Three journalists told CPJ that investigative reporting on major economic events, a cornerstone of Hong Kong’s financial transparency, has nearly disappeared amid government pressure and the departure of major outlets. 

The sharp decline in press freedom, the journalists said, is a direct result of the National Security Law. This law, enacted on June 30, 2020, was imposed directly by Beijing, bypassing Hong Kong’s local legislature, and included offenses for secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with foreign forces, with penalties ranging from a three years to life imprisonment.  

In the five years since it was enacted, authorities have shut down media outlets and arrested several journalists, including Jimmy Lai, the founder of one of Hong Kong’s largest newspapers, the pro-democracy Apple Daily. Several major international news organizations have either relocated or downsized their operations in Hong Kong, leading to a decline in reporting on the city and its financial hub.

“Hong Kong’s economic boom happened because journalists could work without interference,” said a veteran reporter with 11 years’ experience in television, newspapers, and digital platforms in Hong Kong, who spoke to CPJ on condition of anonymity due to security concerns.

While markets still function, at least three media professionals told CPJ that the erosion of press freedom — often overlooked — is a key factor behind Hong Kong’s fading financial appeal to market participants. One reporter described the media as “paralyzed.” 

Another hastily passed security law enacted in March 2024 in Hong Kong further deepened fears that it would be used to suppress press freedom and prosecute journalists.

“There has never been an international financial center in history that operates with restrictions on information,” Simon Lee, an economic commentator and former assistant CEO of Next Digital Group, the parent company of Apple Daily, told CPJ.

Hong Kong long served as a base for reporting on China’s economy and power structures, said a former financial journalist on the condition of anonymity, citing safety concerns.

“Most Hong Kong-listed companies come from the mainland [China]. Foreign media used Hong Kong to observe China’s economic operations or wealth transfers,” the former financial journalist told CPJ. “Now the risks feel similar to reporting from inside China.”

Crackdowns, shutdowns, and an exodus of major media

Since the introduction of the National Security Law in 2020, at least eight media outlets have shut. These included Apple Daily, news and lifestyle magazine Next Magazine, both published by Lai’s Next Digital group, and the online outlet Stand News, after they were raided by authorities.

At least four other media organizations — Post852, DB channel, Citizen News, and FactWire — ceased operations voluntarily, citing concerns over the deteriorating political environment.

Reporting was also criminalized in several cases, with journalists prosecuted for “inciting subversion” or “colluding with foreign forces.”  

China had the world’s highest number of imprisoned journalists in CPJ’s latest prison census — 50 in total, including eight in Hong Kong.

The New York Times moved part of its newsroom to Seoul in 2020. In March 2024, Radio Free Asia closed its Hong Kong office, and in May, The Wall Street Journal relocated its Asia headquarters to Singapore.

 “With fewer foreign correspondents based in the city, there’s simply less reporting on Hong Kong,” the former financial journalist told CPJ. “As a result, the city’s economy may receive less objective attention on the global stage.”

The former financial journalist said that one of the biggest losses after the security law was the disappearance of Apple Daily. Unlike most local media, which focused on routine market updates, Apple Daily connected business to politics and mapped interest networks — an increasingly rare practice.

Next Digital, through Apple Daily, built a reputation for investigative financial reporting. A former staff member told the BBC that the company once spent over 100,000 yuan (US$14,000) tracing dozens of property owners to uncover a developer’s hidden ties with a bank.

“From a financial news perspective, one of our biggest problems is losing Apple Daily,” the former financial journalist told CPJ.

Local business reporting also fades away

As Hong Kong’s financial hub reputation comes under question, stories on high unemployment rates, struggling small businesses, and store closures are increasingly out of sight.

“One direct effect is feeling increasingly unable to grasp what’s happening in the city; important information no longer seems easy to access,” Lee said. “Previously, competition among professional outlets encouraged source sharing and helped maintain a power balance. Now, one-way government-controlled information faces little resistance.”

Lee told CPJ that changes in Hong Kong’s media landscape are particularly evident in major financial events, pointing to the coverage of the 2024 sale of Li Ka-shing’s port assets, in which local outlets failed to question the deal’s structure, rationale, or political implications.

“Beijing called it a national security matter, and the other side of the story disappeared,” Lee told CPJ. “Many focus on the judicial system when discussing fairness, but true fairness also depends on the free flow of information … Without information freedom, public oversight fades, and the market’s system of checks and balances collapses.”

Lee also cited the case of Alvin Chau, a casino tycoon in Macao who was sentenced in 2023 to 18 years for illegal gambling. While foreign media uncovered his alleged links to oil smuggling operations to North Korea, local media offered little follow-up.

“These investigations and reports simply no longer exist,” Lee said.

Sources can’t speak freely

Two journalists told CPJ they have noticed increasing reluctance from interviewees. 

During previous years of the Annual Budget Speech, Hong Kong’s yearly announcement of its public spending and economic plans, the media would host analysis shows with economists debating government spending and policies. 

“We would ask about the fiscal surplus, support for the poor, and whether measures were targeted,” the veteran reporter told CPJ, adding that now, “only one professor is willing to speak openly.”

Lee told CPJ that the atmosphere of “not being allowed to criticize” the broader structure or government policy has also extended to the reporting on how financial markets operate.

Market participants should be free to take either optimistic or pessimistic views of the economic outlook, Lee told CPJ, adding that today in Hong Kong, it is discouraged to express pessimism, and even silently shifting toward defensive investment strategies or risk-averse behavior may be interpreted as making a political statement.

“It’s hard for any place with such high information costs to remain a global financial hub,” Lee said. “Because even pulling back on investment can send a signal. If investors are accused of intentionally dragging down the market just because they try to hedge or take a cautious view, they may decide it’s safer to avoid the market altogether.”

In response to CPJ’s request for comment, a Hong Kong government spokesperson referred CPJ to a statement that said the security law has enabled the city to “make a major transition from chaos to order” and “the business environment has continuously improved,” while press freedom is protected under the law.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ's Asia-Pacific program staff.

Sebastien Lai has sought a meeting with Starmer for more than two years to advocate for the release of his father, 77-year-old Jimmy Lai, who founded Apple Daily. His health is deteriorating and he risks dying in jail.

Lai has been imprisoned for over 1,600 days, mostly in isolation, while awaiting the outcome of a long-delayed trial for sedition and conspiring to collude with foreign forces under the Beijing-imposed National Security Law. After Lai’s arrest in 2020, Apple Daily was shuttered on June 24, 2021, following police raids and the freezing of the paper’s assets.

Read the full joint letter here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CP Staff.

“This show trial must end before it is too late,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg on Monday. “The case of Jimmy Lai is not an outlier, it’s a symptom of Hong Kong’s democratic decline. Hong Kong’s treatment of Jimmy Lai — and more broadly of independent media and journalists — shows that this administration is no longer interested in even a semblance of democratic norms.”

Lai, the founder of the now-shuttered pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, has spent nearly four years in a maximum-security prison and solitary confinement since December 2020. He has faced multiple postponements to his trial, in which he has been charged with sedition and conspiring to collude with foreign forces.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told parliament in October that the case of Lai, who is a British citizen, was a “priority” and called for his release. Similarly, United Nations experts in January urged Hong Kong authorities to drop all charges against the publisher and free him.

The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that Lai is unlawfully and arbitrarily detained in Hong Kong, expressed alarm over his prolonged solitary confinement, and called for immediate remedy. Lai suffers from a long-standing health issue of diabetes.

Lai won a press freedom award from CPJ and the organization continues to advocate for his freedom.

Responding to CPJ’s request for comment, a Hong Kong government spokesperson referred to a November 17 statement in which it said that Lai was “receiving appropriate treatment and care in prison” and that Hong Kong authorities “strongly deplore any form of interference.”

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

By weaponizing the legal system against journalists, China has ruthlessly reneged on guarantees given to Hong Kong, which should enjoy a high degree of autonomy after the former British colony was handed back to Beijing in 1997, the groups said in a joint statement.

Former Stand News editors Patrick Lam and Chung Pui-kuen are due to be sentenced on September 26 and could be jailed for two years.

“We now await with trepidation the outcome of trials targeting senior staff from the defunct Apple Daily newspaper, especially its founder Jimmy Lai who faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life behind bars,” they added.

Read the full statement here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

“The guilty verdict is another nail in the coffin for Hong Kong’s press freedom,” said Iris Hsu, CPJ’s China representative. “It shows the government’s determination to destroy independent journalism in the city. Hong Kong authorities must stop persecuting the media for their critical reporting.”

The editors of the now defunct independent news site, who are out on bail, are due to be sentenced on September 26 and could be jailed for two years.

In 2021, hundreds of police raided Stand News’ offices and arrested Lam, Chung, and four others affiliated with the outlet. The delivery of the verdict in Lam and Chung’s trial was postponed multiple times since it concluded in June 2023.

Hong Kong Police Force and Chief Executive John Lee’s office did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed requests for comment.  

China was the world’s worst jailer of journalists, with 44 behind bars, in CPJ’s 2023 prison census. Those held include CPJ’s 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award winner Jimmy Lai, founder of the shuttered pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, who has been behind bars since 2020 and is facing life imprisonment if convicted of conspiring to collude with foreign forces.  

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The letter said Neuberger’s role in the Hong Kong ruling, as a non-permanent overseas judge on Hong Kong’s top court, contradicts his previous efforts in advocating free speech and press freedom. Neuberger’s continued involvement would be, in effect, “sponsoring a systematic repression of human rights against peaceful activists and journalists in the city.”

Neuberger, a former head of Britain’s Supreme Court, resigned as chair of an advisory panel to the Media Freedom Coalition on August 14, two days after the conviction of Lai and six pro-democracy campaigners was upheld. Lai has been behind bars since December 2020.

The MFC is a group of 50 countries that pledge to promote press freedom at home and abroad. CPJ is a longstanding member of the MFC’s consultative network of nongovernmental organizations.

Read the joint statement here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

“It is impossible to reconcile Lord Neuberger’s judicial authority as part of a system that is politicized and repressive with his role overseeing a panel that advises governments to defend and promote media freedom. The Media Freedom Coalition should immediately review his role as chair of the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom,” said CPJ Advocacy and Communications Director Gypsy Guillen Kaiser.

Lai, the 76-year-old founder of the now-shuttered pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, has been behind bars since 2020. On August 12, Hong Kong’s top court rejected his appeal against a conviction for taking part in unauthorized anti-government protests. Lai, whose trial on national security charges was adjourned again last month to late November, faces possible life imprisonment if convicted. He was honored by CPJ and the organization continues to advocate for his immediate, unconditional release.

The MFC is a group of 50 countries that pledge to promote press freedom at home and abroad. CPJ is a longstanding member of the MFC’s consultative network of nongovernmental organizations.

CPJ believes the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, which serves as the secretariat for the MFC’s panel of media freedom experts, should also review Neuberger’s role.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

“There is no journalism without press freedom,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “Hong Kong journalists must be allowed to defend their right to report independently without the fear of reprisal or losing their livelihood. If Hong Kong is serious about reviving its slowing economy, then it must improve the media climate swiftly to shake off a reputation as a place with ever-increasing repression.” 

In recent months, officials and pro-Beijing news outlets have heaped pressure on the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), the city’s largest trade union for journalists.

In June, Hong Kong’s security chief Chris Tang accused the HKJA of lacking legitimacy and siding with demonstrators in 2019, while China’s state-backed Global Times in a July report described the group as “disingenuous and dangerous.”

In July, HKJA’s chair Selina Cheng said she was fired from her role at The Wall Street Journal after she was elected to lead the journalists’ union. She had been the sole candidate for the position amid a growing climate of self-censorship in Hong Kong, once a beacon of press freedom in Asia.

Asked for comment, a WSJ spokesperson told CPJ in an email that the outlet made “personnel changes” but could not comment on specific individuals. The spokesperson added that the WSJ advocates for press freedom in Hong Kong, the city which had been WSJ’s Asia headquarters before they were moved to Singapore in May. 

Another foreign correspondent and a local nonprofit adviser resigned immediately after they were elected to the HKJA’s executive committee in the group’s election following Tang’s criticism of the union.

Between May 2023 and March this year, Tang wrote eight letters to various international news outlets over their editorials or opinion articles about Hong Kong, some of which he labeled “extremely misleading,” “scaremongering,” and “lies.” Four of the eight letters were sent to WSJ.

A Hong Kong government spokesman said the city’s media landscape was “as vibrant as ever” with over 200 media organizations registered with local authorities, and that press freedom and the right to join trade unions were both protected under the law.

“As always, the media can exercise their freedom of the press in accordance with the law. Their freedom of commenting on and criticizing government policies remains uninhibited as long as this is not in violation of the law,” the spokesman told CPJ in an email.

Lengthy trials

The HKJA is the main journalists’ union in Hong Kong and has been advocating for press freedom since it was founded in 1968, but has been battling dwindling membership and funds after Beijing imposed a national security law in Hong Kong in 2020 that saw journalists arrested, jailed, and threatened. 

Among them, the then-HKJA chair Ronson Chan was sentenced to five days in jail in 2023 for obstructing a police officer while reporting.

Hong Kong passed its own homegrown national security law in March, and the U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Asia shut its Hong Kong bureau days later over safety concerns for its reporters – joining an exodus of media and journalists who left the city since the 2020 crackdown began.

Journalists who remain point to a rising culture of self-censorship in local newsrooms and an increasing hesitation to criticize the government as Hong Kong loses its shine as a leading global financial hub. The city, once the world’s largest IPO market by value for years, saw proceeds raised from new share listings in the first half of 2024 plunge to a two-decade low.

Journalists also face lengthy delays and repeated postponements in their trials.

This includes the now-shuttered pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily’s founder Jimmy Lai, whose trial on national security charges was adjourned again last month to late November. A representative for advocacy group Reporters Without Borders who went to Hong Kong to monitor Lai’s trial was detained and deported upon arrival.

The 76-year-old has been behind bars since 2020. On August 12, Lai lost an appeal against his conviction for taking part in unauthorized anti-government protests.

Patrick Lam and Chung Pui-kuen, former editors of the now-defunct independent news outlet Stand News are expected to hear the verdict in their sedition trial in late August, after a court in April postponed the long-awaited decision. The duo were granted bail in late 2022 after being remanded in custody for nearly a year.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, April 26, 2024. Photo: Xinhua

A foreboding article was published on April 24. It was pointed out that China had provided a berth to a Russian ship Angara that is purportedly “tied to North Korea-Russia arms transfers.”

Reuters cited Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) – that boasts of itself to be “the world’s oldest and the UK’s leading defence and security think tank” – which claims Angara, since August 2023, has transported “thousands of containers believed to contain North Korean munitions,” [italics added] to Russian ports.

Container ships transport containers, and along the way they dock in certain harbors. Until satellite photos have X-ray capability any speculation about what is inside a container will be just that: speculation. Discerning readers will readily pick up on this.

Despite China repeatedly coming out in favor of peace, Reuters, nonetheless, plays up US concerns over perceived support by Beijing for “Moscow’s war” (what Moscow calls a “special military operation”) in Ukraine.

And right on cue, US secretary-of-state Antony Blinken shows up in Beijing echoing a list of US concerns vis-à-vis China.

Blinken had public words for China: “In my meetings with NATO Allies earlier this month and with our G7 partners just last week, I heard that same message: fueling Russia’s defense industrial base not only threatens Ukrainian security; it threatens European security. Beijing cannot achieve better relations with Europe while supporting the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War. As we’ve told China for some time, ensuring transatlantic security is a core US interest. In our discussions today, I made clear that if China does not address this problem, we will.”

It would seem clear that the Taiwan Straits is a core China interest, no? Or is it only US core interests that matter?

Blinken: “I also expressed our concern about the PRC’s unfair trade practices and the potential consequences of industrial overcapacity to global and US markets, especially in a number of key industries that will drive the 21st century economy, like solar panels, electric vehicles, and the batteries that power them. China alone is producing more than 100 percent of global demand for these products, flooding markets, undermining competition, putting at risk livelihoods and businesses around the world.”

It sounds like sour grapes from the US that China’s R&D and manufacturing is out-competing the US. Take, for example, that the US sanctions Huawei while China allows Apple to sell its products unhindered in China. China has hit back at the rhetoric of “overcapacity.”

Blinken complained of “PRC’s dangerous actions in the South China Sea, including against routine Philippine maintenance operations and maritime operations near the Second Thomas Shoal. Freedom of navigation and commerce in these waterways is not only critical to the Philippines, but to the US and to every other nation in the Indo-Pacific and indeed around the world.”

Mentioning freedom of navigation implies that China is preventing such. Why is freedom of navigation in the South China Sea critical to the US? Second Thomas Shoal is a colonial designation otherwise known as Renai Jiao in China. The “routine Philippine maintenance operations and maritime operations” that Blinken speaks of are for a navy landing craft that was intentionally grounded by the Philippines in 1999. Since then, the Philippines has been intermittently resupplying its soldiers stationed there.

Blinken: “I reaffirmed the US’s ‘one China’ policy and stressed the critical importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

How does the US stationing US soldiers on the Chinese territory of Taiwan without approval from Beijing reaffirm the US’s commitment to a one-China policy? The Shanghai Communiqué of 1972 states “the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position.”

Blinken: “I also raised concerns about the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and democratic institutions as well as transnational repression, ongoing human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet, and a number of individual human rights cases.”

Evidence of human rights abuses in Xinjiang? This is a definitive downplay from the previous allegations of a genocide against Uyghurs. It would be embarrassing to continue to accuse China of a genocide in Xinjiang due to a paucity of bodies which is a sine qua non for such a serious allegation as a genocide; meanwhile the US-armed Israel is blowing up hospitals and schools with ten-of-thousands of confirmed Palestinian civilian bodies. Even if there are human rights abuses in Xinjiang (which should be deplored were there condemnatory evidence), the US would still be morally assailable for its selective outrage.

Blinken: “I encouraged China to use its influence to discourage Iran and its proxies from expanding the conflict in the Middle East, and to press Pyongyang to end its dangerous behavior and engage in dialogue.”

Is the US militarily backing a genocide of Palestinians a “conflict.” Are US military maneuvers in the waters near North Korea “safe behavior”?

Blinken responded to a question: “But now it is absolutely critical that the support that [China’s] providing – not in terms of weapons but components for the defense industrial base – again, things like machine tools, microelectronics, where it is overwhelmingly the number-one supplier to Russia. That’s having a material effect in Ukraine and against Ukraine, but it’s also having a material effect in creating a growing [sic] that Russia poses to countries in Europe and something that has captured their attention in a very intense way.”

Are the ATACMS, Javelins, HIMARS, Leopard tanks, drones, artillery, Patriot missile defense, etc supposed to be absolutely uncritical and have no material effect on the fighting in Ukraine? And who is posing a threat to who? European countries are funding and arming Ukraine and sanctioning Russia not vice versa? It sounds perversely Orwellian.

*****

From Biden to Harris to Yellen to Raimondo to Sullivan to Blinken, US officials again and again try to browbeat and put down their Chinese colleagues.

At the opening meeting on 18 March 2021 of the US-China talks in Anchorage, Alaska, the arrogance of Blinken and the US was put on notice by the rebuke of Chinese foreign affairs official Yang Jiechi: “[T]he US does not have the qualification to say it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.” It doesn’t seem to have sunk in for the American side.

The Russia-China relationship is solid. China’s economy is growing strongly. Scores of countries are clamoring to join BRICS+ and dedollarization is well underway. Yet, the US continues to try to bully the world’s largest – and still rapidly growing – economy. This strategy appears to affirm the commonly referred to aphorism about the definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

The parliamentary resolution condemned Hong Kong’s adoption last month of a new security law, which includes offenses for treason, sabotage, sedition, theft of state secrets, and espionage. The latest legislation expands on a Beijing-imposed 2020 national security law, under which more than 200 people — including Lai — have been arrested, according to the European Parliament.

“The European Parliament’s resolution sends a clear signal to Hong Kong authorities — we are standing shoulder to shoulder with Apple Daily’s Jimmy Lai and pro-democracy activists who have been jailed for speaking out against repression,” said Tom Gibson CPJ’s EU representative. “Hong Kong and Chinese authorities should repeal the Hong Kong security laws and stop harassing and prosecuting journalists.”

In 2023, the European Parliament urged Hong Kong to immediately and unconditionally release Lai, saying that he had been detained on “trumped-up charges.”

Lai faces life imprisonment if convicted of conspiring to collude with foreign forces under the 2020 security law.

A former British colony, Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997 with the guarantee of a high degree of autonomy, including freedom of speech, under a “one country, two system” formula.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Enacted under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the law punishes offenses ranging from theft of state secrets to sedition. The statement said this could make journalism “even riskier” and intensify censorship in the Asian financial hub.

Once a beacon of press freedom in Asia, Hong Kong has seen a dramatic decline with journalists arrested, jailed, and threatened since Beijing implemented a national security law in the city in 2020. Among those jailed includes Jimmy Lai, founder of the now-shuttered pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily.

The new security law, passed by Hong Kong’s legislature on Tuesday, expands on the 2020 Beijing-imposed legislation.

Read the joint statement here:

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Hong Kong authorities should drop the charges, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Thursday, and allow journalists to report freely without fear.

At the time of the incident, Wong was reporting for a student publication at the City University of Hong Kong, while Ma worked as a reporter for the newspaper and online news website Passion Times.

The two were charged with rioting and unlawfully entering the legislative council along with 11 other co-defendants. Both Wong and Ma pleaded not guilty to the charges, according to Passion Times and a copy of the verdict reviewed by CPJ.

Authorities released the journalists on bail Thursday pending sentencing, according to those reports. They face a potential fine of 2,000 Hong Kong dollars (USD $255) and up to 3 months imprisonment, according to the city’s Legislative Council Ordinance.

“The verdict today contradicts the freedom of the press that Hong Kong authorities have repeatedly assured, and unfortunately, it could serve as a bellwether for future cases involving journalists covering significant events,” said Iris Hsu, CPJ’s China representative. “Journalists must be free to report on civil unrest without fear of being prosecuted.”

Hong Kong Journalists Association released a statement calling the verdict “unreasonable,” saying that it disregards the freedom of the press that is guaranteed by law.

CPJ was unable to confirm whether the journalists plan to appeal.

The Hong Kong Police Force did not immediately respond to CPJ’s email requesting comment.  

China is the world’s worst jailer of journalists, according to CPJ’s annual prison census, with at least 44 journalists in prison for their work as of December 1, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Lai, a British citizen and founder of the now-shuttered pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, has been behind bars since December 2020 and is due to be tried on charges of foreign collusion under the national security law – imposed by Beijing three years ago – that has been used to stifle free speech and crush dissent in the city, once a bastion of press freedom in Asia.

“The trial is a travesty of justice. It may be Jimmy Lai who is in the dock, but it is press freedom and the rule of law that are on trial in Hong Kong,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, on Friday. “The government is pulling out all the stops to keep Lai behind bars. This is a dark stain on Hong Kong’s rule of law and is doing a disservice to the government’s efforts to restore investor confidence.”

The start of the trial has been postponed multiple times, and it will be held without a jury. The Hong Kong government has prevented Lai’s choice of counsel, British lawyer Timothy Owen, from representing him and a court in May upheld the decision.

Lai is currently serving a prison sentence of five years and nine months on fraud charges related to a lease dispute.

Lai received CPJ’s Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award in 2021 in recognition of his extraordinary and sustained commitment to press freedom.

China ranked as the world’s second-worst jailer of journalists in CPJ’s 2022 prison census, which documented those imprisoned on December 1, 2022, with at least 43 journalists behind bars.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

Ulate had taken over the case in August 2022 from two other lawyers, Romeo Montoya García and Mario Castañeda, after the prosecutor in Zamora’s case announced that they were under investigation. After less than three months of representing Zamora, Ulate left Guatemala for a trip to Honduras. The attacks, he said, stopped abruptly.

Looking back, Ulate believes the harassment was part of a clear pattern. Other lawyers who would go on to represent Zamora — there were 10 in total by the time of the journalist’s June conviction on money laundering charges widely considered to be retaliation for his work — were harassed, investigated, or even jailed. 

“We knew that the system was against us, and that everything we, the legal team, did around the case was being closely scrutinized,” Ulate told CPJ. 

Zamora’s experience retaining legal counsel, while extreme, is hardly unique. CPJ has identified lawyers of journalists under threat in Iran, China, Belarus, Turkey, and Egypt, countries that are among the world’s worst jailers of journalists. To be sure, lawyers are not just targeted for representing journalists. “Globally lawyers are increasingly criminalized or disciplined for taking on sensitive cases or speaking publicly on rule of law, human rights, and good governance issues,” said Ginna Anderson, the associate director of the American Bar Association, which monitors global conditions for legal professionals. 

But lawyers and human rights advocates told CPJ that when a lawyer is harassed for representing a journalist, the threats can have chilling effects on the free flow of information. Inevitably, journalists unable to defend themselves against retaliatory charges are more likely to be jailed – leaving citizens less likely to be informed of matters of public interest.  

A barometer of civil liberties 

Attacks on the legal profession – like attacks on journalists – can be a barometer of civil liberties in a country, legal experts told CPJ. Hong Kong, once viewed as a safe harbor for independent journalists, is one such example. The territory has seen multiple members of the press prosecuted under Beijing’s 2020 national security law, including media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai, who faces life imprisonment. Lai, a British citizen, is represented by both U.K. and Hong Kong legal teams, which work independently of each other, and both have faced pressure.  

Caoilfhionn Gallagher, the head of the U.K. team, has spoken openly on X, formerly Twitter,  about attacks on Lai’s U.K.-based lawyers, from smears in the Chinese state press to formal statements by Hong Kong authorities. Gallagher has faced death threats, attempts to access her bank and email accounts, and efforts to impersonate her online. “That stuff is quite draining and attritional and designed to eat into your time. They want to make it too much hassle to continue the case,” Gallagher told the Irish Times.

The Hong Kong legal team representing Lai — who has been convicted of fraud and is on trial for foreign collusion — has also appeared to have come under pressure from authorities. After Lai’s U.K. lawyers angered Beijing by discussing Lai’s case with a British minister, the Hong Kong legal team issued a statement distancing itself from the U.K. lawyers.   

Any appearance of working with foreigners could compromise not only Lai’s case but also the standing of his lawyers, said Doreen Weisenhaus, a media law expert at Northwestern University who previously taught at the University of Hong Kong.  

“They have to appreciate the potential harm that they could face moving forward — that they could become targeted — as they try to vigorously represent Jimmy Lai,” she told CPJ. 

CPJ reached out to Robertsons, the Hong Kong legal firm representing Lai, via the firm’s online portal and did not receive a reply.

Moves to isolate and intimidate lawyers working on Lai’s case are part of a larger crackdown over the last decade, including China’s 2015 roundup of 300 lawyers and civil society members. “In many ways, China institutionalized wholesale campaigns of going after journalists, activists, and now lawyers,” said Weisenhaus.  

Defending journalists who cover protests 

In Iran – another country where the judiciary operates largely at the government’s behest –   lawyers representing journalists have been targeted in the wake of the 2022 nationwide protests sparked by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in morality police custody. Those protests saw the arrests of thousands of demonstrators and dozens of journalists, including Niloofar Hamedi and Elahe Mohammadi, who helped break the story of Amini’s hospitalization. The two reporters are accused of spying for the United States; the two remain in custody while awaiting the verdict in their closed-door trials.  

Hamedi and Mohammadi’s lawyer, Mohammed Ali Kamfiroozi, who also represented human rights defenders, received warnings to dissuade him from continuing his work: phone calls from unlisted numbers, threats in the mail, ominous messages to his family, and an official letter from authorities telling him to stop his work, according to CPJ’s sources inside the country. Nevertheless, Kamfiroozi continued his work, publishing regular updates about his clients’ cases on X until he, too, was arrested on December 15, 2022 while inquiring at a courthouse about a client.

Kamfiroozi’s last post on X before his arrest lamented the state of Iran’s judiciary: “This level of disregard for explicit and obvious legal standards is regrettable.” 

Kamfiroozi was released from Fashafouyeh prison after 25 days in detention and has not returned to his work as a lawyer, according to CPJ’s sources inside the country. A new legal team has since taken over the journalists’ cases. Since then, the crackdown on the legal profession has continued, with lawyers being summoned by the judiciary to sign a form stating they will not publicly release information about clients facing national security charges – a common accusation facing journalists. Lawyers who fail to sign can be disbarred and arrested at the discretion of local judges. 

Belarusian lawyers have also been muzzled in the wake of nationwide protests. After widespread demonstrations following the disputed August 2020 presidential election — during which dozens of journalists were arrested — Belarusian lawyers were forced to sign nondisclosure agreements preventing them from speaking publicly about many criminal cases. At least 56 lawyers representing human rights defenders or opposition leaders were disbarred or had their licenses revoked in the two years after the protests, and some were jailed, according to the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Initiative, the American Bar Association, and the group Lawyers for Lawyers. 

Belarusian lawyer Siarhej Zikratski, whose clients included the now-shuttered independent news outlet Tut.by, imprisoned Belsat TV journalist Katsiaryna Andreyeva, and program director of Press Club Belarus Alla Sharko, was required to undergo a recertification exam which ultimately resulted in authorities revoking his license. He fled the country in May 2021 after he was disbarred and amid ongoing pressure from the government on his colleagues.

In the months after he left, Tut.by was banned in Belarus and Andreyeva, who was nearing the end of a two-year imprisonment, was sentenced to another eight years on retaliatory charges. (Sharko was released in August 2021 after serving eight months.) 

“They took away my beloved profession and my business,” Zikratski wrote in a Facebook post announcing his emigration to Vilnius, Lithuania. “I will continue to do everything I can to change the situation in Belarus. Unfortunately, I cannot do that from Minsk.”

Lawyers in exile can lose their livelihoods 

While exile is not an uncommon choice to escape state harassment, it comes at a cost: lawyers are unable to continue their work in their home countries. 

“The bulk of the harassment against media and human rights lawyers, including criminal defense lawyers who represent journalists and other human rights defenders [occurs] in-country,” said Anderson of the ABA. “Increasingly this is forcing lawyers into exile where they face enormous challenges continuing to practice or participate in media rights advocacy.” 

This was the case for Ethiopian human rights lawyer Tadele Gebremedhin, who faced intense harassment from local authorities after he began defending reporters covering the country’s civil conflict in the Tigray region that began in November 2020.   

Gebremedhin represented freelance journalists Amir Aman Kiyaro and Thomas Engida, Ethio Forum journalists Abebe Bayu and Yayesew Shimelis, Awramba Times managing editor Dawit Kebede, and at least a dozen others, including the staff of the independent now-defunct broadcaster Awlo Media Center, whose charges are related to their reporting on the Tigray region. 

Gebremedhin told CPJ that the harassment started in May 2021 with thinly veiled threats from government officials and anonymous calls telling him not to represent journalists because members of the media are terrorists. He strongly suspected that he was under physical and digital surveillance, and his bank account was blocked.  In November 2021, he was detained by authorities and held for 66 days without charge before being released. 

“That was my payment for working with the journalists,” Gebremedhin said. 

He fled to the United States shortly after his release from police custody, and now works as a researcher at the University of Minnesota Law School Human Rights Center. Just a few of the dozens of reporters he defended are still working in journalism. While they are not behind bars, the damage done to civil society remains, Gebremedhin said. 

Lawyers arrested alongside journalists

Sometimes, lawyers are arrested alongside the journalists they represent. In the runup to Turkey’s May 2023 presidential elections, Turkish lawyer Resul Temur was taken into government custody in Diyarbakır province for his alleged ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Turkish authorities consider a terrorist organization, along with several Kurdish journalists who were also his clients. 

Authorities took his work phone, computer, and all of his electronic devices, including his 9-year old daughter’s tablet, and all of the paper case files he had in his office, Temur told CPJ. He was released pending investigation, and fears he’ll soon be charged. 

“Lawyers like me who are not deterred by judicial harassment will continue to be the targets of Turkish authorities,” he said.

In Egypt, a country where numerous human rights defenders have been locked up, Mohamed el-Baker, the lawyer of prominent blogger and activist Alaa Abdelfattah, was arrested as he accompanied Abdelfattah to police questioning in September 2019. Authorities charged both with spreading false news and supporting a banned group, the Muslim Brotherhood.

After serving nearly four years of his sentence and amid growing international pressure, el-Baker was granted a presidential pardon in July. However, it remains unclear if the lawyer will be allowed to return to work. Many of his clients, Abdelfattah among them, remain in prison. 

Retaliation leads to censorship

The damage, from Egypt to Turkey to Guatemala and beyond, is great. When lawyers for reporters fear retaliation as much as the journalists do, it creates an environment of censorship that harms citizens’ ability to stay informed about what is happening in their countries.

“When journalists can’t have access to lawyers, they’re kind of left on their own,” Weisenhaus told CPJ. “I think we’ll still see courageous journalists who will continue to write about what they perceive as the wrongs in their country and their society. But those numbers could dwindle if they’re constantly being prosecuted and convicted.”

Additional research contributed by Dánae Vílchez, Özgür Öğret, and CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program staff.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Katherine Jacobsen.

On Tuesday, 75-year-old Lai will have been behind bars in Hong Kong for 1,000 days. The release of Lai, who is facing charges that could lead to life imprisonment, is a fundamental step to safeguard press freedom in Hong Kong, the groups said.

Read the full letter below.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

What is illegal immigration?

Every healthy scientific contradictory debate starts with a clear definition. Illegal immigration is defined as the migration of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country.

The most common but informal term for “foreigner” in China is 老外 (lǎowài)  It usually is respectful or neutral but sometimes, in certain circumstances, it can be impolite.

Scientific research on immigration in China

Prof. 续聆毓 Xù Língyù (Anhui University in Hefei) wrote that in China, there’s a variety of official words that can signify ‘foreigner’ (Wàiqiáo alien, Wàiguórén foreigner, Yímín migrant), yet each word has another connotation. Wàiqiáo suggests that China regards foreigners from an ethnic and cultural perspective, revealing an ethnic orientation of the policy makers in Chinese immigration policies in the 1950s. Wàiguórén has a slightly political undertone and strengthens the administrative orientation of immigration policies after the 1960s. While, as a more recent phenomenon, the use of Yimin is a sign for the turn of integration-oriented policies. Further details about the legal significance of “foreigner” in China can be in the paper “Lost in translation: how comparing the uses of the term ‘foreigner’ can help explain China’s immigration policy shift.”

Another interesting consideration in this regard is “The Evolution of China’s Foreign Talent Policy: the Case Study of Beijing.” After 1949 and more particularly after 1983, China’s policy on attracting foreign talent has changed significantly. As of 2010, China has successfully started actively encouraging the Chinese diaspora, the 华裔 Huáyì  / 华人 Huárén, to return to China.

In the 2020 census, all people living in China without a Chinese citizenship were regarded as Wàiguórén – foreigners.  For the Chinese administration, there’s no concept of “expatriate”. As per the common western definition, an expat is someone living and working abroad, usually with a good salary and a compensation for housing, transport, health insurance, education for the children, etc. Up to about 2010, most of them also had a private driver and private secretary/translator. In Chinese there’s the expression 外国专家 (Wàiguó zhuānjiā – foreign expert) for these people.

As per that definition, most western top managers and university professors in China are “expats,” but English language students or teachers are not. Obviously, the Chinese legal system doesn’t make that distinction. They’re all foreigners. Whether they’re from Germany, Japan, New Zealand or from Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam or South Korea.

A comprehensive overview of China’s new immigration policies is in the doctoral study by Xù Língyù at the VUB University in Brussels.

The 2020 census

As per the 2020 census, there were 845 697 foreigners legally residing in China:

That’s   0.06 % of the Chinese population

Keep in mind that the lion’s share of the 55,226 figure for the United States are ABC’s, American born Chinese; Chinese people with an American passport part of the large Chinese diaspora, who recently returned to their homeland. Many of these second of third generation people, born in the USA, are in the process of Chinese naturalisation.

The 2020 census also counted the following (legally Chinese) people, residing in mainland China:

Myanmar

As it turns out, the vast majority of foreigners in China are from Myanmar.

Border cities in Yunnan, China, have become attractive destinations among Myanmar migrants. Using Ruili as a case study, a paper by Li Cansong and Su Xiaobo analysed China’s border control upon Myanmar migrants. It finds that the Chinese government is testing a flexible model of border control by allowing Myanmar migrants to cross the border with relative ease and integrate into the local labour market, without providing them a Chinese hukou.

This model promotes and regulates the movement of Myanmar migrant workers, constituting a pragmatic order to facilitate the logic of capital accumulation. The cross-border division of labour in production between Ruili and northern Myanmar articulates a spatially uneven structure of capitalist production that creates incentive and hindrance to low-end workers’ transnational migration and, moreover, reflects the Chinese state’s efforts to encourage industrial relocation from the affluent coast to the hinterland to address regional disparity.

The returning Chinese diaspora

There are 40 million 华裔 Huáyì, people of Chinese origin, living outside China. In most of the South East Asian countries, the countries bordering the South China Sea, this migration is dating back to the Ming and Qing Dynasty. The Chinese immigrants in the USA came to there in the 19th century.

In Europe, the first wave of Chinese immigrants arrived during the Republican era; then there were waves of immigration during the Cultural Revolution and after Deng Xiaoping’s opening up. Most of them obtained a foreign passport, others are still living abroad with their Chinese citizenship. For the Chinese legal system, everybody without a Chinese passport or citizenship is a foreigner.

During the past two decades, many thousands of these diaspora 归侨  Guīqiáo (Returned Oversees Chinese) moved back to China. Before they get their naturalisation, they are living in China on temporary residence visas. In the 2020 census they were counted as foreigners.

The government is making serious efforts for the re-integration of the returning Chinese people in the society. ACFROC (All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese) and its affiliated organizations are helping them at local level.

In the presence of the entire PBSC (Politburo Standing Committee), 1200 returnees and 600 special guests of 100 countries, a congress was held on 31 August 2023 on how to further improve the assistance to the returning Chinese diaspora  whether they have foreign or Chinese citizenship.

Hong Kong

Traditionally, there used to be significant illegal immigration in Hong Kong, particularly during the British rule in Hong Kong. Most of the illegal immigrants came from the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia. After the return of Hong Kong to China the situation gradually came under control.

But then, there were the 2020 demonstrations (actually a colour revolution) with thousands of Hongkongers, indirectly sponsored by various UK and US intelligence organisations, engaging in hostile activities against the People’s Republic of China and the HKSAR and incitement to secession advocating the separation of HKSAR from the PRC.

Right after the uproar, when the social situation was under control again, a new migration problem popped up. First, there were about 300,000 of the 7.5 million people in Hong Kong with a BNO (British Oversees Nationality) passport. They can move freely between the UK and HK. After the implementation of new laws in Hong Kong, the British government opened a fast-track visa BNO application for another 5.4 million Hongkongers. Of them, only 123,800 (2%) applied and moved to the UK. Through the same fast-track channel, Britain also approved 28,758 visas of Hongkongers already residing in the UK, making a total of 152,558 people born in Hong Kong that are now legally living in the United Kingdom. Almost all the visa applications were approved within 5 days and without any background checks.

As per a recent online survey by the University of Liverpool, 80% of these people have a university degree. But only 30% of them have a regular job in the UK.

A large majority is involved in political agitation, drug trade, prostitution or other illegal activities. Many of them want but can’t return to Hong Kong or China because then, their background will be checked.

