to a report by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, a cybersecurity research center best known for identifying government-authorized spyware on phones belonging to human rights activists and journalists, which was first reported by German state media outlet Deutsche Welle (1/18/22).

    DW reported on some of Citizen Lab’s findings, noting that athletes, coaches, reporters and sports officials, as well as local staff, were required to put “personal information” like passport data and flight information, as well as sensitive medical information related to possible Covid-19 symptoms, onto either the My 2022 app used for the Beijing Olympics or the Olympics’ website:

    The app’s SSL certificates—which are supposed to ensure that data traffic is only exchanged between trustworthy devices and servers—are not validated, meaning that the app has a serious encryption vulnerability. As a result, the app could be deceived into connecting with a malicious host, allowing information to be intercepted, or even malicious data to be sent back to the app.

    Citizen Lab researcher Jeffrey Knockel says he found the vulnerability not only regarding health data, but also with other important services in the app. This includes the app service that processes all file attachments as well as transmitted voice audio…. The expert says he also discovered that for some services, data traffic in the app is not encrypted at all. This means that the metadata of the app’s own chat service can easily be read by hackers.

    It also found that the app had an inactivated “censorship keyword list,” a “reporting function that allows users to report other users if they consider a chat message to be dangerous or dubious.” One option that could have been chosen (had the function been turned on) was “‘politically sensitive content,’ a phrase that is typically used in China to describe censored topics.”

    DW reported that Citizen Lab confidentially reported these findings to the Beijing Organizing Committee on December 3, 2021.  Citizen Lab’s cybersecurity experts, the news article said, conducted an audit on January 17 that found that “no changes were made to address the concerns raised over security vulnerabilities and the list of ‘illegal words.’”

    ‘A simpler explanation’

    Citizen Lab screenshots of the My2022 app

    Citizen Lab (1/18/22) found that the My 2022 app’s “widespread lack of security is less likely to be the result of a vast government conspiracy but rather the result of a simpler explanation such as differing priorities for software developers in China.”

    However, when one actually reads the full Citizen Lab report (1/18/22) that DW and other Western media outlets selectively cited, one quickly discovers that this reporting contained significant omissions that made My 2022’s alleged vulnerabilities seem more malicious and deliberate than they were described in the original report.

    For example, Citizen Lab’s report claims that while it’s “reasonable to ask whether the encryption in this app was intentionally sabotaged for surveillance purposes or whether the defect was born of developer negligence,” it also argues that “the case for the Chinese government sabotaging My 2022’s encryption is problematic” for several reasons:

    For instance, the most sensitive information being handled by this app is submitted in health customs forms, but this information is already being directly submitted to the government, and thus there would be little instrumental rationality in the government intercepting their own data, as weaknesses in the encryption of the transmission of this information would only aid other parties. While it is possible that weakness in the encryption of health customs information was collateral damage from the intentional weakening of the encryption of other types of data that the Chinese government would have an interest in intercepting, our prior work suggests that insufficient protection of user data is endemic to the Chinese app ecosystem. While some work has ascribed intentionality to poor software security discovered in Chinese apps, we believe that such a widespread lack of security is less likely to be the result of a vast government conspiracy but rather the result of a simpler explanation, such as differing priorities for software developers in China.

    In other words, Citizen Lab offered plausible reasons for why My 2022’s developers left alleged security vulnerabilities to enhance functionality that have nothing to do with a malicious Chinese government conspiracy to spy on foreign delegations. Citizen Lab also pointed out that the most sensitive information about athletes would already be directly submitted to the Chinese government for Covid containment purposes, so there would be little point in using My 2022 for espionage purposes.

    Ultimately, Citizen Lab concluded:

    While we found glaring and easily discoverable security issues with the way that My 2022 performs encryption, we have also observed similar issues in Chinese-developed Zoom, as well as the most popular Chinese Web browsers. My 2022’s functionality to report other users for “politically sensitive” expression is common in other Chinese apps, and, while we found bundled a list of censorship keyword terms capable of stifling political expression, such lists are near ubiquitous in Chinese chat apps, live streaming apps, mobile games and even open source software. In light of previous work analyzing popular Chinese apps, our findings concerning MY2022 are, while concerning, not surprising.

