China

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Beijing Has Buried Hong Kong’s Last Vestige of Democracy

      by

      The landslide victory of pro-democracy politicians in local elections in 2019 was a stunning rebuke of Beijing. Now, fear of retaliation has driven them to quit.HONG KONG — When Hong Kong’s pro-democracy politicians won a resounding victory in local council elections in 2019, they inspired hopes of democratic change. Now, fears of arrest have driven most of them to quit, laying bare that dream’s dramatic collapse.The opposition had swept nearly 90 percent of the 452 seats in Hong Kong’s district councils, riding on widespread antigovernment sentiment that had turned into months of protests. Though the polls were for the lowest rung of elected office, they were regarded as an informal referendum that showed the public’s support for the pro-democracy camp. The victory dealt a stinging defeat to Beijing and raised the opposition’s expectations that even greater electoral successes were within reach.But in less than two years, Beijing has struck back, demolishing those gains as part of a broader security crackdown that has drastically raised the risk of political dissent.More than half of the council members from the pro-democracy camp, over 250 of them, have quit in recent weeks to avoid being ensnared in Beijing’s campaign. Those who remain are worried about being arrested.A line at a polling station during the district council election in Hong Kong in November 2019, during which pro-democracy candidates won a large majority of the seats.Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times“Before, we had a lot of hope and anticipation. Now, it feels like our hands and feet are tied,” said Zoe Chow, an elected district official who had represented the working-class neighborhood of Sham Shui Po since 2015 before resigning in July. “We have to think very hard about what to do next because it feels as though everything we do is considered wrong.”By targeting opposition figures in local councils, the authorities are effectively burying the last vestige of democracy in Hong Kong. Dozens of politicians are in jail and facing potential life sentences on national security charges. Apple Daily, a major pro-democracy newspaper, has been forced to close after the arrest of its founder and top editors. Hong Kong’s largest teachers union and the Civil Human Rights Front, which organized large protest marches, both said in recent days that they would disband. Beijing has rewritten the rules for future elections to bar candidates it deems disloyal.The district councilors said they were alarmed by the government’s plans to impose a new loyalty oath on them and reports that perceived violations could leave them imprisoned, barred from politics or bankrupted.District councilors are not usually in the political limelight. They handle unglamorous tasks such as dealing with pest infestations, overflowing trash and illegal parking. They help residents with everyday problems such as the payment of bills or economic aid.Roy Tam, right, a district councilor, boarding a prison van in Hong Kong in March after being charged under the national security law.Jerome Favre/EPA, via ShutterstockBut in 2019, when the city was consumed with antigovernment protests, the councils took on outsize political importance. Many first-time candidates campaigned on issues raised by the protesters, even though the councils have little say on questions of police accountability or universal suffrage.After the opposition swept up the bulk of the seats, Beijing ordered, as part of a sweeping national security law, that anyone who assumed public office must swear allegiance to the Hong Kong government and its laws. The new condition was widely seen as paving the way to disqualifying the government’s critics.“It was only when so many radicals got on to the district councils through the 2019 election did the problems arise,” according to Lau Siu-kai, a senior adviser to Beijing on Hong Kong affairs.Beijing has said only patriots are allowed to run the city. It has applied vague definitions to what it means to break an oath of loyalty to the government. Last year, it ordered the ouster of four opposition leaders in Hong Kong from the city’s legislature for expressing support for U.S. sanctions against Hong Kong’s officials. The remainder of the pro-democracy camp in the legislature then resigned in protest.Volunteers campaigning for a candidate for the district council elections in November 2019. District councilors, who usually handle daily tasks, took on outsize political importance during the antigovernment protests.Chris Mcgrath/Getty ImagesThe government has not told the district councilors what consequences they may face for breaching the oath, or even when they are supposed to take it. But the city’s pro-Beijing news outlets carried reports warning that district councilors found infringing the oath could be forced to repay two years of salary and expenses. They also cited officials as warning that district councilors who had displayed protest slogans in their offices could be targeted.Michael Mo, a district councilor in the satellite town of Tuen Mun, said he quit to avoid the oath and the risk of being accused of disloyalty. He said he believed that such an allegation could later become the grounds for a national security investigation; in July, he fled to London.