At least 2000 of them are living in hiding. The newly elected Hong Kong Magistrate’s Court has set a reward of 1 million HKD leading to the arrest of 8 criminals, involved in treason.

Meanwhile, the parents of Hong Kong students realized that universities had become hotbeds of US/UK agitation. Today, a large majority of the Hong Kong university students go to one of the many universities in China mainland. Many young people from Hong Kong moved to Shenzhen or elsewhere in China because of the higher salaries and better living conditions.

Hong Kong has lost its young generation to the UK (the brainwashed demonstrators) and to China PRC (those who realised that their future is in cooperation with China)

The United States

More than 10 years ago, already in the year 2012, I wrote that there was something wrong with the attitude of many Americans living in China. Most of them were trying to manage their business in China as if they were in the USA. Several times, I have told them to adapt their style to the Chinese business culture. “Look at the many German companies here, they are flourishing.” To no avail, it was pouring water upon a duck’s back.

Years before the trade war, the sales figures and market share of American big corporations were already collapsing. Coca-Cola, General motors, Ford and others were bracing for collapse in China. Still, they were unable to adapt to the Chinese consumers and business environment.

Then, at the end of 2017, the Trade War gave another blow to US companies in China. I remember that I wrote “all Americans have left China”  Obviously, not all Americans in China were in manufacturing or trade business. Many of them are in other, more obscure activities. They didn’t leave China. The big-steak restaurants, Jazz clubs and other American entertainment establishments closed.

The final blow were the pandemic travel restrictions from mid-2020 to end 2022. Many Germans and other European expats stayed in China, but almost all Americans left. When I last checked in May and June 2023, I could only find a few Americans. And yes, indeed: involved in very obscure activities.

Chinese students abroad

China is by far the largest country of origin for international students in the world. The number of Chinese students going abroad for study kept increasing until 2019. That year, around 703,500 Chinese students left China to pursue overseas studies. But then, due to the pandemic and the very hostile attitude in the USA towards Chinese students, numbers have roughly halved in 2020.

In 2021, due to the pandemic, the declining quality of the American higher education and most of all because of the hostilities of the American society towards Chinese people, the number of students dropped to 348,992. In 2023, the total number of students outside China returned to pre-pandemic levels. The new class no longer goes to the USA; they prefer a large number of universities in more than 50 countries. At UK universities, there were 143 800 students. Some 40,122 Chinese students went to Germany. South Korea, Russia, Singapore, Thailand and India were other popular destinations.

Before 2010, many Chinese students applied for a job or married in the country where they finished their studies. Today, almost all Chinese students return to their motherland as soon as they get their diploma. The Chinese government should pay some more attention on the re-integration of these students because some of them are brainwashed by the western propaganda, believing in “values” as political correctness, woke, gender fluidity, cancel culture or even drug abuse.

Chinese internal migration

Internal migration in China is one of the most extensive in the world according to the International Labour Organization. As per the 2020 census, more than 400 million people are living and working in another place than their hùkǒu. In spite of all that massive internal migration, there are no slums and there’s no pervasive homelessness as we see almost everywhere in the rest of the world.

Why would someone want to move to China ?

The average standard of living in China are better than anywhere else. An average family in Shanghai (the whole of Shanghai 24 million people, including the “poor” outskirt districts) has on average double as much spendable income compared to an average family in the United States.

Other Chinese provinces as Beijing, Tianjin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Inner Mongolia, Guangdong … also have a higher average disposable income than an average family in the USA.

The reason China has (almost) no illegal immigration is by all means not because people do not want to go to China. China is in many ways very attractive for immigrants.

Quoting Godfree Roberts from his book Why China leads the world:

Adjusted for productivity, regulations, rising wages and benefits, Chinese workers now cost employers as much as their American cousins but, despite tough labour laws, favourable courts and rising wages, China is no Scandinavian workers’ paradise. After resisting for two years, Apple’s Taiwanese-owned manufacturer, Foxconn, allowed employees to unionize after media exposed its practice of forcing them to stand for illegal, twelve-hour shifts. Nine years after Walmart promised a union, employees were still struggling to establish one and only three quarters of all workers reported receiving paid annual leave and one quarter said they have neither paid days off nor union representation. Fed up with employers’ foot-dragging, in 2018, Qingdao city government sent state-appointed cadres to act as “labour union chiefs” into 92 local private enterprises–to add muscle to frustrated employees’ efforts to unionize.

By 2018 the average Chinese was making over 1800 EUR monthly, enough to provide a comfortable, middle-class life for a family of three. Since education is free through university, graduates carry no student loans and basic health care is inexpensive and most employers provide supplemental coverage. Mid-level managers have modest expense accounts and occasional use of a company car and big-city software engineers out-earned colleagues in London and Singapore. Says economist Zhang Weiwei, The China Wave: “Shanghai’s life expectancy is already higher than New York’s, its level of education is the highest in the world and its overall scientific and technological power suggests a healthy economic future. The average wealth, and even the living standard, of most Shanghai residents is higher than the Swiss, while urban housing is better than Japan’s or Hong Kong’s”. Shanghai’s high-speed trains, subways, airports, wharves, commercial facilities and public safety comfortably outperform New York’s, as the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman attested, “Just compare arriving at La Guardia’s dumpy terminal in New York City and driving through the crumbling infrastructure into Manhattan with arriving at Shanghai’s sleek airport and taking the 420 km per hour magnetic levitation train to get to town in a blink. Then ask yourself: Who’s living in the third world country?”

Conclusion

Visa overstay is the most common cause of illegal residence in China. People who are overstaying their visa are obviously known by the authorities. They get a visit of the local police, assisting them to extend their visa or to leave the country. Mostly they get a temporarily 2 week “humanitarian visa” and then if they haven’t left guided to the airport.

It’s not that neighbouring country locals don’t want to become refugee and sneak into China, it is they simply can’t get into China. China has a comprehensive system of border controls. Even at the inhospitable areas of the southern and western borders, the PRC has a sealed border, often with 3 step security zones. Border guards are assisted with all kinds of technological resources and tools, drones and cameras.

Vietnamese immigrants sneaking into China, often through human trafficking, mostly go into hiding in Chinese border villages, living there among former countrymen, speaking their own local language. Mostly they are regularized many years later. The same scenario applies to illegal immigrants from the DPRK (North Korea).

African illegal immigrants in Guangdong province are almost all visa overstayers.

Before 2010 there were Westerners living and working in China with consecutive tourist visas, which was already at that time illegal. Today, with more than a dozen different types of visas, this is no longer possible.

China has a comprehensive system in place to keep the illegal immigration under control. There are no NGOs in China who are actively encouraging illegal immigration.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Frans Vandenbosch.

Japan cannot possibly outlive the atrocity of dumping radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. In fact, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is an example of how nuclear meltdowns negatively impact the entire world, as its toxic wastewater travels across the world in ocean currents. The dumping of stored toxic wastewater from the meltdown in 2011 officially started on August 24^th, 2023. Meanwhile, the country restarts some of the nuclear plants that were shut down when the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Plant exploded.

Fukushima’s broken reactors are an example of why nuclear energy is a trap that can’t handle global warming or extreme natural disasters. Nuclear is an accident waiting to happen, for several reasons, including victimization by forces of global warming.

According to Dr. Paul Dorfman, chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, former secretary to the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Internal Radiation, and Visiting Fellow, University of Sussex: “It’s important to understand that nuclear is very likely to be a significant climate casualty. For cooling purposes nuclear reactors need to be situated by large bodies of water, etc. …” Essentially, global warming is nuclear energy’s Waterloo; it has already seriously endangered France’s 56 nuclear reactors with partial shutdowns because of extreme global warming. Nuclear reactors cannot survive global warming. See “the nuclear energy trap” link at the end of this article.

TEPCO’s treacherous act of dumping radioactive water into a wide-open ocean is a deliberate violation of human decency, as it clearly violates essential provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) General Safety Guide No. 8 (GSG-8).

Japan should be forced to stop its diabolical exercise of potentially destroying precious life. Shame on the IAEA and shame on the member countries of the G7 for endorsing this travesty. They’ve christened the ocean an “open sewer.” Hark! Come one, come all, dump your trash, open toxic spigots, bring chemicals, bring fertilizers, bring plastic, bring radioactive waste that’s impossible to dispose… the oceans are open sewers. It’s free!  Yes, it’s free but only weak-minded people would allow a broken-down crippled nuclear power plant to dump radioactive waste into the world’s ocean. It is a testament to human frailty, weakness, insipience, not courage.

According to Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., Institute for Energy and Environmental Research:

The IAEA is an important United Nations institution. Like the rest of the Expert Panel, the author of this paper has been reluctant to criticize the IAEA. Yet, its outright refusal to apply its own guidance documents in full measure is stark. Its constricted view of the dumping plan has allowed it to evade its responsibilities to many countries. Its eagerness to assure the public that harm will be “negligible” has been carried to the point of grossly overstating well-known facts about tritium. The serious lapses of the IAEA in the Fukushima radioactive water matter have made criticism unavoidable.  (“TEPCO’s ALPS-treated Radioactive Water Dumping Plan Violates Essential Provisions of IAEA’s General Safety Guide No. 8 (GSG-8) and Corresponding Requirements in Other IAEA Documents”, June 28, 2023)

Greenpeace rejects Japan’s claim that all nuclear isotopes except tritium have been removed from the wastewater. It claims that at least one other radioactive isotope, Carbon-14, remains, and that many more, including Strontium 90 and Cesium 137, remain as yet untreated in most of the storage tanks. (Richard Broinowski, “More Fallout from Fukushima”, Pearls and Irritations, July 8, 2023)

Japan is signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:  “Japan’s policy to release wastewater into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a violation of Japan’s obligations under UNCLOS Article 192, which requires state parties to ‘protect and preserve the marine environment.’ Additionally, Japan’s pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources violates UNCLOS Article 207.”  (Victoria Cruz-De Jesus, “Preserving the Sea in a Radioactive World: How Japan’s Plan to Release Treated Nuclear Wastewater into the Pacific Ocean Violates UNCLOS“, American University International Law Review, Vol. 27, Issue 4, 2023)

Adding insult to injury, Japan considered several available waste disposal measures that, in part, would have complied with portions of its treaty obligations under UNCLOS Article 192 and Article 207 but ultimately settled for the cheapest, easiest, most convenient, yet most harmful, policy, dumping it into the Pacific Ocean, which conveniently is “right next door.” Japan could have chosen (1) geosphere injection or (2) underground burial as options that lessen the risks of nuclear waste released into the environment, or they could build more storage tanks. But both #1 and #2 options are considerably more expensive.

As a result, Japan’s outrageous disregard for nature has only served to highlight the insanity surrounding nuclear energy:

The Japanese Government and TEPCO falsely claim that discharge is the only viable option necessary for eventual decommissioning. Nuclear power generation, which experiences shutdowns due to accidents and natural disasters, and perpetually requires thermal power as a backup, cannot serve as a solution to global warming.  (Japan Announces Date for Fukushima Radioactive Water Release, Greenpeace International Press Release, August 22, 2023)

According to Greenpeace, which has strong expertise in nuclear energy: “As of 8 June 2023, there were 1,335,381 cubic meters of radioactive wastewater stored in tanks, but due to the failure of the ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System) processing technology, approximately 70% of this water will have to be processed again. Scientists have warned that the radiological risks from the discharges have not been fully assessed, and the biological impacts of tritium, carbon-14, strontium-90 and iodine-129, which will be released in the discharges, have been ignored,” (Ibid.)

It seems inconceivable, but true, at a time when the world’s oceans are confronted with immense stress (1) inordinate record-setting heat (2) illegal overfishing to the point of near exhaustion of major fishing stock (3) human trash accumulating in vast swirls of rotting garbage, e.g., the Great Pacific Garbage Patch three times the size of France; plus four more major garbage patches in the oceans (4) rampant levels of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, (5) tons of plastic and (6) industrial discharges. In the face of so much stress, Japan has the nerve to add toxic radioactive muck from a crippled nuclear power plant. Oh, please!

“For years, we have looked at the ocean as a dumping ground. Because it was out of sight and out of mind, we have treated it like a universal sewer.” (Jean Michel Cousteau, St. Petersburg Times) Cousteau has spent a lifetime fighting to expose ocean abuse, saying it needs to stop “if marine life, and therefore everything on the planet, is going to survive.” Alas, Japan is violating everything Cousteau ever stood for.

As a result of indiscretions, will Japan essentially self-destruct its economy as boycotts of products follow in the footsteps of its blatant disregard for the health of the ocean?

China has banned all seafood from Japan, calling the release a “selfish and irresponsible act.” Chinese social media registered 800,000,000 views on Weibo, filled with anger. China is Japan’s largest buyer of seafood accounting for one-half of Japan’s seafood exports.

Major Japanese cosmetics manufacturers have seen sales drop along with public share prices as Chinese internet users began compiling lists of Japanese brands to boycott, attracting 300,000,000 views on Weibo. The boycott could be a “trigger for Chinese consumers to switch away from Japanese premium cosmetics brands,” said Wakako Sato, an analyst for Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co. (“Controversial Fukushima Nuclear Waste Plan Spurs Chinese Boycott of Japanese Cosmetics”, Time, June 22, 2023)

On Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok, users have circulated lists of Japanese brands ranging from cosmetics to food and beverages. urging people not to buy those products.

South Korea and Hong Kong are banning Japanese seafood from Fukushima and nine other prefectures. North Korea’s Foreign Ministry called the release a “crime against humanity,” which Japan can only view as the most humiliating insult of all time.

Is Japan setting a dangerous precedent? According to the New York Times, d/d August 22, 2023: “If Japan dumps its tainted Fukushima water in the ocean, what’s to stop other countries from doing the same?” Indeed, this may be one of the most deadly consequences of TEPCO’s dumping, with G7 approval.

“We’ve seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what’s getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it… there’s no way to get the genie back in the bottle,” marine biologist Robert Richmond, a professor with the University of Hawaii, told the BBC’s Newsday programme.” (“Fukushima: What are the Concerns Over Waste Water Release?” BBC News, August 25, 2023)

TEPCO admits to some level of radiation when it releases water from storage tanks. According to a CNN news article, Japan claims other countries are also guilty of releasing tritium-laced water into the ocean. So, why can’t they also do it? However, this misses the point that nobody should be allowed to release radioactive water into the oceans. Furthermore, TEPCO’s concentrations, with 60 highly toxic radioactive isotopes, hopefully treated by ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System) processing technology, makes other dumpers look like pipsqueaks. Even worse yet, Greenpeace/Japan, and others, have strong reservations about the effectiveness of ALPS, and consider: Who’s measuring?

The U.S. National Association of Marine Laboratories, with over 100 member laboratories, issued a position paper strongly opposing the toxic dumping because of a lack of adequate and accurate scientific data in support of Japan’s assertions of safety.

And regardless of Japan’s attempts to downplay the dumping as inconsequential, it has been scientifically established that even very low doses of radioactivity bio-accumulate in the human body, as well as in marine life, over time leading to physical deterioration because of DNA damage.

At high doses, ionizing radiation can cause immediate damage to a person’s body, including, at very high doses, radiation sickness and death. At lower doses, ionizing radiation can cause health effects such as cardiovascular disease and cataracts, as well as cancer. It causes cancer primarily because it damages DNA, which can lead to cancer-causing gene mutations. (National Cancer Institute)

How is it possible to justify dumping any amount of radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean? Is the world’s consciousness so low, so lacking a moral compass, that it’s okay to dump the most toxic material on the planet into the oceans?

Stop destroying the oceans!

And please contemplate the dire ramifications of the nuclear energy trap.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Robert Hunziker.

“Hong Kong authorities should explain their reasons for denying journalist Yoshiaki Ogawa’s entry or grant him permission to return to the city at once,” said Iris Hsu, CPJ’s China representative. “Blocking access to foreign journalists reflects Hong Kong authorities’ shameful attempts to stifle critical reporting.”

On Thursday, immigration officials at the Hong Kong International Airport took Ogawa into a room and interviewed him for about an hour before asking him to sign a document acknowledging that he would not enter the city. He returned to Tokyo the next day, according to news reports, which said authorities did not disclose the reason for his refusal.

Ogawa has covered Hong Kong since 2014, including the 2019 democracy protests, and authored the 2020 book “Chronicles of Hong Kong’s Protests.” He was planning to investigate the situation in the city three years after the Beijing-imposed national security law took effect.

Hong Kong authorities previously denied entry to Michiko Kiseki, a Japanese freelance photographer known for her coverage of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy demonstrations, in December 2022.

CPJ reached out to Ogawa via messaging app, but did not receive any reply. The Hong Kong immigration department did not immediately respond to CPJ’s email requesting comment.

Separately, pro-democracy broadcaster Citizens’ Radio ceased operations Friday due to what its founder Tsang Kin-shing described as the “dangerous” political situation and the freezing of its bank account. Its office was vandalized in July 2019. Tsang did not immediately respond to CPJ’s request for comment.

CPJ has documented the drastic erosion of press freedom in the former British colony. China was the world’s second-largest jailer of journalists in 2022, according to CPJ’s annual prison census. Hong Kong media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai is among those behind bars; he faces a possible life sentence on national security charges.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

“Hong Kong authorities should explain their reasons for denying journalist Yoshiaki Ogawa’s entry or grant him permission to return to the city at once,” said Iris Hsu, CPJ’s China representative. “Blocking access to foreign journalists reflects Hong Kong authorities’ shameful attempts to stifle critical reporting.”

On Thursday, immigration officials at the Hong Kong International Airport took Ogawa into a room and interviewed him for about an hour before asking him to sign a document acknowledging that he would not enter the city. He returned to Tokyo the next day, according to news reports, which said authorities did not disclose the reason for his refusal.

Ogawa has covered Hong Kong since 2014, including the 2019 democracy protests, and authored the 2020 book “Chronicles of Hong Kong’s Protests.” He was planning to investigate the situation in the city three years after the Beijing-imposed national security law took effect.

Hong Kong authorities previously denied entry to Michiko Kiseki, a Japanese freelance photographer known for her coverage of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy demonstrations, in December 2022.

CPJ reached out to Ogawa via messaging app, but did not receive any reply. The Hong Kong immigration department did not immediately respond to CPJ’s email requesting comment.

Separately, pro-democracy broadcaster Citizens’ Radio ceased operations Friday due to what its founder Tsang Kin-shing described as the “dangerous” political situation and the freezing of its bank account. Its office was vandalized in July 2019. Tsang did not immediately respond to CPJ’s request for comment.

CPJ has documented the drastic erosion of press freedom in the former British colony. China was the world’s second-largest jailer of journalists in 2022, according to CPJ’s annual prison census. Hong Kong media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai is among those behind bars; he faces a possible life sentence on national security charges.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

“We welcome the Hong Kong court decision to quash the conviction of journalist Choy Yuk-ling. It’s high time for the Hong Kong government to stop persecuting the media and drop all criminal cases against journalists for their work,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Press freedom is constitutionally guaranteed in Hong Kong. No journalists should be criminally charged, let alone convicted, for their reporting.”

Choy was convicted in April 2021 on two counts of giving false statements to obtain car ownership records on a public registry while researching a documentary for Hong Kong’s public broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong about a mob attack on a group of protesters. The court fined her 6,000 Hong Kong dollars (US$765).

In unanimously overturning her conviction on Monday, June 5, a panel of five judges at the Court of Final Appeal ruled that when Choy chose “other traffic and transport related matters” to search the public registry, that category should not exclude “bona fide journalism.”

Separately, on Sunday evening police detained Mak Yin-ting, a correspondent with French broadcaster Radio France Internationale and former chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, while she reported on public attempts to commemorate the 34th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown, according to the HKJA, a report by the journalist in RFI, and news reports. She was released after a few hours without charge.

CPJ has documented the dramatic decline of press freedom in Hong Kong, once a beacon of free press in the region, since Beijing introduced a national security law on June 30, 2020, with journalists being arrested, jailed, and threatened.

Among them include Chung Pui-kuen and Patrick Lam, editors of the now-shuttered news website Stand News, who are on trial for conspiracy to publish seditious publications.

Jimmy Lai, founder of the shuttered pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily and CPJ’s 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Awardee, is facing life imprisonment on national security charges in a trial that is due to start in September. Lai, a British citizen, is serving a sentence of five years and nine months on fraud charges. He has been behind bars since December 2020.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

As I write this, June 4 is nigh upon us, and that means it is time for the western-aligned media to crank out their discredited myth of a massacre having taken place in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The photos of the Tank Man allegedly blocking tanks from entering Tiananmen Square will form a major part of the disinformation. The fact is that the tanks were leaving the city, and it was the day after the mythologized massacre. The tanks did all they could to avoid colliding with the citizen who placed himself in front of the tanks. (Read Jeff Brown’s  setting the record straight regarding the western monopoly media account of the Tank Man.)

Alas, the monopoly media disinformation storm is already upon us.

Human Rights Watch, funded by the anti-communist Georg Soros, published an article about a “bloody crackdown” that demands: “The Chinese government should acknowledge responsibility for the mass killing of pro-democracy demonstrators and provide redress for victims and family members.”

The United States government-funded Radio Free Asia historizes, “Troops aligned with hardliners shot their way to Tiananmen Square to commit one of the worst massacres in modern Chinese history.” RFA was originally operated by the CIA to broadcast anti-Communist propaganda.

The CBC quotes “Tiananmen Square survivor” Yang Jianli, now a resident in Washington, DC, who “was at Tiananmen Square in 1989” and spoke of how a “nationwide pro-democracy movement in 1989 ended in the bloodshed of Tiananmen Square massacre.”

Yahoo!News headlines with “Tiananmen Square Fast Facts,” such as:

In 1989, after several weeks of demonstrations, Chinese troops entered Tiananmen Square on June 4 and fired on civilians.

Estimates of the death toll range from several hundred to thousands.

One wonders which is the fact: several hundred or thousands? Assertions are a staple in western monopoly media, evidence is scant, but the evidence-free assertions persist year-after-year.

There are complaints of Chinese censorship. This raises the question of whether censorship can be justified and if so under what circumstances. Arguably, there is something more insidious than censorship, and that is disinformation. Professor Anthony Hall articulated the insidiousness of disinformation at the Halifax Symposium on Media and Disinformation in 2004 where it was held to be a crime against humanity and a crime against peace:

Disinformation originates in the deliberate and systemic effort to break down social cohesion and to deprive humanity of perceptive consciousness of our conditions. Disinformation seeks to isolate and divide human beings; to alienate us from our ability to use our senses, our intellect, and our communicative powers in order to identify truth and act on this knowledge. Disinformation is deeply implicated in the history of imperialism, Eurocentric racism, American Manifest Destiny, Nazi propaganda, the psychological warfare of the Cold War, and capitalist globalization. Disinformation seeks to erode and destroy the basis of individual and collective memory, the basis of those inheritances from history which give humanity our richness of diverse languages, cultures, nationalities, peoplehoods, and means of self-determination. The reach and intensity of disinformation tends to increase with the concentration of ownership and control of the media of mass communications.

In other words, people must not have a right to freely speak lies that reach the level of crimes against humanity or peace. The disinformation campaign about a Tiananmen Square massacre demonizes China and constitutes a crime against the humanity of the Chinese people. If people wish to allege a massacre by state forces against its citizens, then present the incontrovertible evidence. Where are the photos of soldiers killing citizens? There are plenty of photos of murdered soldiers mutilated by nasty elements outside Tiananmen Square.

So why does the disinformation persist? Because it works when people unquestioningly accept what their unscrupulous government and media tell them: China is Communist. China is bad.

Is such rhetoric compelling?

American expat Godfree Roberts, author of Why China Leads the World: Talent at the Top, Data in the Middle, Democracy at the Bottom answered a Quora question: “There are people that claim nothing bad happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989 What happened to the pro democracy protesters at Tiananmen Square when the tanks and troops with the PLA showed up to suddenly put and end to the protests?” Roberts replied:

The tanks and troops with the PLA did not show up to suddenly put and end to the protests. Nor did they harm anyone in Tiananmen Square.

They waited at the railway station for three weeks but began moving into town when rioters–like those we see in Hong Kong today–began killing people in Chang’An Avenue. Even then, the first battalions were unarmed… [emphasis in original]

Roberts wrote another excellent Quora piece preserved at the Greanville Post.

Regarding the wider myth created of a massacre at Tiananmen Square, the go-to evidence-based account is the book Tiananmen Square “Massacre”?: The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence by Wei Ling Chua.

Kim Petersen: In 2014, I reviewed your important book Tiananmen Square “Massacre”?: The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence that threw a glaring light on what the monopoly media were saying about a massacre in Tiananmen Square versus the subsequent recantations by western-aligned journalists and the narratives of protestors and witnesses than were contrary to the western media disinformation. In other words, there was no massacre in Tiananmen Square. Nonetheless, people living in the western-aligned world can expect, for the most part, to be inundated with monopoly media rehashing their disinformation about what happened on 4 June 1989, omitting the nefarious roles played by the CIA and NED.

Recently, AB Abrams included a 29-page chapter, “Beijing 1989 and Tiananmen Square,” in his excellent book Atrocity Fabrications and Its Consequences (2023). It basically lays out what you did in your book (without citing it), but it does present more of a historical basis for the interference of US militarism in 20th century China because of American anti-communist prejudice. Thus, the US supported the Guomindang (KMT) led by the brutal Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-Shek). Abrams reads quite critical of paramount leader Deng Xiaopeng, quoting one student who complained of the increasing corruption under Deng that was not tolerated under chairman Mao Zedong. (p 125) Basically, however, Abrams buttresses what you had already written, pointing a stern finger at Operation Yellowbird’s NED, CIA, and Hong Kong criminal triads who inserted (and extracted) unruly (even bloodthirsty, notably Chai Ling) elements into Tiananmen Square who happened to find themselves well armed and supplied with Molotov cocktails, and who were not hesitant about using lethal force against remarkably restrained PLA soldiers.

Despite the several recantations by western journalists in Beijing who had reported a massacre and despite the narratives that seriously impugn the monopoly media narratives, why does the myth of a massacre in Tiananmen Square persist? How is it that this fabricated atrocity gets dredged up annually, and why do so many people buy into the disinformation proffered by a source serially revealed to be manufacturing demonstrably false narratives? How can this disinformation be exterminated?

Finally, massacres should not be forgotten, but if the narratives of massacres are meant to be revisited annually, then shouldn’t the massacres carried out — especially by one’s own side — also be memorialized, as an act of penance and atonement? In the US case, there would be yearly memorials to the massacres of several Indigenous peoples by the White natives of Europe. There are several massacres requiring atonement for the rampant criminality of the White Man. Wounded Knee, the Bear Creek massacre, the Sand Creek massacre, and the Trail of Tears spring readily to mind. There is the Kwangju massacre in South Korea, My Lai in Viet Nam, Fallujah in Iraq (and this is just skimming the surface). What does it say that the US-aligned media unquestioningly reports on fabricated atrocities elsewhere while being insouciant to the crimes of American troops against Others?

Wei Ling Chua: Since publishing the book Tiananmen Square “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence (The Art of Media Disinformation is Hurting the World and Humanity vol. 2) in 2014, I began to use Google alerts to receive daily emails on any news or articles posted on the net with the term “Tiananmen Square Massacre”, and it is depressing to say that the Western media disregards their own journalists’ confessions and have continued to unrelentingly use the term frequently over the past 34 years.

The following description introduces the book.

Readers will notice from the table of contents that this book comes in 4 parts:

1) Screenshot evidence of journalists who confessed that they saw no one die that day (June 4th, 1989) at Tiananmen Square, CIA declassified documents, WikiLeaks, and Human Rights Watch decided not to publish their own eye-witnesses accounts that report that support the Chinese side of the stories… ;

2) Explanation, with examples, of how the Western media used the power of words to overpower the silent evidence (their own photos and video images) that actually shows highly restrained, people-loving PLA soldiers and the CCP government handling of the 7 weeks of protests.

3) Explanation of the 3 stage bottle-necks effect of the market economy and how Western nations respond to each stage of such economic hardship created by an uncontrolled market economy. The purpose of such analysis is to remind developing nations’ citizens not to destroy their own countries by allowing Western-funded NGOs to carry out covert operations in their countries to create chaos at times of economic hardship;

4) Comparing how the CCP handled the 1989 protesters with the US government handling of the 2011 anti-Wall Street protesters [Occupy Wall Street], the book draws a 6-point conclusion to explain why the Wall Street protesters should admire the Tiananmen protesters, and why the PLA deserves a Nobel Peace prize:

• Freedom of protesters
• The rule of law
• The barricade strategy
• Brutality of authorities
• Media freedom
• Government response

I encourage readers to read the book review by you: Massacre? What Massacre?

The US and other Western governments are notorious in promoting hatred, fake news, and misleading information about China. As a result, whenever foreigners went to China for the first time, they seemed to be shocked by how advanced, how wealthy, how safe, how green, how friendly, and how beautiful China is. A lot of YouTubers from all over the world voluntarily and passionately produce videos to share their daily impression of China or to defend China against any smear campaigns by the Western media. Below is just a quick pick of a dozen YouTubers:

• Daniel Dumbrill
• Gweilo 60
• Living in China
• Nathan Rich
• Barrett
• Richard Aguilar
• Miriam Follin
• FerMuBe
• numuves
• Reports on China
• Ychina
• Jerry Goode
• GoYvon

As for getting at the truth, the best way to understand a country is to travel there and see it with our own eyes:

At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, a group of American athletes arrived at the Beijing International Airport with masks and later were shocked that the air quality was good and that they were the only ones wearing masks in Beijing. They were also shocked by how beautiful and modern Beijing is compared to American cities. In an embarrassment to America, these young Americans were spot on and held a press conference to publicly apologize to the Chinese people for their mask-wearing insult to China.

The same thing happened to many Taiwanese, many were so ignorant about China that they thought that the Chinese people were very poor. In 2011, a Taiwanese professor Gao Zhibin told his audience in a TV show that the mainland Chinese are so poor that they cannot even afford to eat a tea leaf egg. That video became a laughing stock and quickly circulated being viewed by hundreds of millions of Chinese people, and even made its way to the Chinese mainstream media across the country as a sort of entertainment. Now, the Taiwanese Professor has a nickname in China: “tea leaf egg professor“.

Hong Kong also has the same problem. So, after putting down the US-backed violent protests a few years ago, one of the education programs is to take the students for a free trip to the mainland to see by themselves how prosperous, green, clean, modern, friendly, and advanced their mother country is.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

Just hours after Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and 116 publishers, editors-in-chief, and senior editors from around the world called for the release of Apple Daily founder and RSF Press Freedom Prize laureate Jimmy Lai (in Cantonese: Lai Chee-ying), the Hong Kong government responded with a veiled threat.

It published a statement threatening in veiled terms the “organisations and individuals” who “interfere with the judicial proceedings” without explicitly mentioning RSF or the signatories to the call.

In the Hong Kong government’s views, calling for Lai’s release “is very likely to constitute the offence of criminal contempt of court or the offence of perverting the course of justice,” which could carry a sentence of respectively two and seven years in prison under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance in Hong Kong.

• READ MORE: ‘Free Jimmy Lai now’ plea by RSF and 116 global media leaders
• Other Jimmy Lai reports

The statement also claimed, against mounting evidence to the contrary, that press freedom was still being “respected and protected” in the territory.

It also said that the arrest and prosecution of Jimmy Lai and other press freedom defenders were “completely unrelated to the issue of press freedom”.

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

More than 100 media leaders from around the world have joined Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in signing an unprecedented joint statement expressing support for detained Apple Daily founder and publisher Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong.

They have called for his immediate release.

Among the signatories are publishers, editors-in-chief, and senior editors from 41 countries, including New Zealand — and two Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

• READ MORE: Other Jimmy Lai reports

This powerful joint statement is signed by 113 media leaders spanning 41 countries, from Egypt to Turkey, from India to Gambia, from Myanmar to Mongolia, and everywhere in between.

RSF coordinated this call in support of Jimmy Lai, who has become an emblematic figure in the fight for press freedom in Hong Kong and globally.

The action also seeks to highlight the broader dire state of press freedom in the Chinese-ruled territory, which has deteriorated sharply in recent years.

A former laureate of RSF’s Press Freedom Prize, 75-year-old Jimmy Lai has worked over the past 25 years to uphold the values of freedom of speech and press through his independent media outlet Apple Daily.

Concurrent sentences
Detained since December 2020 in a maximum security jail and repeatedly refused bail, Lai is already serving concurrent sentences on charges of attending “unauthorised” pro-democracy protests and allegations of fraud.

He now faces a possible life sentence under the draconian national security law, with his trial scheduled to start on September 25.

“We stand with Jimmy Lai. We believe he has been targeted for publishing independent reporting, and we condemn all charges against him,” said the RSF and co-signatories.

“We call for his immediate release.”

They also called for the release of all 13 currently detained journalists in Hong Kong, and for any remaining charges to be dropped against all 28 journalists targeted under national security and other laws over the past three years.

Among the signatories are 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureates Dmitry Muratov (Novaya Gazeta, Russia) and Maria Ressa (Rappler, the Philippines); publisher of The New York Times A.G. Sulzberger; publisher of The Washington Post Fred Ryan; CEO Goli Sheikholeslami as well as editor-in-chief Matthew Kaminski of Politico (USA); editors from a wide range of major UK newspapers including Chris Evans (The Telegraph), Tony Gallagher (The Times), Victoria Newton (The Sun), Alison Philipps (The Daily Mirror); Ted Verity (Mail newspapers), and Katharine Viner (The Guardian); editor-in-chief of Libération Dov Alfon, editorial director of L’Express Éric Chol and director of Le Monde Jérôme Fenoglio (France); editors-in-chief of Süddeutsche Zeitung Wolfgang Krach and Judith Wittwer, and editor-in-chief of Die Welt Jennifer Wilton (Germany); editor-in-chief of Expressen Klas Granström (Sweden); and many more from around the world.

Among the signatories is Dr David Robie, editor and publisher of the New Zealand-based Asia Pacific Report.

The RSF appeal over Apple Daily founder and publisher Jimmy Lai.

‘Powerful voices’
“We have brought these powerful voices together to show that the international media community will not tolerate the targeting of their fellow publisher. When press freedom is threatened anywhere, it is threatened everywhere,” said RSF’s secretary-general Christophe Deloire in a statement.

“Jimmy Lai must be released without further delay, along with all 13 detained journalists, and urgent steps taken to repair the severe damage that has been done to Hong Kong’s press freedom climate over the past three years, before it is too late.”

Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien said: “Hong Kong is now a city shrouded in a blanket of fear. Those who criticise the authorities are threatened, prosecuted, imprisoned. My father has been in prison since 2020 because he spoke out against CCP [Chinese Community Party] power.

“Because he stood up for what he believes in. It is deeply moving to now see so many powerful voices — Nobel prize winners, and many of the leading newspapers and media organisations across the world — speak out for him.”

Over the past three years, China has used the national security law and other laws as a pretext to prosecute at least 28 journalists, press freedom defenders and collaborators in Hong Kong — 13 of whom remain in detention, including Lai and six staff of Apple Daily.

The newspaper itself was shut down — a move seen as the final nail in the coffin of press freedom in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is ranked 140th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2023 World Press Freedom Index, having plummeted down the rankings from 18th place in just 20 years.

China itself ranked 175th of the 180 countries and territories surveyed.

• The full text of the statement and list of signatories are here.

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

More than 100 media leaders from around the world have joined Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in signing an unprecedented joint statement expressing support for detained Apple Daily founder and publisher Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong.

They have called for his immediate release.

Among the signatories are publishers, editors-in-chief, and senior editors from 41 countries, including New Zealand — and two Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

• READ MORE: Other Jimmy Lai reports

This powerful joint statement is signed by 113 media leaders spanning 41 countries, from Egypt to Turkey, from India to Gambia, from Myanmar to Mongolia, and everywhere in between.

RSF coordinated this call in support of Jimmy Lai, who has become an emblematic figure in the fight for press freedom in Hong Kong and globally.

The action also seeks to highlight the broader dire state of press freedom in the Chinese-ruled territory, which has deteriorated sharply in recent years.

A former laureate of RSF’s Press Freedom Prize, 75-year-old Jimmy Lai has worked over the past 25 years to uphold the values of freedom of speech and press through his independent media outlet Apple Daily.

Concurrent sentences
Detained since December 2020 in a maximum security jail and repeatedly refused bail, Lai is already serving concurrent sentences on charges of attending “unauthorised” pro-democracy protests and allegations of fraud.

He now faces a possible life sentence under the draconian national security law, with his trial scheduled to start on September 25.

“We stand with Jimmy Lai. We believe he has been targeted for publishing independent reporting, and we condemn all charges against him,” said the RSF and co-signatories.

“We call for his immediate release.”

They also called for the release of all 13 currently detained journalists in Hong Kong, and for any remaining charges to be dropped against all 28 journalists targeted under national security and other laws over the past three years.

Among the signatories are 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureates Dmitry Muratov (Novaya Gazeta, Russia) and Maria Ressa (Rappler, the Philippines); publisher of The New York Times A.G. Sulzberger; publisher of The Washington Post Fred Ryan; CEO Goli Sheikholeslami as well as editor-in-chief Matthew Kaminski of Politico (USA); editors from a wide range of major UK newspapers including Chris Evans (The Telegraph), Tony Gallagher (The Times), Victoria Newton (The Sun), Alison Philipps (The Daily Mirror); Ted Verity (Mail newspapers), and Katharine Viner (The Guardian); editor-in-chief of Libération Dov Alfon, editorial director of L’Express Éric Chol and director of Le Monde Jérôme Fenoglio (France); editors-in-chief of Süddeutsche Zeitung Wolfgang Krach and Judith Wittwer, and editor-in-chief of Die Welt Jennifer Wilton (Germany); editor-in-chief of Expressen Klas Granström (Sweden); and many more from around the world.

Among the signatories is Dr David Robie, editor and publisher of the New Zealand-based Asia Pacific Report.

The RSF appeal over Apple Daily founder and publisher Jimmy Lai.

‘Powerful voices’
“We have brought these powerful voices together to show that the international media community will not tolerate the targeting of their fellow publisher. When press freedom is threatened anywhere, it is threatened everywhere,” said RSF’s secretary-general Christophe Deloire in a statement.

“Jimmy Lai must be released without further delay, along with all 13 detained journalists, and urgent steps taken to repair the severe damage that has been done to Hong Kong’s press freedom climate over the past three years, before it is too late.”

Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien said: “Hong Kong is now a city shrouded in a blanket of fear. Those who criticise the authorities are threatened, prosecuted, imprisoned. My father has been in prison since 2020 because he spoke out against CCP [Chinese Community Party] power.

“Because he stood up for what he believes in. It is deeply moving to now see so many powerful voices — Nobel prize winners, and many of the leading newspapers and media organisations across the world — speak out for him.”

Over the past three years, China has used the national security law and other laws as a pretext to prosecute at least 28 journalists, press freedom defenders and collaborators in Hong Kong — 13 of whom remain in detention, including Lai and six staff of Apple Daily.

The newspaper itself was shut down — a move seen as the final nail in the coffin of press freedom in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is ranked 140th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2023 World Press Freedom Index, having plummeted down the rankings from 18th place in just 20 years.

China itself ranked 175th of the 180 countries and territories surveyed.

• The full text of the statement and list of signatories are here.

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

CPJ recommended that APPG members send an urgent appeal to the Hong Kong government to request the release of Jimmy Lai and other imprisoned journalists and seek British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary James Cleverly’s immediate action to secure Lai’s release.