    Citizen Lab’s arguments and conclusions undermine the conspiratorial tone in Western media coverage, which might be why they were omitted, with the opposite impression conveyed through cherry-picked quotes. Outlets like the CBC (1/18/22), Quartz (1/20/22) and the Washington Post (1/20/22) focused on Citizen Lab’s “worst case scenarios” of all internet traffic potentially being intercepted, warning people to “pack burner digital devices” to evade the “‘devastating flaw’ that could expose users’ medical and passport information.”

    Aside from a few exceptions like the Associated Press (1/18/22), which correctly noted there “was no evidence that the easily discoverable security flaws in the MY2022 app were placed intentionally by the Chinese government,” the Chinese state media outlet CGTN (1/28/22) offered more nuanced reporting, citing the major thrust of Citizen Lab’s conclusions that were omitted from most Western media accounts, where they would have contradicted the lurid narrative.

    ‘Two software patches ago’

    There is one apparent error in Citizen Lab’s report. The group calls My 2022 “an app required to be installed by all attendees to the 2022 Olympic Games,” a claim repeated in Western media reports on My 2022’s alleged vulnerabilities. The link provided leads to a report by Fortune (12/7/22) that states attendees are “mandated to download a health app called ‘My 2022’ to input personal information and health records,” with no source provided to substantiate this claim.

    But the International Olympics Committee (IOC) has directly refuted this claim, noting that it is not mandatory for attendees to download the app, and that the app’s settings can be configured to disable access to “‘files and media, calendar, camera, contacts,’ as well as a user’s location, their phone and their phone’s microphone.” The IOC has also noted that the app has been validated by Apple’s App Store and the Google Play Store, in addition to passing two independent assessments by cybersecurity testing organizations that found “no critical vulnerabilities.”

    NBC: Experts warn Olympics participants: China doesn't need an app to spy

    NBC (2/8/22) debunked the My 2022 scare stories–but still warned Olympians to be afraid.

    Later, in early February, Citizen Lab (NBC, 2/8/22) noted its concerns about My 2022 were addressed “several weeks and two software patches ago,” after the developers reached out after the initial paper was published and sought advice on how to fix the identified problems. All of this indicates that there is no basis for the claim My 2022 was used by the Chinese government to spy on foreign delegations.

    However, NBC argued that “focusing on that single smartphone app is a red herring” in “the context of China’s larger appetite for the personal data of people around the world.” It provided no evidence of China’s alleged appetite for the personal data of people outside its borders, instead relying on resurgent Yellow Peril hysteria in Western countries to suggest that it must be true.

    Another claim about My 2022 that has gone viral on social media, spread by popular podcast host Joe Rogan and Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin, is the allegation that the app constantly records audio on users’ phones. This was debunked by numerous experts, like Will Strafach, the creator of an iPhone app that blocks location trackers, who looked at My 2022’s code and found that there was nothing beyond an overt translation function that could activate the phone’s microphone.

    More evidence-free espionage claims

    Business Insider: Everything you need to know about Huawei, the Chinese tech giant accused of spying that the US just banned from doing business in America

    Business Insider (3/16/19): “The US has upped its fight in the last year against Huawei, which it suspects of spying for the Chinese government and posing a great risk to US national security.”

    The evidence-free allegations promoted by Western media about supposed Chinese cyberespionage at the Olympics fit into a larger pattern of claims that Chinese technology is inherently compromised and engineered to serve as spyware by the Chinese government.

