China's Uighur problem

[Double Edge]

The EU spokesperson disagrees that the EU - China trade deal is on hold. So in what state is it in then :smile:

EU puts massive China investment deal on hold | RFI | May 06 2021

 

[Double Edge]

U.S., UK, Germany clash with China at U.N. over Xinjiang | Reuters | May 12 2021

The United States, Germany and Britain clashed with China at the United Nations on Wednesday over the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, angering Beijing by hosting a virtual event that China had lobbied U.N. member states to stay away from.

Western states and rights groups accuse Xinjiang authorities of detaining and torturing Uyghurs and other minorities in camps. Beijing denies the accusations and describes the camps as vocational training facilities to combat religious extremism.

The event was organized by Germany, the United States and Britain and co-sponsored by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several other European nations.

Germany's U.N. Ambassador Christoph Heusgen said countries who sponsored the event faced "massive Chinese threats," but did not elaborate.

British U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward described the situation in Xinjiang as "one of the worst human rights crises of our time," adding: "The evidence ... points to a program of repression of specific ethnic groups."

She called for China to allow "immediate, meaningful and unfettered access" to U.N. human rights chief Michelle Bachelet.

Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth called out Bachelet for not joining the event.

"I'm sure she's busy. You know we all are. But I have a similar global mandate to defend human rights and I couldn't think of anything more important to do than to join you here today," Roth told the event.

Link to the UN event is on the UN's website. Not youtube for some reason.

http://webtv.un.org/watch/high-level...6253877575001/

High-level virtual event on the situation of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

 

[Double Edge]

^The Chinese rep attending the UN virtual event put up a short clip of a Col. Wlkerson

This is from the longer version given at the Ron Paul institute

Looking up this Colonel and his past statements and listening to the longer version shows he's more political than military and certainly mixes up political rhetoric with military assessments.

To listen to this Colonel is to UNLEARN what is written on this board (!) It is the way i thought BEFORE i joined this board.

The CCP sees US interest in Xianjiang as primarily to stir up trouble.

 

[Double Edge]

Missed this gem from Mar 26

The CCP sanctioned 5 MP's one of them happens to be the chair of the house of commons foreign relations committee (!)

Tom Tugendhat MP is Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and one of the five British MPs placed on a sanctions list yesterday by the Chinese Communist Party.

What for ? In April 2020, Tugendhat and fellow MP Neil O’Brien launched the China Research Group (CRG), a think tank that aims to “promote debate and fresh thinking about how Britain should respond to the rise of China.”

CCP thinks they can dictate policy to the UK. Laughable. CCP looks weak and increasingly desperate.

China is a wannabe rogue state. Passed the assertive stage long back, past aggressive and on its way to becoming a rogue state.

 

[Double Edge]

Another interview

Tom Tugendhat, the politician warning of China’s “cage-rattling” | Quartz | May 18 2021

Do you feel like you’ve evolved in your views on the Chinese government and on China? Become more hawkish over time, perhaps?

Tugendhat: I think the committee has changed. But I would be cautious about saying we’re hawkish. I wouldn’t describe it as hawkish to seek to defend your interests. We’re not hawkish in the sense that we’re trying to invade Iraq or send gunboats up the Yangtze. We’re just very conscious that the international rules-based system, which is a rather grand way of saying the way in which the world tries to settle disputes in a predictable and ordered fashion, is being undermined by a country that has decided that it wants to use its weight and authority rather than established practice.

That’s a problem for many countries, but it’s particularly a problem for the UK. We have a very strong interest in international norms because we are so invested in a form of global service culture. Many other [countries] are invested in manufacturing, where of course the norms matter, but the product matters. Whereas if you’re a service economy, the norms are everything.

The next bit is obvious to all except China watchers :smile:

​

this is an administration that has clearly got an internal weakness.

There’s something unusual about a state where the leader feels that they will never be able to retire, and that’s what he’s done by abolishing term limits.

He’s effectively said, ‘I don’t think that I can ever make this country stable enough that I can hand [it] over to somebody else.’

It’s a bold statement.

Is that really what that means? Or is it just that he thinks he’s the best person for the job?

Tugendhat: I don’t think any ruler wants to hang on forever.

Now, Xi [Jinping] has made it all the way to president of China; I haven’t. So I’m not going to pretend I’m the China expert, he’s the China expert. But a couple of years ago, he found himself asking various generals to vow allegiance on TV.

It was the first time any Chinese general has ever done it. They didn’t have to vow allegiance to Mao [Zedong], Deng [Xiaoping], or Hu Jintao, or any of the others. Their loyalty was never in doubt.