Lai, a British citizen and the founder of the now-shuttered pro-democracy Hong Kong newspaper, Apple Daily, has been behind bars since December 2020. He is serving a sentence of five years and nine months on fraud charges and is awaiting trial on national security charges, due to start in September 2023, which could jail him for life. 

The APPG on Hong Kong is a cross-party group with no official Parliament status formed in November 2019 in response to the political and social crisis in Hong Kong. The APPG’s inquiry is often used to advise the government.

Read the complete inquiry submission here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

• Historic meeting between Xi and Putin
• Hong Kong announces industrial policy for the first time
• Baidu unveiled its version of ChatGPT

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dongsheng News.

• Historic meeting between Xi and Putin
• Hong Kong announces industrial policy for the first time
• Baidu unveiled its version of ChatGPT

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dongsheng News.

His photographs, showing a group of men beating a Hong Kong pro-democracy protester and pulling him into the Chinese consulate grounds in Manchester at the protest, were widely published and eventually led to Beijing removing six diplomats.

They include Consul-General Zheng Xiyuan, who was identified in the photos. He initially denied assaulting the protester but said later he had been trying to protect his colleagues.

“It was not something I had expected,” said Leung, who left Hong Kong for England in early 2022 following a crackdown on press freedom in the city.

He is among a growing number of Hong Kong journalists now reporting from overseas due to the shrinking space for independent reporting back home, with new outlets set up and managed from places like the United Kingdom and Australia.

These include The Chaser, a U.K.-based website founded by Hong Kong journalists last year, where Leung’s photos of the Manchester consulate violence first appeared, before they were widely republished by other media including The Guardian and The Financial Times.

“The response was overwhelming, the calls were nonstop,” Leung told CPJ in a video interview from his home in Manchester.

“It is up to overseas Hong Kong journalists to follow what’s happening to the Hong Kong diaspora closely, we couldn’t expect international journalists to do the same,” he added.

New outlets

Once a bastion of press freedom in Asia, Hong Kong’s vibrant media landscape has suffered an unprecedented decline since June 2020 when Beijing imposed the national security law, which has been used to stifle free speech and silence dissent.

The arrests of journalists and closure of prominent news outlets triggered “widespread panic” and an all-time low for press freedom, according to the Hong Kong Journalists Association, which has assessed conditions for journalists in an annual index since 2013.

Among those who are on trial is Jimmy Lai, founder of the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily and winner of CPJ’s 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award, who faces life imprisonment under the national security law. He has been in prison since December 2020, one of eight Hong Kong journalists on CPJ’s December 1, 2022, prison census. 

Separately, former Stand News chief editors Chung Pui-kuen and Patrick Lam are on trial and could be jailed if convicted of breaking a British colonial-era sedition law. The news outlet shutdown in December 2021 after it was raided by some 200 national security police.

But many Hong Kong journalists who have left the city following the clampdown have banded together to continue their reporting from abroad.

One example includes Green Bean Media, set up by a group of former Hong Kong journalists now living in the U.K. The Chinese-language site produces a weekly news analysis program, commentaries, as well as coverage focusing on life among the Hong Kong diaspora in Britain.

Others include Commons, with coverage ranging from Hong Kong’s judicial independence to the government’s approach to tackling the COVID-19 pandemic, and The Points, the latest website run by Hong Kong journalists abroad, which started in January. Both outlets have remote staff on different continents.

“What it shows is that there will be still be a free Hong Kong media [but] unfortunately it won’t be in Hong Kong,” said Steve Vines, director of the Association of Overseas Hong Kong Media Professionals and a journalist who spent over three decades in Hong Kong until he left in mid-2021.

Funding need

The association launched as a professional membership body in October last year to help the growing number of overseas Hong Kong journalists find opportunities and promote their work, as well as defend press freedom in Hong Kong. The U.K.-registered group has ex-Hong Kong journalists now based in Asia, Australia, and North America on its committee.

“People are determined to keep alive the idea and the tradition of having a free Hong Kong media,” added Vines, who hosted the English-language current affairs TV program The Pulse on Hong Kong’s public broadcaster RTHK until the show was axed in July 2021.

Like other media run by exiled journalists, the new overseas Hong Kong news outlets will need to ensure their long-term financial sustainability to survive.

The majority of the new outlets remain free to read, although some like Green Bean Media and The Chaser have introduced monthly fees for supporters ranging from 6.50  to 34.50 euros (US$7-37).

“We don’t have the financial sustainability yet to recruit full-timers to work,” said Gloria Chan, co-founder of Green Bean Media, where over 90% of her team are freelancers.

Green Bean Media has gained about 2,000 members since launching last July, but Chan said she has been struggling to find funding to expand the website.

“We need to work it out and get the funding as soon as possible,” Chan told CPJ by phone. “It’s difficult to make sure the money [has no strings attached] when we need to have a completely independent source of income.”

Chinese influence

Ensuring Hong Kong journalists can continue to report from overseas helps diversify the media in their host countries, but also adds a critical perspective at a time when Chinese influence is expanding in industries ranging from technology to energy.

Authorities in Germany, Canada, and Japan are among those investigating a 2022 report by Madrid-based campaign group Safeguard Defenders alleging Beijing had established a covert police presence in several countries to monitor Chinese citizens living abroad. Chinese officials have denied the claims. 

“Hong Kong reporters, or people with a Hong Kong media background, are helping other organizations to report on China’s infiltration of, for example, universities or key strategic industries in Britain,” said Vines.

But journalists are also keen to bring attention to the territory they have left behind.

“Please keep your eyes on Hong Kong, don’t walk away,” said Nina Loh, a former producer at RTHK who moved to Australia in mid-2021. She has since worked on stories about the Tiananmen crackdown commemorative vigil and lives of Hong Kong immigrants in Australia for the Australian broadcaster SBS.

“It’s normal when people shift their attention to other news after a while but, please, don’t give up on Hong Kong,” she added.

Leung, who photographed the consulate violence, shared the same sentiment.

Besides freelancing for The Chaser after he arrived in Manchester, he worked temporarily as traffic warden and environmental enforcement officer for the local city council, until he was recently offered a contract job with an international broadcaster,

“Of course I would like to return to Hong Kong,” Leung said. “Leaving has not taken away my sense of responsibility. Hong Kong is home forever.”

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Beh Lih Yi.

As the 90-day trial of 16 pro-democracy figures began Monday in Hong Kong, the global human rights group Amnesty International blasted what it called the "politically motivated" charges against the defendants, while urging authorities to drop the case.

The 16 defendants are part of a group of 47 people including former lawmakers, ex-district councilors, academics, and activists who were arrested in January 2021 and subsequently charged with "conspiracy to commit subversion" in alleged violation of a 2020 national security law. The legislation has been condemned by legal experts and activists as a threat to both human rights and Hong Kong's purported autonomy from Beijing.

The 16 pleaded not guilty Monday; the other 31 previously entered guilty pleas. All of the so-called Hong Kong 47 stand accused of plotting to turn Hong Kong's legislature into a "lethal constitutional weapon" against the Chinese government. In a break with Hong Kong's common law judicial tradition, the case is being tried by a trio of hand-picked prosecutors instead of a jury.

"This case has been an obscene injustice since the unprecedented mass prosecution of the 47 defendants began in March 2021," Amnesty deputy regional director Hana Young said in a statement. "In a trial that lays bare the intrinsically abusive nature of the national security law, some of the defendants face up to life in prison simply for taking part in political party 'primaries.'"

The five defendants accused of being "major organizers" of the plot are: Benny Tai, a legal scholar; Au Nok-hin, an ex-legislator; Chiu Ka-yin and Chung Kam-lun, former district council members; and Gordon Ng Ching-hang, an activist.

“They are forced to make the impossible decision between pleading guilty to a nonexistent crime for a potential reduction in sentence, or fighting a losing battle under the unjust national security law," Young added. "Most of the 47 have been detained for two years without trial, due to the extremely stringent bail threshold which in effect creates an assumption against bail in national security cases. Whatever happens in the trial, that injustice alone can never be undone."

Young continued:

With this mass trial, the Hong Kong government is attempting to shut off all meaningful political participation in Hong Kong. But the fact that people came to the court today to protest against these prosecutions, despite the risks, showed that the Hong Kong authorities will never be able to fully crush dissent.

People must be allowed to freely express their opinions in Hong Kong, without the threat of jail. Peaceful political opposition is not a crime.

"The charges against the 47 are based entirely upon claimed hypothetical threats to national security," Young added. "All those still detained in the case should be immediately released and the charges against all dropped."

There was a heavy police presence outside the West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts as the trial got underway Monday. Protesters, including members of the progressive League of Social Democrats, staged small demonstrations outside the building before being dispersed.

"Primary elections are something that happens in every democratic country," one supporter of the defendants toldAgence France-Presse outside the court. "But I don't know why something like this has happened in Hong Kong, that holding primaries is being considered breaking the law."

During both the Trump and Biden administrations, the United States—which Beijing accuses of "interference in Hong Kong affairs" and "anti-China destabilization"—imposed sanctions on a handful of Hong Kong and Chinese officials in connection with the crackdown. Biden also recently extended a program that shields Hong Kong residents from deportation.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

As the 90-day trial of 16 pro-democracy figures began Monday in Hong Kong, the global human rights group Amnesty International blasted what it called the "politically motivated" charges against the defendants, while urging authorities to drop the case.

The 16 defendants are part of a group of 47 people including former lawmakers, ex-district councilors, academics, and activists who were arrested in January 2021 and subsequently charged with "conspiracy to commit subversion" in alleged violation of a 2020 national security law. The legislation has been condemned by legal experts and activists as a threat to both human rights and Hong Kong's purported autonomy from Beijing.

The 16 pleaded not guilty Monday; the other 31 previously entered guilty pleas. All of the so-called Hong Kong 47 stand accused of plotting to turn Hong Kong's legislature into a "lethal constitutional weapon" against the Chinese government. In a break with Hong Kong's common law judicial tradition, the case is being tried by a trio of hand-picked prosecutors instead of a jury.

"This case has been an obscene injustice since the unprecedented mass prosecution of the 47 defendants began in March 2021," Amnesty deputy regional director Hana Young said in a statement. "In a trial that lays bare the intrinsically abusive nature of the national security law, some of the defendants face up to life in prison simply for taking part in political party 'primaries.'"

The five defendants accused of being "major organizers" of the plot are: Benny Tai, a legal scholar; Au Nok-hin, an ex-legislator; Chiu Ka-yin and Chung Kam-lun, former district council members; and Gordon Ng Ching-hang, an activist.

“They are forced to make the impossible decision between pleading guilty to a nonexistent crime for a potential reduction in sentence, or fighting a losing battle under the unjust national security law," Young added. "Most of the 47 have been detained for two years without trial, due to the extremely stringent bail threshold which in effect creates an assumption against bail in national security cases. Whatever happens in the trial, that injustice alone can never be undone."

Young continued:

With this mass trial, the Hong Kong government is attempting to shut off all meaningful political participation in Hong Kong. But the fact that people came to the court today to protest against these prosecutions, despite the risks, showed that the Hong Kong authorities will never be able to fully crush dissent.

People must be allowed to freely express their opinions in Hong Kong, without the threat of jail. Peaceful political opposition is not a crime.

"The charges against the 47 are based entirely upon claimed hypothetical threats to national security," Young added. "All those still detained in the case should be immediately released and the charges against all dropped."

There was a heavy police presence outside the West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts as the trial got underway Monday. Protesters, including members of the progressive League of Social Democrats, staged small demonstrations outside the building before being dispersed.

"Primary elections are something that happens in every democratic country," one supporter of the defendants toldAgence France-Presse outside the court. "But I don't know why something like this has happened in Hong Kong, that holding primaries is being considered breaking the law."

During both the Trump and Biden administrations, the United States—which Beijing accuses of "interference in Hong Kong affairs" and "anti-China destabilization"—imposed sanctions on a handful of Hong Kong and Chinese officials in connection with the crackdown. Biden also recently extended a program that shields Hong Kong residents from deportation.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

An immigration officer at the Hong Kong International Airport repeatedly asked Kiseki about her February 2022 photo exhibition featuring the 2019 pro-democracy demonstrations before denying her entry to Hong Kong, according to a thread about the incident that Kiseki’s tweeted on January 5. She was planning to spend the New Year holidays in Hong Kong but had to fly back to Japan the next day, she wrote on Twitter.

Japanese citizens do not need a visa to enter the city and can stay up to 90 days under Hong Kong’s immigration rules.

Kiseki is an award-winning photographer whose work on Hong Kong protests was regularly published by Japanese media outlets. She has also published a photo book and held an exhibition in Japan featuring her Hong Kong protest photos, according to her website. 

CPJ reached out to Kiseki via messaging app, but she declined to comment. The Hong Kong immigration department did not immediately respond to CPJ’s email requesting comment.

CPJ has documented the steady erosion of press freedom in the former British colony. China was the world’s second-worst jailer of journalists in 2022, according to CPJ’s annual prison census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

A court sentenced Tang to 15 months’ imprisonment on December 21, 2022, on charges of “possession of offensive weapons in a public place” while on assignment for the Taiwanese public broadcaster Public Television Service (PTS), the outlet’s producer Hsu Yun-kang told CPJ. Tang was originally arrested in November 2019 then released on bail; he was remanded in custody pending sentence after he was found guilty on November 30, 2022. Hsu said he will appeal. 

Separately, Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal overturned Choy Kin-yue’s successful high court appeal against his conviction by a lower court for participating in an “unlawful assembly” in March 2020. Choy, an independent cameraman, began serving his three-month prison sentence on the day of the final verdict, December 16, 2022. News reports said he began filming protests in June 2019 hoping the footage could be used for news and documentaries.   

“The imprisonment of Tang Cheuk-yu and Choy Kin-yue is another example of how the relentless pursuit of criminal charges against reporters has decimated the city’s independent media,” said Iris Hsu, CPJ’s China representative. “Authorities should release them at once and drop all legal proceedings against them and other journalists facing jail time for pursuing their profession.”

Police arrested Tang while he was filming their tense standoff with protesters at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on November 18, 2019, and charged him with “possession of anything with intent to destroy or damage property”, and “possession of offensive weapons in a public place,” according to court records. He was released on bail two days later.

Tang was wearing a press vest during his arrest, PTS said, and police confiscated his camera and equipment, including a laser pen, a multipurpose tool, and ropes which he told the court he used to secure his camera. Prosecutors subsequently characterized them as weapons.

Choy, who has worked in Hong Kong’s film industry, was arrested on March 8, 2020 after he filmed a group of people chasing a plainclothes police officer at a gathering to mourn the death of a pro-democracy protester. After Choy was handed the three-month sentence in August 2021, a high court judge acquitted him on appeal in March 2022. The prosecution appealed that decision, resulting in his imprisonment in December.

The Hong Kong Police Force did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

China was the world’s second-worst jailer of journalists in 2022, according to CPJ’s annual prison census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Madeline Earp.

“The harsh sentence handed to Jimmy Lai on trumped-up fraud charges shows how Beijing and Hong Kong will stop at nothing to eliminate any dissenting voices,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi in Frankfurt, Germany. “Authorities must end this persecution once and for all. Lai is 75 and has served two years behind bars. He must be released immediately and all charges must be dropped.”

The sentence was handed down after a court on October 25 convicted Lai of two counts of fraud for allegedly violating the terms of the lease of Next Digital’s headquarters. He was also fined HK$2 million (US$257,000).

Lai plans to appeal the jail sentence, former Next Digital executive Mark Simon told CPJ via email.

Wong Wai-keung, a Next Digital administrative director was also convicted on the same charge and sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Lai has been in prison since December 2020 and has served a 20-month prison term for two other charges relating to his alleged involvement with unauthorized demonstrations. He is awaiting trial on national security charges, for which he faces life imprisonment; proceedings are expected to begin on December 13.

In 2021, Lai received CPJ’s Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award in recognition of his extraordinary and sustained commitment to press freedom.

China was the world’s worst jailer of journalists in 2021, according to CPJ’s 2021 prison census, the first time that journalists in Hong Kong appeared on CPJ’s census. CPJ will release its 2022 prison census on December 14.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

The Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) is really a chat fest held between Australian Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs along with the US Secretaries of State and Defense, accompanied by officials of touted seniority.  Advertised as an occasion for the states “to discuss and share perspectives and approaches on major global and regional political issues, and to deepen bilateral foreign security and defence cooperation,” it is more accurately an occasion for Washington to keep an eye on its satellite.

The occasion would have been a disappointment for sceptics of the US-Australian alliance, one that has seen Australians join, with somnambulistic facility, failed distant, needless wars.  Even with a change of government in Canberra, it is clear that the US security lobby remains ascendant, tranquilising Australian politicians with the virtues of the alliance.

The joint statement from Blinken, Austin, Wong and Marles was filled with the gruel of banality: rules-based order, as they understood it; the importance of the relationship to “regional peace and prosperity”, despite signs it is becoming increasingly dangerous to that cause; and utterances about human rights and fundamental freedoms.

For keen watchers of encroaching militarism, the following would have stood out: “The principals also decided to evolve their defense and security cooperation to ensure they are equipped to deter aggression, counter coercion, and make space for sovereign decision making.”

This could hardly be a reference to Australian sovereignty, given its whittling down over the years to the decisions of an increasingly more engaged US in the Indo-Pacific region.  While Canberra decries any moves by Pacific Island neighbours to exercise their own rights of sovereignty to seal security arrangements with Beijing, it ignores its own subordinate, increasingly garrisoned role in the US imperium.

China comes in for a predictable mauling, given its actions in the South China Sea and the making of “excessive maritime claims that are inconsistent with international law.”  Wishing to enrage the Yellow Devil further, the parties also reiterate “Taiwan’s role as a leading democracy in the Indo-Pacific region, an important regional economy, and a key contributor to critical supply chains.”

Strategic competition, as a concept, was fine in principle, but to be pursued “responsibly,” a word that has little meaning in the thuggery of international politics.  The parties also agreed to “work together to ensure competition does not escalate into conflict” and looked to the PRC “to do the same and to engage Beijing on risk reduction and transparency measures.”  More could be done on the issue of transparency and China’s nuclear arsenal, for instance.

The statement then goes on to raise the importance of cooperation with Beijing in some areas of mutual concern followed by a sharp backhanded serve.  Cooperation with China on “issues of shared interest, including climate change, pandemic threats, non-proliferation, countering illicit and illegal narcotics, the global food crisis, and macroeconomic issues” was important, but so was “enhancing deterrence and resilience through coordinated efforts to offer Indo-Pacific nations support to resist subversion and coercion of any kind.”

There is also more poking with the expression of “serious concerns about severe human rights violations in Xinjiang, the human rights situation in Tibet, and the systematic erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy, democratic institutions, and processes undermining commitments made by the PRC before the handover.”

Australia’s promised submarines under the AUKUS security pact, almost as credible as the Loch Ness monster, receives an airing.  Giving nothing away, the statement “commended the significant progress AUKUS partners have made on developing the optimal pathway for Australia to acquire a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability at the earliest possible date.”  No date is provided, but a year on when that optimal pathway will be miraculously revealed is 2023.  Best not wait up.

The joint statement does little to dissuade the idea that Australia is moving, inexorably, towards a satellite, garrison state to be disposed of and used by the US imperium.  Under the “Forced Posture Initiatives” – the wording is telling – the US will further integrate Australia into its military operations via Enhanced Land Cooperation, Enhanced Maritime Cooperation, and the Combined, Logistics, Sustainment, and Maintenance Enterprise.

The US armed forces would continue its “rotational presence” in Australia across air, land and sea including “US Bomber Task Force rotations, fighters, and future rotations of US Navy and US Army capabilities.”  The emphasis, in other words, is entirely US-centric, with Australia’s posture being rather supine, even as it aids “US force posture with associated infrastructure, including runway improvements, parking aprons, fuel infrastructure, explosive storage infrastructure, and facilities to support the workforce.”

What a wonderful list of targets for any future foe, and bound to become even juicier with Austin’s promise to “find ways to further integrate our defense industrial bases in the years ahead.”

While they do not tend to make regular appearances on uncritical mainstream news outlets, Australian civil society members have been alarmed by such moves. The 280 submissions to the Independent and Peaceful Australian Network (IPAN) addressing the high cost of Australia’s relationship with the United States attest to a very different narrative.

IPAN’s report drawn from its People’s Inquiry into “Exploring the Case for an Independent and Peaceful Australia,” informed by those submissions and released last month, should be mandatory reading for Canberra’s insular policy hacks.  In his contribution to the report covering the defence and military aspects of the alliance, Vince Scappatura took note of the most pressing concern among the submissions: “that the alliance makes Australia an unnecessary target of America’s foes.”

The alliance has also seen Australia committed to “several needless and costly wars and is likely to do so again in the future, with especially grave consequences in the context of the great power rivalry between the US and China.”  Unfortunately for the industrious Scappatura and those honourable souls determined to force a revision of the relationship, the sleepwalkers are in charge.  And when that happens, wars are rarely far away.

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

• New international mediation center in Hong Kong
• Growth of state-owned enterprise assets
• Scientists clone mutant gene of a corn variety
• Qatar World Cup and panda diplomacy

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dongsheng News.

The Honorable John Lee
Chief Executive
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China
Chief Executive’s Office
Tamar, Hong Kong

Sent via email: ceo@ceo.gov.hk

Dear Chief Executive Lee,

We, the undersigned press freedom and human rights groups, are writing to request your leadership to cease targeted persecution against Jimmy Lai, the 74-year-old founder of Next Digital Limited and the Apple Daily newspaper, release him from jail, and immediately drop all charges against him.

On December 1, Lai will stand trial without a jury on collusion charges under the national security law. He has been behind bars for more than 22 months since December 2020 after being charged under the national security law.

Prior to your inauguration in July, you promised freedom of the press in Hong Kong would continue to be protected by the city’s Basic Law and meet the international standards of media freedom. You reiterated in a September speech at a National Day media reception that Hong Kong is governed by rule of law, and that freedom of speech and of the media are fully guaranteed under the Basic Law.

We welcomed your commitment to uphold press freedom and your remarks recognizing journalists as a force “for societal progression and the improvement of people’s lives through objective and fair reporting and commentary.”

But these promises ring hollow when Lai, one of Hong Kong’s best-known media figures, sits behind bars for his commitment to critical journalism. Such journalism is essential to your efforts in cementing Hong Kong’s role as a global financial hub, for which a free press and judicial independence are vital elements, and to comply with international legal obligations to uphold press freedom.

Lai’s imprisonment and the jailing of other Hong Kong journalists, including several executives of the now-defunct Apple Daily, have seriously undermined the confidence in the city’s judiciary and the rule of law.

Lai was first sentenced to 14 months in prison in April 2021 for “organizing and knowingly taking part in unauthorized assemblies” in August 2019. The following month, a court sentenced him to another 14 months for “organizing an unauthorized assembly” in October 2019 and ordered Lai to serve a total of 20 months’ imprisonment.

In December 2021, Lai was sentenced again to 13 months in prison for “inciting others” to take part in an unauthorized assembly in 2020.

While the judge ordered the sentence to run concurrently to the previous sentences he was serving, Lai has now been behind bars for more than 22 months, exceeding the 20-month term he was previously given.

As well as his upcoming national security trial, a court in October found Lai guilty of fraud for allegedly violating the lease of Next Digital’s headquarters, although it is clear that he was targeted in retaliation for his journalism.

Also in October, another court upheld a ruling that police could search Lai’s two mobile phones that stored journalistic information, violating the basic principles of press freedom and journalistic confidentiality.

In addition, his international legal team at Doughty Street Chambers has faced intimidation and harassment through anonymous emails, warning the lawyers against traveling to Hong Kong to defend Lai or risk facing action under the subversion law.

We welcome your pledge to enhance the confidence of the public and the international community in Hong Kong’s rule of law in your first policy address as chief executive. As the chairperson of the Committee for Safeguarding National Security of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that oversees the Hong Kong Police Force’s national security department, exercising your authority to drop the charges against Jimmy Lai and free him immediately is a crucial step toward regaining global confidence in Hong Kong.

Time is of the essence for your government to act and we strongly urge you to do so now.

Sincerely,

Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
Association of Taiwan Journalists
Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation
Committee to Protect Journalists
Croatian PEN Centre
Freedom House
Human Rights Watch
Independent Chinese PEN Center
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
PEN America
PEN Club Français
PEN International
PEN Lebanon
PEN Netherlands
PEN Türkiye Center
PEN Ukraine
Peoples’ Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR), India
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Swedish PEN
Taiwan Association for China Human Rights
Trieste PEN Centre
Vietnamese League for Human Rights in Switzerland

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Jennifer Dunham.

“Today’s conviction of Jimmy Lai on trumped-up fraud charges shows that Hong Kong will stop at nothing to silence one of its fiercest media critics,” said CPJ President Jodie Ginsberg in New York. “Lai is clearly being targeted for his journalism, and the persecution must stop. Hong Kong authorities should let Lai go free and drop all charges against him.”

The court convicted Lai of two counts of fraud for allegedly violating the terms of the lease of Next Digital’s headquarters. A sentence has yet to be announced, but Lai will appeal, Next Digital executive Mark Simon told CPJ via email. 

Wong Wai-keung, a Next Digital administrative director who has been awaiting trial on bail, was also convicted on the same charge.

Lai has been behind bars since December 2020 and has served a 20-month prison term for two other charges relating to his alleged involvement with unauthorized demonstrations. He is awaiting trial on national security charges, for which he faces life imprisonment; proceedings are expected to begin on December 1.

In 2021, Lai received CPJ’s Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award in recognition of his extraordinary and sustained commitment to press freedom.

China was the world’s worst jailer of journalists in 2021, according to CPJ’s December 1 prison census. It was also the first time that journalists in Hong Kong appeared on CPJ’s census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Madeline Earp.

“Today’s sentencing of radio host Edmund Wan Yiu-sing to 32 months in prison shows Hong Kong authorities’ relentless efforts to silence political criticism by journalists,” said Iris Hsu, CPJ’s China representative. “The government should stop using the colonial-era sedition law and apparent retaliatory charges of financial crimes against the press.”

Wan, an internet radio host who broadcasts under the name “Giggs,” hosted shows for the independent station D100 that report and comment on political issues in mainland China and Hong Kong. Wan also called for donations to support Hong Kongers who have left Hong Kong to study in Taiwan on his website and social media, according to news reports.

According to a press summary published by the Hong Kong Judiciary, Wan pleaded guilty on September 1 to one count of sedition and three counts of money laundering, and the confiscation of HK$4.87 million (US$620,386), under a plea agreement. In return, six other similar charges were left on file and cannot be brought against Wan without the court’s permission.

According to CPJ research, Wan has been held behind bars for 20 months since his arrest in February 2021.

CPJ’s December 1, 2021, prison census found that China remained the world’s worst jailer of journalists for the third year in a row. It was the first time that journalists in Hong Kong appeared on CPJ’s census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Jennifer Dunham.

On the morning of Wednesday, September 7, Hong Kong police arrested Chan, a reporter for the independent online news outlet Channel C HK and chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, according to news reports.

Chan was covering an apartment owners’ meeting in Mong Kok when police asked to see his identity card and then took him into custody at the Mong Kok Police Station, according to those reports and Channel C HK, which said Chan had been covering the event with a videographer, who also showed his identification to police but was not arrested.

Authorities accuse Chan of obstructing police officers and public disorder, according to those news reports. He remained in custody as of Wednesday evening, according to his employer.

“Hong Kong police must stop harassing journalists and allow them to do their jobs,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director, in New York. “The police force’s arrest of Ronson Chan belies claims made by authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong that the city’s press is free to carry out its work unhindered.”

According to news reports, police said officers found two men at the apartment owner’s meeting behaving suspiciously and asked them to show their identification. Police identified the men as surnamed Lee and Chan, and said Lee complied with police and Chan behaved uncooperatively and was taken into custody, those reports said.

If convicted of obstructing the police, Chan could face up to six months in prison; if convicted of public disorder, he could face up to one year, according to those laws.

Chan, a veteran journalist and former deputy assignment editor for the now-shuttered outlet Stand News, chairs the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the city’s largest journalist union, those news reports said. The association has considered disbanding amid legal pressure but is still functioning, as CPJ has documented.

Chan was previously arrested along with five others affiliated with Stand News in December 2021. He is scheduled to leave the city at the end of September for a Reuters Institute fellowship at Oxford University, Chan wrote on Facebook.  

CPJ emailed the Hong Kong police for comment, but did not immediately receive any response.

CPJ’s December 1, 2021, prison census found that China remained the world’s worst jailer of journalists for the third year in a row. It was the first time that journalists in Hong Kong appeared on CPJ’s census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On Tuesday, August 30, a High Court judge ruled that police could search two phones with journalistic information owned by Lai, the imprisoned founder of the Next Digital media company and the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, according to news reports. Lai’s legal team has said they will file an appeal, and the court ruled that the search would not be conducted until 11 p.m. on September 6, while the appeal is pending, according to those reports.

“Hong Kong authorities’ pursuit of information on Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai’s phones violates basic principles of press freedom and journalistic confidentiality,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director, in New York. “Hong Kong authorities should not contest Lai’s appeal against this search, and should release him and all other Next Digital executives held in retaliation for their work.”

Lai, CPJ’s 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Awardee, is being held in pretrial detention after serving a 20-month prison term for charges related to his alleged involvement in illegal demonstrations. He is awaiting trial on national security and sedition charges, according to CPJ research; if convicted on the national security charges, he could face life in prison.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On the evening of Thursday, June 16, applications closed for media outlets to seek access to cover ceremonies marking both events, scheduled for July 1; the Hong Kong Journalists Association trade group and the Hong Kong Free Press news website both reported that at least 10 domestic and local outlets were not invited or allowed to apply to cover the events.

The HKFP reported that many of those outlets regularly receive invitations to other Hong Kong government events, but the Information Services Department, the government’s primary communication agency, said only select media outlets had been invited to cover the July 1 events due to considerations including the COVID-19 pandemic, security requirements, and space restraints.

Hong Kong news website InMedia reported that, when it applied to cover the events, an Information Services Department official said “those who need invitations have already received theirs.”

“Hong Kong’s claims to honor press freedom should compel it to offer open access for media coverage of important events, such as the inauguration of John Lee as chief executive and the 25th anniversary of the handover,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Barring some media outlets from freely covering such events severely undercuts the credibility of incoming Chief Executive Lee, who has repeatedly said that Hong Kong enjoys press freedom.”

The Information Services Department failed to invite or approve access for the Japanese outlets Nikkei, Asahi Shimbun, and Kyodo News; Taiwan’s CTV; the U.S. photo wire Getty Images; the Europe Pressphoto Agency; and Hong Kong’s InMedia, the Photographic Society of Hong Kong, Truth Media Hong Kong, and the HKFP, according to the HKFP’s report.

According to InMedia, the department asked news outlets to include photos and the personal information of the journalists who planned to attend in their applications.

In its statement, the Hong Kong Journalists Association called for authorities to be more inclusive by accepting media organizations’ applications to attend the events.

CPJ emailed the Information Services Department for comment but did not immediately receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

On Monday, May 23, Hong Kong’s West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court sentenced Wu to one month in prison for behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place under the city’s public order ordinance for questioning police during a HK Golden live broadcast as he was covering a pro-democracy student event in central Hong Kong in April 2021, according to news reports.

“Hong Kong authorities should be embarrassed for jailing journalist Eric Wu Ka-Fai merely for asking tough questions of the police, as he had every right to do,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia coordinator, in Washington in D.C. “Hong Kong authorities continue to claim that press freedom prevails in the Chinese-ruled city, but cases like Wu’s prove otherwise.”

According to reports, Wu, who also reports under the name Gwanfolo, was detained on September 29, 2021 and released on bail the next day on charges of behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place, willfully obstructing a police officer on duty, and refusing to obey an order of a police officer. The charges stemmed from his questioning of police during his HK Golden livestream on April 15, 2021, of a pro-democracy street booth erected by student group Student Politicism. On Monday, the judge acquitted Wu of the latter two charges, the reports said. 

In video of Wu’s April 15 livestream, police officers can be seen blocking Wu as he tries to film them questioning the student group. Wu raises his voice and asks the officers whether they intend to hit the crowd when an officer pulls out a stick, later revealed to be a selfie stick, from a bag. The officer says, “police don’t hit people,” and Wu confronts him, saying, “Police don’t hit people? Wasn’t Franklin Chu King Wai [who was jailed for hitting a bystander during Hong Kong protests in 2014] a police officer? Weren’t the seven officers [convicted of assaulting pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang in 2014] police?” Wu also cites cases of alleged police theft and sexual misconduct in the livestream. 

According to the reports, the judge said Wu’s recounting of alleged police misconduct in a public place constituted a disorderly conduct offense because it could have incited collective hatred toward police at the scene resulting in violence. 

CPJ emailed the Hong Kong police force and the Hong Kong department of justice as well as its prosecution division for comment but did not immediately receive any replies. 

CPJ’s 2021 prison census found that China remained the world’s worst jailer of journalists for the third year in a row. It was the first time that journalists in Hong Kong appeared on CPJ’s census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On the morning of Monday, April 11, the Hong Kong Police Force’s national security department arrested Au at his home in Kwai Chung on suspicion of conspiring to publish seditious publications, according to news reports. Police did not disclose the specific reason for his arrest; those reports said it was linked to authorities’ 2021 crackdown on the now-shuttered nonprofit news website Stand News, where Au had worked as a columnist.

“The arrest of journalist Allan Au Ka-lun shows once again that Hong Kong’s claims to have maintained press freedom are rubbish,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Hong Kong police must release Au at once, drop any charges against him, and allow journalists to work without interference.”

In December 2021, police raided Stand News and arrested six people on the same sedition allegations. If charged and convicted, Au and those defendants could face a fine of up to $5,000 Hong Kong dollars (US$637), up to two years imprisonment for a first offense, and up to three years for subsequent offenses, according to Hong Kong’s Crimes Ordinance.

Au formerly worked as a producer for the Chinese-language news broadcaster TVB News, as a radio host for the public broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong, and as a columnist for Stand News and the Chinese-language newspaper Ming Pao, according to those news reports.

He frequently posts political commentary on his personal Facebook page, where he has about 5,300 followers, and also works as a consultant for the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s School of Journalism and Communication, according to those reports and the school’s website.

CPJ emailed the Hong Kong Police Force for comment, but did not immediately receive any reply.

CPJ’s 2021 prison census found that China remained the world’s worst jailer of journalists for the third year in a row. It was the first time that journalists in Hong Kong appeared on CPJ’s census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

The number of people with covid-19 who have died in New Zealand has now reached 105, with 14 deaths reported in the past two days.

There are more than 206,000 active cases of covid-19 in the community, with another 18,699 new community cases reported today.

The Ministry of Health announced seven further deaths of people with covid-19 today which, after another seven deaths yesterday, has taken the total death toll to 105.

• READ MORE: Covid-19 update: Seven further deaths, 18,699 new community cases
• Other NZ covid outbreak reports

But University of Otago professor of international health Dr Philip Hill said international statistics for deaths showed that New Zealand’s number could easily have been in the thousands had the country not had high vaccination rates and effective pandemic restrictions.

“I think what we are seeing is just how wonderful a vaccine we’ve got, that we’re having a massive covid-19 outbreak and not experiencing huge numbers of deaths.”

Hill stressed it should be remembered that covid-19 was continuing to kill New Zealanders, and just like earlier variants omicron was a life-threatening disease.

But he said that with covid-19 so widespread some of the deaths in the death tally so far include people whose death occurred because of other causes, while they also had the virus.

“The classification of these deaths has not been complete for many of them, which basically means that there are significant numbers of people who are dying of something else and that coincidentally have covid-19. That can be quite tricky to tease out.”

In a statement, the Ministry of Health said there were 853 people in hospital with covid-19, including 17 in ICU.

However, Auckland health authorities remain cautiously optimistic that the omicron outbreak may have peaked in the country’s biggest city, and community case numbers in the region continue to slowly fall, with 6077 cases reported today — down from 7240 yesterday and less than half the number reported last week.

‘These are clearly seriously premature deaths’
Epidemiologist Professor Rod Jackson of Auckland University urged older people to take the risk of covid-19 seriously as the number of deaths from the virus continued to rise.

Six of the 14 deaths in the past two days were people in their seventies.

Jackson said it was inevitable that the older population would feel the effects of the virus as it passed from kids to their parents and onwards.

But he said it was not just the oldest people in the community who were at high risk.

“These are clearly seriously premature deaths, this is not just old sick people who are going to die in the next few days, these are people who are losing years of a potential healthy life,” he said.

Stark wake-up call
Dr Jackson said the death toll in Hong Kong was a stark wake-up call for those writing it off as a mild illness.

“You just have to look at Hong Kong today; it’s a population of 7.5 million, so it’s only New Zealand plus a half, and they’re having well over 200 deaths a day. Their health services are overwhelmed. They’re in big trouble at the moment.”

Dr Jackson urged people to keep acting with caution to prevent the spread, and to seek medical advice if they were concerned about their health.

On Thursday the Ministry of Health changed how covid-19-related deaths are reported.

The death of anyone who dies within 28 days of testing positive for covid-19 is now reported.

This group is divided into three categories:

• where covid-19 is the clear cause of death;
• where there was another clear cause of death; and
• where the cause of deaths is not known.

Deaths will mount
By Thursday this week, 34 people had died where covid-19 was clearly the cause, two people had died of another clear cause after testing positive for covid-19, and the deaths of 48 people with the virus did not yet have a clear cause, the ministry said.

As covid-19 cases mount, increasing numbers of deaths will also follow as people progress through the disease, the ministry said.

“It important to remember that each of these deaths represents significant loss for family and loved ones.”

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dongsheng News.

On the face of it, truly free reporting seems improbable given China’s miserable record of dealing with the international press and its recent highly aggressive bully-on-the-block posture in foreign affairs. Nonetheless, that’s what both China and the International Olympic Committee are promising. Well, almost.

Severe COVID-related restrictions on journalists covering last year’s Tokyo Olympics set an easy precedent for Beijing to follow. Journalists reporting on the Beijing Games will be strictly confined to the Olympic Village, using dedicated transportation to take them to event sites, in effect sealing them off from ordinary Chinese people.

Inside the Games’ bubble, however, journalists have been promised free and open access to the internet and social media that’s denied everywhere else in China. Beijing’s contract with the IOC commits it to ensuring that “there shall be no restrictions or limitations on the freedom of the media to provide independent news coverage,” and Christian Klaue, IOC director of corporate communications and public affairs department, told CPJ in an email that the IOC “has obtained all the necessary guarantees from Beijing 2022.”

Still, past experience doesn’t encourage optimism. In the run-up to the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, China made many promises. Journalists would be allowed to travel the country and talk to anyone willing to talk to them without interference. But it didn’t turn out that way. During the Games themselves, the Foreign Correspondents Club of China (FCCC) documented at least 30 cases of interference in reporting, including police assaults of journalists. In the first eight months of 2008, the FCCC documented 172 incidents – nearly as many as in all of the previous year – suggesting that violence, harassment of sources and staff, destruction of journalistic materials, detentions, and surveillance actually took a turn for the worse during the run-up to the 2008 Games.

