Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

During his first term in office, President Donald Trump’s anti-China policies seemed as aggressive and assertive as they are now. Paradoxically, though those centered around a totally different issue, they certainly had a negative impact on US, Trump himself and of course greater part of the world. Yes, this was Trump’s claim that the disease Covid-19 was a “Chinese virus.” It was alleged that the pandemic leaked from a Chinese laboratory and Trump promoted the same. A speculation of it having been engineered as a possible biological weapon was also entertained. A team of scientists appointed by WHO conducted a 12-day investigation at Wuhan, which included a visit to the laboratory, concluded that the “lab-leak” theory was “extremely unlikely.” Irrespective of whatever was the source of Covid-virus, there is no doubt, it’s impact affected the whole world at large. There is a view, had US not made so such noise about it, most people – particularly from the developing world – would have not been affected so severely. Some ailment or other has them grappling with each year, especially during rainy season. But this is other side of the story. It may be recalled, Trump himself, as reported, was affected by the virus. Clearly, the Covid-phase strongly displayed the apparent animosity Trump entertained towards China. Banning entry from China, though with gaps, hardly succeeded in checking the spread of Covid in US and other countries. However, travel restrictions along with Covid lockdown were subsequently followed by other countries which led to a major economic downfall at several levels for all across the world, from which they haven’t yet totally recovered.

The post No Winners in Trump’s Anti-China Posture appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Nilofar Suhrawardy.

And if you watched their program, part of France 2’s “Cash Investigation” series, you might be convinced that they found astonishing and scandalous evidence.

The fact of the matter, though, is that the show’s creators used blatant lies to come to that conclusion, and I have all the evidence on today’s show.

What is even more delicious is that the show also featured seasoned anti-China “academic” Adrian Zenz, who has ended up being exposed by this show at the same time. Two birds with one stone!

Grab a cuppa and come with me as I explain all of the tricks the two female reporters used, and highlight clearly why they are lies.

This is Reports on China, I’m Andy Boreham in Shanghai. Let’s get reporting!

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Report on China.

The exercise, conducted in international waters by a cruiser, frigate and replenishment ship, involved what is said to have been poor notice given to Australian authorities on February 21. But the matter has rapidly burgeoned into something else: that what the Chinese task fleet did was mischievously remarkable, exceptional and snooty to convention and protocols. It is on that score that incontinent demagogy has taken hold.

Media outlets have done little to soften the barbs. A report by ABC News, for instance, notes that Airservices Australia was “only aware of the exercises 40 minutes after China’s navy opened a ‘window’ for live-fire exercises from 9.30am.” The first pickup of the exercises came from a Virgin Australia pilot, who had flown within 250 nautical miles of the operation zone and warned of the drills. Airservices Australia was immediately contacted, with the deputy CEO of the agency, Peter Curran, bemused about whether “it was a potential hoax or real.”

Defence Chief Admiral David Johnston told Senate estimates that he would have preferred more notice for the exercises – 24-48 hours was desirable – but it was clear that Coalition Senator and shadow home affairs minister James Paterson wanted more. Paterson had thought it “remarkable that Australia was relying on civilian aircraft for early warning about military exercises by a formidable foreign task group in our region.” To a certain extent, the needlessly irate minister got what he wanted, with the badgered Admiral conceding that the Chinese navy’s conduct had been “irresponsible” and “disruptive”.

Wu Qian, spokesperson for the China National Ministry for Defence, offered a different reading: “During the period, China organised live-fire training of naval guns toward the sea on the basis of repeatedly issuing prior safety notices”. Its actions were “in full compliance with international law and international practice, with no impact on aviation flight safety”. That said, 49 flights were diverted on February 21.

Much was also made about what were the constituent elements of the fleet. As if it mattered one jot, the Defence Force chief was pressed on whether a Chinese nuclear-powered submarine had made up the task force. “I don’t know whether there is a submarine with them, it is possible, task groups occasionally do deploy with submarines but not always,” came the reply. “I can’t be definitive whether that’s the case.”

The carnival of fear was very much in town, with opposition politicians keen to blow air into the balloon of the China threat across the press circuit. The shadow defence minister Andrew Hastie warned listeners on Sydney radio station 2GB of “the biggest peacetime military buildup since 1945”, Beijing’s projection of power with its blue-water navy, the conduct of two live-fire exercises and the Chinese taskforce operating within Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone off Tasmania. Apparently, all of this showed the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, to be “weak” for daring to accept that the conduct complained of was legal under international law. “Now that may be technically right, but that misses the deeper subtext, and that is China is now in our backyard, and they’ve demonstrated that we don’t have the will to insist on our national interest and mutual respect.”

There are few voices of sensible restraint in Australia’s arid landscape of strategic thinking, but one could be found. Former principal warfare officer of the Royal Australian Navy, Jennifer Parker, commendably remarked that this hardly warranted the title of “a crisis”. To regard it as such “with over-the-top indignation diminishes our capacity to tackle real crises as the region deteriorates.” Australia might, at the very least, consider modernising a surface fleet that was “the smallest and oldest we’ve had since 1950.”