“It’s scary,” he said. “It’s like they’re trying to make a trap for you.”The exodus also follows months of tensions with city officials and pro-Beijing politicians. Many democrats wanted to use their platforms as district councilors to pressure the government on political issues. When they raised complaints about police conduct, for instance, local officials would sometimes cancel meetings or walk out.A government billboard earlier this year, after Beijing announced that only patriots were allowed to run the city.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesSome pro-government district council members have criticized the opposition representatives’ approach as unproductive.Lam Kong-kwan, one of two establishment representatives on the Sha Tin district council, pointed to a statement opposing the national security law that was approved last year by the 17 district councils controlled by the pro-democracy camp, calling it a distraction.“They always say they are reflecting the will of the people. But what does the will of the people even mean?” Mr. Lam added. “The people aren’t telling you to oppose the government or oppose central authorities.”But many pro-democracy district council members say the government is unwilling to work with opposition politicians even on public service improvement projects.Paul Zimmerman, a pro-democracy representative who did not step down, said the Home Affairs Department has not allowed him to approve agendas for committee meetings of the Southern District Council, even though he is now the most senior officer after a wave of resignations.A pro-democracy district councilor and his team distributing face masks and cleaning products at a housing estate in Hong Kong last year during the pandemic.Isaac Lawrence/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThat will hold up plans for projects like a pedestrian bridge over a bay in the district, he said. He called it part of a campaign “to disempower the district councils.”The government has acknowledged that the resignations have crippled some district councils but said it did not plan to hold elections to fill the empty seats before next July.In Sham Shui Po, a district in the northwest corner of the Kowloon peninsula known for its walk-up tenement buildings, street vendors and old temples, older residents have long relied on council members to navigate the complexities of applying for government benefits and services.Yeung Yuk, a pro-democracy politician, resigned as one of its district councilors in July but said he would continue to help residents on a voluntary basis until the end of this month. His name is still visible on a sign outside his office on the ground floor of a high-rise in the Hoi Lai public housing complex, but a sheet of paper was taped over the Chinese characters for his former title, “councilor.”In Sham Shui Po, older residents have long relied on council members to navigate the complexities of applying for government benefits and services.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesAs he worked from his desk on a recent weekday, a steady stream of residents dropped by the office. Some wanted to buy cockroach poison. Others wanted to watch the television. Stacked on the tables were boxes of masks, bags of rice and bottles of tea. A poster on the wall showed the 25 council members from the district, with the photos of 20 crossed out.“I don’t want to leave them, and they don’t want to me to leave,” Mr. Yeung said, adding that he would find a part-time job in social work to support his family. Mr. Yeung, 36, was covering the rent of the office space out of pocket and with donations from residents. He planned to close the office at the end of August.Ngan Siu, a 71-year-old retiree, said she often sought Mr. Yeung’s help when she received government notices she did not understand. He had helped her register for her Covid-19 vaccine appointment and to receive a $640 spending voucher.“The government keeps telling us to go online, but how?” Ms. Siu asked. “If he didn’t help me, where else would I go?” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on anti-Chinese suspicion: target espionage, not ethnicities | Editorial