Since the 2008 Games, China has prevented journalists from freely covering China, including in Hong Kong. A simple statistic tells the story. In 2008, CPJ counted 30 journalists in jail in China. For 2021, the total came to 50, making China the world’s leading jailer of journalists for the third year running. One of them is Zhang Zhan, who sits in a jail in Shanghai, wasting away from a hunger strike, after she walked around the city of Wuhan in the spring of 2020 asking people about the spread of COVID-19 and putting up videos on the internet. For the first time since CPJ began its annual survey of imprisoned journalists in 1992, Hong Kong journalists appeared on the list in 2021.

The FCCC has documented a steady deterioration of the treatment of international journalists working in China. As the FCCC noted in 2021, “media freedoms deteriorated significantly” since the year prior. At least 18 foreign journalists were expelled in the first half of 2020, while replacements were refused visas. Overall, the report offers a chilling description of the intense harassment and surveillance of international journalists who try to report the news. 

Last year, journalists covering the severe flooding in Henan Province were subject to intense harassment. The provincial Communist League asked its 1.6 million followers to use the social media site Weibo to report on the movements of BBC reporter Robin Brant, according to the FCCC. The BBC has been a particular object of scrutiny, with reporter John Sudworth fleeing to Taiwan after nine years on the mainland, citing intense harassment after his reporting on Xinjiang rights abuses that made it “too risky to carry on.” Earlier in the year, China banned the BBC World News from distributing content in the country.

In the run-up to the Games, the FCCC complained in early November that reporters trying to cover preparations were “denied attendance at routine events, and prevented from visiting sports venues in China.” That followed China’s explicit promise that “media seeking to report on the Games would have freedom to report…and would also be free to report on Games preparations,” as the report noted.  In the last year, the foreign press corps has largely been unable to attend any press conferences or even observe routine events – such as venue visits or the arrival of the Olympic flame – which are open to Chinese domestic media.

Accounts of these sorts of incidents could fill many pages.

The February Games may well produce better-looking statistics than in 2008, but hardly for the right reasons, since interaction with ordinary Chinese will be impossible. Klaue says the IOC “could see already during the test events that the internet was open within Olympic venues and media transport services and the athletes posted about their experience on social media. We have no reason to doubt that this will not be the case at Games-time.”

China may indeed have little reason to interfere with international journalists focused only on covering the sports competition.

But will the country’s leaders tolerate severe criticism of the venues or management of the events? Will the athletes stay quiet about what Human Rights Watch has termed “crimes against humanity” in China’s far west territory of Xinjiang? And that others have called genocide?  If athletes speak out, journalists will be there to report it. Will journalists stay silent about the progressive deprivation of rights in Hong Kong, including the forced closure of independent news outlets, like the Apple Daily and Stand News?

Will journalists ignore criticisms that Olympic merchandise may have been made with forced labor? Will they fail to mention in their reports on the Games the sexual assault allegations against a Chinese official leveled by the tennis star, and former Olympian Peng Shuai? And the doubts about her treatment afterwards? Including accusations that the IOC itself has been complicit in advancing China’s whitewashing of the affair, despite claims by the IOC that it is using “quiet diplomacy” to assure Peng’s well-being and safety? (CPJ emailed China’s Foreign Ministry and the Beijing Olympic organizing committee for comment but neither responded before publication.)

This will be the test of China’s commitment and the IOC’s pledge. The Olympics have always been highly politicized events that national hosts use to bolster their international image, and that teams and individual athletes use to bring glory to their own countries. What if, instead of bringing glory to the host country, the Games stimulate an embarrassing stream of negative coverage about China?

China’s foreign ministry has repeatedly opposed the idea of politicizing sports.  However, it has also said that journalists covering the Beijing Winter Olympics must still abide by “relevant laws and regulations.” It bears reminding that China’s relevant laws and regulations are responsible for the country earning the sorry distinction of being the world’s worst jailer of journalists.  

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Steven Butler/CPJ Asia Program Coordinator.

Hong Kong independent media Stand News has announced it has shut down following the arrest last week of six current and former members of its team.

The Paris-based global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called for the release of all journalists detained and urges democracies to react and defend what is left of the free press in the territory.

On the morning of December 29, six current and former team members of Chinese-language news site Stand News were arrested by the police force’s National Security Department on allegations of “conspiracy to publish seditious publications”, a colonial-era crime that bears a maximum sentence of two years in prison.

• READ MORE: Other Hong Kong democracy reports

The detainees are acting chief editor Patrick Lam Shiu-tung, former chief editor Chung Pui-kuen, and four former board members: Denise Ho Wan-see, Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, Chow Tat-chi and Christine Fang Meng-sang.

Next day, December 30, the four board members — Denise Ho Wan-see, Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, Chow Tat-chi and Christine Fang Meng-sang — were released on a bail, while chief editors Patrick Lam Shiu-tung and Chung Pui-kuen will stay in custody until the trial.

Simultaneously on the day of the arrests, a total of 200 police officers raided the Stand News office and searched the house of Stand News’ deputy assignment editor, Ronson Chan Long-sing.

Chan, who is also the chair of Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), was taken away and later released after questioning.

Defend ‘what’s left of free press’
“Exactly six months after the dismantling of the Next Digital group and its flagship newspaper Apple Daily, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam once again shows her determination to terminate press freedom in the territory by eliminating Stand News in a similar fashion”, said Cédric Alviani, RSF East Asia bureau head, who called for the release of all journalists and urges democracies “to act in line with their own values and obligations and defend what’s left of the free press in Hong Kong before China’s model of information control claims another victim”.

Stand News, an independent, non-profit, news website in Chinese founded in 2014, provided in-depth coverage of all trials related to the National Security Law, and was a nominee for the 2021 RSF Press Freedom Awards.

In June, Chief Executive Lam also used the National Security Law as pretext to shut down Apple Daily, the territory’s largest Chinese-language opposition newspaper, and to prosecute at least 12 journalists and press freedom defenders, 10 of whom are still detained.

In a report titled “The Great Leap Backwards of Journalism in China”, published on 7 December 2021, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) revealed the system of censorship and information control established by the Chinese regime and the global threat it poses to press freedom and democracy.

Hong Kong, once a bastion of press freedom, has fallen from 18th place in 2002 to 80th place in the 2020 RSF World Press Freedom Index.

The People’s Republic of China, for its part, has stagnated at 177th out of 180.

Republished with permission. Asia Pacific Report collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

“The arrests of six people associated with Stand News amounts to an open assault on Hong Kong’s already tattered press freedom, as China steps up direct control over the former colony,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Authorities must release the six and drop all charges against them immediately if Hong Kong is to retain any semblance of the freedoms that its residents enjoyed only a few years ago.”

Hundreds of officers with the Hong Kong Police Force’s national security department raided the offices of the nonprofit Chinese-language news website on the morning of December 29, according to reports by the Hong Kong Free Press and the South China Morning Post. Police said the raid was authorized under the 2020 national security law, those reports said.

Police also arrested six people affiliated with the outlet on suspicion of conspiring to commit sedition under the colonial-era Crimes Law, according to those reports, which identified those arrested as deputy assignment editor Ronson Chan, acting chief editor Patrick Lam, former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen, and former director and chief science editor Chow Tai-chi.

The other two arrested, singer Denise Ho and lawyer Margaret Ng, are former members of Stand News’s board, those reports said, which also noted that Chan chairs the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

CPJ’s 2021 prison census has found that China remains the world’s worst jailer of journalists for the third year in a row. This year marked the first time that journalists in Hong Kong were imprisoned for their work, according to CPJ’s census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

New Zealand’s condemnation of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council elections reflects a “hardening stance” towards China, says a leading defence analyst.

Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta last week joined her Five Eyes counterparts to express “grave concern” over the erosion of democratic elements of the new electoral system.

“Actions that undermine Hong Kong’s rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy are threatening our shared wish to see Hong Kong succeed,” the joint statement reads.

• READ MORE: G7 condemns ‘erosion’ of democracy in Hong Kong election

Pro-Beijing candidates swept the seats under the new “patriots-only” rules that saw a record-low voting turnout of 30.2 percent; almost half of the previous legislative poll in 2016.

New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States are now urging the People’s Republic of China to respect protected rights and fundamental freedoms of Hong Kong.

Director of 36th Parallel Assessments Dr Paul Buchanan said this reflected New Zealand’s cooling relationship with China as it increasingly aligned itself with its traditional partners.

“It’s very clear something has shifted in the logic of the security community and foreign policy community in Wellington. I tend to believe it is Chinese behaviour rather than pressure from our allies, but it may be a combination of both,” he said.

Increasing Chinese pressure
New Zealand’s relationship with China has come under increasing pressure this year after it raised concerns about Chinese state-funded hacking and the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

Mahuta has previously said New Zealand would be “uncomfortable” with the remit of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance being expanded to include diplomatic matters.

Dr Buchanan said it was not clear if last week’s joint statement on the Hong Kong elections was consistent with this stated independent foreign policy, or a sign New Zealand had abandoned this to better align itself with its traditional partners.

“That’s an open question to me, because I can see that the government can maintain independence and say, ‘simply on the issue of Hong Kong and China we side with our traditional partners, but on any range of other issues, we don’t necessarily fall in line with them’,” he said.

“On the other hand, maybe the government has made a decision that the threat from the Chinese is of such a magnitude it’s time to pick a side, get off straddling the fence and choose the side of our traditional partners because the Chinese values are inimical to the New Zealand way of life.”

Dr Buchanan said a “hardening stance” towards China was in line with the contents of a new defence report that recently identified ‘China’s rise’ and its power struggle with the United States as one of the pre-eminent security risks in the Indo-Pacific.

“This may be more reflective of the security officials’ concerns about China and that may not be shared by the entirety of the current government.

General consensus
“Although, the fact that the foreign minister signed off on this latest Five Eyes statement regarding Hong Kong would indicate that there is a general consensus within the New Zealand foreign policy and security establishment that China is a threat.”

In response to the joint Five Eyes statement on Hong Kong, the Chinese Embassy issued a statement telling the members to stop interfering with Hong Kong and China’s affairs.

Of particular concern, Dr Buchanan said, was China’s explicit assertion in this response it was led by China’s Constitution and the Basic Law, not the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in its administration of Hong Kong.

“The Chinese now have said that the joint declaration signed in 1997, no longer applies and all that applies in Hong Kong is Chinese law.

“So they’ve violated their commitment to that principle and that’s symptomatic of an increasingly-hardened approach to everything, quite frankly, of a policy matter under Xi Jinping.”

Dr Buchanan said New Zealand, whose biggest trading partner is China, was positioned as the most vulnerable of the Five Eyes partners to any potential economic retaliation from China.

“It would be pretty easy to see that if the Chinese are going to retaliate against anybody in the Anglophone world, it would more than likely be us because it’ll cost them very little, people have to change their dietary habits among the Chinese middle class, but it will have a dramatic effect on us because a third of our GDP is tied up with bilateral trade with China.

“But the government has clearly signalled that it’s seeking to diversify. It has now signalled that on the diplomatic and security front, it sees the Chinese increasingly as a malign actor, and so whatever is coming on the horizon, this government at least appears prepared to weather the storm.”

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Paris-based global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned three “dictatorial regimes” — Belarus, China and Myanmar — for their role in a global surge in the jailing of journalists doing their job.

According to the RSF annual round-up, a record number of journalists — 488, including 60 women — are currently detained worldwide, while another 65 are being held hostage.

Meanwhile, the number of journalists killed in 2021 — 46 — is at its lowest in 20 years.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Media Watch reports

RSF said in a statement that the number of journalists detained in connection with their work had never been this high since the watchdog began publishing its annual round-up in 1995.

RSF logged a total of 488 journalists and media workers in prison in mid-December 2021, or 20 percent more than at the same time last year.

This exceptional surge in arbitrary detention is due, above all, to three countries — Myanmar, where the military retook power in a coup on 1 February 2021; Belarus, which has seen a major crackdown since Alexander Lukashenko’s disputed reelection in August 2020; and Xi Jinping’s China, which is tightening its grip on Hong Kong, the special administrative region once seen as a regional model of respect for press freedom.

RSF has also never previously registered so many female journalists in prison, with a total of 60 currently detained in connection with their work – a third (33 percent) more than at this time last year.

China world’s biggest jailer of journalists
China, the world’s biggest jailer of journalists for the fifth year running, is also the biggest jailer of female journalists, with 19 currently detained. They include Zhang Zhan, a 2021 RSF Press Freedom laureate, who is now critically ill.

Belarus is currently holding more female journalists (17) than male (15). They include two reporters for the Poland-based independent Belarusian TV channel Belsat — Daria Chultsova and Katsiaryna Andreyeva — who were sentenced to two years in a prison camp for providing live coverage of an unauthorised demonstration.

In Myanmar, of the 53 journalists and media workers detained, nine are women.

“The extremely high number of journalists in arbitrary detention is the work of three dictatorial regimes,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said.

“It is a reflection of the reinforcement of dictatorial power worldwide, an accumulation of crises, and the lack of any scruples on the part of these regimes. It may also be the result of new geopolitical power relationships in which authoritarian regimes are not being subjected to enough pressure to curb their crackdowns.”

Another striking feature of this year’s round-up is the fall in the number of journalists killed in connection with their work — 46 from 1 January to 1 December 2021. The year 2003 was the last time that fewer than 50 journalists were killed.

This year’s fall is mostly due to a decline in the intensity of conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen and to campaigning by press freedom organisations, including RSF, for the implementation of international and national mechanisms aimed at protecting journalists.

Journalists deliberately targeted
Nonetheless, despite this remarkable fall, an average of nearly one journalist a week is still being killed in connection with their work. And RSF has established that 65 percent of the journalists killed in 2021 were deliberately targeted and eliminated.

Mexico and Afghanistan are again the two deadliest countries, with seven journalists killed in Mexico and six in Afghanistan. Yemen and India share third place, with four journalists killed in each country.

In addition to these figures, the 2021 round-up also mentions some of the year’s most striking cases. This year’s longest prison sentence, 15 years, was handed down to both Ali Aboluhom in Saudi Arabia and Pham Chi Dung in Vietnam.

The longest and most Kafkaesque trials are being inflicted on Amadou Vamoulké in Cameroon and Ali Anouzla in Morocco.

The oldest detained journalists are Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong and Kayvan Samimi Behbahani in Iran, who are 74 and 73 years old.

The French journalist Olivier Dubois was the only foreign journalist to be abducted this year. He has been held hostage in Mali since April 8.

Since 1995, RSF has been compiling annual round-ups of violence and abuses against journalists based on precise data gathered from 1 January to 1 December of the year in question.

“The 2021 round-up figures include professional journalists, non-professional journalists and media workers,” RSF explains.

“We gather detailed information that allows us to affirm with certainty or a great deal of confidence that the detention, abduction, disappearance or death of each journalist was a direct result of their journalistic work. Our methodology may explain differences between our figures and those of other organisations.”

Reporters Without Borders and Pacific Media Watch collaborate.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

“China’s efforts to silence and punish media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai over a simple expression of commemoration for those who died in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is despicable,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator in Washington, D.C. “Hong Kong authorities should allow Lai to go free and drop all pending charges against him.”

The court convicted Lai of inciting people to join the banned vigil, according to news reports, which said that seven others were also convicted of organizing, joining, or inciting others to join the event, and received prison terms ranging from 4.5 to 14 months.

In a letter that his lawyer read in court, Lai denied joining the vigil, and said he solely “lit a candle light in front of reporters” to commemorate those who were killed. He added that, if commemorating those deaths was illegal, “then inflict on me that crime and let me suffer the punishment of the crime, so I may share the burden and glory of those young men and women” who died in the massacre.

Lai is currently serving a 20-month prison term for two other charges relating to his alleged involvement with illegal demonstrations, and is awaiting trial on national security and fraud charges, according to CPJ research. If convicted on the national security charges, he could face life in prison.

Earlier this year, CPJ honored Lai with its 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

I first visited Hong Kong nearly 50 years ago as a student and returned to live there a few years later for research on a Ph.D. thesis. I subsequently paid many visits to Hong Kong as a working journalist, both before and after reversion to Chinese rule in 1997, and most recently as a press freedom advocate with CPJ.

To say that Hong Kong has changed over these years is a vast understatement.

The squeeze on press freedom didn’t start in 2021. While Hong Kongers have never participated in a full electoral democracy, they had for decades enjoyed uninhibited freedom of the press and the rule of law – factors that contributed to Hong Kong’s attractiveness as a thriving business and finance center. The colonial era anti-communist press included famed titles like the English-language South China Morning Post and the Chinese Ming Pao, while the left included the pro-communist flag wavers Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po. Many international news organizations established regional headquarters in the city because of the freedom and convenience. It was hard not to like Hong Kong for its energy, the food, the setting and its entrepreneurial, ambitious people.

The 1984 British-Chinese agreement that led to the handover to China 13 years later put Hong Kong on notice that the communists were coming, like it or not, and set in motion significant changes, as CPJ documented in a report. The anti-communist press gradually became less strident, even before the handover. Afterwards, the trend continued, with occasional physical attacks on journalists notably concentrated on critics of the Chinese or Hong Kong governments. Police frequently attacked journalists during widespread pro-democracy demonstrations in 2019.

Of course, there was a major exception to this softening of China coverage: Jimmy Lai, founder of Apple Daily and Next Digital. Lai is this year’s winner of CPJ’s Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award for “extraordinary and sustained achievement in the cause of press freedom.” And he now sits in jail for his stubborn refusal to join most of the rest of the media by curbing his openly pro-democracy and anti-communist editorial line in Apple Daily. He could remain there for the rest of his life. Six of his senior colleagues, as well as a commentator at the independent internet radio channel D100, are also in jail. The paper and Next Digital were forced out of business.

The Chinese government’s feud with Lai started in the 1990s, when, after writing a column suggesting that China’s tough Premier Li Peng “drop dead,” Lai was forced to sell his mainland Chinese clothing business that was the source of his initial wealth. An advertising squeeze on the paper, clearly orchestrated by China, started in the late 1990s and accelerated over the years. Apple Daily office, Lai’s home, and staff reporters suffered various attacks over the years.

“The very rights of journalists are being taken away,” Lai told CPJ in a 2019 interview. “We were birds in the forest and now we are being taken into a cage.” A literal cage, now.

Lai and the others have been charged under the draconian National Security Law that China imposed on July 1, 2020 after historic pro-democracy protests swept the city. While Lai and his colleagues are the most prominent media targets, the law has spread a chill through the Hong Kong community of journalists, as CPJ has documented.

The independent-minded Hong Kong Journalists Association has come under a series of attacks from the government and the pro-communist press, including a suggestion by authorities that HKJA may have breached the national security law. On November 5, the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents’ Club released a survey of its members showing that 83.8% of its members saw deterioration of the working environment for journalists, and that 71% were slightly or very concerned about possible arrest for their work. Predictably, and sadly typical, the Chinese foreign ministry office in Hong Kong blasted the FCC, saying in a threatening statement: “Its smearing of Hong Kong’s press freedom and playing-up of the chilling effect are interference in Hong Kong affairs.” 

This isn’t to say that some excellent journalism doesn’t still take place in Hong Kong by a number of news outlets and international bureaus that remain in the city. But the red lines over what’s permissible and what’s not have never been more blurry. 

As CPJ’s principal spokesperson on Hong Kong and China, I’ve been blunt and uninhibited criticizing both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments. Given China’s record of taking foreigners hostage, and Hong Kong’s still evolving application of the National Security Law, will I ever feel comfortable or safe returning to the place that I’ve grown to love over the years?  I’m not sure. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Steven Butler/CPJ Asia Program Coordinator.

Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

The Committee to Protect Journalists has called on Facebook to restore a video honouring the winners of the International Press Freedom Awards (IPFA) at CPJ’s annual awards ceremony held on November 18 and streamed on social media during the event.

Less than an hour after the stream ended, Facebook notified CPJ that the video had been withheld worldwide because of a “copyright match” to a 13-second clip owned by i-Cable News, a Hong Kong-based Cantonese-language cable news channel, reports CPJ.

CPJ emailed i-Cable Communications Limited on November 24 requesting details but received no immediate reply.

• READ MORE: Hong Kong media freedom

The clip, featuring Jimmy Lai taking a bite from an apple, was taken from an advertisement for the now-shuttered Apple Daily dating from the 1990s when he founded the newspaper.

Currently imprisoned by Chinese authorities, Lai has become a powerful symbol of press freedom as the Chinese Communist Party seeks to gain control over Hong Kong’s media and was honoured during CPJ’s award ceremony for his work.

It is not clear if Facebook applied the action automatically, or whether i-Cable News complained in an attempt to suppress the video.

The news group, i-Cable, signed an agreement in 2018 with China Mobile Limited, a state-owned telecommunication company, allowing China Mobile to use its content for the next 20 years.

“It is beyond ironic that a platform which trumpets its commitment to freedom of speech should block a video celebrating journalists who risk their lives and liberty defending it,” CPJ deputy executive director Robert Mahoney said.

“Facebook must restore the video immediately and provide a clear and timely explanation of why it was censored in the first place.”

A lawyer at Donaldson and Callif, which vetted the IPFA video for Culture House, the production house that cut the video, told CPJ in an email that the firm was of the opinion that the clip of Lai “constitutes a fair use as used in this IPFA video”.

The full awards video — and its comments, views and share — remains unavailable to Facebook users worldwide. The IPFA video is still available on YouTube and Twitter.

CPJ contacted Facebook on November 19 and again on November 22 outlining CPJ’s concerns about the video’s removal but has yet to receive an explanation for the action by the company.

CPJ has documented examples of US copyright laws being used to censor journalism globally.

The press freedom organisation has held IPFA award ceremonies since 1991 as a way to honour at-risk journalists around the globe and highlight erosions of press freedom.

Republished from Committee to Protect Journalists.

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

Hong Kong authorities refused to renew Wong’s employment visa, according to a November 12 statement by The Economist’s editor-in-chief, Zanny Minton Beddoes. The Hong Kong government did not cite any specific reason for declining to renew Wong’s visa, Beddoes said in the statement. Wong, who is Australian, was not currently in Hong Kong and was refused permission to return to the city, according to the statement and news reports.

“Hong Kong’s refusal to renew a visa for The Economist’s correspondent Sue-Lin Wong shreds repeated claims by the Hong Kong government that it upholds press freedom,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Hong Kong authorities should reverse this decision immediately and allow journalists—local and international—to work without interference.”

“We regret their decision, which was given without explanation,” said Beddoes. “We urge the government of Hong Kong to maintain access for the foreign press, which is vital to the territory’s standing as an international city.”

The Hong Kong’s Foreign Correspondents’ Club also released a statement calling on the Hong Kong government to provide “assurances that applications for employment visas will be handled in a timely manner, and that the visa process for journalists will not be politicized or weaponized.”

In July 2020, Hong Kong authorities refused to renew New York Times reporter Chris Buckley’s work permit, and a month later, Hong Kong Free Press’s editor Aaron Mc Nicholas was also denied a work visa, as CPJ documented. CPJ has documented the steady erosion of press freedom in the former British colony.

The Hong Kong immigration department did not immediately respond to CPJ’s email requesting comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The virtual event, to be streamed on ipfa.cpj.org and abcnews.com, will be hosted by ABC “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir and honor intrepid journalists from Guatemala, Mozambique, and Myanmar, and feature powerful calls for world leaders to respect press freedom during an especially challenging year for journalists. The past year has been marked by an uptick in threats to press freedom, from a dramatic increase in attacks on the press in Belarus and Ethiopia, to the existential threat posed to journalism in Afghanistan by the Taliban takeover.  

The evening will also honor CPJ’s 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Awardee, imprisoned Hong Kong media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai, who has become a powerful symbol of the struggle to maintain press freedom in Hong Kong as China’s Communist Party exerts greater control. 

Learn more about this year’s awardees and how to watch the event here.

What: CPJ’s 31st International Press Freedom Awards

When: November 18, 2021, 8 p.m. EST

Where: ipfa.cpj.org  

Note to Editors:

CPJ experts and some awardees will be available for interviews prior to the event. To schedule an interview or to obtain an official media kit, please email press@cpj.org.

Media contacts:

Bebe Santa-Wood

press@cpj.org

212-300-9032

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The survey, based on responses from 70 correspondents for foreign media and 29 for local news organizations, about 25% of the FCC’s membership, showed that 83.8% of respondents believed the working environment had worsened for journalists in Hong Kong. About 34% of the respondents were considering leaving Hong Kong because of press freedom concerns, and 12% said they already planned their exit.

“These results clearly show that assurances that Hong Kong still enjoys press freedom, guaranteed under the Basic Law, are not enough,” FCC President Keith Richburg said in a statement. “More steps need to be taken to restore confidence among journalists and to make sure Hong Kong maintains its decades-long reputation as a welcoming place for the international media.”

Since the promulgation of the national security law in June 2020, 61% of survey respondents said they were “slightly concerned” about the possibility of being arrested or prosecuted for their work, and 10% said they were “very concerned.”

The possible introduction of a so-called fake news law was also a noted worry among respondents, with 76% saying they were “very concerned” about such a law.

“I’ve published extensively and it’s out there on the net. But with laws constantly changing and applying to old works and deeds, if someone needs a flimsy excuse to ‘get me,’ they’ll probably pull up some old work that was acceptable debate/opinion when it was published and now an excuse to prosecute,” said respondent, whom the FCC did not identify.

In response to the survey, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Hong Kong office issued a statement warning the FCC to “stop sowing discord and refrain from interfering with the law-based governance of the [Hong Kong Special Administrative Region] government and Hong Kong’s rule of law in the name of press freedom.”

Read the full survey here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dongsheng News.

Leung, who was filming police operations at the station on the two-year anniversary of the “831 incident,” named for the date when riot police stormed onto a subway train and indiscriminately beat passengers after earlier clashes with pro-democracy protesters, was charged with disorderly conduct after he allegedly cursed at the police officers who ordered him to leave the station, according to those reports. According to the reports, he was taken to the Mong Kok police station.  

Egg Egg Club released a statement confirming that its reporter had been arrested for “behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place.”

In response to CPJ’s email requesting comment, the police public relations branch confirmed the arrest of a 34-year-old man whose surname is Leung on suspicion of verbally insulting officers.

Leung was released on bail at around 5 p.m. on September 1, according to Egg Egg Club. According to a video posted by Leung on the outlet’s Facebook page on September 2, police confiscated his equipment as evidence.

In a separate incident on August 30, Leung Pak-kin, a former reporter for the online newspaper Rice Post who had witnessed and videotaped the “831 incident,” said that earlier in the month he had received a threatening letter with a razor blade in the mail, according to news reports and Leung’s Facebook post. The letter warned him to keep quiet about the event or his and his family’s safety could be in danger, those reports said. He did not report the letter to police, according to a news report. 

China has been the world’s worst imprisoner of journalists for two straight years, with at least 47 journalists in jail in 2020, according to a CPJ report.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

At about 6 a.m. today, police arrested Lam, the newspaper’s former executive editor-in-chief, at his home in Sai Kung Town on suspicion of “colluding with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security,” a crime under Hong Kong’s national security law, according to news reports.

Separately, police today rearrested the newspaper’s associate publisher, Chan Pui-man, and editorial writers Yeung Ching-kee and Fung Wai-kong after the Hong Kong Police Force’s national security department revoked their bail, according to news reports.

Police previously arrested Chan on June 17, Yeung on June 23, and Fung on June 27, as CPJ documented at the time; they are also under investigation for allegedly violating the national security law.

“The widening net of arrests and denial of bail for journalists and executives at the now-defunct Apple Daily only broadens the Hong Kong government’s assault on press freedom,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Police should immediately release Lam Man-chung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee, and Fung Wai-kong, along with all Apple Daily journalists and executives, and ensure that all charges against them are dropped.”

In response to an emailed request for comment from CPJ, the Hong Kong Police Force shared a press release issued by the national security department, which said that a man matching Lam’s description had been arrested for suspected violations of the national security law stemming from “a case detected in June.” The press release said that the man was detained for questioning and added, “police will not rule out the possibility of further arrests.”

The Hong Kong Journalists Association released a statement condemning Lam’s arrest and authorities’ repeated targeting of the Apple Daily.

Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai is currently in prison and on trial for alleged violations of the national security law, as CPJ has documented. In a separate case, Lai was sentenced on April 16 to 14 months in prison for allegedly organizing and participating in illegal demonstrations in 2019. On June 21, the CPJ board announced that it will honor Lai with its 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award. 

Apple Daily announced on June 23 that it would cease publishing amid the police actions against its staff.

On December 1, 2020, CPJ found that at least 47 journalists were imprisoned in China, making it the worst jailer of journalists worldwide for the second year in a row.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

“An air of fear and anxiety has blanketed the city,” Chris Yeung, HKJA’s chairman from 2017 to 2021, said in the report. “With the political ‘red line’ almost everywhere, pressure on free thinking is mounting. Chilling effect and a culture of censorship are growing.”

In the most high-profile example of the use of China’s national security law to target journalists, the report recounted the imprisonment since August 2020 of pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai, whom CPJ will honor with the 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award. On June 23, Next Digital, which owned Apple Daily,announced that it would cease operations after its bank accounts were frozen and five of its executives were arrested for allegedly violating the same law.

The report also found that various government departments began restricting journalist access to public databases as early as 2019. In April, a court in Hong Kong convicted and fined journalist Choy Yuk-ling of giving false statements to obtain public record information during research for an investigative documentary, as CPJ documented at the time.

During the anti-extradition bill protests in mid-2019, the report noted, the Hong Kong police force repeatedly claimed that there were “fake reporters” among protesters and asked HKJA to “work with the government and come up with some on-the-spot press identification arrangements such as wearing government-issued credentials or specified clothing.” In its report the HKJA said that such an arrangement would potentially allow authorities to deny giving accreditation to “media outlets who are deemed unfriendly.”

The report also discussed the September 2020 Hong Kong police public relations branch announcement that police would no longer recognize press passes issued by media workers’ unions, including HKJA. The police revised the definition of “media representatives,” limiting the title to those working for local media outlets, or internationally renowned and well-known non-local news agencies, and those registered with the Government News and Media Information System, an official online portal the government uses to send out press releases and media invitations, the report said. According to the report, the revision will affect many online media outlets, student media, and freelance reporters, hampering their ability to report in public places.

The report warned against further curbs against media freedom and listed various government officials’ comments advocating the adoption of measures to stop “fake news.”

“Media faces unprecedented shock,” wrote Yeung. “The room for press freedom is shrinking. The risk journalists [are] facing amid the [national security law] and the imminent fake news legislation is growing.”

The full report can be seen here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Iris Hsu/CPJ China Correspondent.

“An air of fear and anxiety has blanketed the city,” Chris Yeung, HKJA’s chairman from 2017 to 2021, said in the report. “With the political ‘red line’ almost everywhere, pressure on free thinking is mounting. Chilling effect and a culture of censorship are growing.”

In the most high-profile example of the use of China’s national security law to target journalists, the report recounted the imprisonment since August 2020 of pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai, whom CPJ will honor with the 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award. On June 23, Next Digital, which owned Apple Daily,announced that it would cease operations after its bank accounts were frozen and five of its executives were arrested for allegedly violating the same law.

The report also found that various government departments began restricting journalist access to public databases as early as 2019. In April, a court in Hong Kong convicted and fined journalist Choy Yuk-ling of giving false statements to obtain public record information during research for an investigative documentary, as CPJ documented at the time.

During the anti-extradition bill protests in mid-2019, the report noted, the Hong Kong police force repeatedly claimed that there were “fake reporters” among protesters and asked HKJA to “work with the government and come up with some on-the-spot press identification arrangements such as wearing government-issued credentials or specified clothing.” In its report the HKJA said that such an arrangement would potentially allow authorities to deny giving accreditation to “media outlets who are deemed unfriendly.”

The report also discussed the September 2020 Hong Kong police public relations branch announcement that police would no longer recognize press passes issued by media workers’ unions, including HKJA. The police revised the definition of “media representatives,” limiting the title to those working for local media outlets, or internationally renowned and well-known non-local news agencies, and those registered with the Government News and Media Information System, an official online portal the government uses to send out press releases and media invitations, the report said. According to the report, the revision will affect many online media outlets, student media, and freelance reporters, hampering their ability to report in public places.

The report warned against further curbs against media freedom and listed various government officials’ comments advocating the adoption of measures to stop “fake news.”

“Media faces unprecedented shock,” wrote Yeung. “The room for press freedom is shrinking. The risk journalists [are] facing amid the [national security law] and the imminent fake news legislation is growing.”

The full report can be seen here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Iris Hsu/CPJ China Correspondent.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has published a gallery of grim portraits — those of 37 heads of state or government who crack down massively on press freedom, reports RSF.

Some of these “predators of press freedom” have been operating for more than two decades while others have just joined the blacklist, which for the first time includes two women and a European predator.

Nearly half (17) of the predators are making their first appearance on the 2021 list, which RSF is publishing five years after the last one, from 2016.

All are heads of state or government who trample on press freedom by creating a censorship apparatus, jailing journalists arbitrarily or inciting violence against them, when they do not have blood on their hands because they have directly or indirectly pushed for journalists to be murdered.

Nineteen of these predators rule countries that are coloured red on the RSF’s press freedom map, meaning their situation is classified as “bad” for journalism, and 16 rule countries coloured black, meaning the situation is “very bad.”

The average age of the predators is 66. More than a third (13) of these tyrants come from the Asia-Pacific region.

“There are now 37 leaders from around the world in RSF’s predators of press freedom gallery and no one could say this list is exhaustive,” said RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire.

“Each of these predators has their own style. Some impose a reign of terror by issuing irrational and paranoid orders.

Others adopt a carefully constructed strategy based on draconian laws.

A major challenge now is for these predators to pay the highest possible price for their oppressive behaviour. We must not let their methods become the new normal.”

• READ MORE: See the RSF Predators gallery

New entrants
The most notable of the list’s new entrants is undoubtedly Saudi Arabia’s 35-year-old crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who is the centre of all power in his hands and heads a monarchy that tolerates no press freedom.

His repressive methods include spying and threats that have  sometimes led to abduction, torture and other unthinkable acts. Jamal Khashoggi’s horrific murder exposed a predatory method that is simply barbaric.

The new entrants also include predators of a very different nature such as Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, whose aggressive and crude rhetoric about the media has reached new heights since the start of the pandemic, and a European prime minister, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, the self-proclaimed champion of “illiberal democracy” who has steadily and effectively undermined media pluralism and independence since being returned to power in 2010.

Women predators
The first two women predators are both from Asia. One is Carrie Lam, who heads a government that was still democratic when she took over.

The chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region since 2017, Lam has proved to be the puppet of Chinese President Xi Jinping, and now openly supports his predatory policies towards the media.

They led to the closure of Hong Kong’s leading independent newspaper, Apple Daily, on June 24 and the jailing of its founder, Jimmy Lai, a 2020 RSF Press Freedom laureate.

The other woman predator is Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s prime minister since 2009 and the daughter of the country’s independence hero. Her predatory exploits include the adoption of a digital security law in 2018 that has led to more than 70 journalists and bloggers being prosecuted.

Historic predators
Some of the predators have been on this list since RSF began compiling it 20 years ago. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, were on the very first list, as were two leaders from the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Belarus’s Alexander Lukashenko, whose recent predatory inventiveness has won him even more notoriety.

In all, seven of the 37 leaders on the latest list have retained their places since the first list  RSF published in 2001.

Three of the historic predators are from Africa, the region where they reign longest. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, 79, has been Equatorial Guinea’s president since 1979, while Isaias Afwerki, whose country is ranked last in the 2021 World Press Freedom Index, has been Eritrea’s president since 1993.

Paul Kagame, who was appointed Rwanda’s vice-president in 1994 before taking over as president in 2000, will be able to continue ruling until 2034.

For each of the predators, RSF has compiled a file identifying their “predatory method,” how they censor and persecute journalists, and their “favourite targets” –- the kinds of journalists and media outlets they go after.

The file also includes quotations from speeches or interviews in which they “justify” their predatory behaviour, and their country’s ranking in the World Press Freedom Index.

RSF published a list of Digital Press Freedom Predators in 2020 and plans to publish a list of non-state predators before the end of 2021.

Asia Pacific Report and Pacific Media Watch collaborate with the Paris-based RSF.

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

At about 10 p.m. yesterday, police at Hong Kong International Airport arrested Fung, a former senior editorial writer for the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, while he was attempting to board a flight to the United Kingdom, on suspicion of “conspiring to collude with foreign countries or foreign forces,” a crime under the national security law, according to news reports.

Fung wrote columns for Apple Daily since 1997 and was the managing editor for the newspaper’s English edition, according to reports, which said he had recently resigned from the paper. His last column in the newspaper was published on June 21. He also wrote columns for Citizen News, a crowd-funded Chinese-language news website, those reports said.

Fung is at least the seventh Apple Daily employee to be arrested since police raided the newspaper’s office and detained five of its executives on June 17 and editorial writer Yeung Ching-kee, who wrote under the pen name Li Ping, on June 23, as CPJ has documented. Yeung was released on bail on June 25, according to news reports. 

Also on June 23, the newspaper announced that it was shutting down.

“In the wake of the forced closure last week of the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper, Hong Kong authorities’ arrest last night of former editorial writer Fung Wai-kong looks like an act of sheer vengeance,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Hong Kong authorities should immediately release Fung, drop any charges against him, and allow all journalists to live and work freely.”

CPJ emailed the Hong Kong police for comment, but did not receive any reply.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association released a statement condemning Fung’s arrest, saying, “If [authorities] can’t even tolerate writers’ pen, Hong Kong will hardly be regarded as an international city.”

Separately, the pro-democracy news website Stand News announced yesterday that it had temporarily taken down columns from its website to protect its supporters, writers, and reporters, and will consider republishing them if the authors are willing to do so in light of the recent crackdown. That announcement also stated that six directors of the outlet’s parent company had resigned.

Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai is currently in prison and on trial for alleged violations of the national security law, as CPJ has documented. In a separate case, Lai was sentenced on April 16 to 14 months in prison for allegedly organizing and participating in illegal demonstrations in 2019. On June 21, the CPJ board announced that it will honor Lai with its 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award. 

On December 1, 2020, CPJ found that at least 47 journalists were imprisoned in China, making it the worst jailer of journalists worldwide for the second year in a row.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has staged parallel protests outside the Chinese embassies in Paris and Berlin, holding funeral-style processions to denounce the “killing” of Apple Daily by the Hong Kong government, and to raise alarm of the threats posed by the Beijing regime to press freedom globally.

Arriving at the Chinese embassy following a hearse, RSF representatives in Paris staged a mock funeral procession, delivering a coffin and funeral flowers with a placard inscribed “Apple Daily (1995-2021).”

In Berlin, RSF representatives staged a parallel action, “burying” the daily newspaper which was one of the last major independent Chinese-language media critical of the Beijing regime.

• READ MORE: The scrappy Hong Kong tabloid that refused to bow to Beijing
• AJF, RSF and other media freedom watchdogs condemn China’s ‘suffocation’ of free press

Two days prior, Apple Daily announced that it must cease all operations from June 27, with the last print edition of its newspaper to be published on June 24, due to the government’s decision to freeze its financial assets, leaving the media outlet unable to pay their employees and suppliers, reports RSF in a statement.

RSF condemns the killing of the outlet perpetrated by Chief Executive Carrie Lam by order of Chinese President Xi Jinping, and calls for the immediate release of all detained Apple Daily employees as well as the media outlet’s founder Jimmy Lai, RSF 2020 Press Freedom Prize laureate.

“We have gathered today to raise alarm about the urgent risk of death to press freedom in Hong Kong,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire told reporters gathered outside the Chinese embassy in Paris.