Allegations that Beijing should not be operating in Australia’s exclusive economic zone, let alone conduct live-fire exercises in international waters, served to give it “a propaganda win to challenge our necessary deployments to North-East Asia and the South China Sea – routes that carry two-thirds of our maritime trade.”

The cockeyed priorities of the Australian defence establishment lie elsewhere: fantasy, second hand US nuclear-powered submarines that may, or may never make their way to Australia; mushy hopes of a jointly designed nuclear powered submarine specific to the AUKUS pact that risks sinking off the design sheet; and the subordination of Australian land, naval and spatial assets to the United States imperium.

Such is the standard of political debate that something as unremarkable as this latest sea incident has become a throbbing issue that supposedly shows the Albanese government as insufficiently belligerent. Yet there was no issue arising, other than a statement of presence by China’s growing navy, something it was perfectly entitled to do.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Two citizens of the People’s Republic of China were deported from Taiwan for violating entry conditions after disrupting an anti-China protest organized by Hong Kongers in the democratic island’s capital Taipei. 

Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council identified the couple by their surname Yao, saying they had entered Taiwan under the pretense of visiting relatives. They were found to have no relatives currently in Taiwan, so their entry permits were revoked. They were deported on Thursday and boarded a flight to the mainland from Taoyuan International Airport. 

Taiwan authorities condemned the misuse of the family visit channel and emphasized that Chinese visitors must not engage in activities that harm Taiwan's sovereignty or democracy. 

On Tuesday, the couple were seen throwing banners with pro-Hong Kong independence slogans to the ground during a protest marking the 75th anniversary of China’s National Day, which commemorates communist party leader Mao Zedong’s formal establishment of the People’s Republic of China on Oct. 1, 1949.

In footage of the event recorded by RFA Cantonese, Mr. Yao shouted "Hong Kong is part of China, OK?" while a protester yelled back: "Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese people, and Hong Kong belongs to the Hong Kong people."

Deportation of Chinese nationals who have traveled to Taiwan is relatively rare. 

In January, during Taiwanese national elections, a former Chinese state TV journalist traveling on a tourist visa was ordered to leave Taiwan and banned for five years after an unauthorized appearance on a Taiwanese television talk show where he had mocked the physical disability of a ruling party legislator.

Edited by Eugene Whong.

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

“This year ‘Anonymous 64’ has frequently launched cyberattacks against mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau, trying to obtain control rights to relevant websites, outdoor electronic screens, and online televisions, and afterwards illegally upload content disparaging the mainland's political system and major policies,” the ministry said in a statement on WeChat.

The ministry, which is responsible for counterintelligence and political security, said that it launched an in-depth investigation into the hacking group’s activities and found that Anonymous 64 was “not a normal hackers’ group but a cyber-army supported by Taiwan independence forces.”

“Taiwan independence forces” is a term often used by Chinese officials to describe the Taiwanese government and military.

The Chinese state security ministry said it had filed a case against three active members of the Taiwanese military’s cyberwarfare command, known as the Information, Communications, and Electronic Force, or ICEFCOM, who are directly involved with Anonymous 64.

ICEFCOM’s spokesperson, Col. Hu Jin-long, denied the accusation and instead accused China of endangering regional peace and security.

Hu said in a statement that the command’s main responsibilities were to maintain the military’s online networks and communications.

“The current hostile situation and cyber threats are serious,” he said.

It was the Chinese military and other forces that “continue to use aircraft, ships and cyberattacks to harass Taiwan and are the originators of undermining regional peace," Hu added.

China considers Taiwan a Chinese province that should be reunited with the mainland, by force if necessary. 

What is Anonymous 64?

The group called Anonymous is generally known as a decentralized international hacker-activist movement. Its members have been reportedly involved in a number of cyberattacks on governments and large corporations.

RFA is not able to verify whether Anonymous 64 is a member of the Anonymous movement.

RELATED STORIES

China-backed hackers step up spying on Taiwan: security firm

China steps up cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns targeting Taiwan

Pacific Islands Forum investigating cyberattack on networks

Anonymous 64  has an account on X, formerly known as Twitter, that was set up in June last year, showing screenshots of its campaigns to broadcast videos commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and pictures criticizing President Xi Jinping on websites of various Chinese media and universities, as well as public TV screens.

It also reposted several links to reports by Radio Free Asia and for some Chinese activists.