      by

      OpinionRaceThe Guardian view on anti-Chinese suspicion: target espionage, not ethnicitiesEditorialClose attention to Chinese spying and influence operations is important. It cannot justify racial profiling and the promotion of distrust Tue 10 Aug 2021 14.13 EDTLast modified on Tue 10 Aug 2021 14.26 EDTPoliticians and academics in the US have begun to talk of Researching While Chinese American, in a deliberate echo of the phrase Driving While Black. There is a long, ignoble history of failed espionage cases against such scientists. But the Trump administration stepped things up when it launched the China Initiative, vowing to aggressively pursue the theft of trade secrets and identify researchers who had helped to transfer technology to Beijing.Though one man was jailed after pleading guilty to making false statements to federal authorities this spring, its first trial has rightly faltered. Anming Hu’s prosecution for fraud, over claims he hid ties to China, ended in a hung jury and a mistrial. One juror later declared that the FBI owed him an apology, after agents admitted they had falsely accused the former University of Tennessee researcher of being a spy. Yet to the shock of academics, Asian American advocacy groups and others, prosecutors plan to retry the Chinese-born Canadian citizen.The concerns go beyond the treatment of Professor Hu to the broader strategy, and the general suspicion it evinces of those of Chinese ethnicity in science and technology, by singling out one country’s espionage. Though other cases have been dropped, 90 members of Congress have now urged the department of justice to end what they believe is the racial profiling of individuals of Asian descent. While cases like this are most alarming to academics, business people and others who fear that their lives could be similarly upended, they send a broader message that at best some citizens are not seen as quite as American as others, and at worst, that they are viewed as enemies within. A similar signal is clear when analysts, politicians and others of Chinese birth or descent in western countries face a greater level of scrutiny for their actions or statements, with insinuations or outright accusations that they may be working for another country’s interests.As political competition intensifies, and concern grows about China’s behaviour internationally, such suspicion is likely to grow. It is important to be alert and thorough in assessing the risks posed by Chinese espionage or its covert influence operations. But stereotyping of and animosity towards those with Chinese heritage is both wrong and counterproductive. The suspicion is all the more painful at a time when those of east and south-east Asian descent have faced soaring abuse and violence sparked by the pandemic. The US has seen a spate of horrifying attacks; in the UK, it is estimated that communities have experienced a three-fold increase in hate crimes.In the UK, Chinese agents have reportedly been applying for visas under the scheme for Hong Kong’s British National (Overseas) passport holders, designed to aid those fleeing Beijing’s crackdown. Vigilance is essential, and will help to protect those who are genuinely escaping the repression. But necessary care in processing cases should not be used to justify bureaucratic delays which risk their ability to leave Hong Kong.Still less should such concerns fuel wider suspicion. It goes without saying that discrimination is intrinsically wrong. It can hit those who have left China for their opposition to the leadership. It also risks bolstering Beijing’s claim that the world is not critical of the leadership’s abuses, but hostile to the Chinese people. That is not in anyone’s interests.TopicsRaceOpinionChinaAsia PacificUS politicsDonald TrumpeditorialsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on post-Covid recovery: powered by the state not the market | Editorial