“Democracies cannot continue to stand idly by while the Chinese regime systematically erodes what’s left of the country’s independent media, as it has already done in the rest of the country.

International community ‘must act’
“Today’s funeral is for Apple Daily, but tomorrow’s may be for press freedom in China. It’s time for the international community to act in line with their own values and obligations and defend what’s left of the free press in Hong Kong, before China’s model of information control claims another victim.”

Deloire also called out China’s Ambassador to France Lu Shaye, who last week gave an interview labelling media critical of the Chinese regime a “media machine” and journalists criticising Chinese authorities as “mad hyenas”.

Lu Shaye believes there is no need for a plurality of media: “With two or three groups and a few people, we can become the vanguard of the war of public opinion and we can coordinate this war well.”

Lu Shaye has previously been critical of French media, stating last year at the beginning of the covid-19 pandemics: “I’m not saying the French media always tell lies about China, but much of their reporting on China is not true.”

Earlier this week, RSF submitted an urgent appeal asking the UN to “take all necessary measures” to safeguard press freedom in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong, once a bastion of press freedom, has fallen from 18th place in 2002 to 80th place in the 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

The People’s Republic of China, for its part, has stagnated at 177th out of 180.

Pacific Media Watch works in association with Reporters Without Borders.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Apple Daily has announced its imminent closure in a dark day for Hong Kong’s press freedom and democracy, sparking condemnation by global media freedom watchdogs.

The Australian-based Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom, Reporters Without Borders in Paris and the Committee to Protect Journalists were among the watchdogs that issued statements criticised the crackdown by authorities that has forced Hong Kong’s last pro-democracy daily to close.

Founded by Jimmy Lai, who is currently jailed on a series of charges including unlawful assembly, fraud and “colluding with foreign forces”, Apple Daily has been a longstanding and well-read publisher for 26 years.

• READ MORE: The ordeal of Apple Daily’s Jimmy Lai
• The rise and fall of Apple Daily

This closure comes days after more than 100 police raided their offices, arrested five Apple Daily executives and froze their assets on Monday. Another columnist was arrested yesterday afternoon.

These incidents occurred under a new National Security Law, which critics say restricts the territory’s autonomy and undermines the human rights of its citizens.

Peter Greste, spokesperson and director of the AJF said:

“Since the national security law was introduced, we’ve seen: the arrest and ongoing detention of Jimmy Lai as he awaits trial; the freezing of a news publisher’s assets so they can no longer pay their staff; the mass-raid of the publisher’s offices – in numbers fit for terrorists – and the arrest of five executives; and the arrest of a columnist during a company board meeting only days later.

‘This is not normal’
“This is not normal. This is not democracy,” said Dr Greste, who is also the UNESCO chair in journalism at the University of Queensland, Brisbane.

“Press freedom and democracy cannot function when journalism in the public interest is restricted or denied. Apple Daily was a vocal critic of the government, but that should not be a crime.

“They were a legitimate news outlet. If a publisher like Apple Daily cannot exist in Hong Kong anymore, it is hard to see what remains of their democracy.

“The AJF implores Hong Kong to re-commit to the democratic principle of press freedom, release the Apple Daily journalists and employees now in custody, and unfreeze the company’s assets so they can continue to report freely.”

In Paris, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) deplored the “suffocation” of independent media following the announcement by the parent Next Digital media group’s board of directors yesterday that Apple Daily would cease all its operations from Sunday, June 27, due to the government’s decision to freeze its financial assets, leaving the media outlet unable to pay their employees and suppliers.

On Tuesday, June 22, RSF submitted an urgent appeal to the United Nations, asking the organisation to “take all necessary measures” to safeguard press freedom in Hong Kong.

“The tearing down of Apple Daily, one of the last major Chinese-language media critical of the Beijing regime, after years of harassment, is sending a chilling message to Hong Kong journalists,” said Cédric Alviani, RSF East Asia bureau head.

Erasing press freedom
“If the international community does not respond with the utmost determination, President Xi Jinping will know that he can erase press freedom in Hong Kong with complete impunity, as he has already done in the rest of China.”

In New York, the Committee to Protect Journalists also denounced the Chinese government’s “outrageous efforts to stomp out critical voices in Hong Kong”.

Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia programme coordinator, said: “Even under colonial rule, the people of Hong Kong enjoyed robust freedom of expression. China has managed to snuff that out, in stark violation of firm commitments it made to the people of Hong Kong during the handover from British rule in 1997.”

Apple Daily, launched in 1995, was one of the last major Chinese-language media to still dare publish information contradicting the Beijing regime’s propaganda and editorials critical of its authoritarian policies, and for many years it was the target of harassment by government and pro-Beijing camps.

On the 17 June 2021, approximately 500 police officers raided its headquarters and five executive staff members were arrested on suspicion of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces”, a crime that bears a life sentence under the National Security Law imposed last year by the Chinese regime.

Apple Daily founder and 2020 RSF Press Freedom Awards laureate, Jimmy Lai, detained since December 2020, was recently sentenced to a total of 20 months in prison for taking part in three “unauthorised” pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong in 2019 and also faces six other procedures, including two charges for which he risks life imprisonment.

On the May 28, RSF submitted another urgent appeal asking the UN to “take all measures necessary’ to obtain his immediate release.

Hong Kong, once a bastion of press freedom, has fallen from 18th place in 2002 to 80th place in the 2021 RSF World Press Freedom Index.

The People’s Republic of China, for its part, has stagnated at 177th out of 180.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This morning, officers from the Hong Kong Police Force’s National Security Department arrested Yeung, the lead editorial writer for the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, on suspicion of “conspiring to collude with foreign countries or foreign forces,” a crime under the national security law, according to news reports.

Also today, Next Digital Limited, which owns the Apple Daily, announced that the newspaper will cease publication and shut down as of tomorrow, as CPJ documented. Last week, police raided the newspaper’s office and detained five of its executives, also for allegedly colluding with foreign powers.

“The arrest today of Apple Daily opinion writer Yeung Ching-kee indicates that journalists in Hong Kong face the same potential fate as their colleagues on the mainland: jail time for critical reporting or opinion writing,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Yeung should be released unconditionally at once, and China should respect the commitments it has made to allow freedom of the press in Hong Kong.”

Officers arrested Yueng, who writes under the pen name Li Ping, at his home in the city’s Tseung Kwan O district, according to those reports. Convictions under the national security law can carry lifetime prison sentences, according to reports.

Yeung has written more than a thousand columns for the newspaper, many of which are critical of Beijing’s crackdown on the city’s pro-democracy movement and press freedom, according to Apple Daily’s database. Yesterday, he published a column in the paper’s print edition asking Hong Kong’s intellectuals, media workers, politicians, and businesses to not cater to authoritarian powers, according to reports.

CPJ emailed the Hong Kong police for comment, but did not immediately receive any reply.

Next Digital and Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai is currently in prison and on trial for alleged violations of the national security law, as CPJ has documented. In a separate case, Lai was sentenced on April 16 to 14 months in prison for allegedly organizing and participating in illegal demonstrations in 2019.

On June 21, the CPJ board announced that it will honor Lai with its 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award. 

On December 1, 2020, CPJ found that at least 47 journalists were imprisoned in China, making it the worst jailer of journalists worldwide for the second year in a row.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

“The Next Digital board’s decision to cease publication of the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper is the result of the Chinese government’s outrageous efforts to stomp out critical voices in Hong Kong,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Even under colonial rule, the people of Hong Kong enjoyed robust freedom of expression. China has managed to snuff that out, in stark violation of firm commitments it made to the people of Hong Kong during the handover from British rule in 1997.”

The board of Next Digital, the newspaper’s parent company, announced today that the 26-year-old Apple Daily would publish its last edition and shut down operations tomorrow, according to news reports. Police raided the office of the openly pro-democracy newspaper last week and arrested its senior management, as CPJ documented at the time.

On June 21, the CPJ board announced that it will honor Jimmy Lai, the imprisoned founder of Next Digital and Apple Daily, with the 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

“Jimmy Lai is not just a champion of a free press, he is a press freedom warrior. He fights for the right of his Apple News organization to publish freely, even as China and its backers in Hong Kong use every tool to quash them,” said Kathleen Carroll, chair of CPJ’s board. “The CPJ board is pleased to honor Jimmy Lai with the 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award. And we look forward to the day when we can present that award to him in person.”

Lai — who will be honored at CPJ’s 2021 International Press Freedom Awards on November 18, 2021– has become a powerful symbol of the struggle to maintain press freedom in Hong Kong as China’s Communist Party exerts ever greater control over the territory. In prison, denied bail, the outspoken critic of the Chinese government and advocate for democracy faces charges that could keep him in jail for the rest of his life. Last week, police raided Apple Daily’s headquarters and arrested five executives.

After the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Lai launched Next magazine as part of his Next Media group, now known as Next Digital. As a result of Lai’s critical commentary, China began to force branches of his retail clothing businesses on the mainland to close. He launched Apple Daily in 1995, introducing tabloid-style journalism to Hong Kong and later Taiwan, and has openly supported the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.

Originally the Burton Benjamin Memorial Award, the award was renamed in 2017 to honor Gwen Ifill, the veteran journalist and former CPJ board member who died in late 2016. More information about this year’s event and CPJ’s awardees is at ipfa.cpj.org.

More information on the gala is available by calling Buckley Hall Events at (914) 579-1000 or CPJ’s development office at (212) 300-9021, or emailing CPJipfa@buckleyhallevents.com.

Note to Editors:

CPJ experts and CPJ International Press Freedom Award winners are available for interviews on request, prior to the awards dinner on November 18, 2021. For information on media partnerships for the awards, please contact press@cpj.org.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned yesterday’s police raid on Hong Kong media outlet Apple Daily’s headquarters — the second time in less than one year — and has urged the release of the five arrested senior staff.

On 17 June, 2021 independent Hong Kong media outlet Apple Daily’s chief editor Ryan Law, chief executive Cheung Kim-hung, chief operating officer Royston Chow, associate publisher Chan Pui-man and director of Apple Daily Digital Cheung Chi-wai were arrested on suspicion of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces”, a crime that bears a life sentence under the National Security Law imposed last year by the Chinese regime.

Approximately 500 police officers also raided the media outlet’s headquarters, forcing journalists to leave the newsroom, seizing their computers, phones and other devices.

Authorities have also frozen Apple Daily’s HK$18 million assets (about €2 million).

“Today’s arrests and raid on Apple Daily’s headquarters show that the government will do anything in their power to silence one of the last independent media outlets and symbols of press freedom in Hong Kong”, said Cédric Alviani, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) East Asia bureau head.

He called for “all charges to be dropped and all defendants immediately released”.

This is not the first time that Hong Kong police have raided the media outlet’s headquarters: in August 2020, 200 police officers searched Apple Daily’s premises, blocked its journalists from entering the newsroom and obstructed several major news outlets from covering the incident.

Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai, 2020 RSF Press Freedom Awards laureate, has been detained since December 2020 and was recently sentenced to a total of 20 months in prison for taking part in three “unauthorised” pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

He also faces six other procedures, including two charges under the National Security Law for which he risks life imprisonment.

Hong Kong, once a bastion of press freedom, has fallen from 18th place in 2002 to 80th place in the 2021 RSF World Press Freedom Index.

The People’s Republic of China, for its part, has stagnated at 177th out of 180.

Pacific Media Watch is an associate of Reporters Without Borders.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

“The arrests of five executives at the pro-democracy Apple Daily today under Hong Kong’s Orwellian National Security Law destroy any remaining fiction that Hong Kong supports freedom of the press,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “China, which controls Hong Kong, may be able to eliminate the paper, which it sees as an annoying critic, but only at a steep price to be paid by the people of Hong Kong, who had enjoyed decades of free access to information.”

More than 100 police officers raided the newspaper’s office this morning and arrested Apple Daily editor-in-chief Ryan Law Wai-kwong, associate publisher Chan Piu-man, Apple Action News platform director Cheung Chi-wai, and Cheung Kim-hung, the group chief executive officer of Next Digital, the newspaper’s parent company, and Royston Chow, Next Digital’s chief operating officer, according to news reports.

The five are under investigation for alleged conspiracy to collude with foreign forces, a crime under Hong Kong’s National Security Law. Convictions can result in life in prison, according to reports.

Next Digital and Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai is currently in prison and on trial for alleged violations of the National Security Law, as CPJ has documented. In a separate case, Lai was sentenced on April 16 to 14 months in prison for allegedly organizing and participating in illegal demonstrations in 2019.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Hong Kong police on June 4 deployed 7000 officers in Victoria Park and across the city to ensure that there was no organised commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre in public spaces.

At 7.40 am, four police officers arrested democracy activist Chow Hang-tung outside her office building to prevent her from heading to Victoria Park. There have been no reports indicating that she has been released.

Hong Kong held candlelight vigils to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre for three decades.

• READ MORE: Tiananmen vigil stifled but HK activists say history ‘not erased’

In 2020, Hong Kong police banned the event for the first time, citing anti-coronavirus measures. Victoria Park is the park where the vigils were held.

Her crime? Standing up for justice. https://t.co/IF8Z1BHvey

— Maya Wang 王松莲 (@wang_maya) June 4, 2021

Chow is the vice-president of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HK Alliance), the group that organised the annual vigil.

She told press that she would go to Victoria Park on her own and light a candle on June 4, despite the threat of jail time for “inciting illegal assembly”.

#HongKongPolice will deploy 7,000 officers at Victoria Park and across the city on #June4th to stop HKers from commemorating the 1989 #TiananmenSquareMassacre. People wearing black, chanting slogans or holding candles may be arrested. https://t.co/KNHU1imGuf#AppleDailyENG pic.twitter.com/sTpjj5sCFD

— Apple Daily HK 蘋果日報 (@appledaily_hk) June 3, 2021

Lawyer and activist Chow Hang Tung is fighting to keep the memory of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown alive in Hong Kong, despite facing possible imprisonment for publicly commemorating the event https://t.co/LhBGNiIBvV pic.twitter.com/ps447HiilX

— Bloomberg Quicktake (@Quicktake) June 2, 2021

24 activists charged
At least 24 pro-democracy activists were charged with participating in last year’s unauthorised vigil, of whom four have been sentenced to jail terms up to 10 months.

The others are awaiting trials and sentencing.

Hong Kong Secretary for Security John Lee warned that under the Public Order Ordinance, offenders could face up to five years in prison for attending the vigil, or up to one year for promoting it.

After the vigil was banned, Beijing’s political adviser on Hong Kong affairs Tian Feilong urged Hong Kong security services to investigate HK Alliance for breaching the infamous national security law that Beijing imposed on Hong Kong last year.

He argued that the organisation’s mission statement, which calls for the end of one-party dictatorship, is in violation of the law, since the Chinese Communist Party’s dictatorship is written into the Chinese constitution.

On June 3, Executive Council member Ronny Tong warned that people wearing black clothing and chanting slogans such as “end one-party dictatorship” could be prosecuted for violating either that law or the law against unauthorised assembly.

It would not matter if protesters appeared in different parts of the city, as long as their actions could be viewed as coordinated, Tong said.

He did however state that individual commemorations of the anniversary were not forbidden.

Safe spaces targeted, shut down
As police mobilised across the city to prevent potential demonstrations, law enforcement units and pro-Beijing groups harassed the public in order to prevent them from attending other potential commemoration activities – even those being held in private venues.

Seven Catholic churches which planned to hold evening mass on June 4 became a focal point for attacks:

As churches offer a safe space for people to remember June 4th, banners are going up outside their premises: “Cult invasion of faith. Antichrist, fake messiahs. Chaos in the name of worship. Subversion of religion, blood on their hands. Churchgoers be aware of violating the NSL.” pic.twitter.com/3HAGOZkJoi

— K Tse (@ktse852) June 3, 2021

On June 2, HK Alliance announced that its June 4 Museum had been shut down after officials from the Food and Environmental Hygiene department accused it of operating as a place of public entertainment without required licences.

In spite of all the legal threats, individuals are finding their own ways to commemorate the anniversary in public.

Hong Kong’s June 4 Museum has closed temporarily over questions about its license. The space opened a decade ago. It is dedicated to commemorating victims of China’s 1989 military crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square. pic.twitter.com/LmeT2nI4tp

— Radio Free Asia (@RadioFreeAsia) June 2, 2021

On June 3, a group of artists put on a public art performance at Causeway Bay:

#hk – a group of artists carried out acts in memory of #june4 at Causeway Bay, the night before the banned vigil pic.twitter.com/TuagG7t79t

— Lok. (@sumlokkei) June 3, 2021

A number of individuals went to Victoria Park to hold “one person vigils”:

#TiananmenSquareMassacre ：A few people gather at Victoria park to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre on the eve of June 4.

#June4 #HongKong pic.twitter.com/IuNBLGFeQ6

— Ryan Lai (@ryan_lai1214) June 3, 2021

A large number of June 4 posters were seen in different districts across the city today.

Many citizens wore clothes that conveyed political messages. They said on social media that they planned to light candles at 8 p.m, regardless of where they were in the city.

Oiwan Lam is Global Voices northeast Asia regional editor. She is also a media activist, researcher and educator currently based in Hong Kong. Her Chinese writings are in inmediahk.net and her twitter account is @oiwan. This article is republished from Global Voices under a Creative Commons licence.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Hong Kong High Court cited Mo’s interviews and texts with reporters from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Bloomberg, Sky News, and the BBC as reasons for denying her bail on April 14, according to a copy of the criminal proceedings published by the Hong Kong judiciary today. The proceedings cited encrypted WhatsApp messages Mo sent to reporters.

Authorities arrested Mo in January for alleged crimes including “conspiracy to commit subversion” under Hong Kong’s National Security Law, and seized her computers and phones during her arrest, accord to various news reports. Authorities also seized the computer of her husband, Asia Sentinel news website co-founder Philip Bowring, during that raid, according to those reports, which said that Bowring is not under investigation.

“Authorities’ use of encrypted communications with reporters to deny bail to former pro-democracy lawmaker Claudia Mo marks a new alarming assault on press freedom in Hong Kong,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “The idea that a person’s texts and interviews with mainstream international press outlets are evidence of subversion is absurd, and will create severe obstacles for journalists in Hong Kong who are just reporting the news.”

According to the criminal proceedings, prosecutors alleged that Mo was “misleading the international press” and had repeatedly referred to the “desperation and loss of human rights and freedom” in Hong Kong to foreign media outlets.

Prosecutors alleged that Mo “had remained vocal and highly influential in both local and international platforms” and may “continue to commit acts endangering national security,” and therefore her bail should be denied.

Journalists in Hong Kong have faced increasing repression and harassment since the passage of the National Security Law on July 1, 2020, as CPJ has documented.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The Hong Kong High Court cited Mo’s interviews and texts with reporters from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Bloomberg, Sky News, and the BBC as reasons for denying her bail on April 14, according to a copy of the criminal proceedings published by the Hong Kong judiciary today. The proceedings cited encrypted WhatsApp messages Mo sent to reporters.

Authorities arrested Mo in January for alleged crimes including “conspiracy to commit subversion” under Hong Kong’s National Security Law, and seized her computers and phones during her arrest, accord to various news reports. Authorities also seized the computer of her husband, Asia Sentinel news website co-founder Philip Bowring, during that raid, according to those reports, which said that Bowring is not under investigation.

“Authorities’ use of encrypted communications with reporters to deny bail to former pro-democracy lawmaker Claudia Mo marks a new alarming assault on press freedom in Hong Kong,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “The idea that a person’s texts and interviews with mainstream international press outlets are evidence of subversion is absurd, and will create severe obstacles for journalists in Hong Kong who are just reporting the news.”

According to the criminal proceedings, prosecutors alleged that Mo was “misleading the international press” and had repeatedly referred to the “desperation and loss of human rights and freedom” in Hong Kong to foreign media outlets.

Prosecutors alleged that Mo “had remained vocal and highly influential in both local and international platforms” and may “continue to commit acts endangering national security,” and therefore her bail should be denied.

Journalists in Hong Kong have faced increasing repression and harassment since the passage of the National Security Law on July 1, 2020, as CPJ has documented.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The conference will define China’s internal and external development strategies, as well as her future role on the world stage. China is the only major economy that has mastered the covid-induced economic crisis, ending 2020 with a 2.3% growth. Compare this with economic declines way into the red for the US and Europe, of 25% to 35%, and 10% to 15%, respectively.

These figures may only be indicative. The bulk of the economic fallout from western governments’ mishandling of the covid crisis; i.e., bankruptcies, trade disruption, unemployment and housing foreclosures – a massive slide into poverty – may only be registered in 2021 and beyond.

The greed-driven capitalist system has already plunged tens of millions of westerners and perhaps hundreds of millions in the Global South into destitution.

What China decides at the “Two Sessions” Conference will undoubtedly have an impact on the entire world in the medium-term (2025) as well as long-term (2035) and beyond. China’s socialism “with Chinese characteristics” will be an influence for peace, justice and equality, as well as for a multi-polar world.

China’s thousands of years of cultural history and the ensuing Tao-philosophy of non-aggression and conflict avoidance, of a societal spirit of endless creation, as well as long-term thinking, contrasts radically with western conflict and instant-profit seeking.

The summit is addressing ambitious but attainable 2035 targets, including a 6%-plus growth in the foreseeable future; reduction of unemployment with urban focus; continued food self-sufficiency and environmental improvement targets, a gigantic 18% CO2 reduction, largely through a significant drop in energy consumption (13.5%) per unit of GDP — and this with a projected higher than 6% annual economic output. Environmental improvement and protection targets are way above any environmental objectives of western countries.

The conference may also define China’s guiding role in a worldwide recovery from a covid-related devastated economy. China’s economy has suffered, mainly during the first half of 2020, but her decisive actions have successfully overcome the pandemic’s path of destruction. By the end of 2020, China’s production and services were back to 100%. Thanks to this stellar efficiency, the west and Global South may continue relying on China’s supply of such vital goods as medical equipment, medicines, electronics and more.

What China’s 2025 Plan and 2035/2050 visions may include is a strong emphasis on economic autonomy and defense.

Economy:  Western China bashing with related sanctions, trade and currency wars, may continue also under the Biden Administration because US/European policies on dealing with China – and Russia for that matter – are made well above the White House and Brussels.

Rapid dedollarization may be an effective way to stem against the western “sanctions culture”. China may soon roll out her new digital Renminbi (RMB) or yuan, internationally, as legal tender for inter-country payments and transfers, and as an international reserve currency.

Reduce demand for US-dollars may incite worldwide investments in the new digital RMB.

Detaching from western dependence, China is focusing trade development and cooperation on her ASEAN partners. In November 2020 China signed a free trade agreement with the ten ASEAN nations, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, altogether 15 countries, including China.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, covers some 2.2 billion people, commanding some 30% of the world’s GDP. This agreement is a first in size, value and tenor worldwide.

China, Russia, as well as the Central Asia Economic Union (CAEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), are likewise integrated into the eastern trade block.

RCEP’s trade deals will be carried out in local currencies and in yuan — no US dollars. The RCEP is, therefore, also an instrument for dedollarizing, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region, and gradually moving across the globe.

Defense:  China provides the west’s main supply chain, from medical goods to electronic equipment to almost every sector important to humanity. Yet, western political interference in China’s internal affairs, like in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and Tibet, are endless. Overcoming these aggressions and threats of armed conflicts is part of China’s forward-looking plan and defense strategy.

Mr. Wang Yi, China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, recently warned the White House to stop meddling in China’s internal affairs; that reunification with Taiwan is a historic tendency and was the collective wish of the Chinese people. He added, this trend cannot be reversed.

As a forerunner to China’s CPPCC Summit, in his address to the virtual World Economic Forum (WEF) on 25 January 2021, President Xi Jinping stated that China’s agenda was to move forward in the World of Great Change, with her renewed policy of multilateralism, aiming for a multi-polar world, where nations would be treated as equals.

China will continue to vouch for strong macroeconomic growth with focus on internal development which, in turn, will stimulate and contribute to international trade and investments. China pledges assistance for those that are suffering the most during this pandemic-induced crisis.

President Xi emphasized there was no place in this world for large countries dominating smaller ones, or for economic threats and sanctions, nor for economic isolation. China is pursuing a global free trade economy. BUT – and this is important – when talking of “globalism” respect for political and fiscal sovereignty of nations is a MUST.

On a global scale, President Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) embraces currently more than 130 countries and over 30 international organizations, including 18 countries of the European Union. BRI offers the world participation, no coercion. The attraction and philosophy behind BRI, is shared benefits – the concept of win-win. BRI may be the road to socioeconomic recovery from covid-devastation and cross-border cooperation for participating countries.

China’s achievements in her 71 years of revolution are unmatched by any nation in recent history. From a country largely ruined by western colonization and conflicts, China rose from the ashes, by not only lifting 800 million people out of poverty, becoming food, health and education self-sufficient, but to become the world’s second largest economy today; or, if measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), since 2017 the world’s largest econmy. China is poised to surpass the US by 2025 in absolute terms.

On 4 March, 2021, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Children’s Health Defense), asked the pertinent question, “Can We Forge a New Era of Humanity Before It’s Too Late?” His answer is simple but lucid: “Unless we move from a civilization based on wealth accumulation to a life-affirming, ecological civilization, we will continue accelerating towards global catastrophe.”

This understanding is also at the forefront of China’s vision for the next 5 and 15 years and beyond. A China-internal objective is an equitable development to well-being for all; and on a world-scale, a community with shared benefits for all.
.

First published by the New Eastern Outlook (NEO)

This article was posted on Thursday, March 18th, 2021 at 12:05am and is filed under ASEAN, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China, Disinformation, Economy/Economics, Hong Kong, Peace, President Xi Jinping, Propaganda, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Taiwan, Tibet.

“Trump supporters storm Capitol,” Washington Post
“Inside the mob that swarmed the US Capitol,” CNN
“A pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol in Washington,” LA Times
“In Photos: Mob Storms U.S. Capitol Building” New York Times
“Pro-Trump mob sends US Capitol into chaos,” Chicago Tribune

State/corporate media headlines were similar in Canada and the UK.

The “mob” was encouraged by the words of president Donald Trump. Included in the mob were extreme right-wingers and white-supremacist groups. Of note were the participation of the Falun Gong and Trump-supporting Tibetan sovereignists. The raising of the Tibetan flag at the Capitol Hill imbroglio caused “outrage and alarm” among some in the Tibetan online community. Imagine what would be the reaction if sovereigntist Hawai’i flags were raised in Beijing.

CCTV surveillance, for which China is often criticized in the West, has led to some Capitol hill rioters being identified and losing their jobs.

Wei Ling Chua, author of Democracy: What the West Can Learn from China, commented that “unlike US government trained Hong Kong terrorists, Trump supporters did not use arrows, fire bombs, throw stones, or attack the public who expressed different opinions.”

Political leaders were quick to condemn the violence that erupted on Capitol Hill Wednesday after protestors stormed buildings and at least one woman was injured in a shooting.

UK PM Boris Johnson said, “Disgraceful scenes in U.S. Congress. The United States stands for democracy around the world and it is now vital that there should be a peaceful and orderly transfer of power.”

Earlier when speaking of the Hong Kong protestors, Johnson said, “So yes I do support them and I will happily speak up for them and back them every inch of the way.”

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau told the News 1130 Vancouver radio station, “Obviously we’re concerned and we’re following the situation minute by minute. I think the American democratic institutions are strong, and hopefully everything will return to normal shortly.”

Speaking of the protests in Hong Kong, Trudeau directed his criticism at Beijing, “We have worked with some of our closest allies including the U.K., Australia and others to condemn the actions taken by China in Hong Kong.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the people who stormed the US legislature were “attackers and rioters” and that she felt “angry and also sad” after seeing pictures from the scene.

When it came to the Hong Kong protestors, Merkel focused on the rights of the protestors; she “pointed out that these rights and freedoms must of course be guaranteed.”

David Sassoli, president of European Parliament, tweeted, “Deeply concerning scenes from the US Capitol tonight. Democratic votes must be respected. We are certain the US will ensure that the rules of democracy are protected.”

Concerning the unruly situation in Hong Kong — where rioters disrupted the passengers and flights at the international airport, ruined the LegCo, vandalized the metro, trashed university campuses, etc. — the European Parliament put forth a resolution that reads in part: “whereas the people of Hong Kong have taken to the streets in unprecedented numbers, peacefully exercising their fundamental right to assemble and to protest; whereas on 12 June, tens of thousands of protesters assembled around the Legislative Council building and its nearby roads, calling on the government to drop its proposed amendments to Hong Kong’s extradition law…”

What triggered the protests in Hong Kong? Some citizens were opposed to extradition of alleged criminals? How has China responded to rioting, sabotage, terrorism, separatism, and even murders by the so-called protestors? Hong Kong is a territory that was under British colonial administration from 1841 to 1997. There was no democracy until 18 directly elected seats were introduced to LegCo in 1991, shortly before the handover to China. When Hong Kong reverted to mainland China as a special autonomous region; it must be noted that once the original demands for rescinding the extradition bill were met, the goal posts of the NED-supported protestors transformed into a purported democracy movement.

“Hong Kong democracy fighters face a dire choice: Go abroad or go to jail,” Washington Post
“Hong Kong police fire tear gas on pro-democracy protesters,” CNN
“China is desperate to stop Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement,” LA Times
“Hong Kong Police Arrest Dozens of Pro-Democracy Leaders …” New York Times
“Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protest movement left reeling by China’s recent power grab,” Chicago Tribune

Did China respond with military force? No. With arrests of law-abiding journalists? No. With police brutality? Many observers will acknowledge that police have been incredibly restrained, some would say too restrained in the face of protestor violence.

The protestors, largely disaffected youth, as is apparent in all or most video footage, by and large employ random violence as a tactic, which some of them do not condemn.

I agree that individuals and the citizenry should have the right to protest against acts/measures/situations that are perceived to be unjust. However, when the goal of the protests has been achieved, for subsequent demands to be added by the protestors creates an appearance of disingenuousness.

Furthermore, whether one section of a citizenry have the right to inconvenience, disrupt, create conditions of insecurity, economic hardship for another section of the citizenry calls into question the legitimacy of protests. This is especially called into question when authorities have acceded to the initial demand(s) of the protestors.

A 2017 poll found that 78.4% of Hong Kongers responded affirmatively to the statement “Belief that activities demanding political reforms in Hong Kong should be peaceful and non-violent.”

Chinese media have tried to expose the western mass media disinformation about the Hong Kong protests. The Global Times, an English-language Chinese newspaper, notes, with a hint of Schadenfreude, the hypocrisy in the pronouncements of western politicians and mass media comparing rioters at the Capitol Hill and in Hong Kong.

Image credit: Global Times.

This article was posted on Monday, January 11th, 2021 at 7:34am and is filed under Activism, China, Hong Kong, Media, Politics.

Combined Development

Today, China is leading a process of combined development as part of a long transition to socialism. This consists of the two tasks of “catching up” and “doing something else”. While the former relates to the development of productive forces, the latter denotes its conscious subordination to socialist goals.

Consolidation of productive forces is necessary insofar that imperialism creates relations of dependency and structurally distorts an economy. Imperialism in the neoliberal era manifests itself in the form of globalization; i.e., the ever-tightening inter-locking of Third World nations in the predatory workings of global capital accumulation. Passive embeddedness into the global system of capital deforms domestic techno-economic structures and thereby limits the economic independence of developing countries.

Foreign companies are enclaves with no meaningful developmental effect on their host countries, while the enforcement of the export-oriented policies leads to the expansion of low wage, labor-intensive sectors. All these processes contribute to the creation of a disarticulated economy.  Disarticulated economies refer to underdeveloped nations where economic sectors are not closely interrelated. Hence, development in one sector is unable to stimulate development in the other sector. There exists a structural disarticulation between the structures of production and the structures of consumption. What is produced is not consumed and what is consumed is not produced. Rather, the economies are orientated outwards in a fashion that guarantees dependency and underdevelopment.

Development of productive forces is amalgamated with a number of statist-socialist tendencies to ensure that a careful and continuous advance toward socialism is always maintained. Nationalization of big industries and trade, modernization of agriculture, land reforms etc. contradictorily fuse the reproductive elements of capitalism with popular content. A strategy of active interventions is established to interdict the free appropriation of surplus or the free flow of goods in the economy, thereby rendering groups and individuals dependent on the state for the conduct of their economic activity. To sum up, “doing something else” comprises of the nonlinear disintegration and integration of discrete dimensions of capitalism wherein different economic logics interpenetrate to generate a tense totality of transitional states.

Transition Logic

In China, the Communist revolution gave rise to a form of transition logic where the task of developing capitalism was given to the proletariat instead of the bourgeoisie. As Mao Zedong explained:

Any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed against imperialism, i.e., against the international bourgeoisie or international capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new category…although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this revolution actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for the development of socialism.

Corresponding more precisely to a vision of “state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat”, Mao’s statement implied the traditional nature of capitalism was eliminated when the proletariat assumed control over the economy at the top level. At the Communist Party’s 11th Congress in 1922, Lenin said:

The state in this society is not ruled by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat…When we say “state” we mean ourselves, the proletariat, the vanguard of the working class. State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrain, and the limits of which we shall be able to fix. This state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced section of the workers, the vanguard. We are the state.

Through the consistent circumscription of state capitalism, China has overcome dependency, all the while maintaining the possibilities of socialism. Through a controlled integration with the global system, China has succeeded in constructing a nationally unified modern industrial system. While manufacture exports have benefitted the centre, they have not been driven by cheap labor. This has been proved by the fact that export expansion has been achieved amid currency appreciation and wage rise, both of which necessitate sufficiently fast growth in labor productivity. Fast productivity growth, in turn, has been associated with the rapid growth in productive investment which runs counter to the stagnant, financialized economies of capitalist countries.

Between 2000 and 2018, China accounted for almost a quarter of the increase in world economic output, and almost half of the increase in all low- and middle-income economies. In the meantime, China accounted for 35% of the increase in industrial value added of the world and 56% in all developing economies.

China has made significant progress in some of the technologies that will lead the next industrial revolution. These technologies include robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotechnology, the Internet of Things, 3D printing and autonomous vehicles. A consequence is that US corporations may not control some of the leading sectors of a new industrial age, starting with 5G wireless telecommunications.

Rise in productive strength and technological sophistication has been made possible by the over-arching dominance of the Chinese state. State-owned enterprises and banks are central components of the country’s economy and constitute the foundational base of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). As Xi Jinping has stated, “The Party’s leadership in state-owned enterprises is a major political principle, and that principle must be insisted on”. In opposition to the disinvestment of state sector equity and privatization of state sector assets at throwaway prices, China, in fact, experienced a recapitalization and strengthening of strategically important State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in the 2000s.

USA’s Cold War against China

Alarmed by the fact that a non-capitalist country ruled by a Communist party-state will lead world growth, USA has unleashed a new cold war against China, attempting to impede its development. In November 2011 the US announced a strategic-economic pivot to Asia, and in 2018 the US national security strategy identified China (with Russia, Iran and North Korea) as the main threats to US “influence, interests, power and values”.

Power competition in an increasingly multipolar world became the primary focus of US national security, reflected in a strategy to contain China on multiple fronts: a trade war; restrictions on Chinese companies, especially in high technology sectors – examples include US restrictions on Huawei, the call by the US Congress for an embargo to wreck COMAC’s C919 and the hostility to Made in China 2025; US interference in Tibet, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, Xin Jiang, Hong Kong and, increasingly, Taiwan, with US-supported demands for international recognition.

Other aspects of the new cold war include US attempts to build exclusive relationships with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, India and Indonesia; moves in the direction of a new World Trade Organization to set restrictions for supply-chain trade that protect the interests of oligopolies of Global North; and attempts to encircle and militarily threaten China. Tactics of subversion and implicit interventionism will keep increasing as cracks appear in USA’s imperialist clout and China emerges unscathed from pandemic-induced contradictions.

This article was posted on Thursday, December 17th, 2020 at 9:58pm and is filed under Artificial Intelligence (AI), Biotechnology, China, Global Capitalism, Hong Kong, Media, President Xi Jinping, Science/Technology, Socialism, Taiwan, Trade, US Foreign Policy.

Hong Kong protesters trash MTR stations — Strait Times

For those who support a truly just foreign policy comparing Canadian politicians’ reactions to protests in Hong Kong and the slightly more populous Haiti is instructive. It reveals the extent to which this country’s politicians are forced to align with the US Empire.

Despite hundreds of thousands of Canadians having close ties with both Haiti and Hong Kong, only protests in the latter seem to be of concern to politicians.

Recently NDP MP Niki Ashton and Green MP Paul Manly were attacked ferociously in Parliament and the dominant media for participating in a webinar titled “Free Meng Wanzhou”. During the hullabaloo about an event focused on Canada’s arrest of the Huawei CFO, Manly — who courageously participated in the webinar, even if his framing of the issue left much to be desired — and Ashton — who sent a statement to be read at the event but responded strongly to the backlash in an interview with the Winnipeg Free Press — felt the need to mention Hong Kong. Both the NDP (“Canada must do more to help the people of Hong Kong”) and Greens (“Echoes of Tiananmen Square: Greens condemn China’s latest assault on democracy in Hong Kong”) have released multiple statements critical of Beijing’s policy in Hong Kong since protests erupted there nearly two years ago. So have the Liberals, Bloc Québecois and Conservatives.

In March 2019 protests began against an extradition accord between Hong Kong and mainland China. Hong Kongers largely opposed the legislation, which was eventually withdrawn. Many remain hostile to Beijing, which later introduced an anti-sedition law to staunch dissent. Some protests turned violent. One bystander was killed by protesters. A journalist lost an eye after being shot by the police. Hundreds more were hurt and thousands arrested.

During more or less the same period Haiti was the site of far more intense protests and state repression. In July 2018 an uprising began against a reduction in subsidies for fuel (mostly for cooking), which morphed into a broad call for a corrupt and illegitimate president Jovenel Moïse to go. The uprising included a half dozen general strikes, including one that shuttered Port-au-Prince for a month. An October 2019 poll found that 81% of Haitians wanted the Canadian-backed president to leave.

Dozens, probably over 100, were killed by police and government agents. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other western establishment human rights organizations have all documented dozens of police killings in Haiti. More recently, Moïse has ruled by decree, sought to extend his term and to rewrite the constitution. Yet, I couldn’t find a single statement by the NDP or Greens, let alone the Liberals or Conservatives, expressing support for the pro-democracy movement in Haiti.

Do black lives in Haiti matter to the Canadian government? – Canadian Dimension

Even an equal number of statements from a Canadian political party would be less than adequate. Not only were the protests and repression far more significant in Haiti, the impact of a Canadian politician’s intervention is far more meaningful. Unlike in Hong Kong, the police responsible for the repression in Haiti were trained, financed and backed by Canada. The Trudeau government even gave $12.5 million to the Haitian police under its Feminist International Assistance Policy! More broadly, the unpopular president received decisive diplomatic and financial support from Ottawa and Washington. In fact, a shift in Canada/US policy towards Moïse would have led to his ouster. On the other hand, a harder Canada/US policy towards Hong Kong would have led to well … not much.

The imperial and class dynamics of Haiti are fairly straightforward. For a century Washington has consistently subjugated the country in which a small number of, largely light-skinned, families dominate economic affairs. During the past 20 years Canada has staunchly supported US efforts to undermine Haitian democracy and sovereignty.