Edited by Mike Firn

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

A June 15 Google-search of the headline “Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic” produced virtually no publication of that Reuters news-report anywhere within the U.S. empire — U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc. The news-report was not published, for example, in the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Guardian, Telegraph, and Daily Mail, nor CNN, NBC, CBS, BBC, NPR, PBS, Deutsche Welle, etc. That headline did briefly run on the websites of USA Today and Fox News, but never the news-report itself on that given site, and the link to the story no longer works at either USA Today or Fox News. There had been a link to that headlined story, but that news-report had not been published on either site. The only mainstream site in the U.S. empire that posted not only the headline but that also at their site the actual news-report, was Australian Broadcasting Corporation, on June 15. A Google-search of that headline four hours later on June 15 showed no better results. So, this extraordinarily important news-report remains as being news even the day after Reuters had published it on their news-feed. Suppression of a major news-story from a U.S. empire news-agency such as Reuters is highly extraordinary.

That suppressed news-report — which should immediately have been splashed everywhere, because it was among the biggest news-stories anywhere on June 14 — opened:

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. military launched a secret campaign to counter what it perceived as China’s growing influence in the Philippines, a nation hit especially hard by the deadly virus.

The clandestine operation has not been previously reported. It aimed to sow doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and other life-saving aid that was being supplied by China, a Reuters investigation found. Through phony internet accounts meant to impersonate Filipinos, the military’s propaganda efforts morphed into an anti-vax campaign. Social media posts decried the quality of face masks, test kits and the first vaccine that would become available in the Philippines – China’s Sinovac inoculation.

Reuters identified at least 300 accounts on X, formerly Twitter, that matched descriptions shared by former U.S. military officials familiar with the Philippines operation. Almost all were created in the summer of 2020 and centered on the slogan #Chinaangvirus – Tagalog for China is the virus.

This post, identified by Reuters, matched the messaging, timeframe and design of the U.S. military’s anti-vax propaganda campaign in the Philippines, former and current military officials say. Social media platform X also identified the account as fake and removed it.

TRANSLATION FROM TAGALOG

#ChinaIsTheVirus

Do you want that? COVID came from China and vaccines came from China

(Beneath the message is a picture of then-Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte saying: “China! Prioritize us first please. I’ll give you more islands, POGO and black sand.” POGO refers to Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators, online gambling companies that boomed during Duterte’s administration. Black sand refers to a type of mining.)

“COVID came from China and the VACCINE also came from China, don’t trust China!” one typical tweet from July 2020 read in Tagalog. The words were next to a photo of a syringe beside a Chinese flag and a soaring chart of infections. Another post read: “From China – PPE, Face Mask, Vaccine: FAKE. But the Coronavirus is real.”

RELATED

Podcast: Pentagon’s anti-vax campaign

After Reuters asked X about the accounts, the social media company removed the profiles, determining they were part of a coordinated bot campaign based on activity patterns and internal data.

The U.S. military’s anti-vax effort began in the spring of 2020 and expanded beyond Southeast Asia before it was terminated in mid-2021, Reuters determined. Tailoring the propaganda campaign to local audiences across Central Asia and the Middle East, the Pentagon used a combination of fake social media accounts on multiple platforms to spread fear of China’s vaccines among Muslims at a time when the virus was killing tens of thousands of people each day. A key part of the strategy: amplify the disputed contention that, because vaccines sometimes contain pork gelatin, China’s shots could be considered forbidden under Islamic law.

The military program started under former President Donald Trump and continued months into Joe Biden’s presidency, Reuters found – even after alarmed social media executives warned the new administration that the Pentagon had been trafficking in COVID misinformation. The Biden White House issued an edict in spring 2021 banning the anti-vax effort, which also disparaged vaccines produced by other rivals, and the Pentagon initiated an internal review, Reuters found.

“I don’t think it’s defensible. I’m extremely dismayed, disappointed and disillusioned to hear that the U.S. government would do that.”

Daniel Lucey, infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine.

The news-report also said:

Then-Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte pleaded with citizens to get the COVID vaccine. “You choose, vaccine or I will have you jailed,” a masked Duterte said in this televised address in June 2021.

When he addressed the vaccination issue, the Philippines had among the worst inoculation rates in Southeast Asia. Only 2.1 million of its 114 million citizens were fully vaccinated – far short of the government’s target of 70 million. By the time Duterte spoke, COVID cases exceeded 1.3 million, and almost 24,000 Filipinos had died from the virus. The difficulty in vaccinating the population contributed to the worst death rate in the region.

COVID-19 deaths in the Philippines

The pandemic hit the Philippines especially hard, and by November 2021, COVID had claimed the lives of 48,361 people there. …

To implement the anti-vax campaign, the Defense Department overrode strong objections from top U.S. diplomats in Southeast Asia at the time, Reuters found. Sources involved in its planning and execution say the Pentagon, which ran the program through the military’s psychological operations center in Tampa, Florida, disregarded the collateral impact that such propaganda may have on innocent Filipinos.

“We weren’t looking at this from a public health perspective,” said a senior military officer involved in the program. “We were looking at how we could drag China through the mud.” …

In 2019, before COVID surfaced in full force, then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper signed a secret order that later paved the way for the launch of the U.S. military propaganda campaign. The order elevated the Pentagon’s competition with China and Russia to the priority of active combat, enabling commanders to sidestep the State Department when conducting psyops against those adversaries. The Pentagon spending bill passed by Congress that year also explicitly authorized the military to conduct clandestine influence operations against other countries, even “outside of areas of active hostilities.”