So what’s going on in the People’s Liberation Army that means that Xi is so concerned about their loyalty—or probably the loyalty of people subordinate to them—that he is making them vow allegiance publicly? I don’t know, but there’s clearly something going on.

Why don’t we just say, look, this is the beginning of a Chinese century, and we should just make the most of it?

Tugendhat: Two reasons. One, I don’t think it is the beginning of Chinese century. There is a difference between a strong country [China] rattling a cage and a strong country setting a new normal. I think this is a strong country rattling a cage.

Secondly, what they’re trying to do is fundamentally against the interests of the British people—the people I am pledged to represent and defend. And the interests of the British people are in having as predictable as possible a future. The way you create predictability in an unstable system like the global economy is you agree on rules. A peaceful world is a stable world and a predictable world.

But it’s more than that. The UK, by accident of history, was fundamental to the writing of the operating system of the global system from 1700 through to 1990, and the UK economy, more than almost any other, was built on the basis of it. The UK has gone further down the finance, services, legal, and the accountancy route, so we are much more dependent on the predictability of the rules, than almost anyone else.

We therefore have a choice, which is, do we defend the system upon which our prosperity is built? Or do we hope that the changes that come will not impoverish us too much? I think the second is a bit of a gamble.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

What a load of crap! Chinese Generals were relieved under Mao, Deng, Hu as well as Xi precisely because their loyalty was in doubt. The GPCR came to an end precisely because Mao lost the support of the Army. Mao and Deng, like Stalin, held onto power until they stopped breathing.

I agree that Xi is putting on theatrics having Generals sear loyatly to him. Deng's theatrics was Tianamen Square.

 

[Double Edge]

What a load of crap! Chinese Generals were relieved under Mao, Deng, Hu as well as Xi precisely because their loyalty was in doubt. The GPCR came to an end precisely because Mao lost the support of the Army. Mao and Deng, like Stalin, held onto power until they stopped breathing.

I agree that Xi is putting on theatrics having Generals sear loyatly to him. Deng's theatrics was Tianamen Square.

You are saying generals had to swear allegiance to Mao, Deng & Hu ?

Surprised you did not mention Jiang. DOR said he had issues with the PLA at the start.

Linked SCMP article says the allegiance pledge is rare but does not mention why it is rare.

Given the military serves the party, i'd have thought this would be SOP and not rare.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm saying that Mao in his early years and Deng was strong enough to rid themselves of disloyal elements. There is a paradox in the army. You need strong men to lead men and strong men have a tendency to think for themselves. Weak leaders do not last long in the army. Please note that strong does not imply competence.

The only legal requirement for the army is to swear loyalty to the CCP, not the man. Officers swearing to Xi on national TV is a dog and pony show.

 

[DOR]

I'm saying that Mao in his early years and Deng was strong enough to rid themselves of disloyal elements. There is a paradox in the army. You need strong men to lead men and strong men have a tendency to think for themselves. Weak leaders do not last long in the army. Please note that strong does not imply competence.

The only legal requirement for the army is to swear loyalty to the CCP, not the man. Officers swearing to Xi on national TV is a dog and pony show.

Exactly.
Xi sent a message — to allies and the not-so-allied — that there was no longer any room for anything but total loyalty.

Ironically, it is not necessarily a sign of strenght.

 

[Double Edge]

The only legal requirement for the army is to swear loyalty to the CCP, not the man. Officers swearing to Xi on national TV is a dog and pony show.

That's the point the foreign affairs chair was making. PLA never had to swear loyalty to the man before.

The only use I can think for doing it on TV means there is video proof that will be used if they are relieved of their command for whatever reason.

Exactly.
Xi sent a message — to allies and the not-so-allied — that there was no longer any room for anything but total loyalty.

Ironically, it is not necessarily a sign of strenght.

It's a way to keep all the generals in line.

Begs the question why do it.

He's insecure :wink:

Not everybody's onboard this leader for life thing.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

It's a way to keep all the generals in line.

Generals don't become Generals by being chickenshit nor without making enemies, even in the West.

 

[Double Edge]

Generals don't become Generals by being chickenshit nor without making enemies, even in the West.

Do you agree that Xi is the first leader to make generals swear loyalty to him as opposed to the party ?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

At least he is the first publically. I'm sure to hell that more than a few Generals expressed their loyalties to Deng and Mao in private. Even a few waved their Little Red Book at Mao.

 

[Double Edge]

Officers swearing to Xi on national TV is a dog and pony show.

It's cosmetic.