Hong Kong’s politics are substantially more complicated. Even if one believes that most in Hong Kong are leery of Beijing’s growing influence — as I do — the end of British rule and reintegration of Hong Kong into China represents a break from a regrettable colonial legacy. Even if you take an entirely unfavorable view towards Beijing’s role there, progressive Canadians shouldn’t focus more on criticizing Chinese policy in Hong Kong than Canadian policy in Haiti.

Echoing an open letter signed by David Suzuki, Roger Waters, Linda McQuaig and 150 others and the demands of those who occupied Justin Trudeau’s office last year, the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Chris Aylward, recently sent a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau critical of Canadian support for Moïse. It notes, “Canada must reassess its financial and political support to the Jovenel Moïse government, including police training, until independent investigations are conducted into government corruption in the Petrocaribe scandal and ongoing state collusion with criminal gangs.” The NDP, Greens and others should echo the call.

To prove they are more concerned with genuinely promoting human rights – rather than aligning with the rulers of ‘our’ empire – I humbly suggest that progressive Canadians hold off on criticizing Beijing’s policy towards Hong Kong until they have produced an equal number of statements critical of Canada’s role in Haiti.

• To learn more about Canada’s role in Haiti tune into this webinar Sunday on “Imperialist attacks on Haiti and Haitian resistance: Canada’s Imperialist Adventures in Haiti”.

This article was posted on Friday, December 11th, 2020 at 4:45pm and is filed under Canada, China, Democracy, Haiti, Hong Kong.

Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

The Hong Kong police force has charged media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital Limited, which owns the Apple Daily newspaper, with collusion with foreign forces under Hong Kong’s controversial new national security law, reports the Committee to Protect Journalists.

It is a charge that carries up to life in prison if convicted, according to the Apple Daily and news reports.

“Charging Jimmy Lai under Hong Kong’s new national security law marks a dangerous escalation in China’s attacks on Hong Kong’s independent media,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia programme coordinator, in Washington, DC.

“China appears intent on crushing what remains of Hong Kong’s much vaunted tradition of press freedom. Lai should be freed at once, and all the charges he is facing should be dropped,” he said.

• READ MORE: RSF denounces arrest of Apple Daily founder

Lai has been in custody since police detained him and two Apple Daily executives on a fraud charge on December 2, as CPJ documented at the time.

He is expected to remain in jail at least until a court hearing on April 16, 2021, as a court rejected his bail bid on December 3, according to news reports.

Lai’s collusion charge will enter court proceedings tomorrow at the West Kowloon Courts, according to those reports.

The Hong Kong Police Force did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

Hong Kong’s government-funded broadcaster, Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), is under fire again.

Last week, police arrested freelance TV producer Bao Choy Yuk-ling under allegations that she made a false statement to obtain information on car owners, claiming that she had violated the Hong Kong’s Road Traffic Ordinance.

Choy obtained the information during her reporting for the documentary 7.21: Who Owns the Truth?, aired on the programme Hong Kong Connection.

The documentary investigated individuals potentially involved in the Yuen Long attacks of 2019, in which a pro-Beijing mob of more than 100 men stormed the Yuen Long MTR station wielding steel rods and canes and attacked protesters returning home from an anti-extradition demonstration.

The incident left 45 people injured, including journalists and commuters, and became one of the most notorious events of Hong Kong’s year-long protests.

Using surveillance footage from the nearby area, the documentary producers were able to track down the legal owners of the cars who took the rod-wielding men to Yuen Long.

Hong Kong reporters have for years used car plate records in their reporting for media outlets of different political camps, most commonly by crime, traffic, and entertainment beat reporters.

First to be arrested for car plates probe
Choy is the first to be arrested for the practice. If convicted, she could face a HK$5,000 (US$645) fine and six months’ imprisonment.

Choy – who appeared in court on November 10 – told reporters her case was no longer a personal matter but involved the public interest and press freedom. Dozens of members of the media gathered outside the court to show support.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mrHywuxPMV0

Choy’s documentary 7.21: Who Owns The Truth?

Her case was adjourned to January and she remains free on bail.

But this was not the first time the government appeared to have cracked down on RTHK, which in theory enjoys editorial independence despite receiving public funding and has traditionally been allowed to cover politically sensitive topics.

Hong Kong journalists get approval for protest march against producer’s arrest after police objections overturned https://t.co/hcJPO0259p pic.twitter.com/50H1rYMXl7

— Hong Kong Free Press HKFP (@hkfp) November 13, 2020

Amid the political turmoil since the pro-democracy movement erupted last year and the national security law was enacted in July, the public broadcaster has been under fire from various quarters as the government appears to tighten its grip.

Below is a list of some of the recent developments:

RTHK staff required to pledge loyalty
Most of RTHK staff is employed on civil service terms. The government has decided that all those who joined the civil service on or after July 1, when the national security law came into force, should pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and promise to uphold its constitution known as the Basic Law.

In addition to newcomers, the requirement also applies to existing staff members whose employment is confirmed after completing probation, when contracts are renewed, or when they are up for promotion.

Questions arise as to whether the public broadcaster can stay impartial in its reporting after staff have been compelled to pledge allegiance to the government.

Acting deputy steps down, citing health reasons
The public also raised eyebrows when the Deputy Director of Broadcasting Kirindi Chan resigned in June after serving less than a year in the position. She cited health and personal reasons.

At that time, the broadcaster was criticised for airing a 20-episode programme about the national security law that was perceived to be sympathetic to Beijing.

The programme attended a direct request by RTKH’s government-appointed advisory board, who instructed the broadcaster to ease public concerns about the then-looming law.

Chan served more than 30 years at the broadcaster and had overseen numerous current affairs shows, but in her latest position, she was not directly involved in the production of the controversial programmes.

Amen Ng, director of corporate communications and standards at RTHK, said Chan’s main duty was administration and the decision was not political.

Nabela Qoser probation extended
RTHK has also come under pressure to rein in reporters who ask “disrespectful” questions of senior officials.

In September, the public broadcaster reopened an investigation into Nabela Qoser, an assistant programme officer who had provoked complaints from the public when she confronted the city’s leader Carrie Lam at a press conference after the July 21 Yuen Long mob attack on MTR travellers.

Lam was asked: “Did you learn about it only this morning? Were you able to sleep well last night?” and Qoser also asked her to “speak like a human.”

An initial investigation found that Qoser had done nothing wrong, but shortly before completing her three-year probation period, she was informed that it would be extended for another 120 days for further inquiries.

Union chair Gladys Chiu slammed the decision and said asking difficult questions should not hinder a reporter’s prospects of promotion or confirmation of employment. Lam refused to comment on the case, which she described as a human resources issue.

Interview with WHO top adviser criticised
In March, RTHK News programme The Pulse was criticised by the Hong Kong government for allegedly breaching the One China policy after its producer Yvonne Tong asked questions about Taiwan’s efforts to join the World Health Organisation.

In a video call, Tong asked the WHO’s Dr Bruce Aylward to comment on the Taiwan government’s performance in containing the covid-19 pandemic, and whether the organisation would reconsider the island’s membership.

Dr Aylward appeared to have hung up the call and evaded the question after reconnection.

Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau said the programme breached the principle that there is only one sovereign China. The Director of Broadcasting Leung Ka-wing should be held responsible for RTHK‘s deviation from its charter, Yau added, and RTHK should educate the public about One Country, Two Systems.

Review team set up, pressure by advisory board
In July, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau set up a team to review RTHK’s governance and management, following the Communications Authority’s findings of bias, inaccuracy and hostility to the police force.

The review aimed to ensure the broadcaster complied with the service charter and codes of practice on programming standards issued by the authority. Charles Mok, the lawmaker representing the IT sector, said he feared the review would compromise the station’s editorial and creative freedom.

In May, the satirical show Headliner received a warning from the Communications Authority after the authority ruled as “substantiated” complaints that an episode aired in February had denigrated and insulted the police force.

The episode implied that police had more protective gear than healthcare staff when the covid-19 pandemic first emerged.

Eventually, the 31-year-old show suspended production after airing the final episode in June.

Personal view programme suspended
In April, the Communications Authority warned the broadcaster over its personal view programme Pentaprism, after it substantiated complaints that an episode contained inaccuracy, incitement of hatred to the police and unfairness. It featured a guest host who criticised the police handling of unrest around the Hong Kong Polytechnic University in November last year.

Complaints about four other episodes which featured guest hosts commenting on police anti-protest operations were also substantiated in September. RTHK decided to suspend the programme in early August, before it received the warnings.
National anthem to be aired every morning

The latest development is that starting from November 16, 2020, the Chinese national anthem – March of the Volunteers – will be aired at 8am every day ahead of news reports on all RTHK radio channels.

Spokesperson Amen Ng said that according to its charter, the public broadcaster should enhance citizens’ understanding of One Country, Two Systems and nurture their civic and national identity. The new arrangement is necessary, she said.

This article was originally published on Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP) on 11 November  2020. This edited version is published by Global Voices and the Pacific Media Centre under a content partnership agreement.

I just spent two weeks in the United States, investigating, analyzing the situation there.

I worked in Washington D.C., Minneapolis, where Mr. George Floyd was murdered by deranged cops, in New York City and Boston. COVID-19 was at my tail, as the states kept opening and closing, frantically. Demonstrations were shaking the country, protests against endemic racism and discrimination have been erupting in hundreds of cities and towns.

In several of my reports, I described confusion and deep contradictions, which have been devastating this, still the most powerful nation in the Western world.

While feverishly working in the United States, I was often thinking about Hong Kong.

The deeper the crisis in the United States, the more aggressive Trump’s administration was attacking Beijing, often via Hong Kong. As if desperately searching for a culprit, for an excuse, for justification, why North America has been shaking so violently, why it has been cracking and collapsing. Unwilling to take responsibility, the regime needed a foreign ‘element’ which it could accuse, to blame for broken pavement all over Manhattan, for tents erected by homeless people at many corners of the District of Colombia, for once modern and proud metro-rail of the capital city which was lately beginning to resemble a transportation system in some poor developing country. The regime needed to blame someone else for so much dissatisfaction, indignation, and confusion. And it was determined to produce an ideological enemy whom it could insult on a daily basis while escaping liability for scandalously inept management of the COVID-19 tragedy.

China! Trump’s index finger kept pointing towards the mighty dragon of the east. Embargo after embargo, sanctions after sanctions were imposed. China’s Communist Party members were banned from entering the United States. Trade restriction walls have been growing higher and higher. U.S. Navy ships were sailing, provoking China, right next to its shores. Millions of dollars were dispersed among the brutal rioters in SAR, just in order to provoke authorities and spread chaos.

Hong Kong, particularly its new national security law, has been sitting on the front pages of U.S. newspapers and magazines. The law, which this author and many of his colleagues described on several occasions as an absolutely normal, logical and necessary piece of legislation, was selected by Washington as its rallying cry, as a symbol of the anti-Chinese policy.

Most Hong Kong residents, both those who support their government and those who are critical of it, are well aware of the obsession of President Trump and his lieutenants Pompeo, Rubio, and others, with their SAR. They clearly understand that the government of the United States is behind the 2019/2020 riots.

What they don’t know is that this fascination with Hong Kong comes exclusively from the top of the U.S. establishment. It has absolutely nothing to do with ordinary citizens.

During my latest journey to the United States, I interacted with many people, people who are residing in several states. I listened to them; to their grievances, hopes, outrage. I was also interviewed in the city of Minneapolis. At the end of my visit, I concluded: right now, the situation in the United States is so bad, that vast majority of its citizens is deeply preoccupied with their basic existential problems: how to keep their jobs, how to survive, to pay mortgages, student loans, and medical bills.

They have near-zero interest in a faraway city, Hong Kong, which, anyway, enjoys the reputation of having a much higher quality of life than, for instance, New York, and which sits on the so-called ‘freedom index’ well above the U.S.A. itself.

Ask those common American folks about Hong Kong, and if they know anything about it at all, it will be an abstract vision of a shiny skyline of a super-rich Asian city, plus the Cantonese food. Even the very concept of SAR is only for the intellectuals, particularly for those who are interested in international politics, meaning just a tiny minority.

However, antagonizing foreign countries, as well as the United Nations, is always cheap, one could say vulgar, but very effective political ‘move’ before the elections. Many U.S. presidents were using it in the past. Some even went to wars or overthrew foreign governments, killed thousands of innocent people.

All this has nothing to do with the principles or ethics. Do not search for logic, either.

Freedom, liberty, democracy – all these are abstract terms in today’s America. At closer examination, most of Americans are not free at all. They are scared, very scared, and they are shackled financially but also through the toughest laws imaginable, much more than the citizens of other countries.

Antagonizing, provoking China, has nothing to do with some ‘fight for democracy and freedom.’ Most Americans have no idea about whether China is democratic or not. To comprehend Chinese democracy and socialism with Chinese characteristics would require at least some basic knowledge of Chinese culture and history. Such knowledge is desperately lacking in the United States, among the general public, and even at the ‘top,’ among such people like Steve Bannon, an extreme right-wing maniac, or Peter Navarro, a top Trump advisor, who writes about China, who is bashing China, but knows close to nothing about it.

In turn, deciding whether Hong Kong is free and democratic would at least require an understanding of the concept of SAR.

The recent events clearly indicated how brutal, how undemocratic is the United States.

The situation at home should be the main preoccupation of the U.S. citizens. And, frankly, it actually has been lately.

Hong Kong citizens should realize that their territory has been converted into a political football by both Washington, London, and Brussels.

But a big city, an important territory, and especially the lives of its citizens, should never be reduced to a game.

Elections in the U.S. will take place, and they will pass. Soon after, American voters will forget about Hong Kong. They don’t care about it even now. In a few months, they will want to know absolutely nothing about it, except, as before, cliché photographs, and great food.

But the damage to Hong Kong and its people who are being sacrificed for political gains in Washington, would not be easy to undo.

It is now, and it will be then: Beijing is the one which has been genuinely concerned, and which will always be ready to defend its citizens.

• First published by China Daily Hong Kong

This article was posted on Sunday, August 2nd, 2020 at 8:05pm and is filed under China, Donald Trump, Hong Kong, Opinion, United States.

Three years ago, I visited Old Supreme Court Building in Hong Kong, also known as The Court of Final Appeal, together with my friend, an Afghan-British lawyer, who was on a personal mission of ‘re-discovering Asia.’

Coming from a prominent, highly educated family in Afghanistan, my friend was extremely well aware that both the United States and the United Kingdom thoroughly destroyed her country during the recent occupation. In fact, under the NATO boots, Afghanistan became the poorest country in Asia, with the lowest life expectancy.

But after the long journey through Asia, somehow, she became nostalgically attached to Hong Kong. It looked familiar. As she studied and practiced law in the U.K., The Court of Final Appeal Building looked familiar and reassuring to her.

As it happened to be a working day, she found people to talk to and cracked conversations with the clerks. Immediately, they all managed to find a common language. Of different races and different backgrounds, they were clearly ‘on the same page,’ united by the British way of thinking, doing things as well as analyzing and judging the world.

‘Britishness’ was uniting them. Both my friend and the employees inside the old courthouse in Hong Kong were from the countries that used to be or still were brutally occupied, ransacked, and tortured by the West in general and by the U.K. in particular. But common experience and shared ‘cultural elements’ made them understand each other, and to be able to communicate flawlessly.

*****

In 2019 and 2020, I have been covering ‘events’ in SAR, in-depth, and passionately. It is because what has been taking place there is extremely important and symbolic, to the world and to me, too, personally. To some extent, young people conditioned by the Western propaganda were reminding me of my own childhood and youth, when I used to be growing up in Eastern Europe. We were also conditioned by Western propaganda. And we, too, betrayed.

In Hong Kong, the ideological combat has been that of the epic proportions. The battle has been over the most populous country on Earth – China. And not only China the country, but also its system, political, economic, and social, which I have been studying for decades, and which I greatly admire. On many occasions, I wrote, passionately, what I believe: if the socialism with the Chinese characteristics would be destroyed, our human race could lose all hopes for surviving, or at least for a better future.

Understanding ‘where they are coming from,’ comprehending what had been done to them, I grasp how the young rioters think and feel. I want to shake them, shout at them to stop. I want to share with them all that I learned in some 160 countries of the world that I have covered. At times, I am tremendously outraged by their behavior. But I also know that they are not only some ninja-style vandals, they are also the victims of the circumstances, particularly of Western brainwashing.

*****

Same as my Afghan friend, same as those clerks working in a courthouse in Hong Kong, rioters are part of that ‘common sphere’ of the British influence.

If you go to an average English pub, not in central London, but a suburb, or in a provincial city, you will quickly realize that even the British citizens themselves are ‘victims’ of their own British propaganda. At least in the old Soviet Union, people were challenging the official story, which, actually, looking ‘from a distance,’ was often quite a correct story (as the official stories coming from the PRC are). In an English pup, most of the people are trusting the official line of their government and the mass media. At least when it comes to foreign affairs, and their Empire’s history.

Now (or at least before the COVID-19 travel restrictions), British tourists, as well as British journalists, were coming to Hong Kong, bringing their ignorance with them. They met their Hong Kong counterparts, people who are often educated, or should we say, conditioned, on the same outdated, racist (against themselves) British curriculum. And they all gathered, they talked and exchanged ‘ideas,’ which were based on the same roots. Those roots did not grow spontaneously; they were planted and groomed by the British imperialist regime, in order to justify, to both the British citizens and to the colonized nations, all those horrors, injustices, and crimes committed in virtually all corners of the world.

Victims and victimizers talk. They understand each other. They even sympathize with each other. That is how the system was designed. No serious issues are addressed. While the U.K. is, once again, involved in the project of destroying China, this is never pronounced.

As long as the mutual ignorance is upheld, there is no ‘danger’ that the young rioters and their foreign backers would ever change the course of their actions.

But are foreigners who are creating chaos in Hong Kong really so ‘naïve’? Are they truly so ignorant about the evilness which they are spreading?

Yes and no. In a way, their ‘ignorance’ resembles a religious indoctrination. In fact, it is almost a fundamentalist belief: in the superiority of the Western culture, in the preeminence of the Western political system.

Many in Hong Kong adopted this frame of mind. Or, using religious vocabulary: they were converted.

All this, while the Mainland China, one of the oldest civilizations on earth, is observing, with shock, how many people in SAR are jerking their bodies and souls in some insane ritual dances choreographed by the former colonizers.

*****

All this may soon end, now that the statues of former slave owners and conquerors are being thrown into the rivers all over the U.S and U.K.

With the anti-racist uprisings in both the United States and Europe, new winds are blowing, and soon they may reach Asia.

Maybe these events could finally awaken most of the Hong Kong youth.

Then, perhaps, they will understand that they have been fooled, that they are fighting for the system and culture, which even many Westerners do not desire anymore.

And maybe, just maybe, the mutual ignorance could end. And with them, the riots.  And unnecessary pain.

If this would happen, if more and more British citizens will manage to wake up from slumber, young English rebels could come and teach young Hong Kong rioters about the crimes which the British Empire committed in China. It would be, paradoxically, the same story that Beijing was telling them for decades.

This way, mutual ignorance could be converted into mutual awakening.

• First published by China Daily Hong Kong

• Photo by Andre Vltchek

This article was posted on Friday, July 17th, 2020 at 9:48pm and is filed under Afghanistan, China, Colonialism, Hong Kong, Protests, United Kingdom, United States.

I want to say that none of it is new, that the West already destabilized so many countries and territories, brainwashed tens of millions of young people.

I know, because in the past, I was one of them. If I weren’t, it would be impossible to understand what is now happening in Hong Kong.

*****

I was born in Leningrad, a beautiful city in the Soviet Union. Now it is called St. Petersburg, and the country is Russia. Mom is half Russian, half Chinese, artist, and architect. My childhood was split between Leningrad and Pilsen, an industrial city known for its beer, at the Western extreme of what used to be Czechoslovakia. Dad was a nuclear scientist.

Two cities were different. Both represented something essential in the Communist planning, a system that you were taught, by the Western propagandists, to hate.

Leningrad is one of the most stunning cities in the world, with some of the greatest museums, opera and ballet theatres, public spaces. In the past, it used to be the Russian capital.

Pilsen is tiny, with only 180.000 inhabitants. But when I was a kid, it counted with several excellent libraries, art cinemas, an opera house, avant-garde theatres, art galleries, research zoo, with things that could not be, as I realized later (when it was too late), found even in the U.S. cities of one million.

Both cities, a big and a small, had excellent public transportation, vast parks, and forests coming to its outskirts, as well as elegant cafes. Pilsen had countless free tennis facilities, football stadiums, even badminton courts.

Life was good, meaningful. It was rich. Not rich in terms of money, but rich culturally, intellectually, and health-wise. To be young was fun, with knowledge free and easily accessible, with the culture at every corner, and sports for everyone. The pace was slow: plenty of time to think, learn, analyze.

But, it was also the height of the Cold War.

We were young, rebellious, and easy to manipulate. We were never satisfied with what we were given. We took for granted everything. At night, we were glued to our radio receivers, listening to the BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other broadcasting services aiming at discrediting socialism and all countries which were fighting against Western imperialism.

Czech socialist industrial conglomerates were building, in solidarity, entire factories, from steel to sugar mills, in Asian, Middle East, and Africa. But we saw no glory in this because Western propaganda outlets were simply ridiculing such undertakings.

Our cinemas were showing masterpieces of Italian, French, Soviet, Japanese cinema. But we were told to demand junk from the U.S.

Music offering was great, from live to recorded. Almost all music was actually available, although with some delay, in local stores or even on stage. What was not sold in our stores was nihilist rubbish. But that was precisely what we were told to desire. And we did desire it, and copied it with religious reverence, on our tape recorders. If something was not available, the Western media outlets were shouting that it is a gross violation of free speech.

They knew, and they still know now, how to manipulate young brains.

At some point, we were converted into young pessimists, criticizing everything in our countries, without comparing, without even a tiny bit of objectivity.

Does it sound familiar?

We were told, and we repeated: everything in the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia was bad. Everything in the West was great. Yes, it was like some fundamentalist religion or mass-madness. Hardly anyone was immune. Actually, we were infected, we were sick, turned into idiots.

We were using public, socialist facilities, from libraries to theatres, subsidized cafes, to glorify West and smear our own nations. This is how we were indoctrinated, by Western radio and television stations, and by publications smuggled into the countries.

In those days, plastic shopping bags from the West became the status symbols! You know, those bags that you get in some cheap supermarkets or department stores.

When I think about it at a distance of several decades, I can hardly believe it: young educated boys and girls, proudly walking down the streets, exhibiting cheap plastic shopping bags, for which they paid a serious amount of money. Because they came from the West. Because they were symbolizing consumerism! Because we were told that consumerism is good.

*****

We were told that we should desire freedom. Western-style freedom.

We were instructed to “fight for freedom.”

In many ways, we were much freer than the West. I realized it when I first arrived in New York and saw how badly educated were local kids of my age, how shallow was their knowledge of the world. How little culture there was in regular mid-sized North American cities.

We wanted — we demanded designer jeans. We were longing for Western music labels in the center of our LPs. It was not about the essence or the message. It was form over substance.

Our food was tastier, ecologically produced. But we wanted colorful Western packaging. We demanded chemicals.

We were constantly angry, agitated, confrontational. We were antagonizing our families.

We were young, but we felt old.

I published my first book of poetry, then left, slammed the door behind me, went to New York.

And soon after, I realized that I was fooled!

*****

This is a very simplified version of my story. Space is limited.

But I am glad I can share it with my Hong Kong readers, and, of course, with my young readers all over China.

Two wonderful countries which used to be my home were betrayed, literally sold for nothing, for pairs of designer jeans, and plastic shopping bags.

West celebrated! Months after the collapse of the socialist system, both countries were literally robbed of everything by Western companies. People lost their homes and jobs, and internationalism was deterred. Proud socialist companies got privatized and, in many cases, liquidated. Theatres and art cinemas were converted into cheap second-hand clothes markets.

In Russia, life expectancy dropped to African sub-Saharan levels.

Czechoslovakia was broken into two parts.

Now, decades later, both Russia and Czechia are wealthy again. Russia has many elements of a socialist system with central planning.

But I miss my two countries as they used to be, and all surveys show that the majority of people there miss them too. I also feel guilty, day and night, for allowing myself to be indoctrinated, to be used, and in a way to betray.

After seeing the world, I understand that what happened to both the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, also happened to many other parts of the world. And right now, the West is aiming at China, by using Hong Kong.

Whenever in China, whenever in Hong Kong, I keep repeating: please do not follow our terrible example. Defend your nation! Do not sell it, metaphorically, for some filthy plastic shopping bags. Do not do something that you would regret for the rest of your lives!

• First published by China Daily Hong Kong

This article was posted on Monday, June 22nd, 2020 at 8:15am and is filed under “The West”, China, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Opinion, Russia, The Soviet Union.

Nothing like that has happened.

Increasingly it is becoming clear that Hong Kong’s anti-government forces are not rational, not rational at all. They are not seeking the best possible solution for their territory. They are encouraged, and some of them even paid, to overthrow the system, to antagonize Beijing, and to smear China with all possible means.

*****

Now, when even in the West, more and more medical experts are admiring China for its decisive and victorious battle against COVID-19, it is a group of Hong Kong doctors, that are constantly looking for problems in government policy, thus igniting anti-government rhetoric.

Nothing can satisfy them. China, in record time, alone, rose against the new disease. It found itself in unknown territory, without any support from abroad. It put its citizens first, mobilized the entire nation and defeated the virus.

But that is, obviously, not good enough for the critics of the government! Because for them, nothing is good enough.

Recently Yahoo News UK reported that compared to the rest of the world, Hong Kong had very few coronavirus cases. And they interviewed Dr. Pierre Chan on the topic:

“Thank you for giving us this good comment that Hong Kong coronavirus cases and deaths are low,” Dr. Pierre Chan, a leading medical doctor and lawmaker, told Yahoo News UK. “But in Hong Kong, we don’t think so. We don’t think we are doing good.””

That much is clear. And one could add: nothing, almost nothing can go wrong in the West, as far as the critics of Beijing and Hong Kong governments are concerned.

“For such a densely populated place, Hong Kong has relatively few coronavirus cases. But Dr. Chan says: “We are all annoyed at the government.”

He explains: “In Hong Kong we should have good [preparation] when there is an epidemic like SARS or coronavirus. Unfortunately, the government has delayed in adopting the recommendations [of a 2004 report into the SARS outbreak about handling future diseases]. That is why, in Hong Kong, we are annoyed and unhappy.”

The reporter had volunteered some criticism of the U.K. government:

“The UK government was criticized for a perceived delay in introducing its draconian measures to restrict the spread of coronavirus.”

Dr. Chan, replied:

“Your government acted promptly when compared with Hong Kong.”

Reading this, it becomes obvious that in Hong Kong, the lack of criticism of Western countries is almost something religious. And, I was told, Dr. Chan is not even a ‘hardcore’ opposition figure; he is just ‘leaning’ towards the opposition.

*****

A few very quick calculations, which I made together with two UN experts who are presently dealing with the coronavirus global emergency:

The population of Hong Kong: approximately 7,500,000. The population of the United Kingdom: 67,799,513. Confirmed cases in Hong Kong, on the day when this article was being written: 845. Confirmed cases in the UK on the same day: 34,192. Confirmed cases per capita in HK: 0.00011. Confirmed cases per capita in the U.K.: 0.00050. Deaths: Hong Kong 4, the U.K.: 2,926. The number of death cases per capita: HK 0.00000053, U.K. 0.00004316.

That is a tremendous difference, isn’t it? To claim that the government of the U.K. has been doing better, fighting COVID-19, than the government of Hong Kong, would truly requiren enormous ideological discipline!

I consulted my doctor-friends in Hong Kong, and they confirmed what I already expected:

“I have read the article. It is ridiculous to say that UK is doing better than us. Even when the government is doing practically well, they will find reasons to criticize.”

*****

Obviously, the ideological battle for Hong Kong is not over.

For some time, COVID-19 frightened the citizens of the Territory. Things have somehow calmed down on the ideological front, but it appears that only for a very short period of time.

At the same time, the coronavirus outbreak has not forced the West to behave as a reasonable and responsible member of the international community. Right now, the U.S. Navy is threatening Venezuela from its bases in Panama. Iran is under threat, and so are other countries that have been refusing to follow the Western diktat. Venezuela and Iran have to fight against COVID-19 with tied hands, suffering from the brutal and ridiculous economic sanctions imposed by Washington.

The White House never really stopped its anti-Chinese rhetoric, even now, during this global medical emergency. Beijing and Moscow are offering cooperation, extending helping hands to all the corners of the world. By return, Washington is smearing both China and Russia, while acting in an utterly inept way at home. All over the U.S., 243,500 people have already been infected, and 5,926 have died.

Still, those in Hong Kong that are admiring everything that comes out from the West, are twisting reality, smearing success and praising failure.

• First published by China Daily Hong Kong

This article was posted on Tuesday, April 14th, 2020 at 3:41pm and is filed under “The West”, China, COVID-19 (coronavirus), Hong Kong, Opinion.

Several Korean religious freaks, apparently, are to blame.

On 22 February, 2020, Mail Online, reported:

More than half of all South Korea’s coronavirus cases are linked to a secretive ultra-religious cult whose leader believes he is immortal.

Just reading that, I knew I may get royally screwed. Nothing good comes from ultra-religious fanatics, and South Koreans are notorious for their political and religious extremism.

But that was not all. The report continued:

There are further reports of outbreaks in the psychiatric unit of a hospital in Cheongdo county, infections in Busan, and on the island of Jeju.

Korean Air, which was supposed to fly its glorious new Boeing 747-8 from Hong Kong to Incheon (Seoul international airport), has been carving its service, first reducing it to Boeing 777s, then to Airbus 330s, and in the end, cancelling all of its flights 3 days before my departure.

Korean Air – lounges closed down

To secure my monstrously long commute, I spent most of my Sky Team miles, to secure a business class set of tickets.

There was a reason for it: I could not see. Well, I could hardly see at all.

Before Hong Kong, I had worked in Kalimantan, in the Indonesian part of Borneo, on an island which has been totally plundered by greed, corruption and the ineptness of the Javanese neo-colonialists. An island where the present administration of president Joko Widodo (known as “Jokowi”), is planning to build and move the new capital city, abandoning the enormous, more than 20 million population sized urban area of Jakarta which is “sinking”, ridden with countless urban slums, lack of sanitation and safe drinking water.

Writing a book about this monumental insanity, I continued investigating. And in a process I got attacked, as almost anyone who visits Borneo does, by various and vicious parasites. My guts got infected by something terrible, and then my eyes. I flew between Balikpapan and Pontianak on Lion Air’s Boeing 737 (yes, that Lion Air, which keeps cramming and periodically crashing planes, ever since the beginning of its operation). I have no idea whether my eyes got attacked there, on board, or in some filthy ditch near the palm oil plantations, where they are cutting down what is left of the tropical forest.

Wherever it was, it did get infected. First the left eye. It was like a white foam. I could only see extremely abstract contours, as if between me and the world there was a thick, white blanket. It was scary, very scary. I am not only a writer and a philosopher, but I am also a filmmaker and photographer. Doing what I do and not seeing almost anything is, you know, quite terrifying.

Before flying to Hong Kong, where I have been covering the riots ignited and financed by the West, I stopped over in Bangkok and went to an eye clinic, but the doctors there only cared about the payment. They had no clue what was happening to my eye.

Hong Kong

Then, in Hong Kong, as Korean Air cancelled my flight, my right eye also got attacked.

At night, as I lay awake in my hotel room, I suddenly recalled how on board the Garuda Indonesia, between Pontianak and Jakarta, at least four people were coughing, loudly and desperately. Nobody was checking them. The Indonesian government had suggested that people pray to avoid the outbreak of the coronavirus.

“What else,” I thought. “Am I also going to get the coronavirus?”

*****

I refused to succumb to this horrible situation.

By then I knew that Korean Air was determined to ruin me. While Air France (my Sky Team carrier) and KLM were offering re-routing and compensation to their passengers stranded in Asia, Korean Air showed a clear and vulgar indifference. It did nothing to help. It never even replied to my queries.

I was also aware of the fact that I may have to travel, at least for 7 days, through various detours, and without seeing almost anything. Also, with twisted guts and a diabetic attack which had kicked my backside because of the tremendous stress.

Was it worse than being in Syrian Idlib, in Afghanistan, or near Mosul after it had been taken over by ISIS?

In a way, it was. Being blind, chased by the new coronavirus type, with airports closing one after another, and with the prices of airline tickets going sky-high, everything seemed to be demeaning, depressing and unsettling.

Strangely enough, I felt no fear of the COVID-19. I kept discussing the new type of coronavirus with my medical colleagues, through WhatsApp, until my eyes totally let go and collapsed.

I had to make it through to Santiago de Chile, which happened to be on the total opposite side of the world.

Western doctors that I knew were sending long and useless advice which mainly repeated “go see a doctor” idiocy. I told them I was in Hong Kong, which had been experiencing a near total lock-down. I told them that I had already been to a Thai eye doctor who had absolutely no clue about my condition.

Then, I realized that I could not rely on those that I am fighting against! I needed comrades to help me.

My family contacted a Syrian lady doctor, an expert in infectious diseases, and a sister of my friend in Damascus. I sent photo-images of my eyes. She saw, asked for symptoms and prescribed some powerful oral antibiotics and drops. I managed to convince a Hong Kong pharmacist to sell the medicine over the counter: I said it was a matter of life and death. She understood.

Syria and China saved me. People were guided by intuition, not by rigid rules.

I was going home.

*****

My nearest and dearest began helping me to re-route. It took days. It was horrible.

Airlines, from Korean Air to Cathay Pacific, began to cover their backs; trying to squeeze every penny from those who were still able and willing to fly. Some one-way economy tickets for 2 hours flights shot up to 1,600 US dollars. Business class on certain routes became miraculously cheaper. As long as one could search, and as long as one could look at a screen.

To avoid quarantining, and to get out of Hong Kong, the easiest way was to fly in the totally opposite direction than where I was heading: to Bangkok, on Emirates. A few business class tickets were still available, but at $600, on a route where they used to cost under $400. It was one of the last available ways out of the almost locked out city.

Emirates 380-800 – overpriced but one of the last escapes from Hong Kong

I grabbed a seat on the Airbus 380-800. I somehow pulled through the totally empty Hong Kong Airport. I could hardly see anything. There were hardly any seats to rest on in the departure hall. My backpack was almost 20kg heavy, with a professional camera, computer and mobile phones.

I have no idea how I managed to get to my plane. With my damaged eyes, I could still see those huge numbers indicating gates. I collapsed into my seat. The super-jumbo took off, Southeast; away from where I was trying to fly. I was some 20 thousand kilometers away from Santiago de Chile.

Santiago was bleeding, too! Its eyes were damaged. People were fighting against the fascist regime imposed on them by Washington, and by the multinational corporations, in 1973. Like my own, their eyes were inflamed; some, over 300 individuals, even lost their eyes, as they were shot at by the police.

On board my flight to Bangkok, I was not sure whether I was going to be able to return home, alive.

But I was going through the night towards Bangkok. Would they even let me in? The first step.

*****

They did. Miraculously. I must have looked like shit, but an unfriendly, insulting border police officer slammed a stamp into my passport, fingerprinted me, photographed me, and in the end, let me go.

That was it. Hong Kong does not stamp passports. Officially, my journey would begin in Thailand.

I had only 9 hours on the ground. The airport was eerily empty. People looked like streetwalkers, wearing masks, some even things resembling ski-glasses. I went home to my place by the river, without even opening my luggage, I collapsed into my bed, but could not sleep the entire night. Tugboats were pulling ghost-like barges, 31 floors below. I could not see the barges, only contours. This was my first day into the journey.

In the morning, very early, I somehow managed to return to the airport, and rechecked my luggage all the way to Suriname, as that was the only airport in South America, which I was able to get to free (using my air miles) business class tickets, at least from Seoul. Instead of re-routing or compensating me, Korean Air which had brutally cancelled my tickets from Hong Kong, was now charging me something absolutely ridiculous, to get from Bangkok to Seoul, where I was to catch a KLM flight to Amsterdam and many hours later, to Paramaribo.

Thai fingerprinting and photographing again. The taking the shoes off, precisely as the U.S. masters have ordered. The saturated spite of the Thai officials suffering from superiority complexes, followed by an old, dirty, 777-300 Korean Air aircraft. I crashed into its unmaintained seat. Just glanced at the food (inedible-looking, cheap version of bibimba), and slept all the way to Seoul.

*****

Coronavirus, greed, extreme capitalism, rudeness: everything accumulated into this monstrous journey.

Taking off from Hong Kong and later Bangkok, I experienced almost absolute blindness. Then, the Damascus-prescribed antibiotics began to kick in. They were terrible, but I was warned. Either or. Either blindness and white fog, or total exhaustion, a collapsed body, but clearer sight. I opted for sight.

I landed in Seoul, like a zombie, heavy rucksack on my back, wobbly, almost desperate.

My luggage was automatically transferred all the way to Paramaribo, using the Sky Team system.

But this was South Korea. At the transfer desk I was refused boarding passes: “Go through security, then go to Sky Team Lounge and wait 8 hours for your flight. They will give you boarding passes at the gate,” I was told.

At the security check, they could not read English, or understand what was written on my E-tickets. 3 times I was humiliated, going back and forth between the transfer desk and security checkpoint. The staff were clearly enjoying the game, perhaps waiting for when I would finally collapse. The transfer desk person refused to walk with me to the security check. Security people were stubbornly refusing to read English.

This was precisely one of those moments when one loses all hope in humanity. You think: “Your body will let go! You will collapse, at any moment. Collapse and die.” All this, just because you have been putting your life on the line for some poor, devastated, enormous tropical island. Just because some South Korean religious freaks went bananas. Just because of human indifference and racism. Just because, just because… The brave new world. The creepiness of a capitalist, right-wing trash universe.

Incheon, South Korea. Usually one of the busiest airports

I made it to the lounge, eventually, moving through the empty airport. Everything was shut down. The lounge was empty; almost nothing to eat there. The coronavirus scare.

At this point, all I wanted to do was to sleep. I found a transit hotel and paid an exorbitant price for only a few hours of rest. I collapsed. I cursed capitalism, greed, and humanity’s collapse.

I knew that as I was entering the disturbing world of dreams, or should I say nightmares, the People’s Republic of China, as well as Cuba, were fighting for our human race, against all the odds, against the monstrous propaganda originating from the West.

I had no right to kick the bucket in some bloody transit hotel room at the Incheon Airport. China, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela needed me. I saluted my comrades, the old fashioned way, and fell asleep.

*****

The Korean Air clerk at the gate had no idea where Paramaribo was, or where Suriname is located. He was moonlighting for KLM, but was wearing a Korean Air uniform.

I told him what I thought about Korean Air. Before that, he had not liked me for flying to “some Paramaribo”, but after that he started to hate me, openly. The fact that I am a platinum member of his alliance meant nothing.

He began treating me as if I was the coronavirus incarnated.

By then, I could hardly see him. My legs were about to collapse, at any moment. But I was not going to show weakness.

He began: “Where is your visa to Suriname”?

“Here,” I replied.

“What is that?”

“My visa.”

“So, where is your visa?”

“My visa is here.”

“You have to show it to me.”

“It is in front of you.”

Korean Air had stolen my money by cancelling flights and by refusing to re-route me. Now, it was ruining my health. But, there was zero remorse coming from the staff.

Eventually, a supervisor came, and began abusing me, too.

I told her directly to her face: “You should learn from North Korean people how to treat visitors!”

Her apparatchik essence kicked in. She began threatening me.