Esper, through a spokesperson, declined to comment. A State Department spokesperson referred questions to the Pentagon.

The statement — “We weren’t looking at this from a public health perspective,” said a senior military officer involved in the program. “We were looking at how we could drag China through the mud.” — means that the U.S. Government was placing a higher priority upon “dragging China through the mud” than on keeping covid-19 deaths down in the Assia-Pacific region. Especially in the Phillipines, which under Duarte’s Presidency was neutralist in the conflict between the U.S. Government and the Chinese Government, adding to the death-rate there was not a practical concern for the U.S. Government. In other words: the U.S. Government treats neutralist nations as-if they’re instead among its enemy-nations, to such an extent that even civilian deaths there that are caused by the U.S. Government, are of no practical (much less of ethical) concern. This operation by the U.S. Government was expected to increase deaths in that region (because the U.S. Government believed that vaccinations would reduce covid-19 deaths in its own and allied territories), but they were not concerned about that. They were interested only in “how we could drag China through the mud.” The possibily that deaths would increase deaths in and around Asia as a result of what they were doing, was of no concern to them. The extent to which the post-1945 U.S. Government is significantly different than was Hitler’s Government in Germany, is therefore an appropriate matter for public debate, though it’s not being debated anywhere in today’s U.S. empire. The major importance of this news-report from Reuters is that it importantly contributes to that debate; and, now, the further fact of its virtually complete black-out within the U.S. empire, displays the extent to which the U.S. empire will not tolerate the existence of any such public debate. Perhaps this fact is even more important than that extraordinary report from Reuters itself was.

A reasonable conclusion from all of this is that America’s Government treats neutral countries as-if they are enemy countries. An associated aspect of this fact is that starting on June 11th the U.S. Government increased its secondary sanctions against Russia — the sanctions against businesses that trade with Russia — so as to punish them for that and thereby to limit such firms’ choices as to which countries they will be allowed by the U.S. Government to have commerce with. Secondary sanctions present non-U.S. targets (neutral countries and firms) with a choice: do business with the United States or with the sanctioned target, but not both. This is erecting a new “iron curtain,” of a specifically economic type, between the American empire — “The West” — and “The East.”

The U.S. Government is, in effect, betting that to force neutrals to choose between “The West” and “the East,” “The West” will expand, instead of reduce, its empire. Whether, or the extent to which, the reverse might happen, was so much as even considered by “The West,” is not, as-of yet, publicly known.

However, specifically as regards what was the topic in that Reuters news-report: to be concerned not at all about how the death-rates in the east-Asian region would be affected, but ONLY about “how we could drag China through the mud,” was — given the fact that the U.S. Government thought that to increase the vaccination-rates in that region would reduce the death-rates there — for the U.S. Government to intend to increase covid-19 deaths in the East-Asia & Pacific region. It was their intent, regardless of whether, or the extent to which, it was the result of what the U.S. Government did there.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

Regina Ip, a former secretary for security who is currently convenor of the city's Executive Council, or cabinet, made the comments after British police charged three men with spying for the Hong Kong authorities, accusing them of running surveillance and other operations targeting exiled democracy activists on U.K. soil.

Hong Kong and Chinese officials typically refer to pro-democracy activists at home and overseas as “anti-China” forces, accusing them of trying to undermine the government with the help of foreign powers.

Ip appeared to refer to those activists in an interview with Hong Kong’s Now News on May 18.

"A group of anti-China members in [the U.K. Parliament] and some Hong Kong exiles are causing trouble there, often introducing bills against the city and even calling for sanctions," she said.

“The [trade office] must pay attention, probably by gathering intelligence," she said in comments reported by the English-language South China Morning Post newspaper. "Such so-called gathering of intelligence means merely paying attention to these developments."

Ip's comments came as Bill Yuen, an office manager at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London who holds dual Chinese and British nationality, prepares to appear at the Old Bailey on May 24 charged with "assisting a foreign intelligence service" and "foreign interference" under the National Security Act 2023.

Yuen's co-defendants, Peter Wai, 38 and Matthew Trickett, 37, face similar charges, and the trio stand accused of forcing and entering a property in the U.K. and of targeting exiled Hong Kong activists on British soil, according to the Metropolitan Police.

The accusations come amid growing concerns over Chinese Communist Party infiltration of all aspects of British life, and warnings from Hong Kongers in exile over growing acts of violence by Beijing supporters and officials alike.

More than economic activities

Political commentator Benson Wong said Ip's comments will likely damage the reputation of the trade offices.

"Regina Ip's comments ... seem to confirm that some staff working in the London office aren't engaged in economic and cultural activities," Wong said.

"It's still unclear whether the Economic and Trade Office will be required to abide by certain commitments, or even have some of its privileges canceled," he said.