      by

      OpinionCoronavirusThe Guardian view on post-Covid recovery: powered by the state not the marketEditorialThe Thatcherite wing of the Conservative party desires a restoration of ideas whose time has come and gone Mon 9 Aug 2021 14.02 EDTLast modified on Mon 9 Aug 2021 15.35 EDTThe Conservative party hooked British capitalism to the state’s life support system for the past 18 months. So it takes chutzpah to think, as business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng does, of putting the free market at the heart of a post-Covid recovery. Yet lengthening NHS waiting lists, hiking consumer energy bills and welfare cuts when poverty is rising all betray a mindset that regards the re-legitimation of state intervention as threatening a way of life rather than securing it.What the Thatcherite wing of the Conservative party desires is a restoration. For them this is an opportunity to go back to 1979 and use tried-and-tested ways to stabilise prices, crush labour and discipline poorer nations. These rightwingers yearn for higher interest rates, to prioritise financial returns on assets and the use of creditor power to squeeze the global south.Such ideologues are likely, in part, to be disappointed. The US president, Joe Biden, does not see the world their way, saying this April that “trickle-down economics”, associated with Ronald Reagan, didn’t work. The president aims to show that the state can do good, and the early results are promising. His Covid-related aid boost will push the share of Americans in poverty to the lowest level on record. Mr Biden’s treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, professes a “free market” scepticism. She has promoted the social benefits of running the economy “hot” by maximising the use of all available resources. Her inspiration is the economist Arthur Okun, who in 1973 argued that governments increasing employment would foster “a process of ladder climbing” in the job market that would reduce inequality and stimulate productivity growth. Ms Yellen has stuck to this playbook in office.Perhaps the greatest pushback against the return of laissez-faire dominance in economics comes from China. Beijing has surpassed the US in some key technologies. Mr Biden’s economic team is blunt about needing to use the state for more “targeted efforts to try to build domestic industrial strength … when we’re dealing with competitors like China that are not operating on market-based terms”.The state is, clearly, not powerless against global capital. During Covid it paid for millions of workers without breaking a sweat. Contrary to conventional thinking there was no threat from rising deficits to interest rates. Thatcherism was defined by Nigel Lawson as “increasing freedom for markets to work within a framework of firm monetary and fiscal discipline”. This saw the state put in service of business interests rather than mediating between labour and capital. It also left Britain woefully unprepared, and ill-equipped, for the pandemic. A Thatcherite approach will not produce a fairer distribution of growth. It will militate against support during downturns and plans to “level up” the regions. Ministers ought to outline a new role for the state rather than relying on failed ideas about what the market can do.TopicsCoronavirusOpinionConservativesMargaret ThatcherEconomicsJoe BidenUS politicsRonald ReaganeditorialsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Pro-Beijing Clubs Will Help Pick Hong Kong's Next Leader