    Numerous headlines alleged that Huawei, a Chinese multinational tech corporation that created the world’s first 5G smartphone, was conducting espionage on behalf of the Chinese government:

    • Forbes (2/26/19): “Huawei Security Scandal: Everything You Need to Know”
    • Fox (2/13/20): “US Accuses Huawei of Spying on Mobile Phone Users”
    • NBC (2/14/20): “US Officials: Using Huawei Tech Opens Door to Chinese Spying, Censorship”
    • Business Insider (3/16/19): “Everything You Need to Know About Huawei, the Chinese Tech Giant Accused of Spying That the US Just Banned From Doing Business in America”

    Huawei had been cleared of accusations of espionage as early as October 2012, after the White House ordered an 18-month review of security risks by suppliers to US telecommunications companies. The inquiry found no evidence that the company was an espionage asset, although predictable concerns about nebulous “security vulnerabilities” were raised (Reuters, 10/17/12).

    In more recent years, Australian officials led the way in getting Western governments like the US to ban Huawei’s technology on national security grounds, after conducting simulations on the offensive espionage potential of 5G technology (Sydney Morning Herald, 5/22/19). However, when one reads past sensationalist headlines and looks for evidence that Huawei is conducting espionage on behalf of the Chinese government, one comes up dry.

    For instance, the Wall Street Journal’s report headlined “US Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks” (2/12/20) cited anonymous US officials claiming that Huawei “can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through ‘backdoors’ designed for use by law enforcement.” When one reads further down, however, the Journal admitted that the officials “didn’t provide details of where they believe Huawei is able to do so,” and that they “declined to say” whether the US has observed Huawei taking advantage of these supposed backdoors.

    This is consistent with the US government’s assumption that it doesn’t need to show proof of malicious activity by Huawei; it’s a Chinese company, and therefore could be ordered to install backdoors or share data with the Chinese government, despite denials by both Huawei and the Chinese government of those allegations (Wall Street Journal, 1/23/19). In the absence of evidence, the US government has relied on asking foreign governments to shun Huawei’s technology based on speculative “what if” scenarios (Axios, 1/30/20).

    Critics of baseless US government accusations have argued that it wouldn’t make sense for China to jeopardize their own business interests by spying through Huawei’s technology, because the US and other Western countries are China’s best customers, aside from its domestic market, and it would be catastrophic if espionage were ever discovered (ZDNet, 5/20/19). This might be why Huawei has stated they are willing to sign “no spy” agreements to reassure suspicious governments that there are no backdoors in their technology (BBC, 5/19/19).

    But one doesn’t need to take Huawei or the Chinese government’s word for it, as other Western governments have confirmed there is no evidence for the US government’s allegations. The British National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) reported that they haven’t seen any evidence of malicious activity by Huawei, contradicting evidence-free US government allegations (Reuters, 2/20/19).

    Although German spy chief Bruno Kahl claimed that Huawei “can’t be fully trusted,” he didn’t cite any evidence of malicious activity by Huawei, and the head of Germany’s IT watchdog (Federal Office for Information Security), Arne Schönbohm, stated they had “no evidence” of Huawei conducting espionage (The Local, 12/16/18). France’s cybersecurity chief, Guillaume Poupard, the head of the national cybersecurity agency ANSSI, stated that “there is no Huawei smoking gun as of today in Europe” (South China Morning Post, 1/31/20).

    ‘Is TikTok Spying on You?’

    CBS: How TikTok could be used for disinformation and espionage

    Because of TikTok, a Heritage Foundation analyst told CBS (11/15/20), if China “were to try and source a human-intelligence asset, well, they know the exact type of legend or profile that they need to have.”

    Other speculative headlines about Chinese cyberespionage revolved around the popular social media app TikTok:

    • Washington Post (7/13/20): “Is it Time to Delete TikTok? A Guide to the Rumors and the Real Privacy Risks.”
    • Forbes (7/25/20): “Is TikTok Spying on You For China?”
    • Bloomberg (5/13/21): “A Push-Up Contest on TikTok Exposed a Great Cyberespionage Threat”
    • CBS (11/15/20): “How TikTok Could Be Used for Disinformation and Espionage”

    Although these headlines suggest that the Chinese government is using the video sharing platform to spy on users, when one actually reads these reports, it becomes apparent that there is no evidence that TikTok takes more data from users than other social media apps like Facebook, or that it shares that data with the Chinese government.