U.S.-based exiled activist Anna Kwok, who heads the U.S.-based Hong Kong Democracy Council, said the Hong Kong offices have long spied on overseas activists wherever they are located.

"We've always had good reason to believe that the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices are carrying out a lot of activities including monitoring Hong Kongers, not just in the U.K., but in the United States as well," she said.

"We've heard in the past few years of Economic and Trade Offices monitoring Hong Kongers in the United States," said Kwok, who has an arrest warrant and a bounty on her head issued by Hong Kong's national security police. 

"The simplest example is that when we go to a demonstration, people we suspect are employees of the Economic and Trade Offices take photos of everyone there to identify them."

"One person told us that he was asked about the Hong Kong Democracy Council at a very ordinary dinner by a member of staff at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, including personal information about the Council's members," Kwok said.

Kwok said the Hong Kong Democracy Council will step up its campaign for a bill banning the offices to be introduced to Congress.

Gathering intelligence

Meanwhile, Regina Ip said foreign consulates in Hong Kong likely also engage in such activities.

"I believe that each of the consulates based in Hong Kong is gathering intelligence. Some of the intelligence is publicly available, [such as] TV programmes, media and online information," she said.

“If our personnel are making similar collection efforts at the [trade offices], why would it be against the law? I really do not understand," Ip said.

U.K.-based Hong Kong activist Simon Cheng, who has reported being followed on April 9 in central London by unidentified people speaking Mandarin, said Ip should know the difference between a consulate and Hong Kong's trade offices, which aren't regulated by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

"Some countries allow the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices a quasi-diplomatic status, but that's up to the host country to allow them that courtesy," Cheng said. "Some countries may do this according to agreements signed with the Hong Kong government, but such agreements aren't regulated by the Vienna Convention either."

"Such diplomatic courtesies can easily be revoked unilaterally," he said.

Cheng, a former trade representative for Scotland based at the British consulate in Hong Kong who was detained and tortured by Chinese state security police during the 2019 protest movement, said consulates have teams of staff dedicated to gathering news and information about their host country or city, but such newsgathering is part of legitimate attempts to understand the places they are posted to, and to get a feel for public opinion there.

China's ambassador to the United Kingdom Zheng Zeguang expressed "serious concerns" to the British government about the spying accusations on May 15, saying the case had been "fabricated" to "smear and attack" the Hong Kong government.

"All those accusations are groundless and slanderous," Zheng said in comments posted to the embassy website, accusing the British police of "wantonly harassing, arresting and detaining" Chinese citizens in the U.K. 

Eleven people including Yuen, Wai and Trickett were arrested in a nationwide operation but eight were later released without charge, the Metropolitan Police said on May 13.

"This constitutes a grave provocation against China and severely contravenes basic norms of international relations. It is totally unacceptable," Zheng said.

Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Kit Sung and Kwong Wing for RFA Cantonese.

In a rare bipartisan effort, the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday requiring TikTok to be sold by its China-based owner, ByteDance, or face a ban throughout the United States. Backers claim the popular social media app could give the Chinese government access to U.S. residents’ personal data and potentially affect the 2024 elections. The fight over TikTok comes at a time of rising anti-China rhetoric in both major parties, as well as alarm among conservatives that content supportive of Palestinian rights and critical of Israel is popular with many young users of the app. The fate of the TikTok legislation now rests in the Senate, and President Joe Biden says he will sign it into law if it reaches his desk. Former President Donald Trump, who tried to crack down on TikTok while in office, now opposes the effort. “It is singling out TikTok and China without any evidence whatsoever that they are engaging in any nefarious or spying activity,” Ramesh Srinivasan, professor of information studies at UCLA, says of the legislation. “What we need is expansive, comprehensive digital rights legislation that really applies to every social media company and gives Americans power over their own data.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Thanh, 37, also known as “Black Aaron,” often posted online about the contentious area in the sea where Hanoi, Beijing and others have competing territorial claims.

Netizens told Thanh’s father, who requested anonymity for security reasons, that Thanh had gone missing on July 5.

The police issued a prosecution document on July 13, and on July 15 they searched his home and copied data from his computer.

In 2010, Thanh staged a protest in front of China’s Embassy in Bangkok because anti-China demonstrations in Vietnam by that time were being suppressed. 

In addition to anti-China posts, Thanh had written posts and comments about human rights violations, environmental pollution, systematic corruption, and issues of major concern in Vietnam.

Meanwhile, police in nearby Lam Dong province confirmed that they have arrested macrobiotics teacher Duong Tuan Ngoc for posts he made on social media about education, health, and social issues that criticized the government.

RFA reported last week that police in Lam Dong province summoned Ngoc, 38, on July 10, together with his wife Bui Thanh Diem, and he was detained the next day on charges of violating Article 117 of Vietnam’s penal code, a vaguely written set of rules that rights groups say is Hanoi’s favorite tool to silence dissenting bloggers and journalists.

The police told state media Monday that they have decided to prosecute Ngoc.