I pulled out five press cards: “Do you want to arrest me for expressing my opinion?”

She started to look hesitant. I demanded her name card. She said she does not have one. Bullshit: in north Asia everybody has one.

“Are you a security agent or an airline staff?” I asked her, point-blank. I knew that in South Korea, it was the same thing.

Finally, she gave me my boarding passes, together with a look, which was full of hate.

This legendary racist horror, South Korean -style then disappeared. I saw the way she humiliated herself, bowing and kissing the asses of her fellow, South Korean, citizens.

I was welcomed on board by an outraged flight hostess who was originally from Suriname: “She did not even know that my country exists, did she?” She patted me on the shoulder.

*****

While Seoul was terrified of the coronavirus, the Europeans looked totally indifferent to the possible danger.

That was on March 3rd, 2020.

After the more than 11 hours flight from Seoul to Amsterdam, Schiphol airport appeared to be totally relaxed.

Even passengers from Seoul to Amsterdam looked undisturbed. No masks, no panic. Snoring contently into the air.

777-200ER landed very early, at around 5 am.

Amsterdam Airport – no masks, no fear

I went through security, and located the Sky Team Lounge. It was stuffed with excellent food, but it happened to be totally empty. I found a comfortable chair and fell asleep, almost immediately. When I woke up, the lounge was full; literally packed.

After being used to masks being worn all over North and Southeast Asia, what hit me was the absolute lack of any face protectors at the major Dutch airport.

People were drinking, eating tons, talking. There was no sense of any emergency.

European and North American daily newspapers, in all languages, were full of the coronavirus headlines. Those freely distributed in the lounge were only attacking China, totally and bizarrely avoiding the absolute lack of preparedness in the West.

Even the Italian daily papers, at that time at least, showed no signs of concern.

Not far from me, a group of Italian travelers, was chatting, embracing, kissing, drinking prosecco and coffee for breakfast, and calling home on their mobile phones.

There was only one lax coronavirus checkpoint upon arrival from South Korea, at the time one of the hardest hit countries in the world.

In retrospect, this was all totally bizarre and irresponsible.

Was the Western medical system so unprepared? Or was it told, even ordered, to behave in such a manner?

Waiting for my flight to Paramaribo, I called my 84-year old mom, who has been living in Germany, where she is married.

“They feed us with such crap,” she told me, in Russian. “I mean, that stuff that they tell us through the mass media. I don’t believe anything they say or write,” she concluded. “All this is not going to end well.”

And she was absolutely right.

*****

The Queen of the Sky, a majestic old Boeing 747-400 took off on time, towards Suriname. Both KLM and British Airways were still flying these beautiful planes, although there were rumors that KLM will retire most of them in 2021.

This was the last flight of the captain. He was leaving KLM. The flight hostesses were urging all the passengers to write something short, something personal. There was supposed to be a great celebration, a great party, in Paramaribo.

By then, I was almost losing my consciousness. My eyes cleared, almost totally. But the monstrous antibiotics and chronic exhaustion, doubled my body down. Chile appeared to be far, far away.

Again, no masks, no precautions. The 747 was going southwest, full of passengers, with zero medical safeguards.

The plane landed, and it was sprayed with water by a fire engine, to celebrate the last flight of the captain.

No jet-ways: passengers had to climb down off the enormous aircraft. Those who couldn’t were met by special vehicle, functioning as a lift, and by a bus.

But the lift and other vehicles were quickly engaged by the celebrations of the captain’s retirement. Countless Surinamese passengers who were returning from Holland, after being treated in European hospitals, were waiting in the lift and the bus, abandoned by the ground staff. No one to measure their temperature. Nobody to even ask what kind of medical conditions they were suffering from.

By then, I had turned into a zombie. I somehow managed to sail through the immigration of a shack defined as an airport.

I almost collapsed. I asked for help, but was told by a local staff member: “If you feel sick, go get medical help”. Later, the hotel manager told me that this is the “usual treatment people get here”.

I somehow got stabilized, by getting my hands on a luggage trolley. The universe was spinning around me.

My pre-paid taxi did not wait for me. The hotel was some 50 kilometers from the airport.

In the end, I went to the airport police. Instead of helping me, they began a rude scrutiny, clearly trying to extract some bribe.

“I feel very sick,” I said. They couldn’t care less.

No questions asked about what had made me sick. Was it the coronavirus? By then it was already called COVID-19, and it was on my tail, chasing me as I was circling the globe.

*****

I filmed the Suriname River and the rainforest of Suriname, to show the contrast with Borneo.

Suriname has been terribly damaged, but Borneo has been ruined, endlessly and some say, irreversibly.

Empty crossing of Suriname Rive

I only had one full day. I had to work fast. My Indian driver had to hold me up while I was working, otherwise I’d collapse.

On the 5th of March, I returned to the airport, ready to fly to Belem, Brazil.

Further humiliation, overcharging, insults. I wanted to get out. And never return. One day I will write about those repulsive 48 hours in Suriname, but not now.

A 90 minutes flight, and everything fully changed. Even under the fascist government of Bolsonaro, Brazilians were kind and caring.

Shortly after the plane door opened in Belem, I was put into a wheelchair and zipped through immigration and other formalities. There was no overcharging, no humiliation and no dramas.

Empty river front in Belem, Brazil

Brazil was what it always has been: a great country with dire problems. But a great country, nevertheless.

The next day I flew from Belem to Rio de Janeiro, via Brasilia.

Still, almost no masks. Once or twice my temperature was checked. That is all.

In Belem, all the Amazon riverfront cafes were kept open.

In Rio, while waiting for my flight to Chile, I went to the legendary and packed Vinicius bosanova club, and to the totally packed Caso de Chuva cultural center, where Tom Veloso was singing the songs of Gilberto Gil. Absolutely no precautions, no masks, people squeezed like sardines. The evening of March 8th.

A day later, on March 9th, the airlines in South America began catching up with turbo-capitalist games. Chilean LATAM, when I asked for an extra legroom seat, suggested that I pay $1,500, for 4 hours on board a small Airbus 320 plane. Naturally, I refused.

Coronavirus check iat Santiago Airport, Chile

Santiago airport took the coronavirus seriously. There were several checkups. End of the games.

This is when strange things began to happen.

Two days after I landed in Santiago de Chile, South America moved from inactivity to hyperactivity.

One country after another began lock-ups; from Argentina to Peru, to Chile.

Santiago began resembling a ghost town. Entire regions of Chile began to close down.

I needed to recover, quickly, and to travel to Venezuela and Cuba, but it was becoming thoroughly impossible.

I arrived, I survived, but right away, I was grounded.

*****

From one extreme to another. In South America and the West.

When confronted with the terrible medical emergency, China reacted like a Communist country, which it is. It mobilized in the name of the people, and began fighting the battle. It acted rationally and responsibly. It never performed a total lockdown.

It demonstrated tremendous enthusiasm and discipline.

Without thinking twice, it sacrificed its economic interests, putting the people first.

It has won the battle; beating the virus back. Almost no new cases now. The hospitals constructed to treat the coronavirus are closing down. Doctors and other medical staff are celebrating.

Cuba is near to developing a vaccine for the new coronavirus.

China and Cuba are cooperating. China is sending airplanes with help to Italy, Spain and Serbia.

In the meantime, people in certain Western countries are being told that over 80% of their citizens will get infected, and that hundreds of thousands, even mullions, will die!

Why?

Why the hell, really?

Some nations, from Italy to Chile (where I am right now), are locking up everything: entire countries, entire regions, everything.

At the height of the crises, Beijing was open, and so was Shanghai and almost all other major cities. Flights were arriving and departing. What confidence! What a success!

A clear victory of socialism over capitalism.

Just look at the Western nations, at Southeast Asia, or at South America; people are petrified. Control of the population is much more brutal than anything that has ever been implemented in China.

And what do they tell the Italians, French, Brits and North Americans? That they will be dying like flies! Even now, when this essay is being written, more Italian people have died than the Chinese. That is on a per capita basis about 22 times more. And in the West, things are getting worse and worse.

And, until now, it is not yet clear, who brought the epidemy to Wuhan, to begin with. Many believe that it was the U.S. military. Still, China never stopped behaving like an internationalist country!

*****

During my more than 20,000 kilometers long journey, I have seen a frightened, divided planet.

And then, I saw a great Chinese victory, and a Cuban victory.

I read how Cuba has rescued 600 people stuck on a cruise ship, the MS Braemar, belonging to one of its tormentors.

I witnessed panic in extreme right-wing countries like Chile. I was ready to drive south, to Araucaria, to speak to the discriminated against Mapuche indigenous people (according to Word they do not exist, as I am given red error sign), but precisely that area got hermetically sealed, closed down, one day before my planned 900-kilometer journey, and a month before the planned constitutional referendum.

In the West, and allied countries, the coronavirus has been used for political ends.

I am almost certain the Bolivian elections will be ‘postponed’, “because of the coronavirus”, to prevent socialist MAS from regaining power.

I am back home, but home is not a real home, anymore.

Home is now China, Cuba, Russia. Countries which are fighting against the Western tyranny that is sacrificing millions of human lives.

The coronavirus is a barometer of the state of the world.

It shows which countries bring shame to the word “humanity” and which bring pride.

• First published by 21 Century Wire

• Photos by Andre Vltchek

This article was posted on Wednesday, March 25th, 2020 at 9:37pm and is filed under “The West”, Air Travel, Asia, Borneo, Brazil, Capitalism, Chile, China, COVID-19 (coronavirus), Cuba, Health/Medical, Hong Kong, Italy, Korea, Media, Russia, United States, Venezuela.

Between the lack of testing measures and the lax observation of the quarantine, Italians are still taking night trains. Hence, there is an opportunity for spreading the infection around the country. There are lessons Italy and other nations need to learn from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan which have all had remarkable success thus far in combatting the coronavirus after having learned, from the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic in 2003, how to tackle infectious viral disease. Some of what was learned comes down to early detection of outbreaks, the effective communication to the public in the event of an outbreak, clear strategies for containment, and multinational collaboration in implementing such strategies.

Where Italy is catching up on these public health mandates, the government clearly failed on all four counts when there was not only early detection and numbers which clearly showed the rising cases, but the strategies for containment were horrifically implemented. Schools were shut down and university classes cancelled yet every football field was awash in boys and young men playing contact sports, bi-weekly street markets were in full operation, and public transport was as packed as ever. Nobody gave a thought to the fact that when the first two-week red zone lockdowns occurred, not only would millions of Italians head to other parts of the country to spread the infection, but that there were no checks in place to prevent this from happening. Hence last week the national government put the entire country on the social distancing model. Still much of the country is unclear about the strategies for containment and the refusal of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to implement social distancing has angered many.

Singapore’s health ministry has reported at least 243 cases of COVID-19 infection with 53 of these cases discharged.  Hong Kong has had fewer than 150 cases with evidence that social distancing also ended the flu season in there. And Taiwan has 75 cases of coronavirus with only one death thus far as a result of this virus. What did SARS teach these countries in terms of fighting virus transmission?

Aside from banning flights early on from Wuhan, China, Taiwan enacted a series of temperature control stations around the country—from airports to buses to building entries. The Taiwanese government also ensured that masks were readily available and people who tested previously negative were retested and tightly monitored given that many patients had mild to no symptoms which meant that detection of the virus was directly and more heavily linked to monitoring over individuals falling ill. Post-SARS, Taiwan established a central command center for epidemics which offered a coordinated response to COVID-19 which included various actions that were to be taken.

Hong Kong, the first country hit with SARS, has also learned from SARS even if many medical professionals were critical of Hong Kong’s slowness to shut the border with mainland China. Yet the lessons from SARS have helped Hong Kong effectively handle this coronavirus from the moment it finally severed all rail service from China in its incremental border closing in early February. Hong Kong imposed a quarantine on visitors from the mainland, encouraged social distancing and closing schools until the middle of April.

Singapore imposed travel restrictions on people coming from mainland China which went far beyond what the WHO (World Heath Organisation) advises. Singapore, like Taiwan, also implemented an exhaustive testing regime which addressed anyone with flu-like or pneumonia symptoms. The tracking of these cases was integral to the success of Singapore’s low COVID-19 infection rate and the government not only allows for all people to be tested for free, but if they are quarantined, everyone—to include the self-employed—is covered financially with employers being barred from taking quarantine time off from holiday leave.

One important detail that cannot be understated is the sharing of information and effective communication to its citizens, something that China was blamed for its inaction during the SARS outbreak when China took several months to report information to the WHO about the epidemic within the country. This time, however. China has reacted to this coronavirus with a bit more celerity as scientists have noted that the government has been more open to sharing information. This despite other reports which claim that Beijing is censoring unfavorable information about the spread of the virus. Still, the consensus is that China has improved on its transparency with the WHO.

With the huge spike in cases over the weekend in Spain and France, Italy is about to be joined by neighboring nations whose healthcare systems are about to be rattled with few measures in place to prevent this virus from spreading. Where last week there was a battle between Italian, French and German health ministries about the importation of face masks to Italy, this problem now seems to be resolved. Yet there are few other remedies that locals in Italy can depend upon unless you count contactless credit cards which along with mobile phones are turning out to be the best prevention against transmitting or contracting COVID-19.

European nations must learn from these governments’ actions in working towards eradicating COVID-19. In the end, viruses don’t care if children are in school or outside playing soccer, they will spread unless strict measures are enforced. Let this be the end to half measures in the future and individuals who think that only their lives matter. Viruses like COVID-19 are bound to return in different and even more lethal mutations and it is up to all humans to work cooperatively to contain them, to eradicate them for our collective good.

This article was posted on Friday, March 20th, 2020 at 4:29am and is filed under China, COVID-19 (coronavirus), Health/Medical, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan.

“Vigil: Hong Kong on the Brink”
Purchase in the Truthdig Bazaar

For decades, Hong Kong — cosmopolitan, in possession of a free economy, and strategically situated — served as China’s face to the West. It is no surprise then, that when the British handed it over to China in 1997, many believed that the city’s unique status would enable Hong Kongers to continue enjoying, for the next 50 years, freedoms and rights not available on the mainland, under the “one country, two systems” framework. Moreover, there was a widespread expectation that these rights would be expanded in due time and that Hong Kongers would eventually be accorded the right to elect their own chief executive and other rights of a democratic civil society before Hong Kong’s special status expires in 2047.

Instead, the last two decades have felt like a contraction — a tightening of control from Beijing over the territory that has led to numerous protests over fears that China is reneging on its promise to grant the former British colony the high degree of autonomy promised in its Basic Law, or mini-constitution.

The most recent spate of demonstrations began in June 2019 and has continued nearly unabated ever since, save for a brief period when streets emptied due to the escalating coronavirus crisis in January. The immediate catalyst was the proposal of an anti-extradition law that would allow China to try criminal suspects on the mainland. But the protests are also the ideological heirs of the many pro-democracy movements that preceded them in the territory. They differ, however, both in scale (over a quarter of the city’s 7.4 million residents demonstrated on June 16, making it the largest protest in Hong Kong’s history), and in the degree of unrest and violence that has been roiling the city for months.

The significance of this tumultuous moment in Hong Kong’s history is the subject of Vigil: Hong Kong on the Brink by Jeffrey Wasserstrom, a professor of modern Chinese history at the University of California, Irvine, a specialist on student protests, and a longtime observer of Hong Kong. In this slim volume, rich in the sort of anecdotes and personal observations that lend it the feel of a report from the ground, Wasserstrom brings us into the world of Hong Kong’s activists while explaining the current and historical context underlying their cause. It is no easy feat to convey a sense for the diffuse nature of the movement, but he succeeds. And he describes the ways that distinctions are increasingly blurring between the territory and the mainland, a blurring he sees increasing on every trip he makes back to the territory.

“The epic David-and-Goliath struggle currently underway in Hong Kong,” he writes, “can be seen in part as rooted in contrasting views of the meaning and significance of borders and what happens as they blur or disappear.” Some residents welcome this blurring, finding it inevitable, pragmatic, or convenient; others oppose it, fearing the loss of the vibrant civil society and independence from Beijing that make Hong Kong so distinct.

The city serves, among other things, as barometer — a harbinger of the degree of political openness, or lack thereof, that might be seen on the mainland. It serves, too, as a test case for the one country, two systems framework, long regarded by Beijing as a model for bringing Taiwan into the fold. But these are unique times. What makes this moment distinct is not just the fear that Beijing is increasingly brazen in exerting control over the territory, but that the protests are spearheaded by a generation of young people living in a singular moment in Hong Kong’s history. This is a generation that has no memory of Tiananmen, the sort of memory that might temper their fervor in the face of police aggression. These young people have never experienced what it feels like to be “second-class citizens in a British colony,” nor do they relate to those of an older generation that feel loyalty toward China from having profited from its economic rise. Their allegiance is to Hong Kong itself.

These are young people who, Wasserstrom tells us, see their future as grim, who face economic uncertainty in one of the most inequitable cities in the world, and who languished in a depression after what felt like the failure of the last major pro-democracy movement in 2014. These latest protests have given them new reason to devote themselves to a cause greater than themselves.

But this is also a generation bearing the psychic trauma of loving a homeland that bears a timestamp. In one of the more poignant sections of the book, Wasserstrom interviews a number of Hong Kongers and asks them to name a film or book that they believe best captures the current state of Hong Kong.

Hana Meihan Davis, a 21-year-old student who chooses the Hunger Games series, takes note of the “all-or-nothing feeling of desperation” in characters who feel that a “way of life they treasured was disappearing.” The dystopian franchise is an inspiring reminder of what is entailed in “giving your all for a lost cause.” (One of the rallying cries during last summer’s protests was a direct quote from the Hunger Games: “If we burn, you burn with us.”)

Didi Kirsten Tatlow, a reporter born and raised in Hong Kong, chooses the film In the Mood for Love by Wong Kar-wai because “it evokes a sense of dreams that cannot be realized.” Wasserstrom explains, “She refers to this feeling as a ‘nostalgia for the future,’ a longing for the impossible.” It is precisely this — that “feeling of something almost within grasp but then forever out of reach” — that seems the psychological dilemma of the generation of protesters today.

Wasserstrom asks, “Will China ever genuinely keep its promise of implementing actual democracy in Hong Kong?” No, he writes, and in any case this isn’t the question anymore. Rather, it is whether the resistance can slow or stop the “erosion” of the beloved institutions and hopes and dreams that make Hong Kong what it is to its people. One might ask, though, whether this ever should have been a viable question at all. The British had a century to propose, let alone institute, political reforms in Hong Kong, yet waited until they were on the very brink of the handover. What was the motive in proposing them at the moment of departure? Could it possibly be that China is on the hook for reforms it never explicitly promised to deliver? When Wasserstrom writes that “it is difficult to overstate how strange and enigmatic the Basic Law of Hong Kong is,” one wishes there had been space for a fuller explanation of the circumstances surrounding the drafting of this as well as the joint agreement between Britain and China that it derived from. It is indeed enigmatic, and the ambiguity built into its language explains the vague understandings and assumptions about China’s intentions; it is open to interpretation. There was no clear articulation about what would be allowed, what would be off-limits; there was only an ambiguous, vague set of commitments.

Nevertheless, the movement has “put Beijing on notice,” writes Wasserstrom, “to show that if Hong Kong’s autonomy is wilting so, too, is the grand experiment of ‘One Country Two Systems.’” But it might be that maintaining the facade is not a high priority for China anymore. Hong Kong’s uniqueness — so striking in 1997 — has waned and diluted. The rise of China had not yet occurred at the time of the handover; Chinese cities on the mainland were still developing economies. Today, however, there are many business dynamos like Hong Kong: Shenzhen, Shanghai, Guangzhou. They may well be lessening the importance of Hong Kong for Beijing.

What happens when the political arc of a territory is out of sync with the aspirations of its people, when a territory is losing its relative significance at the same time that its population is crying out for more? There is a palpable disconnect between the activists’ ambitions and the political and economic arc of Hong Kong itself. This is a populace whose awareness of themselves and their hopes for their city appears to be reaching a peak just when Hong Kong itself is waning in significance.

A friend who teaches at a university in Hong Kong recently reminded me of what any author writing a story knows: in fiction, unlike in real life, the ending determines which actions her characters will take. Change the ending, and all else in the story must shift as well. But this is a real-life instance in which the protagonists are living in a narrative where the ending — 2047 — is already known.

Wasserstrom’s strength lies in how he puts a human face on the protesters and makes heartbreakingly clear their dilemma. One is left feeling compassion for a generation that feels doomed, that is waking up to its identity only to have it recede before their very eyes at the moment of their awakening.

This article originally appeared on the Los Angeles Review of Books.

Christine Gross-Loh is the author of Parenting Without Borders and co-author of The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach Us About the Good Life.

In spite of doing tremendous job fighting the epidemy, China is getting almost no tributes for its performance.

Now Bangkok, Jakarta and other regional capital are in panic. After trying to sweep the crises under the carpet in order not to rock their tourist industries which are heavily dependent on annual arrival of the millions of Chinese package tourists, they are trying to introduce coherent health measures. A bit too late, complain their own citizens.  However, the West has no appetite to criticize them. All criticism is reserved, as always, for China.

No one knows precisely where the present disease really comes from. Chinese doctors (as well as the Russian ones) are working days and nights, trying to find the answers, as well as the cure. But until now, people are still dying.  The mortality rate of the infected patients is very high; some sources say at about 50%. As this article is being written, around 210 have already lost their lives, mainly in China.

In 2013, The Guardian wrote that there were similar cases in Saudi Arabia, where the research was brutally swept under the carpet:

A doctor in a Saudi hospital was fired for reporting a new, deadly strain of the coronavirus. Now, with half of all confirmed cases ending in death, the World Health Organization has issued a global alert and scientists are preparing for the worst…

This example exposes an approach so commonly adopted by different nations.

In many countries, similar emergencies are not confronted directly. The governments hope that they will, quietly, go away, until it is often too late to prevent disaster.

My doctor friends in Hong Kong commented on the above-mentioned case:

That was MERS, and MERS is a corona virus, and so is a common cold. The present virus has not got a name yet, but belongs to the corona virus family, too.

China has risen, with zeal and determination. It is confronting deadly disease frontally, as if it would be confronting enemy military battalions. It has been clearly a Communist approach, similar to that which already saved millions of lives in Cuba.

From Szechuan and elsewhere, I began receiving brief but powerful messages, penned by my friends and colleagues; messages reflecting heroic struggle of Chinese nation against the disease:

China is now introducing the highest level of emergency. Treatment and prevention are the most important political missions.

Nobody can now neglect his or her duties… In my city’s education department, they issued an order to postpone school opening day.

A factory in Zhejiang province was told to produce 80 million masks in just a few days. In the same time, the government ordered factories and shops not to raise the price of the masks. It also allocated billions of RMBs for preventive measures and products, including paying for trucks and trains distributing the equipment.

Patients infected with this virus get free medical care.

A young Chinese diplomat, a friend of mine whom I will only identify by her first name – Langqi – here, reported to me from her hometown in Northern China, near Beijing:

Despite the ineffective response of the Wuhan government at the initial stage, all governments, from central to local, have been doing everything they can to contain the spread of the virus. It is not an easy task, considering the “biggest human migration” happening during the Chinese New Year. It is with immense commitment and voluntary contributions, from doctors, nurses, people working in service and delivery industry, as well as from Wuhan people themselves, that China is able to manage the spread of the virus to its current situation. The responsive measures are also largely backed up by experts, including those who contributed during the SARS epidemic. It can be said that the whole country now is working as a whole to face our common challenge: the coronavirus. The solidarity comes not only from the trust in the government, but also from the identity as part of the community.

 A doctor with whom I work in Hong Kong, re-confirmed, in summary:

In Wuhan, some officials tried to hide the information at the beginning. But the higher authorities made everything clear and the world appreciates government’s work, afterwards.

Not all do, of course; unfortunately, not all.

Attacking China (as well as Russia, Iran and other independent nations) is now a sport, or a well-paid profession, or both, for many individuals, particularly those living in the West.

But many people, particularly those with the first-hand experience, decided to line-up in their support for China. An Indonesian student Yessy Liana, based in Wuhan, recently sent passionate plea to her native country, which has an on-going tendency to smear everything Chinese, on behalf of its Western masters:

Today I am in Wuhan City and I want to share the situation where I am now. We all heard about the coronavirus and for those of you who are worried or curious, hopefully this video can give light on the situation.

This is my school canteen, usually closed during winter holidays. But because of the coronavirus, the school reopened the canteen although only on the 1st floor… Because the school wants students to stay in the school and reduce the interaction with the outside.

This is the street in front of the campus. Now in Wuhan, public transportation is not in operation for a while. But private vehicles can go around without a problem. You can see for yourself that… it quieter than usual.

Now we are at one of the Chaoshi (market) that is still open. You can see the stock of food and drinks in this chaoshi are plentiful, and usually those of us who stay in dormitory in Wuhan buy food and drinks here.

Now we are in campus area and in front of us is a campus hospital and it is still open.

The building in front of us is a dormitory for international students. There are basketball courts and also place to play table tennis…

Now we are at my dormitory. Next to the entrance, there is a security guard who is on duty, and he will check the temperature of all people entering and leaving the dormitory.

For parents and friends who are worried about friends or family in China, please don’t worry because the government here and the school are taking care of us…

Similar stories are circulating all over social media, uploaded by foreign students and workers who are based in China. They speak about the determination and strength of the state, the Communist Party and the citizens.

Entire factories are ordered to produce protective gear, laboratories are working on developing vaccines and medicine to fight this latest type of coronavirus. Hospitals are constructed literally overnight.

My friend, a doctor from Hong Kong, has no doubts why the West ignores this dedicated fight of China, against the deadly disease:

People are accusing China from everywhere. This means that China is really strong!

He shared with me an image, with a comment:

Look at this. A Danish newspaper insults China by using the coronavirus as the stars of the national flag. This has lots of feedback from the citizens of China. The Prime Minister refused to apologize because ‘there is freedom of expression in Denmark’.

Things are getting wilder and wilder. Attacks are intensifying.

In Hong Kong, rioters are burning shelters intended to host future victims of coronavirus. They are also forcing local government to close all border posts with Mainland China: ferry terminals, bridges. Rail links have already been suspended.

Some in Hong Kong are lamenting that the rioters have already lost their humanity and compassion. It is Chinese Lunar New Year, after all; beginning of the auspicious Year of Rat. Time when solidarity and kindness should be shown. But that is not what the rioters are paid for to do by their Western masters.

China is now fighting successfully, but alone. Chinese people are clearly aware of the fact that their entire nation is ‘quarantined’ politically by the West. Even during such hard times of medical emergencies, there is malicious sarcasm coming from Washington, London and Paris, never an extended hand.

Some publications, including Global Research in Canada, are not excluding a possibility that what we are witnessing could be a Western biological warfare against China.

If they are correct, chances that China will be defeated are truly slim. On 31 January, 2020, RT reported that Chinese scientists made first giant step in their epic battle:

Scientists in China have reportedly developed an express test which can detect the 2019-nCoV novel coronavirus in under fifteen minutes, in a major breakthrough which will hopefully help stem the tide of infection.

Experts from a tech company based in Wuxi in eastern China’s Jiangsu Province, working with the National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, developed the rapid nucleic test kit in just ten days, according to the Xinhua news agency.

China will win the battle against this malicious virus soon, but the situation will be remembered for many years to come. It has already broken trust, and soon it will negatively influence the way this world is functioning. For years and decades, China has stood alone, smiling and with the extended hand, offering peace and friendship. Many are now wondering whether such unilateral kindness is capable of improving the world.

• First published by NEO – New Eastern Outlook – a journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences

<div class="author"><em>Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are &ldquo;</em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Chinas-Belt-Road-Initiative-Connecting/dp/6025095485/ref=sr_1_12?keywords=Andre+Vltchek&amp;qid=1574300995&amp;sr=8-12"><em>China Belt and Road Initiative: Connecting Countries, Saving Millions of Lives</em></a><em>&rdquo;, </em>&ldquo;China<em> with John B. Cobb, Jr., </em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Optimism-Western-Nihilism-Vltchek/dp/6025095418/"><em>Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism</em></a><em>, the revolutionary novel </em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Aurora-Andre-Vltchek/dp/6027354364/"><em>&ldquo;Aurora&rdquo;</em></a><em> and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: &ldquo;</em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Exposing-Lies-Empire-Andre-Vltchek/dp/6027005866"><em>Exposing Lies Of The Empire</em></a><em>&rdquo;. View his other books </em><a href="https://andrevltchek.weebly.com/books.html"><em>here</em></a><em>. Watch </em><a href="https://vimeo.com/ondemand/rwandagambit"><em>Rwanda Gambit</em></a><em>, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky </em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Western-Terrorism-Hiroshima-Drone-Warfare/dp/0745333877"><em>&ldquo;On Western Terrorism&rdquo;</em></a><em>. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his </em><a href="https://andrevltchek.weebly.com/"><em>website</em></a><em> and his </em><a href="https://twitter.com/AndreVltchek"><em>Twitter</em></a><em>. His </em><a href="https://www.patreon.com/andrevltchek"><em>Patreon</em></a> <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/author/andrevltchek/">Read other articles by Andre</a>.</div>

        <p class="postmeta">This article was posted on Wednesday, February 5th, 2020 at 7:16am and is filed under <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/china/" rel="category tag">China</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/healthmedical/" rel="category tag">Health/Medical</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/china/hong-kong/" rel="category tag">Hong Kong</a>. 

All but two of Hong Kong’s land and sea crossings with the mainland were closed at midnight after more than 2,000 hospital workers went on strike Monday. Hong Kong health authorities reported two additional patients without any known travel to the virus epicenter, bringing the number of locally transmitted cases up to four.

The growing caseload “indicates significant risk of community transmission” and could portend a “large-scale” outbreak, said Chuang Shuk-kwan, head of the communicable disease branch at the Center for Health Protection.

More than 7,000 health personnel joined the strike Tuesday, according to the Hospital Authority Employees’ Alliance, the strike organizer.

Hong Kong’s Hospital Authority said it was cutting back services because “a large number of staff members are absent from duty” and “emergency services in public hospitals have been affected.”

Hong Kong was hit hard by SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome, in 2002-03, an illness from the same virus family as the current outbreak. Trust in Chinese authorities has plummeted following months of anti-government protests in the Asian financial hub.

The territory’s beleaguered leader, Carrie Lam, criticized the strike and said the government was doing all it could to limit the flow of people across the border.

“Important services, critical operations have been affected,” including cancer treatment and care for newborns, Lam told reporters. “So I’m appealing to those who are taking part in this action that let’s put the interests of the patients and the entire public health system above all other things.”

The leader of the nearby gambling enclave of Macao asked the city’s casino bosses to suspend operations to prevent further infections after a worker at one of the resorts tested positive for the virus. Macao has recorded 10 cases in all.

China’s latest figures of 425 deaths and 20,438 confirmed cases were up sharply from the previous day. Outside mainland China, at least 180 cases have been confirmed, including two fatalities, one in Hong Kong and the other in the Philippines.

The patient who died in Hong Kong was a 39-year-old man who had traveled to Wuhan, the mainland city where the outbreak started. The Hospital Authority said Tuesday he had pre-existing health conditions but did not give details.

Dr. David Heymann, who led the World Health Organization’s response to the SARS outbreak, said it’s too early to tell when the new virus will peak, but that it appears to still be on the increase.

He said the spike in China’s caseload in recent days is partly attributable to the fact that officials expanded their search to include milder cases, not only people with pneumonia. He declined to predict whether the virus would ultimately cause a pandemic, or worldwide outbreak. WHO defines a pandemic as sustained transmission of a disease in at least two world regions.

Heymann said as the new virus starts to spread beyond China, scientists will gain a much better understanding of it.

“What we will see is the clearer natural history of the disease,” he said. “That will occur because all the contacts of people who have come into contact into these countries (where the virus has been exported) are being traced and watched very closely.”

Britain and France advised against non-essential travel to China and urged their citizens there to leave if they can. Air France has stopped all flights to and from China. France has six confirmed cases of the virus, and Britain has two.

Belgium reported its first case, one of nine of its citizens evacuated from Wuhan last weekend, and Iran joined the growing number of countries arranging such flights.

The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said a 42-year-old South Korean woman tested positive for the virus days after she returned from a trip to Thailand with chills and other symptoms. It is South Korea’s 16th case.

Thailand confirmed six more cases, raising its total to 25, the highest outside China. Two of the new cases were motorcycle taxi drivers who had driven for Chinese tourists. Earlier a Thai taxi driver was also diagnosed with the virus. The cases are concerning because they suggest the virus can spread more easily between people.

WHO officials reported slower progress than expected in equipping laboratories across Africa to test for the new virus. No confirmed cases have been reported on the continent, but WHO health security adviser Dr. Ambrose Talisuna said the risk is “very, very high.”

China has struggled to maintain supplies of face masks, along with protective suits and other items, as it seeks to enforce temperature checks at homes, offices, shops and restaurants, require masks be worn in public and keep more than 50 million people from leaving home in Wuhan and neighboring cities.

The European Union office in Beijing said member states have shipped 12 tons of protective equipment to China, with more on the way.

Germany’s Lufthansa became the latest international airline to suspend flights to China, and several countries are barring Chinese travelers or people who passed through China recently. Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways said they were cutting back flights to several Chinese cities from mid-February to late March.

In Wuhan, patients were being transferred to a new 1,000-bed hospital that was built in just 10 days, its prefabricated wards equipped with state-of-the-art medical equipment and ventilation systems. A 1,500-bed hospital also specially built is due to open soon.

Elsewhere in Wuhan, authorities were converting a gymnasium, exhibition hall and cultural center into hospitals with a total of 3,400 beds to treat patients with mild symptoms. Television video showed beds placed in tight rows in cavernous rooms without any barriers between them.

Authorities hope that will help relieve what is being described as an overwhelmed public health system in Wuhan and surrounding areas.

One man, Fang Bin, said he saw wards so crowded during a visit to the city’s No. 5 Hospital on Saturday that some patients were forced to sit on the ground.

“There are too many patients, it’s overcrowded,” Fang told The Associated Press. He said he was taken from his home and questioned by police after he posted a video of what he saw online.

Such scenes have revived memories of the SARS outbreak that began in China and spread worldwide. The new virus is believed to be much less virulent, however.

The fatality rate, at 2.1%, is basically stable, Jiao Yahui, a National Health Commission official, said at a news conference. More than 80% of the dead were over 60 years old, and more than 75% had an underlying disease, she said.

Japanese officials were conducting medical checks on more than 3,000 people on board a Japanese-operated cruise ship after a passenger tested positive after leaving the vessel while it was in Hong Kong.

Associated Press writers Alice Fung in Hong Kong, Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo and Maria Cheng in London contributed to this report.

Before we begin analyzing, let us recall that countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States, as well as other Western nations, have been spreading colonialist terror to basically all corners of the world. And in the process, they developed effective terminology and propaganda which has been justifying, even glorifying, acts such as looting, torture, rape and genocides. Basically, first Europe, and later North America literally “got away with everything, including mass murder”. The native people of Americas, Africa and Asia have been massacred, their voices silenced. Slaves were imported from Africa. Great Asian nations, such as China, what is now “India” and Indonesia, got occupied, divided and thoroughly plundered.

And all was done in the name of spreading religion, “liberating” people from themselves, as well as “civilizing them”.

Nothing has really changed.

To date, people of great nations with thousands of years of culture, are treated like infants; humiliated, and as if they were still in kindergarten, told how to behave, and how to think.

Sometimes if they “misbehave”, they get slapped. Periodically they get slapped so hard, that it takes them decades, even centuries, to get back to their feet. It took China decades to recover from the period of “humiliation”. India and Indonesia are presently trying to recuperate from the colonial barbarity, and from, in the case of Indonesia, the 1965 U.S.-administered fascist coup.

But if you go back to the archives in London, Brussels or Berlin, all the monstrous acts of colonialism, are justified by lofty terms. Western powers are always “fighting for justice”; they are “enlightening” and “liberating”. No regrets, no shame and no second thoughts. They are always correct!

Like now — precisely as it is these days.

Presently, the West is trying to overthrow governments in several independent countries on different continents. From Bolivia (the country has been already destroyed) to Venezuela, from Iraq to Iran, to China and Russia. The more successful these countries get, the better they serve their people, the more vicious the attacks from abroad are, the tougher the embargos and sanctions imposed on them are. The happier the citizens are, the more grotesque the propaganda disseminated from the West gets.

In Hong Kong, some young people, out of financial interest, or out of ignorance, keep shouting: “President Trump, Please Liberate Us!” Or similar, but equally treasonous slogans. They are waving U.S., U.K. and German flags. They beat up people who try to argue with them, including their own Police Force.

So, let us see, how the United States really “liberates” countries in various pockets of the world.

Let us visit Iran, a country which (you’d never guess it if consuming only Western mass media) is, despite the vicious embargos and sanctions, on the verge of the “highest human development index bracket” (UNDP). How is it possible? Simple. Because Iran is a socialist country (socialism with the Iranian characteristics). It is also an internationalist nation which is fighting against Western imperialism. It helps many occupied and attacked states on our planet, including Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia (before), Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, to name just a few.

So, what is the West doing? It is trying to ruin it, by all means; ruin all good will and progress. It is starving Iran through sanctions, it finances and encourages its “opposition”, as it does in China, Russia and Latin America. It is trying to destroy it.

Then, it just bombs their convoy in neighboring Iraq, killing its brave commander, General Soleimani. And, as if it was not horrid enough, it turns the tables around, and starts threatening Teheran with more sanctions, more attacks, and even with the destruction of its cultural sites.

Iran, under attack, confused, shot down, by mistake, a Ukrainian passenger jet. It immediately apologized, in horror, offering compensation. The U.S. straightway began digging into the wound. It started to provoke (like in Hong Kong) young people. The British ambassador, too, got involved!

As if Iran and the rest of the world should suddenly forget that during its attack on Iraq, more than 3 decades ago, Washington actually shot down an Iranian wide-body passenger plane (Iran Air flight 655, an Airbus-300), on a routine flight from Bandar Abbas to Dubai. In an “accident”, 290 people, among them 66 children, lost their lives. That was considered “war collateral”.

Iranian leaders then did not demand “regime change” in Washington. They were not paying for riots in New York or Chicago.

As China is not doing anything of that nature, now.

The “Liberation” of Iraq (in fact, brutal sanctions, bombing, invasion and occupation) took more than a million Iraqi lives, most of them, those of women and children. Presently, Iraq has been plundered, broken into pieces, and on its knees.

Is this the kind of “liberation” that some of the Hong Kong youngsters really want?

No? But if not, is there any other performed by the West, in modern history?

Washington is getting more and more aggressive in all parts of the world.

It also pays more and more for collaboration.

And it is not shy to inject terrorist tactics into allied troops, organizations and non-governmental organizations. Hong Kong is no exception.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia, China, Venezuela, but also many other countries, should be carefully watching and analyzing each and every move made by the United States. The West is perfecting tactics on how to liquidate all opposition to its dictates.

It is not called a “war”, yet. But it is. People are dying. The lives of millions are being ruined.