    CBS (11/15/20) cited numerous claims from experts they contacted about how China could potentially  share data with the Chinese government or “push disinformation” through the “For You” page on the app that recommends videos–though it doesn’t mention a single instance where TikTok actually did such those things. Forbes (7/25/20) admitted that despite “all the talk, there is no solid proof that TikTok sends any data to China, there is no solid proof that any information is pulled from users’ devices over and above the prying data grabs typical of all social media platforms.” Although Bloomberg (5/13/21) stated that claims of cyberespionage are difficult to verify, it acknowledged there’s “no publicly available evidence that TikTok has passed American data to Chinese officials.” The Washington Post (7/13/20) concluded that “TikTok doesn’t appear to grab any more personal information than Facebook,” and there is “scant evidence that TikTok is sharing our data with China.”

    Critics of the insinuations used by US government officials to try to ban TikTok on national security grounds have argued that “TikTok is not fundamentally different from other social media platforms,” as DW editor Fabian Schmidt (8/8/20) put it. It is of “no importance in the end who runs the platforms where people choose to put themselves on stage,” Schmidt argued, since the users themselves are “primarily responsible for protecting their own data on social media.”

    However, people need not take TikTok’s word that it is not spying on behalf of the Chinese government, as groups from Citizen Lab to the CIA have concluded that there’s no evidence that Beijing has intercepted data or used the app to access users’ devices (South China Morning Post, 3/23/21; New York Times, 8/7/20).

    These accusations of Chinese hardware and software conducting espionage on foreigners on behalf of the Chinese government are ironic, since there is more evidence of the US government spying on Huawei, and using Huawei’s technology to spy on others, than there is of Huawei spying for the Chinese government. And Washington has been caught inserting secret backdoors on US hardware and embedding software on mobile apps to spy on and keep track of people’s movements, while the NSA spies on Americans and people abroad operating on a “collect it all” ethos (Der Spiegel, 12/29/13; Wall Street Journal, 8/7/20).

    Motives to sully Chinese tech

    Breakthrough News: Why They’re Telling You to Fear China All of a Sudden

    Breakthrough News (10/28/20): “China hysteria has become a weapon of mass distraction for the US political establishment.”

    Journalist Vijay Prashad (Breakthrough News, 10/28/20) has pointed out that the US information war on China has intensified in recent years, as China’s technology industry has either become a peer competitor to or surpassed the US in certain sectors. Huawei once surpassed Apple as the second-largest smartphone maker in 2018, and TikTok is one of the most popular social media apps in the US.

    Similar Yellow Peril propaganda campaigns were waged by the US against Japan in the 1980s, with familiar tropes of alleged unfair trading practices when Americans were anxious regarding Japan’s rising economy as a peer competitor, noting their dominance in exporting technology like cars, computers and semiconductors. Japan’s economy is widely believed to have been sabotaged by the 1985 Plaza Accord Tokyo was pressured to sign by the US.

    Despite racist insinuations that China isn’t capable of innovating and claims that its success stems primarily from stealing intellectual property from the US, China is now in the lead regarding 5G (and potentially 6G mobile technology) and artificial intelligence, and has had a lead over the US in global patent filings since 2019. China’s status as a competitor to the US and emerging leader in the tech industry has even led US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo to say that the US and Europe should work together to “slow down China’s rate of innovation” (CNBC, 9/28/21).

    But whereas other East Asian countries like South Korea and Japan are politically subordinate to the US, in addition to having much smaller economies, China is politically independent of the US, and has already surpassed the US’s GDP when measured in purchasing power parity terms. Western corporate media thus have less incentives to vilify those countries compared to China, since they will not be independent countries capable of rivaling the US anytime soon.

    It is admittedly possible that the Chinese government is lying about not trying to conduct cyberespionage on foreign delegations at the Olympics, or spying on people through Huawei’s technology and social media platforms like TikTok. But Western media insistence on potential cyberespionage hazards are accusations without evidence. The US’s hybrid war on China includes diplomatically isolating it in world events like the Olympics, and unsubstantiated allegations of nebulous security vulnerabilities can be used to smear and sabotage China’s increasingly competitive tech industry as well.