On July 16, Ngoc’s wife, Bui Thanh Diem told RFA’s Vietnamese Service that although they were both summoned, she was let go.

Later she received a document saying Ngoc was being held for “posting, sharing posts and video clips on Facebook and YouTube personal accounts, lashing out at the process to build socialism, distorting history, and several other acts of disrespect to the Communist Party and the government.

But she said the notice was not specific and did not say which of Ngoc’s videos or social media posts were deemed to be problematic.

Ngoc’s most recent Facebook post, on July 10, praised a lifestyle close to nature in Vietnam’s countryside. His personal page has more than 45,000 followers and has an introductory description declaring, “I have rights as a citizen. You have rights as citizens. Citizens are the rightful owners of the country.”

His YouTube account “Freelance Education” was established in July 2019, and he has around 34,000 followers and hundreds of videos about health, medicine, and life in the countryside.

Translated by An Nguyen. Edited by Eugene Whong.

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

Photograph Source: Chen-fang Tina Chung – Public Domain

The leading endeavor of U.S. foreign policy is now containment of the rise of China, “our most consequential strategic competitor,” as the 2022 National Defense Strategy notes at its start. The response to this “pacing challenge” includes confrontation over Taiwan and obstruction of technological progress, while China’s burgeoning network of economic alliances is singled out as a threat that must be contained. These are shrewd ways of pursuing an overriding goal of U.S. foreign policy, making American preeminence in global power last as long as possible. But the anti-China offensive should be opposed as morally wrong. While, if anything, it worsens repressiveness in China, it encourages an invasion of Taiwan, obstructs the escape from poverty of hundreds of millions in China, and increases the likely future worldwide toll of U.S.-induced violent disorder. The strategic wisdom of these responses to the challenge of China’s rise extends this condemnation to the grand strategic goal that motivates them.

Confrontation over Taiwan is one prong of the anti-China offensive. Since 2020, the U.S. has sent warships, sometimes two at once, about once a month through the Taiwan Strait. Since 2019, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan have amounted to $19.5 billion, accompanied by increased deployment of U.S. military personnel, including Special Forces. Interviewed this past September, Biden followed up on previous assertions of a U.S. commitment to defend Taiwan, noting that “Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence … that’s their decision” before saying that U.S. forces would defend Taiwan if “there was an unprecedented attack.” In October, encouraged by this surging support, the president of Taiwan announced plans for a massive military build-up and declared, “We have no room for compromise” in “defend[ing] our national sovereignty.” In December, Biden signed the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act, which authorizes $2 billion a year of aid providing military equipment for the next five years, with loan guarantees for Taiwan’s purchases from non-government sources.

The Taiwan prong helps to make U.S. preeminence in global power last as long as possible. It weakens the mainland’s commercial ties with Taiwan, a global mainstay of advanced technology, diverts the regime’s resources from economic goals, detracts from its military strength beyond the Taiwan Strait, and weakens China’s international political influence. But this surge in confrontation makes invasion more likely.

The Chinese Communist Party’s commitment to eventual unification with Taiwan is central to its stature as the party that ended a century of national humiliation which included foreign control of Chinese “treaty ports” and the loss of Taiwan to Japan. This stature is an essential basis for the regime’s legitimacy. Over the last three decades, Beijing has combined this commitment with negotiations with representatives of Taipei leading to a vast increase of commerce and travel across the strait. This has been a coherent combination, since Beijing claims to want ultimate peaceful unification, while noting that it would seek forced reunification if “‘Taiwan independence’ forces should act … to cause the fact of Taiwan’s separation, or … possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted.” The Taiwan prong undermines this balance of peace with warnings, encouraging deadly wrongful invasion. Even if the U.S. did not increase the scope of this war by directly intervening, vast carnage in Taiwan is the likely outcome.

The other current prong is an attack on an engine of economic development, China’s growing reliance on advanced technology. Earlier in China’s economic rise, 800 million people were liberated from abject poverty through economic growth based on exports produced with extremely cheap labor. But many people are still poor. In 2019, a quarter lived on less than $6.85 a day at 2017 purchasing power parity and 46% lived on less than $10 a day (the situation of 2.25% of Americans). Further progress depends on shifting to high-value-added production, for foreign and domestic markets, making use of advanced technology and deploying advanced skills. With increasing vigor, the U.S. is interfering with this shift, slowing the economic rise of “our most consequential strategic competitor.”

This offensive began in August 2022. Qualifying for the tax credits for purchase of electric vehicles and solar panels in the Inflation Reduction Act depends on meeting stringent limits on Chinese content in electric vehicle batteries and solar panel components. Chinese companies produce 55% of the world’s EV batteries, and 85% of photovoltaic cells. In October, the Commerce Department launched the most powerful attack so far. Exports to twenty eight Chinese companies of advanced semiconductors, equipment that includes them, and equipment for manufacturing semiconductors (which requires those advanced chips) were, effectively, banned, put on a blacklist to which thirty six were added in December. If governments of other countries do not impose these restrictions on their own firms’ activities, their violators will face a ban on trade with U.S. firms, with temporary, limited concessions to South Korea and Taiwan subject to case-by-case review. U.S. citizens and green card holders are prohibited from going to China to provide help that might contribute to design or production of advanced semiconductors or equipment making use of them.