• First published by China Daily – Hong Kong

            <p class="postmeta">This article was posted on Thursday, January 30th, 2020 at 12:05pm and is filed under <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/colour-revolutions/regime-change/" rel="category tag">"Regime Change"</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/assassinations/" rel="category tag">Assassinations</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/south-america/bolivia/" rel="category tag">Bolivia</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/china/" rel="category tag">China</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/espionage/" rel="category tag">Espionage/"Intelligence"</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/europe/" rel="category tag">Europe</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/china/hong-kong/" rel="category tag">Hong Kong</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/indonesia/" rel="category tag">Indonesia</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/middle-east/iran/" rel="category tag">Iran</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/middle-east/iraq/" rel="category tag">Iraq</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/middle-east/lebanon/" rel="category tag">Lebanon</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/media/" rel="category tag">Media</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/opinion/" rel="category tag">Opinion</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/middle-east/iran/qasem-soleimani/" rel="category tag">Qasem Soleimani</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/europe/russia/" rel="category tag">Russia</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/economics/sanctions-economics/" rel="category tag">Sanctions</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/socialism/" rel="category tag">Socialism</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/middle-east/syria/" rel="category tag">Syria</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/europe/united-kingdom/" rel="category tag">United Kingdom</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/united-states/" rel="category tag">United States</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/united-states/us-foreign-policy/" rel="category tag">US Foreign Policy</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/united-states/us-military/" rel="category tag">US Military</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/united-states/us-terrorism/" rel="category tag">US Terrorism</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/united-states/us-war-crimes/" rel="category tag">US War Crimes</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/south-america/venezuela/" rel="category tag">Venezuela</a>. 

The new virus has now infected more people in China than were sickened there during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak. On Wednesday, the number of cases jumped to 5,974, surpassing the 5,327 people diagnosed with SARS.

The death toll, which stood at 132 Wednesday, is still less than half the number who died in China from SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. Scientists say there are many questions to be answered about the new virus, including just how easily it spreads and how severe it is.

The World Health Organization’s emergencies chief told reporters on Wednesday that China was taking “extraordinary measures in the face of an extraordinary challenge” posed by the outbreak.

Dr. Michael Ryan spoke at a news conference after returning from a trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping and other senior government leaders. He said the epidemic remains centered in the city of Wuhan and in Hubei province but that “information is being updated and is changing by the hour.”

Ryan said the few cases of human-to-human spread of the virus outside China — in Japan, Germany, Canada and Vietnam — were of “great concern”and were part of the reason the U.N. health agency’s director-general was reconvening a committee of experts Thursday. It will assess whether the outbreak should be declared a global emergency.

To date, about 99% of the nearly 6,000 cases are in China. Ryan estimated the death rate of the new virus at 2%, but said the figure was very preliminary. With fluctuating numbers of cases and deaths, scientists are only able to produce a rough estimate of the fatality rate and it’s likely many milder cases of the virus are being missed.

In comparison, the SARS virus killed about 10% of people who caught it.

The new virus is from the coronavirus family, which includes those that can cause the common cold as well as more serious illnesses such as SARS and MERS.

Ryan noted there were several aspects of the new virus outbreak that are extremely worrying, citing the recent rapid spike in cases in China. He said that while scientists believe the outbreak was sparked by an animal virus, it’s unclear if there are other factors driving the epidemic.

“Without understanding that, it’s very hard to put into context the current transmission dynamics,” he said.

Meanwhile, countries began evacuating their citizens from the Chinese city hardest-hit by the virus. Chartered planes carrying about 200 evacuees each arrived in Japan and the United States as other countries planned similar evacuations from the city of Wuhan, which authorities have shut down to try to contain the virus.

The first cases in the Middle East were confirmed Wednesday, a family of four from Wuhan that was visiting the United Arab Emirates. Airlines around the world announced they were cutting flights to China, and Hong Kong was suspending rail travel to and from the mainland at midnight.

The number of cases in China rose 1,459 from the previous day, a smaller increase than the 1,771 new cases reported Tuesday. Australia, Finland and Singapore were among those reporting new cases, as the number outside China topped 70. The vast majority are people who came from Wuhan.

The U.S. plane arrived in California after a refueling stop in Alaska. All 201 passengers, who included diplomats from the U.S. Consulate in Wuhan, passed health screenings in China and Anchorage, and were to undergo three days of monitoring at a Southern California military base to ensure they show no signs of the illness.

“The whole plane erupted into cheers when the crew welcomed them back to the United States,” Dr. Anne Zink, Alaska’s chief medical officer, told reporters in Anchorage.

Four passengers on the evacuation flight to Japan had coughs and fevers, and two were diagnosed with pneumonia. It wasn’t clear whether they were infected with the new virus, which first appeared in Wuhan in December. Its symptoms, including cough and fever and in severe cases pneumonia, are similar to many other illnesses.

Takeo Aoyama, an employee at Nippon Steel Corp.’s subsidiary in Wuhan, told reporters he was relieved to return home.

“We were feeling increasingly uneasy as the situation developed so rapidly and we were still in the city,” Aoyama said, his voice muffled by a white surgical mask.

Australia, New Zealand and Britain were among the latest countries to announce they are planning evacuations.

British health secretary Matt Hancock tweeted that “anyone who returns from Wuhan will be safely isolated for 14 days, with all necessary medical attention.” The measures are a step up from those during the devastating 2014-16 Ebola outbreak, when returning travelers from West Africa were asked to monitor themselves for symptoms.

Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, said the steps are justified to prevent the introduction of the virus and its spread.

“There’s always a balance between the draconian measures of public health and what people might want to do, and obviously it’s regrettable if people who turn out not to have the virus are quarantined unnecessarily,” he said.

The outbreak has affected international sporting events. The International Hockey Federation postponed Pro League games in China, and soccer, basketball and boxing qualifiers for the Tokyo Olympics in February have been moved outside of the country.

In China’s Hubei province, 17 cities including Wuhan have been locked down, trapping more than 50 million people in the most far-reaching disease control measures ever imposed.

WHO’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commended China’s response. The low number of infections outside China “is due in no small part to the extraordinary steps the government has taken to prevent the export of cases,” he said. “They’re doing that at the expense of their economy and other factors.”

During the 2002-2003 SARS epidemic, China was slammed for hiding that outbreak for months, allowing it to spread unchecked before reporting it to the WHO. Even after inviting international experts to investigate the epidemic, SARS patients were moved from hospitals and driven around in ambulances to conceal the true extent of the virus’ spread.

The source of the new virus and the full extent of its spread are still unknown. However, the World Health Organization said most cases reported to date “have been milder, with around 20% of those infected experiencing severe illness.”

Scientists expect many crucial questions about the virus’ behavior will be answered in the coming weeks as the outbreak evolves and it becomes clearer how people are infected.

Although the Chinese health minister and others have suggested that the virus is spreading before people get symptoms, data to confirm that has not yet been shared widely beyond China.

“It’s still unclear whether that takes place,” said Malik Peiris, chair in virology at the University of Hong Kong.

“The fortunate thing about SARS, if there was anything fortunate, was that transmission did not take place before symptoms,” he said. If it turns out that the new coronavirus can indeed be spread by people who don’t show any symptoms, “a pandemic is a scenario that we have to consider.”

Associated Press writers Maria Cheng and Jill Lawless in London; Mark Thiessen in Anchorage, Alaska; Amy Taxin in Riverside, California; and Christina Larson in Washington contributed to this report.

BEIJING — China’s leader on Saturday called the accelerating spread of a new virus a grave situation, as cities from the outbreak’s epicenter in central China to Hong Kong scrambled to contain an illness that has infected more than 1,200 people and killed 41.

President Xi Jinping’s remarks, reported by state broadcaster CCTV, came at a meeting of Communist Party leaders convened on Lunar New Year — the country’s biggest holiday whose celebrations have been muted — and underlined the government’s urgent, expanding efforts to control the outbreak.

Travel agencies have been told to halt all group tours, the state-owned English-language China Daily newspaper reported, citing the China Association of Travel Services.

Millions of people traveling during the holiday have fueled the spread of the outbreak nationwide and overseas after it began in the city of Wuhan in central China. The vast majority of the infections and all the deaths have been in mainland China, but fresh cases are popping up.

Australia and Malaysia reported their first cases Saturday — four each —and Japan, its third. France confirmed three cases Friday, the first in Europe, and the U.S. identified its second, a woman in Chicago who had returned from China.

In the heart of the outbreak where 11 million residents are already on lockdown, Wuhan banned most vehicle use, including private cars, in downtown areas starting Sunday, state media reported. Only authorized vehicles would be permitted, the reports said.

The city will assign 6,000 taxis to neighborhoods, under the management of resident committees, to help people get around if they need to, China Daily said.

In Hong Kong, leader Carrie Lam said her government will raise its response level to emergency, the highest one, and close primary and secondary schools for two more weeks on top of next week’s Lunar New Year holiday. They will reopen Feb. 17.

Lam said direct flights and trains from Wuhan would be blocked.

In a sign of the growing strain on Wuhan’s health care system, the official Xinhua news agency reported that the city planned to build a second makeshift hospital with about 1,000 beds. The city has said another hospital was expected to be completed Feb. 3.

The new virus comes from a large family of what are known as coronaviruses, some causing nothing worse than a cold. It causes cold- and flu-like symptoms, including cough and fever, and in more severe cases, shortness of breath. It can worsen to pneumonia, which can be fatal.

China cut off trains, planes and other links to Wuhan on Wednesday, as well as public transportation within the city, and has steadily expanded a lockdown to 16 surrounding cities with a combined population of more than 50 million — greater than that of New York, London, Paris and Moscow combined.

China’s biggest holiday, Lunar New Year, unfolded Saturday in the shadow of the virus. Authorities canceled a host of events, and closed major tourist destinations and movie theaters.

Temples locked their doors, Beijing’s Forbidden City and Shanghai Disneyland closed, and people canceled restaurant reservations ahead of the holiday, normally a time of family reunions, sightseeing trips and other festivities in the country of 1.4 billion people.

“We originally planned to go back to my wife’s hometown and bought train tickets to depart this afternoon,” said Li Mengbin, who was on a stroll near the closed Forbidden City. “We ended up canceling. But I’m still happy to celebrate the new year in Beijing, which I hadn’t for several years.”

Temples and parks were decorated with red streamers, paper lanterns and booths, but some places started dismantling the decor.

People in China wore medical masks to public places like grocery stores, where workers dispensed hand sanitizer to customers. Some parts of the country had checkpoints for temperature readings and made masks mandatory.

The National Health Commission reported a jump in the number of infected people, to 1,287. The latest tally, from 29 provinces and cities across China, included 237 patients in serious condition.

Of the 41 deaths, 39 have been in Hubei province, where Wuhan is the capital city. Most of the deaths have been older patients, though a 36-year-old man in Hubei died this week.

French automaker PSA Group says it will evacuate its employees from Wuhan, quarantine them and then bring them to France. The Foreign Ministry said it was working on “eventual options” to evacuate French citizens from Wuhan “who want to leave.” It didn’t elaborate.

The National Health Commission said it is bringing in medical teams to help handle the outbreak, a day after videos circulating online showed throngs of frantic people in masks lined up for examinations and complaints that family members had been turned away at hospitals that were at capacity.

The Chinese military dispatched 450 medical staff, some with experience in past outbreaks, including SARS and Ebola, who arrived in Wuhan late Friday to help treat many patients hospitalized with viral pneumonia, Xinhua reported.

Xinhua also said medical supplies are being rushed to the city, including 14,000 protective suits, 110,000 pairs of gloves and masks and goggles.

The rapid increase in reported deaths and illnesses does not necessarily mean the crisis is getting worse but could reflect better monitoring and reporting of the virus.

It is not clear how lethal the new coronavirus is or even whether it is as dangerous as the ordinary flu, which kills tens of thousands of people every year in the U.S. alone.

Associated Press researcher Henry Hou and video journalist Dake Kang contributed to this report.

First of all, I want to ask: Why?

Why all this smoke and fire, wrath and violence? Were your lives, before the so-called “protests”, or “riots”, really so dismal?

You have been living in one of the richest cities on earth. Even according to Western evaluations, Hong Kong has one of the highest “freedom indexes”, higher than that of most of Western countries.

Water that comes from your taps is clean, the Internet is extremely fast, public transportation is cheap and one of the best in the world. You can enjoy an exciting cultural life, as well as great public spaces constructed along your impressive coasts.

Naturally, Hong Kong is not a perfect place, as there are no perfect places on this planet.

Your housing is some of the most expensive in the world. Job opportunities for college graduates are not really excellent. Some cities on Mainland China are now more exciting places to live, to create and to dream, than ‘good old’ Hong Kong. But still, it is a fascinating, solid city, with its own culture, mindset and complex history. And in many ways, it is a beautiful city; beautiful and unique.

So, why? What happened? Why suddenly such anger, and such frustration?

Should we talk? Please let’s.

*****

I have worked in around 160 countries and territories on all continents. I have written about and I have filmed many wars and conflicts. I have been covering revolutions and rebellions, but also terrible riots ignited by Western countries. You probably have heard about the so-called “Color Revolutions”, or the “Arab Spring”.

I have witnessed, first hand, the fate of countries that have been occupied and then thoroughly destroyed by the United States and NATO: Afghanistan and Syria, Iraq and Colombia, to name just a few. I have seen millions of ruined lives in nations where the West overthrew left-wing governments, and then injected fascism: places like Indonesia (1965), and Chile (1973). Now there is nothing left of Indonesia; its nature is thoroughly ruined and the great majority lives in misery. In Chile, people have stood up, and are proudly fighting and dying for socialism which was stolen from them by Western governments and corporations.

I have lived and worked all over the African continent, the most devastated part of the world, colonized and terrorized first by Europe, and later by the United States, for many centuries.

lat-love for the US

In Hong Kong, I see you waving flags of the United States. You want that country to “save you from China” (from your own nation, in essence). I have read a translation of your school curriculum. It smears China, and it glorifies the West. Were you told, ever, that in the name of that flag, consisting of the stars and stripes, tens of millions of people, worldwide, were murdered, democracies were raped, and freedom of expression horrendously oppressed? Or are you only reading what is brought to you by Reuters and other Western press agencies?

When waving the U.K. flags, nostalgically recalling your British masters and their rule over Hong Kong, do you even think about some of the most monstrous crimes committed in the history of humankind? On all continents of the world, the British Empire murdered, humiliated, violated and plundered; hundreds of millions of people. Human beings were reduced to slaves. Their lives, identities, were reduced to nothing.

Were you told this? Do you realize it? When you wave these flags, when your leaders are taking bribes from the U.S. and the E.U. establishment, do you ever think what kind of money you are touching? Do you ever consider that this money is soaked in blood?

I saw several of you demanding “independence from China”. I even witnessed some of you calling China a “terrorist” state.

Have you ever, seriously, compared the Chinese political system to that, so-called, “democracy” of the West?

Let me give you a simple quiz: In the last decades, how many countries have been attacked by China, and how many by the West? Just do a simple calculation, please. It is so simple; so clear. How many countries have been bombed to the ground, and thoroughly ruined by China, and how many by the West?

And democracy? In China, the government listens to its people. In reality, democracy means nothing more than the direct translation from Greek – rule of the people. In PRC, the government is working to improve the lives of its citizens, while building a global infrastructure for all (BRC). Now, look at the West: most of the citizens in North America and Europe hate their system, but cannot get rid of it. Some of you regularly travel to the West: don’t you hear what the people are saying there?

In the last two decades, China has lifted up hundreds of millions out of poverty. In the West, the governments have buried billions of people in misery in all their colonies. Despite of the terrible plunder of the world, tens of millions are destitute at home, in both North America and Europe.

Despite of the not too high GDP per capita, China has almost no misery, while tens of millions of the U.S. citizens are living in poverty. There are many more prisoners (per capita) in the U.S. prisons, than in the Chinese ones.

Many U.S. prisons are now privatized: it is a big business. The more that are held behind bars, the bigger the profit!

Is this a system in which you’d want to live? Is it, really?

I know the West very well. And I know China. These days, in Hong Kong, some of you are waving Western flags, while insulting Beijing.

The West has the most powerful propaganda on earth. It has the ability to twist everything; to call black – white, and vice versa.

But frankly, it is Beijing, which has the ability and desire to help solve the problems of Hong Kong.

Do you really think that Washington, London or Berlin are genuinely interested in helping your city? I am convinced that they only want to break China, and to continue ruling over the world.

To conclude this letter, let me say what has to be said: After speaking to people that are now angrily waving black banners, as well as U.S. and U.K. flags, I realized that they know very little about the state of the world. And, they do not want to listen to different points of view. When confronted intellectually, they become violent.

That is not a democratic approach; not at all.

I suggest we talk. Publicly. Let us debate the very definitions of democracy. Let us discuss who has done more harm to the world: China or the West? I am ready, anytime.

If the leaders of Hong Kong riots, or “protests” are confident that they are correct, let us face each other, in front of microphones and cameras.

I love your city. I love Hong Kong. I love China. And I strongly believe that China and Hong Kong are one beautiful, inseparable entity.

I am ready to give my best, proving that point.

• Photos by Andre Vltchek

* First published by China Daily/Hong Kong

This article was posted on Monday, January 13th, 2020 at 5:26am and is filed under “The West”, China, Colour Revolutions, Europe, Fascism, Hong Kong, Media, Militarism, NATO, Opinion, Protests, Riots, United Kingdom, United States.

Uighur, Taiwan, USA, EU – united against socialism and China

I never saw such cynicism before; such a vulgar media set up as in Hong Kong. I am talking in general, but also about what took place particularly on Sunday December 22, 2019. Rioters, waving blue Uyghur, Taiwanese, British and U.S. flags were shouting “independence” and “China is terrorist” slogans, in the middle of the city, just two blocks away from the International Financial Center while the police stood by, peacefully, in their full protective gear.

Journalists, real and fake, foreign and local, were there, in full force, clearly setting the stage for the ugly confrontations ahead. I observed “media outlets” working, and I ended up photographing and filming their involvement.

The truth is, they were nor reporting; not at all. They were participating, arranging things, provoking and manipulating actions.

All camera lenses, and all lenses of mobile phones, were pointed directly at the police, never at the rioters. Meanwhile, the rioters were shouting at the police, brutally insulting the men and women in uniform. This part was, of course, edited out; never shown in New York, Paris, Berlin and London. Often not even shown in Taipei or Hong Kong itself.

“Media” people were clearly advising the rioters what action to take and when, from which angle to throw things, from where to attack; how to make things “effective”.

At one point, rioters started charging, throwing bottles and other objects at the police.

Hong Kong police in spotlight-provoked

Eventually, the police would have little choice but to react; they would begin moving against the rioters. And that is when all cameras would begin to roll. That was the moment to start “reporting”.

As a professional, I could clearly imagine how the results of such twisted “coverage” would look like on television screens and on the front pages of Western newspapers: “An unprovoked, brutal police force charging at poor, peaceful, freedom and democracy-loving protesters”.

The insanity, madness of all this had no boundaries. Next to me, just two meters away, several members of the “press corps” were “helping each other from teargas poisoning”. They were frantically washing their faces with water, kneeling in the middle of the street, pretending that they were sick. I felt no teargas effects at first, and only after few minutes, I detected something very, very mild in the air. I photographed journalists, and then I photographed my own face, to show that my eyes were not affected.

It was all a great setup, perfectly polished, designed to manipulate public opinion in the West and in Hong Kong itself.

Media gaga in Hong Kong

Of recent I felt real combat tear gas in places like France, Chile, Bolivia and Colombia. That stuff breaks you in half; makes you fall to your knees, shout, fight for your life. In Hong Kong, the police force has been using the mildest gas I have ever detected anywhere in the world. But police actions here have been described as “outrageous” by individuals such as Benedict Rogers, a so-called human rights activist and chairman of the UK-based non-governmental organization “Hong Kong Watch”.

As in the past, Mr. Rogers has been calling Hong Kong police force actions, which are aimed at defending the city against the multi-national hostile coalition, as “police brutality”. Carrie Lam, Chief Executive of Hong Kong, fired back, declaring that “Christmas in Hong Kong was ruined by protesters”. The Hong Kong government said that there had been arson and police had been attacked with petrol bombs.

During my recent work in Hong Kong I realized that the situation has been dramatically deteriorating, and the police force is now facing much greater challenges than it did in September and October, 2019. While the number of rioters is decreasing, those who remain on the streets (and in the underground cells) are much better organized, and better funded, particularly from abroad. Both the funding channels and propaganda support for the rioters are functioning professionally, and they are amazingly well coordinated. The funding from the West is massive.

For Hong Kong and its police force, the situation is increasingly dangerous.

Fake staged gas alert

The external forces operating on the Hong Kong territory are diverse and often very brutal. They include Taiwanese right-wing organizations, Japanese religious sects, Western-backed Uyghurs, fascist Ukrainian militant groupings, as well as European and North American propagandists, posing as press corps. There are several Western anti-PRC NGOs stirring hatred towards Beijing, all around Hong Kong and the region.

The rioters themselves are more and more radicalized, now often resembling extremist Islamic groups in the Middle East. They are thoroughly brainwashed, they use comfort women, and they are consuming narcotics, including “ice”, amphetamines and certain so-called “combat drugs”, which have been already injected into places such as Syria and Yemen, by the West and its Saudi allies.

As a war correspondent who regularly works in such places as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (all these countries have been damaged and later destroyed by Western assaults or occupations), I am shocked to see the West using the same destabilizing strategies in Hong Kong; strategies which have been used in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is obvious that the desire of Washington, London and others to harm China is too great, and will not stop, no matter what the price.

The hidden truth is that the Hong Kong police force is now facing a tremendous and extremely dangerous group of adversaries. It is not just a bunch of hooligans with black scarves covering their faces that are threatening the safety of the city and the entire People’s Republic of China. Those are only a vanguard – what you are allowed to see. Behind them, there are complex and diverse international right-wing forces: political, religious and yes, terrorist.

At this moment, the heroic Hong Kong police force is the only thin blue line which separates the city from anarchy, and possibly from imminent collapse.

• First published by China Daily, Hong Kong

• All photos taken by Andre Vltchek

            <p class="postmeta">This article was posted on Tuesday, December 31st, 2019 at 3:17am and is filed under <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/the-west/" rel="category tag">"The West"</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/china/" rel="category tag">China</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/china/hong-kong/" rel="category tag">Hong Kong</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/media/media-bias/" rel="category tag">Media Bias</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/media/media-censorship/" rel="category tag">Media Censorship</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/media/media-lies/" rel="category tag">Media Lies</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/security/police/" rel="category tag">Police</a>, <a href="https://dissidentvoice.org/category/protests/" rel="category tag">Protests</a>. 

Meanwhile, in Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro has repeatedly attacked Indigenous groups working to protect the environment from illegal loggers and from lawbreaking networks that are driving the destruction of the Amazon. In doing so he has given a green light to groups that are illegally pillaging the rainforest and threatening to kill Indigenous people, small farmers, law enforcement agents and anyone else who tries to stop them. Exhibiting a Trump-like embrace of solipsism, the spectacle of distraction, and a penchant for political absurdity, Bolsonaro has falsely accused actor Leonardo DiCaprio “of bankrolling the deliberate incineration of the Amazon rainforest” and praised Augusto Pinochet’s military coup in Chile in 1973. Unsurprisingly, Bolsonaro has also expressed his support for Brazil’s 1964-1985 military dictatorship on a number of occasions. And when faced with opposition, he draws from the Trump playbook by producing scapegoats.
Resistance to the emboldened authoritarianism of Bolsonaro’s government is growing in Brazil, however, especially with the release from prison of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Protests are occurring daily in the streets of Brazil, though not on the scale in which they are taking place in Colombia, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador, and in spite of accelerating state repression. The massive protests that have occurred in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia and Ecuador have been met with violent police abuse and state repression.

These events may seem unrelated, but in fact they are part of intertwined trends that are transforming the political landscape across the globe. These movements of resistance represent a reaction to the multiple abuses produced by a mix of political authoritarianism and neoliberalism marked by cruel predatory policies, a disdain for human rights, and fascist claims to ultra-nationalism and social cleansing. In Chile, Bolivia, Colombia and other Latin American countries, people are organizing against a neoliberal system that denies meaningful health care, a decent pension system, quality education, public transportation, investment in public goods, and social mobility to the underclass of people deemed as disposable. In countries such as Hong Kong, the United States and Brazil, there are growing movements for democratic rights, solidarity and economic equality. In this instance, resistance movements share the struggle for combining struggles for economic equality, social justice and minority rights.

In other words, two distinct political tremors are shaking the world: the spread of resistance to rising neo-fascism (evident in places like Brazil and the United States) on the one hand, and a new surge in massive forms of collective resistance against neoliberalism (evident in places like Chile and Colombia) on the other.

These movements, which are engaging in massive forms of collective resistance, are aiming to destroy the structures and ideological plague of neoliberal global capitalism, with its relentless attacks on public goods, unions, social provisions and the ecosystem, as well as its relentless drive to privatize everything and turn all social relations into commercial transactions.

Taken together, these two movements are confronting the interrelated and mutually compatible demons of neoliberalism and fascist politics. Moreover, both movements are predicated on the need to engage the role of the symbolic as a political site where politics can be rethought and collective strategies can emerge.

Toward a Politics and Pedagogy of Everyday Life

Pedagogy as a politics of persuasion, identity formation and resistance offers up the opportunity for such movements to speak to a vision that addresses the core values of justice, equality and solidarity while taking on economic inequality, corporate power and racial injustice. Rather than talk in abstractions about freedom, equality and justice, it is crucial for radical political movements to frame their language in relation to the everyday experiences and problems that people face. For instance, it is important for radical social movements to fashion a language that resonates politically and emotionally with peoples’ needs, values and everyday social relations while embracing the core values of equality, freedom, solidarity and justice. Leah Hunt-Hendrix points to the importance of addressing such core values in the U.S. She writes:

Millions of Americans—whether they’re people of color, white, immigrants; whether they live in cities, suburbs, small towns or the country; whether they’re Republicans, Democrats, independents, voters or non-voters—living in poverty or struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck. Millions are unemployed or underemployed, choosing between health care, heat or housing. Many more feel like they’re slipping behind and lack the economic security they once had.

At the same time, movements in Chile, Colombia and Ecuador are mobilizing against the twin evils of neoliberalism and fascism, and are demonstrating the need to address the cultural forces shaping society. Such forces are viewed as constitutive of the very nature of politics and modes of agency that both repress progressive alternatives and make them possible. Such movements are not only addressing the educative nature of neoliberal politics, but creating the theoretical and pedagogical groundwork for giving people the tools for understanding how everyday troubles connect to wider structures of domination. This pedagogy of resistance is critical of the attack on notions of the democratic imagination, redemptive notions of the social, and the institutions and formative cultures that make such communities, public goods and modes of solidarity possible. A radical pedagogy in this instance functions to break through the fog of manufactured ignorance in order to reveal the workings and effects of oppressive and unequal relations of power. Pedagogy as a tool of resistance opens up a space of translation, critique and resistance.

Atomization Makes Us Vulnerable to Oppressive Regimes

One reason the movements in Chile, Colombia and Ecuador have gained momentum is through their successful resistance to the atomization that isolates individuals and encourages a sense of powerlessness by claiming the existing order cannot be changed. They have at times succeeded in countering this atomization by refusing what Robert Jay Lifton in a different context calls a “malignant normality.” That is, the imposition of “destructive versions of reality” and the insistence “that they are the routine and the norm.”

This is particularly crucial because atomization is one of the conditions that make oppressive regimes possible. In order to dismantle these regimes, we must also find a way to break out of the patterns of atomization that enable them.

Leo Lowenthal writing in Commentary in January 1, 1946, writes about the atomization of human beings under a state of fear that approximates a kind of updated fascist terror, one that echoes strongly with the present historical era. Hannah Arendt went further and argued that, “What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world is the fact that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever growing masses of our century.” She elaborates her view of loneliness as the precondition for fascist terror when she writes:

Loneliness, the common ground for terror, the essence of totalitarian government, and for ideology or logicality, the preparation of its executioners and victims, is closely connected with uprootedness and superfluousness which have been the curse of modern masses since the beginning of the industrial revolution and have become acute with the rise of imperialism at the end of the last century and the break-down of political institutions and social traditions in our own time. To be uprooted means to have no place in the world, recognized and guaranteed by others; to be superfluous means not to belong to the world at all.

What both understand, writing in the aftermath of the ravaging destruction produced by fascism and World War II, is that democracy cannot exist without the educational, political and formative cultures and institutions that make it possible. Moreover, atomized, rootless and uninformed individuals are not only prone to the forces of depoliticization, but also to the false swindle and spirit of populist demagogues, and the discourses of hate and the demonization of others.

We live in an age of death-dealing loneliness, isolation and militarized atomization. If you believe the popular press, loneliness is reaching epidemic proportions in advanced industrial societies. The usual suspect is the Internet, which isolates people in the warm glow of the computer screen while reinforcing their own isolation and sense of loneliness. The notion of friends and likes become disembodied categories in which human beings disappear into the black hole of abstractions and empty signifiers.

Many blame the internet for this development, but the rootlessness and loneliness on display in many internet-facilitated interactions actually predate the internet. In neoliberal societies, even before the invention of the internet, dependence, compassion, mutuality, care for the other and sociality were already undermined by a market-driven ethic in which self-interest becomes the organizing principle of one’s life, and a survival-of-the-fittest mode of competition breeds a culture that promotes an indifference to the plight of others, a disdain for the less fortunate, and a widespread culture of cruelty aimed at those considered poor, “disposable” and excess.

Isolated individuals do not make up a healthy democratic society. A more theoretical language produced by Marx talked about alienation as a separation from the fruits of one’s labor, and while that is certainly more true than ever, the separation and isolation now is more extensive and governs the entirety of social life in a consumer-based society run by the demands of commerce and the financialization of everything. Isolation, privatization and the cold logic of instrumental rationality have created a new kind of social formation and social order in which it becomes difficult to form communal bonds, deep connections, a sense of intimacy and long-term commitments.

Neoliberalism has created a society where pain and suffering are viewed as entertainment, warfare a permanent state of existence and militarism as the most powerful force shaping masculinity. Politics has taken an exit from ethics, and thus the issue of social costs is divorced from any form of intervention in the world. This is the ideological metrics of political zombies and the currency of neoliberal fascism. The key word here is atomization, and it is a curse imposed by both neoliberal and authoritarian societies while also posing a dire threat to any viable form of democracy.

Toward a Politics of Investment

As we are witnessing in Chile, Ecuador, Hong Kong and Brazil, the heart of any type of politics wishing to challenge this flight into authoritarianism is not merely the recognition of economic structures of domination, but something more profound — which points to the construction of particular identities, values, social relations, or more broadly, agency itself. Central to such a recognition is the fact that politics cannot exist without people investing something of themselves in the discourses, images and representations that come at them daily.

Rather than suffering alone, lured into the frenzy of hateful emotion, individuals need to be able to identify — see themselves and their daily lives — within progressive critiques of existing forms of domination and how they might address such issues not individually, but collectively. This is a particularly difficult challenge today because the scourge of atomization is reinforced daily not only by a coordinated neoliberal assault against any viable notion of the social, but also by an authoritarian and finance-based culture that couples a rigid notion of privatization with a flight from any sense of social and moral responsibility. Moreover, under the dynamics of a fascist political machine, power is concentrated in the hands of a small financial elite that promote divisiveness and hatred through appeals to white nationalism, a deep contempt for liberalism, a propensity for violence and a suppression of dissent.

The atomization of individuals in fascist and neoliberal societies finds its counterpart in the often fatal political fragmentation that is often seen on the left with its proliferation of different groups articulating and addressing often single-issue forms of oppression, whether they are rooted in some version of identity politics or specific instances of domination such as issues associated with climate change. This is not to suggest such struggles are not important politically. On the contrary, what is crucial and equally important is the strategic imperative to unite them around a politics of solidarity that can get them to work together through narratives that, as Nancy Fraser and Houssam Hamade argue, unite struggles for emancipation and social equality.

Feminist scholar Zillah Eisenstein captures insightfully and with great lyrical power the necessity for coalition building as part of a politics of solidarity. She writes:

Coalitions are part of building solidarity with and between the differences. They are demanded by the complexity of our presences. We must move with and beyond the categories that push us apart like center and margin; we must move beyond binaries that separate and divide, and instead find a way towards connectedness that denies unity, or oneness, and instead images solidarity and its tensions. This is a moment for cross-movement and intersecting actions that will create new alliances that we might not know or imagine yet. This means supporting autonomous actions that become cross movement through the intersections that exist within each.

A politics of solidarity could incorporate calls for health care, higher wages, decent pensions, access to quality education, a clean environment, and social goods that improve the dignity and quality of life for everyone. What is needed in this case is a politics that awakens new modes of identification, desire and self-reflection. Stuart Hall was right when he argued in the journal Cultural Studies that, “There’s no politics without identification. People have to invest something of themselves, something that they recognize is of them or speaks to their condition, and without that moment of recognition.… Politics also has a drift, so politics will go on, but you won’t have a political movement without that moment of identification.”

The cultural apparatuses controlled by the 1 percent are the most powerful educational forces in many authoritarian societies, and they have been transformed into disimagination machines — apparatuses of misrecognition, ignorance and cruelty. Collective agency is now atomized, devoid of any viable embrace of the social. Too many people on the left and progressives have defaulted on this enormous responsibility for recognizing the educative nature for politics and for challenging this form of domination, working to change consciousness, and make education central to politics itself. Democracies are only as strong as the people who inhabit society. Put differently, the relationship between culture and politics becomes clear in the understanding that democracy’s survival depends on a set of habits, dispositions and sensibilities of a formative culture that sustains them.

Authoritarians Use Miseducation to Maintain Power

Trump plays to and manipulates the media because he understands how politics and theater merge in an environment in which the spectacle becomes the only politics left. He does not want to change consciousness, but to freeze it within a flood of shocks, sensations and simplisms that demand no thinking while erasing memory, thoughtfulness and critical dialogue.

For authoritarians like Trump and Bolsonaro, miseducation is the key to maintaining power. In addition, they use the media, schools and other cultural institutions to kill the social imagination, collapse the distinction between the truth and falsehoods, and abolish the line between civic literacy and lies. Education in the broadest sense has become a powerful weapon not merely of propaganda, but a tool of power in the shaping of desires, identities and one’s view of the future. The central political issue here is not about the emergence of an existing reign of civic illiteracy, but about the crisis of agency, the forces that produce it, and the failure of progressives and the left to take such a crisis seriously by working hard to address the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle — all of which is necessary in order to get people to be able to translate private troubles into wider social issues. The latter may be the biggest political and educational challenge facing those who believe that the current political challenge is not between simply Trump and progressives who rail against the financial elite and big corporations, but over those who believe in democracy and those who do not.

The threat to the planet and humankind is so urgent that there is no space in between from which to refuse to challenge these predatory political movements. The machinery of social and political death unleashed by the avatars of greed, disposability and exploitation parades its horrors like a badge of honor, all the while escaping into the global networks of finance and social irresponsibility, while preaching a feral nativism and developing a politics of entrenched walls and borders. Against these new political formations — as is evident in resistance movements in Puerto Rico, Ecuador, Iraq, Lebanon and Hong Kong — movements for resistance have developed that are global, mobilized by millions, and call not to win justice through often rigged and corrupt elections, but to shut down the militarized institutions, cultures and ideologies of racism, exploitation and death through direct action. When thousands take to the streets, the punishing state loses the only weapon it has left: sheer repression. If these authoritarian states imprisoned and killed millions, such actions would attract even more resistance. Susan Buck-Morss, the author of Revolution Today, is right in writing:

In order to challenge the illegality of law itself, the force that is needed has nothing to do with firearms. It is the overwhelming, globally democratic force of numbers across every line of difference. The way to prevent an ‘end to democracy’ is to make democracy the means.

Any viable strategy for change needs a politics that informs the masses and immobilizes the ruling elite. Also needed is a politics that shuts down the flow of capital, the production of misery and the institutions that make it possible.

This suggests a politics that must unite workers, educators and others across the boundaries of race, class and a range of other oppositional movements. The biggest challenge to create such a unified movement speaks not only to a crisis of politics, but agency itself. Such a politics is only possible if it is accompanied by rigorous forms of self-reflection and self-determination as well as a rejection (as Theodor Adorno once put it) of the educational ideal of hardness and toxic masculinity that informs and shapes current right-wing populist movements. Paul Valery’s insistence that “inhumanity has a great future” can only survive if people accept the alleged universal presupposition that power is only about domination and that nothing can change.

As Byung-Chul Han argues in What is Power?, power exceeds the domination of the will, and its affirmation and use are never far from both a critique of oppressive power relations and a full-fledged resistance to them. Rather than only acting so as to repress freedom, power also constitutes itself through the production of freedom. If there is to be a successful challenge to the rise of neoliberal fascism across the globe, the root causes of the current political and economic threats to humankind must be uncovered by recognizing the “societal play of forces that operate beneath the surface of political forms.” In part, this means being historically aware of what forces are at work in a number of countries that signal the rise of new forms of authoritarianism and modes of fascist politics. While no historical moment provides the perfect mirror to the current crisis, our current situation offers up warnings about how the horrors of the past can crystallize into new forms.

Without Hope, There Is No Possibility For Resistance

Central to such a task is recognizing that the globe faces a crisis not only of politics, but also of memory, history, agency and hope. Without hope, there is no possibility for resistance, dissent and struggle. Agency is the condition of struggle, and hope is the condition of agency. Hope expands the space of the possible and becomes a way of recognizing and naming the incomplete nature of the present. It is worth noting that the U.S. is suffering from a crisis of agency brought on in part by a crisis of civic literacy, education and the heavy hand of relegating millions to an ethic of sheer survival. As civic institutions collapse under the ideological and economic weight of global neoliberalism, a unique blend of fascist politics — with its hyper nationalism, call for racial purity, religious extremism and market fundamentalism — operates in what appears to be an ideological ecosystem of ignorance, power and alleged common sense, not to mention the allure of hatred, bigotry and racism.

One consequence is that the inability to relate to and identify with the suffering of others has reached crisis proportions in the current historical moment. This is a politics that celebrates brutality, aggression and sadism, and can be seen in the exercise of state terrorism in Brazil against ecological activists trying to save the Amazon rainforest, and in the United States in the separation and incarceration of undocumented immigrants and their children. In this plague of human cruelty and misery, what must be addressed is an understanding of the forces at work in the updated fusion of fascism and neoliberalism that now dominates a number of countries. At the very least, this is a politics in which political zombies masquerade as patriots, all the while promoting forms of racial and economic fundamentalism and social cleansing.

In the current historical moment, fascism in its neoliberal forms has moved to the center of power in a number of countries, such as Brazil and the United States, and it represents a unique political formation that is haunting the globe. If it is to be challenged, we must rethink how dominant politics resonates with the simplified discourses of populism and easily accommodates the call for strongmen to take over the reins of governance. To do so we must critically analyze the educational conditions that allow individuals to surrender their sense of agency, modes of identification and dreams to the ideological and political forces of neoliberal fascism.

At the heart of this issue is the question of how education can enable forms of self-formation that enable people to resist fascist and neoliberal mentalities, which are inevitably present within cacophonous democratic political modes of governance. To resist these mentalities, we must expose the ideological and economic workings of power and collectively embrace the need to engage in direct action in order to shut down the machineries of death. People in Chile, Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, Ecuador, and Iraq, among other countries, are rising up against the corruption and brutal austerity measures produced by neoliberalism and in doing so they are producing a fierce critique of capitalism and constructing a new understanding of politics and mass resistance. These protests are occurring at a crucial time when the forces of militarism, state violence and disposability are on the march. Under such circumstance, it is crucial to remember — as Marx once stated — that history is open and is made by human beings. It is in precisely that warning and hope that democracy will either perish or thrive.