The officers are not willing to give Xi more than they have given leaders in the past so this is his way of trying to make it look like they are.

The Americans are no different. I think it was Pompeo who said he refused to refer to Xi as Chairman and instead stuck to the title of General Secretary.

This isn't a sign of weakness i think just pushback to what is considered over the top.

 

[DOR]

That's the point the foreign affairs chair was making. PLA never had to swear loyalty to the man before.

The only use I can think for doing it on TV means there is video proof that will be used if they are relieved of their command for whatever reason.

What in the world ever gave you the idea that "video proof" played any part in any internal CCP political machinations?
This isn't some British legal system court of law ...

It's a way to keep all the generals in line.

Begs the question why do it.

He's insecure :wink:

Not everybody's onboard this leader for life thing.

You finally caught on.
Congratulations.

ADD: Assuming this is before Xi Jinping became PRC President, then if Pompeo used the senior-most title of General Secretary, rather than the lesser title of Chairman, he was following protocol.
But, as Secretary of State, there is no reason for him to use any title but Xi's government / state title. The US doesn't have relations with the CCP.

 

[Double Edge]

What in the world ever gave you the idea that "video proof" played any part in any internal CCP political machinations?
This isn't some British legal system court of law ...

I was not sure of the reason.

But do you agree that no other leader but Xi has required pledging allegiance to the man ?

You finally caught on.
Congratulations.

I always had trouble accepting the CCP leader gets pushback despite reaching the top. If you're at the top you've eliminated all opposition surely.

ADD: Assuming this is before Xi Jinping became PRC President, then if Pompeo used the senior-most title of General Secretary, rather than the lesser title of Chairman, he was following protocol.
But, as Secretary of State, there is no reason for him to use any title but Xi's government / state title. The US doesn't have relations with the CCP.

There's a little more to this story than my memory could recollect from a year ago. It's not about protocol. They were being facetious.

US officials now call Xi Jinping ‘general secretary’ instead of China’s ‘president’ – but why? | SCMP | Jul 25 2020

The shift was from President to general secretary.

Xi holds three official titles: head of state (guojia zhuxi, literally “state chairman”), chairman of the central military commission, and general secretary of the CCP. Though none of those translate directly to “president”, and despite the fact that official Chinese missives and state media reports almost always lead with Xi’s party title, the English-speaking world has by and large favoured “president”.

For 2018 and most of 2019, so did Pompeo. But over the past several weeks he has entirely abandoned that term in favour of “general secretary”, coinciding with a barrage of actions the Trump administration has taken against Beijing on matters ranging from Xinjiang and Hong Kong to Huawei and the South China Sea.

The administration’s “shift to using ‘general secretary’ should be seen as very deliberate,” said Alison Szalwinski, vice-president of research at the National Bureau of Asian Research and an expert on US policy toward China. “They want to draw a distinction between the leader of a representative government and one that is autocratic and authoritarian.”

“There comes a point when the simple truth is he’s not president in the liberal democracy sense of [a] president who is elected and enjoys the political support of civil society and the population,” said Robin Cleveland, chair of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC).

“He is an authoritarian dictator that sits atop a self-serving party,” she added. “So words matter.”

Set up by Congress to advise lawmakers on the national security implications of the two countries’ economic ties, the USCC declared in its last annual report that it would no longer call Xi “president” but “general secretary” , which it called “the title by which he derives his authority.”

The alignment of the USCC and the executive branch on the matter marks just one of the ways that the panel, once considered significantly more hawkish than the mainstream, is now representative of the growing appetite in Washington for a tough response to Xi’s government.

 

[Double Edge]

The EU free trade deal with China is now officially on hold

EU-China investment deal on hold as MEPs vote to halt talks | SCMP | May 20 2021

The European Parliament has voted to freeze discussions on an investment deal with China until Beijing removes the retaliatory sanctions it imposed on EU officials, diplomats, academics and researchers in March.

The motion stalls a deal that was agreed to much fanfare by top EU and Chinese leaders in December.

The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) needs the parliament’s blessing before it becomes law, but members voted not to even consider this while the sanctions remain in place.

The vote on the motion on the CAI passed by a landslide, with 599 votes in favour, 30 votes against and 58 abstentions.

In the parlance of EU bureaucrats: the deal has been put in the freezer.

Following EU action against four Chinese officials and one organisation in connection with alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Beijing bit back with sweeping retaliatory sanctions.

Among those targeted were five members of the European Parliament, the entire Political and Security Committee – a lawmaking, ambassador-level body at the EU – the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights, and a group of think tanks and researchers.