      by

      Beijing is making it nearly impossible for the pro-democracy camp to win city elections. One tool: “grass roots” groups loyal to the government.HONG KONG — The Sea Bear Swimming Club, in the northeastern outskirts of Hong Kong, is a humble organization. It trains children for local competitions and offers free lessons to older adults. Its Facebook page, with just 151 followers, features photos of grinning students in swim caps and the occasional cat meme.But in the coming weeks, the group will take on a new responsibility: helping to choose the city’s next leaders.The club is one of about 400 so-called grass-roots associations recently tapped by the government to play a key role in the city’s elections after Beijing overhauled the system in March to ensure that only “patriots” could run the territory. The groups have been appointed to vote next month for the city’s Election Committee, a 1,500-member body that will then pick the city’s leader, known as the chief executive, and many legislators from a slate approved by Beijing.The government says it is giving more voice to ordinary Hong Kong residents. But the groups also share an important characteristic: demonstrated support for Beijing and the Hong Kong government.Besides Sea Bear, other groups entrusted with this responsibility include The Family, a community organization that cheered on the police during the antigovernment protests that rocked the city in 2019. There is the Bright and Elite Youth Association, a group of young professionals from Hong Kong and mainland China that held an event attended by an official from the Central Liaison Office, Beijing’s top arm in Hong Kong.A group that hosts dance recitals, according to its Facebook page, organized a performance celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party together with Hong Kong’s biggest pro-Beijing political party — which has also co-hosted swimming lessons with Sea Bear. Also onboard are the Kam Tin Table Tennis Association and the Chinese Arts Papercutting Association, according to a recently released roster of voters.Pro-Bejing supporters campaigning in Hong Kong in March for the new election system, which drastically reduces the public’s ability to vote and increases the number of pro-Beijing lawmakers making decisions for the city.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesSeveral groups defended their right to participate in the election process.“We may seem like small potatoes, but when you put all these small organizations together, isn’t this the grass roots?” said Wan Ying-bo, a coach at Sea Bear, when reached by phone.But to critics, the problem is not that these groups now get a say; the problem is who does not.The election changes all but eliminated the voice of pro-democracy blocs in the Election Committee, which had already been hobbled by Beijing’s far-reaching national security law. Opposition lawmakers have been arrested. Churches, labor unions and arts groups have disbanded, citing fear of arrest. Pro-democracy politicians who would have held seats on the Election Committee as low-level elected officials called district councilors have resigned in droves in the face of various threats.The overhaul has also vastly reduced the public vote. Previously, about 240,000 voters — already a mere fraction of the city’s 7.5 million residents — could choose Election Committee members through a mix of individual ballots and ones cast by groups. Now, the number has been cut to below 8,000, as most individual votes have been eliminated.Election results have consistently shown that more residents favor the pro-democracy camp. But countering that was precisely the point, said Ivan Choy, a political scientist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.Pro-China lawmakers raised their hands in favor of the bill amending electoral laws at the Legislative Council in Hong Kong in May.Vincent Yu/Associated Press“It is quite clear that the Beijing authorities want to make sure that they can predict and even control the election outcome,” he said. “They want those organizations who are loyal.”The Chinese Communist Party has long relied on trade unions and community organizations to build its base in Hong Kong. The central government helps fund the city’s pro-Beijing parties, which partner with business tycoons to sponsor social welfare groups or even establish new ones, scholars have shown. Now, some of these groups are being recruited for a more overtly political function.Hong Kong’s election system was never truly democratic, with just a portion of the legislature elected by popular vote. The chief executive has always been chosen by the Election Committee, which was already stacked with pro-government figures before the overhaul. Calls for genuine universal suffrage have long been at the heart of protests.Despite the constraints, the opposition over the years managed to win many of the popularly elected seats, giving it a small but influential voice on the Election Committee. Now, Beijing’s electoral changes have stamped out that limited power, in part by reconfiguring the committee to tie it even more closely to the authorities.Within that reconfiguration, the addition of the grass-roots groups is relatively minor. They will be allowed to choose 60 of the 1,500 Election Committee members. By contrast, nearly 200 members will be chosen by elite members of the Chinese legislature or another advisory body to Beijing.Pro-democracy supporters celebrating the results of the election in Hong Kong in November 2019. Despite the constraints, the opposition over the years has managed to win many of the popularly elected seats.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesThe grass-roots associations have attracted particular attention because of their claim to represent a more democratic impulse. Pro-democracy residents have alternately ridiculed or fumed at the groups. One headline in a local newspaper, quoting experts, called some of the groups’ selection “comical.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}When The New York Times sent a message to a WhatsApp number listed on the dance recital group’s Facebook page seeking an interview, the person on the other end immediately responded “SORRY,” then blocked further messages. A staff member for The Family, reached by phone, said the group performed community service and had more than 700 members, but directed further questions to the group’s president, a man she identified only by his surname, Lam. But Mr. Lam said: “Too many media inquiries. I don’t want to talk to reporters.”Calls or emails to at least 20 more organizations went unanswered.Dozens of the groups on the roster shared addresses, down to the room number. The Sea Bear Swimming Club, for example, was listed at the same address as a Sea Bear Squash Club. When a reporter called a number listed online for the squash club, Mr. Wan, the swimming coach, picked up. He said the organizations were separate, though he did not explain.Hong Kong’s election system was never truly democratic, with just a portion of the legislature elected by popular vote.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesAt least four groups — including the Bright and Elite Youth Association, the group of young professionals — were housed in the same unit of a mixed-use building in the Wan Chai neighborhood, according to the government’s list and the building’s directory. A man who answered the door of the unit when Times reporters visited said no one there was authorized to speak to the news media. In the room behind him, dozens of alternating Hong Kong and Chinese flags were strung up on the walls.There is no indication that the groups do not actually exist or do not perform the work they say they do. In the hallway outside the groups’ office in Wan Chai, stacks of cardboard boxes were labeled indicating they contained dozens of soup packets for distribution to families.Still, the links between many of these grass-roots groups and the establishment are evident. In some cases, the groups are founded and headed by politicians from pro-Beijing parties, and their activities align with the central government’s objectives.Bright and Elite, for example, hosts cultural and educational exchanges with the mainland. Another group on the grass-roots roster, Action of Voice, is led by Frankie Ngan Man-Yu, a leader of the pro-Beijing party Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. His group, he said, visits middle schools in Hong Kong to conduct patriotic education.“These are apples and oranges. One person can, of course, be part of many groups,” Mr. Ngan said when asked about his dual memberships. “So there is no reason for you to put all these things together.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Qin Gang, China’s new ambassador to US, strikes conciliatory note