This mandate hits a highly vulnerable spot. The share of information technology and computer goods in China’s goods exports is around 30% and economic activities making major use of semiconductor-based technology account for a similar proportion of GDP, but 85% of funds spent on semiconductors go to firms that are not Chinese owned and no Chinese owned firm produces state-of-the-art semiconductors. The Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., generally regarded as the leading think tank in the field, had this exuberantly grisly appraisal: “These actions … begin a new U.S. policy of actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry—strangling with an intent to kill … to actively degrade China’s technological maturity below its current level.”

Finally, the U.S. government’s prominent anxiety about China’s use of “its infrastructure and technology-led development programs to tie countries closer” points to future grave dangers of U.S.-induced disorder. Centered on the Belt and Road Initiative, which 149 countries have joined, these programs increasingly reduce the foreign political influence of the U.S. and channel scarce mineral resources to China. Payment in extracted minerals and renminbi together with agreements with central banks, 45 by 2022, for swaps of local currency with renminbi are the cutting edge of a growing threat to the dominance of the dollar in international commerce. This pillar of U.S. power is a major resource for U.S.-based multinationals and financial institutions, significantly lowers interest paid by the U.S. Treasury, and provides vital leverage in the IMF. These threats will provide a mounting incentive for reliance on a tactic that has bolstered U.S. hegemony in the past, with vast, deadly consequences: promoting conflict and repression abroad that strengthens forces allied with the U.S. and undermines opponents.

Opposition to the anti-China offensive is entirely compatible with opposition to wrongful repression by the government of China. If anything, the offensive increases harms of repression by strengthening the Chinese Communist Party’s domestic appeals to its dominance as needed to resist foreign threats. Efforts to reduce repression in China should be joined with another just cause, in which Americans outside the corridors of power must take the lead: reducing the harms of the U.S. government’s efforts to make American preeminence in global power last as long as possible.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Richard Miller.

President Biden delivered his second State of the Union speech Tuesday and discussed his administration’s support for Ukraine, growing tensions with China and other international challenges. Foreign policy scholar and former Bernie Sanders adviser Matt Duss says one major missing theme was the “global war on terror.” “We need to acknowledge that this war is still very much ongoing,” says Duss, noting that thousands of U.S. troops are deployed around the world. He also says that while the Biden administration’s approach to the Chinese balloon that entered U.S. airspace was calm and measured, the strong anti-China position that seems to divide much of Washington is a concern. “This idea of trying to create political unity around … any external threat has a very bad history,” says Duss.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

With midterm elections three weeks away, a new report links reported hate crimes against Asian Americans to anti-China rhetoric used on the campaign trail. This issue is also examined in a new PBS documentary, “Rising Against Asian Hate,” which explores the fight against anti-Asian racism following the Atlanta spa shootings in March 2021, when a white gunman targeted multiple Asian-owned businesses and killed eight people, six of them Asian American women. At the time of the killing spree, hate crimes against Asian Americans had been on the rise after then-President Trump blamed the outbreak of the coronavirus on China, calling it the “kung flu.” “We felt that we had to document this moment,” says executive producer Gina Kim, “and make sure that people recognize that this is an issue that we need to confront as a nation.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Warning that "anti-China populism is providing cover for anti-democratic forces in the United States," a report published Friday outlines how campaigners can counter xenophobic scapegoating with messaging that centers legitimate voter grievances and emphasizes cooperation over confrontation.

"Ahead of the midterms, candidates who want to win should quit China-bashing, and instead talk about the root causes of these issues."

"Narratives that portray China as an exaggerated threat to the welfare and the way of life of people in the U.S. and use China as a scapegoat for social and economic problems in the U.S. are particularly alarming," the Justice Is Global report—entitled How to Counter the Politics of Scapegoating—states.

To prepare the report, 21 canvassers for Justice Is Global contacted more than 3,000 Wisconsin voters via phone banks, focusing on economic issues affecting Americans. Justice Is Global claims its canvassers, who engaged in over 600 conversations with voters, moved about half of them towards being in favor of international cooperation with China.

The canvassers "gained clear understandings of why countering China-bashing and scapegoating narratives is important":

These anti-China nationalist narratives feed an array of interconnected problems. Within the U.S., anti-China narratives are associated with a sharp rise in anti-Asian racism and the growing power of authoritarian nationalism that threatens the future of U.S. democracy. They also exacerbate U.S.-China tensions which undermine the international cooperation that is urgently needed to address climate change and other shared global challenges, and encourage militarism in the U.S., China, and many countries that are caught in between the two great powers.