The CAI took more than seven years and three dozen rounds of negotiations to complete. It was pitched by the European Commission as a means of helping to level the playing field for EU firms in China, but even business communities professed to being “underwhelmed” by its breadth.

What HR rights abuses is China sanctioning the EU for ? lol

The CCP is highly optimistic and over shot this time. Took seven years of head banging and now its in hibernation.

The EU’s efforts to introduce new actions on Hong Kong over Beijing’s crackdown on the city, for instance, have been stymied by Hungary’s power of veto for the past two months.

The motion “deplores the lack of unity in the council of the EU over the adoption of measures to address the crackdown on democracy in Hong Kong”.

It urged EU leaders to “propose and adopt conclusions on Hong Kong irrespective of a lack of unanimous support and demands that member states’ extradition treaties with China be suspended”.

So like with ASEAN, pick out a few that can veto things in the EU

Wolfgang Niedermark, an executive board member at the Federation of Germany Industries, said: “We are still in favour of the CAI if it happens; it is a small step in the right direction. It’s always better to have agreements, compared to not having them.

“Of course, we have to be realistic that this is not a game changer. But underwhelmed is a nice word for it. The dragon is challenging us, but in the end we’re obliged to find solutions: we cannot decouple, China is too big and important to simply go away.”

Cannot decouple but when its crunch time why put things on hold ?

Maybe the rest of the EU does not want to be dictated to.

Activists continue to press EU officials to be harder on China. On Thursday, a group of 55 prominent activists in exile from the Chinese mainland or Hong Kong called on the 10 remaining member states with extradition treaties with mainland China to cancel them.

“Not only do the bilateral extradition treaties with China legitimise a judicial system that does not respect any of the due process standards prescribed by international law, they play a key role in the CCP’s effort to export its regime of political terror overseas,” read a letter sent to the top EU leadership.

The pressure groups got an easy win. Good for them.

There's other angles here. The Americans were upset that this CAI thing was agreed to in the first place. Like the Euros were showing them the finger.

See the games going on here. Divide the Euros internally over China policy. Separate the Euros from the US over China policy.

In the end the Euros & Chinese got no where and the Americans are smiling.

 

[Double Edge]

A month ago not many outside the Tennis world knew who this woman was..



And who would have expected the Tennis people to put up such a front when the IOC is just falling over themselves to please China.

What with the WTA head saying unless he gets something credible about this lady he wants nothing to do with China.

 

[Double Edge]

Uyghur Tribunal Wraps up in London With Eye on December Ruling on Genocide Allegations | RFA | Sept 13 2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Tribunal

The Uyghur Tribunal is an independent people's tribunal based in the United Kingdom that aims to examine evidence regarding China's human rights abuses against the Uyghur people and to evaluate whether the abuses constitute genocide under the Genocide Convention.

The tribunal is chaired by Geoffrey Nice, the lead prosecutor in the trial of Slobodan Milošević, who announced the creation of the tribunal in September 2020. The tribunal aims to issue its final determination on whether the government of the People's Republic of China has committed genocide against Uyghurs no later than December 2021.

The tribunal's final determination will not legally bind any government to take action, but organizers hope that the tribunal's hearings and reports may spur international action and help to hold China to account for its abuse of the Uyghurs.

Expecting a finding from this tribunal that concurs with the Trump administration on the treatment of Uighurs

 

[Double Edge]

When A Crisis Demanded That The Real Steve Simon Stand Up, He Did So—And Stood Tall | Tennis.com | Nov 29 2021

No more tennis with China says Steve Simon.

Simon’s reaction to the plight of Peng must have hit the CCP like an unexpected gut punch.

A massive portion of the WTA’s revenue originates in China (The WTA had scheduled 10 tournaments in China in 2022), thanks in large part to Simon’s skill as a negotiator. Hardliners in the CCP were not the only ones taken by surprise.

IOC officials, reluctant to challenge the CCP but worried about the growing calls for a boycott of the upcoming winter Olympic Games (in Beijing), tried to defuse the situation as intermediaries. They accomplished little while rattling on about “quiet diplomacy” - a term easily confused with the word, “appeasement.”

Lest you misunderstand the stakes for the WTA, an impasse leading to a break with China could amount to a billion dollar-plus loss of revenue. But think also of the permanent damage done to the image of China should the WTA, perhaps even the ATP, pull up stakes. The danger for the Chinese: loss of face and a snowballing resistance movement in the west.

When a crisis demanded that the real Steve Simon stand up, he did so. And he stood tall.

The women's Tennis Association has more balls than the NBA & IOC put together (!)



Literally !!!