ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Last month, Microsoft announced that Chinese state-sponsored hackers had exploited vulnerabilities in SharePoint, the company’s widely used collaboration software, to access the computer systems of hundreds of companies and government agencies, including the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

The company did not include in its announcement, however, that support for SharePoint is handled by a China-based engineering team that has been responsible for maintaining the software for years.

ProPublica viewed screenshots of Microsoft’s internal work-tracking system that showed China-based employees recently fixing bugs for SharePoint “OnPrem,” the version of the software involved in last month’s attacks. The term, short for “on premises,” refers to software installed and run on customers’ own computers and servers.

Microsoft said the China-based team “is supervised by a US-based engineer and subject to all security requirements and manager code review. Work is already underway to shift this work to another location.”

It’s unclear if Microsoft’s China-based staff had any role in the SharePoint hack. But experts have said allowing China-based personnel to perform technical support and maintenance on U.S. government systems can pose major security risks. Laws in China grant the country’s officials broad authority to collect data, and experts say it is difficult for any Chinese citizen or company to meaningfully resist a direct request from security forces or law enforcement. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has deemed China the “most active and persistent cyber threat to U.S. Government, private-sector, and critical infrastructure networks.”

ProPublica revealed in a story published last month that Microsoft has for a decade relied on foreign workers — including those based in China — to maintain the Defense Department’s cloud systems, with oversight coming from U.S.-based personnel known as digital escorts. But those escorts often don’t have the advanced technical expertise to police foreign counterparts with far more advanced skills, leaving highly sensitive information vulnerable, the investigation showed.

ProPublica found that Microsoft developed the escort arrangement to satisfy Defense Department officials who were concerned about the company’s foreign employees, and to meet the department’s requirement that people handling sensitive data be U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Microsoft went on to win federal cloud computing business and has said in earnings reports that it receives “substantial revenue from government contracts.” ProPublica also found that Microsoft uses its China-based engineers to maintain the cloud systems of other federal departments, including parts of Justice, Treasury and Commerce.

In response to the reporting, Microsoft said that it had halted its use of China-based engineers to support Defense Department cloud computing systems, and that it was considering the same change for other government cloud customers. Additionally, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a review of tech companies’ reliance on foreign-based engineers to support the department. Sens. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, and Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, have written letters to Hegseth, citing ProPublica’s investigation, to demand more information about Microsoft’s China-based support.

Microsoft said its analysis showed that Chinese hackers were exploiting SharePoint weaknesses as early as July 7. The company released a patch on July 8, but hackers were able to bypass it. Microsoft subsequently issued a new patch with “more robust protections.”

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said that the vulnerabilities enable hackers “to fully access SharePoint content, including file systems and internal configurations, and execute code over the network.” Hackers have also leveraged their access to spread ransomware, which encrypts victims’ files and demands a payment for their release, CISA said.

A DHS spokesperson said there is no evidence that data was taken from the agency. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy, which includes the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in a statement the agency was “minimally impacted.”

“At this time, we know of no sensitive or classified information that was compromised,” the spokesperson, Ben Dietderich said.

Microsoft has said that, beginning next July, it will no longer support on-premises versions of SharePoint. It has urged customers to switch to the online version of the product, which generates more revenue because it involves an ongoing software subscription as well as usage of Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing platform. The strength of the Azure cloud computing business has propelled Microsoft’s share price in recent years. On Thursday, it became the second company in history to be valued at more than $4 trillion.

Doris Burke contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Renee Dudley.

The way the world is going, she and her children might be the precursor of the dwelling habits of the future generations, those who manage to survive the coming nuclear war between the rising bloc of rising nations and decaying bloc of decaying nations, the war between the BRICS and the Pricks.

The BRICS ─ Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and five new members — have no “biggest BRIC,” each Bric nation relishes its independence and the group is cemented by their distaste for the offensive Pricks. Fortunately, for the BRICS, their entourage contains China, the new superpower that encourages cooperation rather than domination and has initiated a “Belt and Road” that facilitates free trade throughout the world.

The Pricks — United States, Great Britain, and the European Union — have the United States as their power Prick, which is led by their president, the biggest Prick. In slavish obedience to genocide Israel, the U.S. identifies itself as the Super Prick. This bloc has recently featured severe discord, lack of cooperation, and inauguration of high tariffs that impede global trade. Domination is its focus. with cooperation a temporary means to enable domination.

For one simple reason, the Pricks are finding it difficult to control and use the BRICS for their personal gain ─ the BRICS have economic dominance.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
GDP PPP, Int$: 2025

Coming into 2025, the BRICS have a greater share of the economic pie, six times the population digesting the pie, and are growing in principal categories — GDP/PPP, population, and adherents at a faster rate.