    The post Western Media Took Gold in Evidence-Free Allegations of Chinese Olympic Spying appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • On March 2, the New York Times bannered “China Asked Russia to Delay Ukraine War Until After Olympics, U.S. Officials Say,” and reported that:

    A Western intelligence report said senior Chinese officials told senior Russian officials in early February not to invade Ukraine before the end of the Winter Olympics in Beijing, according to senior Biden administration officials and a European official. …
    The intelligence on the exchange between the Chinese and Russian officials was classified. It was collected by a Western intelligence service and considered credible by officials. Senior officials in the United States and allied governments passed it around as they discussed when Mr. Putin might attack Ukraine.
    However, different intelligence services had varying interpretations, and it is not clear how widely the information was shared.
    One official familiar with the intelligence said the material did not necessarily indicate the conversations about an invasion took place between Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin. Other officials briefed on the intelligence declined to give further details. The officials spoke about the report on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence.

    On March 8, the Chinese-Government-(Communist-Party)-owned Global Times headlined “disinformation on Ukraine crisis to smear China”, and reported that,

    Citing “anonymous officials” to release disinformation is an old trick that the US has been using to mislead the public. The Global Times learned from various sources that “anonymous officials” who previous reports cited to claim that China had asked Russia not to take action in Ukraine before the end of the Winter Olympics are from the US National Security Council, and their purpose was to shift the US’ responsibility in the conflict to profit from it and smear China.
    In two reports, published on February 25 and March 2, the New York Times cited “anonymous US officials” saying that China had learned about Russia’s plans in Ukraine and asked Russia not to take action before the end of the Winter Olympics. The reports accused China of standing with Russia to criticize the US and opposing US sanctions on Russia.
    The Chinese Foreign Ministry has refuted these reports and pointed out that the US fabricated information to smear China.
    Through various sources, the Global Times has learned that the “anonymous officials” cited by the New York Times are from the National Security Council of the White House. …
    Analysts said that the problems associated with the Ukraine situation are clear, and the US and NATO are together pushing Ukraine into the fire. As the initiator of the conflict in Ukraine, the US is adding fuel to the fire, while accusing China …, which is irresponsible and immoral, the analysts said.

    The NYT article published February 25 had been headlined “China may have played a role Friday in inducing Russia to look more accommodating, even as Russian forces advanced into Kyiv,” and it didn’t actually rely upon “anonymous officials” (or “anonymous US officials”), but, instead, upon individuals whom it purported to be experts on the subject, and whom that newspaper’s employees had selected, all of whom happened to be supporting the U.S. Government’s anti-Russia and anti-China positions on this matter, but none of whom were being alleged to have had personal knowledge regarding that particular matter. It also said that “In private, some Chinese academics have shared misgivings about Mr. Xi’s embrace of Mr. Putin. And on the Chinese internet, some users have robustly questioned how China’s position on the Ukraine war squares with its longstanding precept that countries should steer their own fates.” However, none of those “academics” was identified by the NYT’s journalist.

    The post Which is More Trustworthy: America’s Press, or China’s Press? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Michelle Bachelet’s announcement comes as 192 groups call for release of long-postponed report into region

    The UN rights chief has announced that she will make a long-delayed visit to China in May, including to Xinjiang, where activists and western lawmakers say Beijing is subjecting Uyghur people to genocide.

    “I am pleased to announce that we have recently reached an agreement with the government of China for a visit,” Michelle Bachelet told the UN human rights council on Tuesday.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Questions To The Head Of UN Women On International Women's Day

    Image: moderndiplomacyeu/@tibettruth

    On this International Women’s Day we have posted two questions to the current Executive Director of @UN_Women, Ms Sima Bahous. These were presented to her predecessor who not only found it difficult to answer, but blocked our Twitter account to avoid them! We have not gone away, nor has the justification and importance of these inquiries.

    This post was originally published on TIBET, ACTIVISM AND INFORMATION.