      by

      ChinaQin Gang, China’s new ambassador to US, strikes conciliatory noteFirst Washington press conference stresses “mutual exploration, understanding and adaptation” Vincent Ni China affairs correspondentThu 29 Jul 2021 09.06 EDTFirst published on Thu 29 Jul 2021 08.53 EDTChina’s new envoy to the US, Qin Gang, struck a conciliatory tone in his debut press conference upon arrival in Washington DC on Wednesday.China’s US ambassador pick shines light on debate over ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacyRead more“I believe that the door of China-US relations, which is already open, cannot be closed,” Qin said, adding he would “endeavour to bring [bilateral] relations back on track, turning the way for the two countries to get along with each other … from a possibility into a reality.“China and the United States are entering a new round of mutual exploration, understanding and adaptation, trying to find a way to get along with each other in the new era,” Qin said, signalling Beijing’s thinking on the current state of the relationship, and invoking memories of the former US national security adviser Henry Kissinger’s trailblazing cold war-era visit to Beijing.Cold war or uneasy peace: does defining US-China competition matter?Read moreQin is one of Xi Jinping’s most trusted senior diplomats. In recent years, the 55-year-old has been seen accompanying the Chinese president on his overseas trips and meetings with foreign leaders.A former news assistant at United Press International’s bureau in Beijing, Qin became a diplomat in 1992 and has served in various capacities at the Chinese embassy in London three times throughout his career.Qin’s appointment to Washington comes at a time when the US foreign policy establishment is in the midst of a fundamental rethink of its ties with Beijing. The bilateral relationship is at its lowest ebb since its establishment in 1979.Like his predecessor Donald Trump, Joe Biden has pledged to deal with China “from a position of strength” in what he calls “the biggest geopolitical test” of this century. On Monday, the Chinese vice-foreign minister Xie Feng accused the US of treating the country as an “imaginary enemy” in a message to the visiting US deputy secretary of state, Wendy Sherman.Since Qin’s appointment, observers of Chinese diplomacy have been debating whether he will bring Beijing’s controversial “wolf warrior” style to its most consequential diplomatic posting. His predecessor, Cui Tiankai, an old-school Chinese diplomat, has largely distanced himself from rancorous rhetoric against his host country.After serving as Chinese Ambassador to the US for over 8 years, I will be leaving my post and returning to China this week. It’s an honor of a lifetime to represent my country in the US. I want to thank everyone who has supported my performance of duties over the years.— Cui Tiankai (@AmbCuiTiankai) June 22, 2021
      Yet, as a former foreign ministry spokesperson, Qin is known for his uncompromising handling of foreign media and defending China’s image.In 2009, he chided a BBC journalist when answering a question about China’s “Green Dam” internet filtering system. “Do you know what this software is about?” he asked the reporter. “Do you have kids?” he continued. The exchange won him praise in a Chinese-language article in 2010.US accused of ‘demonising’ China as high-level talks begin in TianjinRead moreIn explaining his understanding of Chinese diplomacy, Qin said in 2013 that China’s diplomacy cannot simply be evaluated in terms of “soft” and “hard”. “The fundamental starting point for our diplomatic work is how to better safeguard national interests as well as world peace and development,” he said.“Diplomacy is complex and systematic work. It can be hard with some softness, or soft with some hardness. It can also be both hard and soft. As time and situation change, the two may transform into each other.”Before his ambassadorship to the US, Qin served as China’s vice-minister of foreign affairs from 2018, and before that the ministry protocol department’s director general from 2014.In 2015, he accompanied Xi on his visit to the US. Qin struck an impression as one who is “willing to ruffle feathers without hesitation when he felt it was necessary”, according to Ryan Hass, former China director at the US national security council under Obama, during Xi’s visit.“Qin Gang was very attentive to how his leader would be portrayed and the image that his leader’s public appearances would send,” Hass told the New York Times. “This was particularly the case around President Xi’s state visit to the White House.”TopicsChinaAsia PacificUS foreign policyWashington DCUS politicsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      China retaliates with sanctions on former commerce secretary Wilbur Ross