"We can heal geopolitical tensions at the grassroots in a way that builds international cooperation," Justice is Global national organizer Sandy Shan said in a statement. "While it's easy for people ripped off by bad worker policies at home to map their economic anxieties onto those they deem foreign, racist scapegoating will only divide us further."

"Ahead of the midterms, candidates who want to win should quit China-bashing," she added, "and instead talk about the root causes of these issues."

The report recommends that political campaigners affirm voters' grievances and empathize with their plight when they blame China for "stealing" American jobs, while asking them if they really think they'd be better off if ties with the world's second-largest economy were severed.

The authors also encourage voters to "imagine alternative solutions and a brighter future" and to stress the imperative of cooperation over reactionary policies of confrontation.

Prayuj, one of the Justice Is Global canvassers, said in the report that "what I heard on the phone convinced me that people with wildly diverse political views generally want the same things: affordable groceries, good jobs, and a peaceful world free from the threat of nuclear war."

"People do understand that we can best meet those needs by playing a constructive, rather than destructive, role in international relations," he added. "These conversations have been an important reminder that our foreign policy can be rooted in the needs of all our citizens if we're brave enough to imagine a world of greater cooperation."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

"If the HKJA thinks that it can continue to destroy Hong Kong with the support of foreign forces, then it's on a fool's errand," the paper said.

The association has previously been a vocal critic of police restrictions on journalists, particularly during the 2019 protest movement, which culminated in the police force refusing to tolerate the presence of anyone it decided was a "fake journalist."

Leung said city officials have demanded the HKJA "provide relevant information on activities not conforming to its articles of association," but the organization hadn't immediately complied, suggesting it had "ghosts" it was avoiding.

Dwindling freedom

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Cheryl Tung, Raymond Chung and Hoi Man Wu.

The Tibet Commission found that Denmark’s intelligence and security service used pressure to convince police in Copenhagen to stop all anti-China demonstrations, in violation of the country’s constitution.

Protesters were barred from gathering within sight of the visiting Chinese delegations. The police hid them behind buses and confiscated Tibetan flags.

China had cancelled several official visits to Denmark after a 2009 “unofficial” meeting between then Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and the Dalai Lama. The commission found that the canceled visits caused Copenhagen to pursue China-friendly policies.

This was evident in 2011, when the Dalai Lama visited Denmark to give lectures on management and the meaning of life. The organizers of that visit made it clear that there would be no political meetings during his stay in the country. 

“This issue is being discussed in the press and its being dealt by many ministerial and politicians. Several ministers have already commented that they will try to remedy these mistakes,” Anders Højmark Andersen, chairman of the Tibet Support Committee in Denmark, told RFA’s Tibetan Service.

“This is the second report by the Tibet Commission which has dealt with period from 1995 to 2015, so it covers 20 years. There have been more than 200 Chinese official visits to Denmark in this period but it also deals with Tibetans’ visit to Denmark like His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s visit,” Andersen said.

Andersen noted that although pro-Tibetan independence groups were allowed to demonstrate, they were often placed in areas where visiting Chinese officials would never run into them.

“And that’s the problem,” he said. “During Hu Jintao’s visit in 2012, police even took Tibetan flags away from us in the street but we still succeeded in showing the Tibetan flag to the Chinese president fortunately”.

“I think that now Chinese officials will hesitate before visiting Denmark on a very high level. And I also think they will only send lower-level leaders to Denmark in the future because now they know that they cannot persuade the police to hide us anymore,” Andersen said.

He noted that Sino-Danish relations have been good since 2008 when Beijing and Copenhagen entered into a strategic partnership, but things have soured more recently.

“The Danish government has realized the worsening human rights record in China and the attempt by the incumbent President Xi to assume lifelong leadership,” said Andersen.

China routinely pressures foreign governments to silence criticism of Beijing, Mandie McKeown, executive director for the UK-based International Tibet Network

International, told RFA in an email.

“We have seen this kind of influence many times before. Most notably back in 1999 when Metropolitan Police broke U.K. law in their handling of demonstrators during the state visit of then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin,” she said.

“In a high court case brought by the Free Tibet Campaign (where I worked), the police agreed they had policed Free Tibet demonstrators "unlawfully" by removing Free Tibet banners and Tibetan National flags from people solely on the basis that they were protesting against the Chinese President's visit,” said McKeown .

She said Beijing has tried to bully other governments into silence, recalling that in 2016 at least 12 governments issued a joint statement to the U.N. Human Rights Council saying they had been targeted by Chinese pressure.

“Ireland was threatened with the cancelling of a multi-euro trade deal. The Irish Times reported that the Irish government had been warned by the Chinese authorities that a vote by Ireland at the United Nations Human Rights Council could have consequences for a multi-million-euro beef trade deal,” she said.

“Notably we have seen China move towards a more sophisticated plan to build influence by doubling down on building their soft power and its ability to influence other countries, communities and individuals,” McKeown said.

RFA attempted to reach the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Justice Department in Denmark for comments but received no reply.

Written in English by Eugene Whong.

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