      by

      US newsChina retaliates with sanctions on former commerce secretary Wilbur RossThe ‘counter-sanctions’ are in response to Washington’s actions and are the first under China’s new anti-foreign sanction law Vincent Ni, China affairs correspondentFri 23 Jul 2021 15.54 EDTLast modified on Fri 23 Jul 2021 16.03 EDTBarely 48 hours before the arrival in China of one of Biden’s most-trusted diplomats, Beijing has announced its decision to impose counter-sanctions on seven American citizens and entities, including former commerce secretary Wilbur Ross, in retaliation against Washington’s earlier sanctions on Chinese officials over Hong Kong crackdowns.The Biden administration announced sanctions on seven Chinese officials on 16 July and warned US businesses of the “growing risks” posed by Beijing and Hong Kong.It is not the first time Washington and Beijing have imposed mutual sanctions, but the latest round marks the first time China has done so using its new anti-foreign sanction law, which was passed in June.Others affected in Beijing’s “reciprocal counter-sanctions” are the current or former heads of a range of US organisations, including the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the Washington-based Hong Kong Democracy Council.Low-key US-China meeting will address high tensions in relationshipRead moreIn response to Beijing’s counter sanctions, one of the affected US citizens, HRW’s China director Sophie Richardson tweeted, sarcastically: “thanks, for the extra motivation!” She added in another tweet, in reply to Jo Smith Finley, a British Xinjiang expert who was sanctioned by Beijing in March: “Seriously: so much work to do! And this ain’t about us.”Since the enactment of the anti-foreign sanctions law last month, Beijing’s decision to impose counter-sanctions has been expected, but the timing of it is indicative of the deteriorating US-China relations. It also comes just less than 48 hours before US deputy secretary of state Wendy Sherman’s China visit on Sunday.“Washington has reiterated that Sherman’s visit and talk with the Chinese side will be from ‘a position of strength’, but Beijing may want to remind [the Biden administration] that they are equals,” said Ma Ji, a senior CV Starr lecturer at Peking University’s school of transnational law.Ma added: “Of course, none of those targeted are in Biden’s inner circle, which means that Beijing still wants to continue the conversation with Washington. But by issuing this list shortly before Sherman’s visit, Beijing clearly intends to reduce her expectations.”TopicsUS newsChinaUS politicsForeign policyBeijingnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      What is the state of US-China relations? Politics Weekly Extra

      by

      It’s been 50 years this month since Henry Kissinger, the then national security advisor, made a secret trip to the People’s Republic of China. Joan E Greve talks to the Guardian’s China affairs correspondent, Vincent Ni, to find out how the current diplomatic relationship compares with 1971

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      When president Nixon visited China in 1972 – following the secret trip that Henry Kissinger, his national security advisor, took there in 1971 – it marked a turning point in the cold war and 20th-century history. But a lot has changed since the 1970s, such as China now having one of the largest economies in the world, data security concerns and, of course, Covid-19. So how have US-China relations changed in the 50 years since Kissinger’s visit in 1971? In this week’s episode, the Guardian’s China affairs correspondent, Vincent Ni, shares his thoughts. Send us your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts Archive: NBC News, the Obama Whitehouse, Richard Nixon Foundation, Hindustan Times More