The Pricks devalue the Brics by claiming they are a loose and uncoordinated confederation, unable to agree on vital issues. Brazil is accused of harassing former President Jair Messias Bolsonaro and may be subjected to sanctions; Russia is led by an irresponsible tyrant and is heavily sanctioned; India gets a pass despite the heavy-handed tactics toward its Muslim community; China is led by a despotic dictator, and South Africa is guilty of genocide toward its white population.

The Pricks pose themselves as a model of decency and decorum. They have ballot boxes and freedom of speech, which enables their citizens to elect the biggest pricks and then freely criticize their selections by vocal erections. In the U.S. the next presidential election process — fund raising, organization, public relations, the “eye on the prize”— starts shortly after a new president takes office. Winning candidates in elections expend more time and energy in gaining victory and preparing for their next victory than performing their duties during their term in office.

The economic, social, and political advancements of their principal superpowers, China for the BRICS and the United States for the Pricks, determine the success of the BRICS and the Pricks. A brief examination of each nation’s potential to rise in the firmament or descend into chaos tells the story.

The Trump administration shows the hidden failures of the United States pluralistic democracy. The past has no continuity; just the opposite, many of the legislations from previous administrations are discarded. and the country, rather than advancing to a progressed new, returns to a rejected old. One example from Understanding AI:

…. Sen. Hawley asked Donald Trump to cancel a federal loan guarantee for the Grain Belt Express, an $11 billion transmission line that is supposed to carry electricity from Kansas wind farms to homes in Illinois and Indiana. The proposed line would pass through Hawley’s state of Missouri, annoying farmers whose land would be taken by eminent domain.

According to the New York Times, Hawley “explained his concerns to the president, who has repeatedly expressed his distaste for wind power, saying he would not permit any new wind projects during his administration.” Trump then called Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who agreed to cancel a federal loan guarantee for the project, throwing its viability into question.

Impulse overrides soul searching, allegiance to leader is more important than professional education and experience; rash and subjective action replaces careful thought. The America of 2025, with its decaying infrastructure, troubled inner cities, dependence on fossil fuels, continuous problems of crime, drug addiction, health care, and immigration, closely resembles the America of 2010. One big difference ─ adversity and polarization of the population has increased, Americans are at the breaking point with one another. The country, which is rich in resources, has extensive farmland, enjoys suitable and varied climates, and contains an educated and diligent population, is not well managed; it is mismanaged.

The Xi JInping administration shows the hidden success of China’s people’s democracy. The past has continuity; legislations and plans from previous administrations are massaged and enhanced, and the country, rather than remaining stagnant, advances to a new level. Soul searching from millions of cadres provides suggestions for millions of improvements. All leaders have professional education and experience; careful thought displaces rash and subjective action.

The China of 2025, with its continually increasing infrastructure of roads, bridges, tunnels, dams, superhighways, high speed trains, and airline routes that link every remote place in China with central cores, with modern building complexes that replace the shanty towns and provide agreeable living space for an aging population and marginalized rural farmers, with its expanded megacities that are considered technology and planning marvels, and with a unified and obedient population ─ no adversity or polarization here ─ has only a fleeting resemblance to the China of 2010.

Dubbed an engineering marvel, the highly anticipated Raffles City Chongqing project is nearly complete. CapitaLand Group

Sheltering their deficiencies, the Western democracies shift the critical analysis to public relations stunts that highlight the supposed and exaggerated deficiencies of the Chinese system. The Westerners make no effort to learn and understand the workings of China’s political, social, and economic systems. Fabrications are added to the limited “don’t care to know” and conveyed to the public as authorized knowledge. One example is the “debt trap” verbiage, applied to Chinese lending, which began during Sri Lanka’s first debt crisis and has stuck around as an effective means to vilify the PRC.

We have the falsehood. Washington Post (WAPO), “This China has a hand in Sri Lanka’s economic calamity,” analysis by Ishaan Tharoor, July 20, 2022:

One of the major players in Sri Lanka’s calamity is China. Beijing is Sri Lanka’s lone biggest creditor, accounting for some 10 percent of the country’s foreign debt. Between 2000 and 2020, it extended close to $12 billion in loans to the Sri Lankan government, largely for a slate of major infrastructure projects that turned into white elephants — including a costly port facility in the Rajapaksas’ hometown of Hambantota, which was effectively ceded to Chinese control half a decade ago after Sri Lankan authorities recognized they could no longer pay off the loans.

Examination of the Sri Lanka debt crisis exposes the mendacity and viciousness of the WAPO report. Almost every sentence is spurious; China does not engage in “debt trap diplomacy” and has been one lender who makes financial sacrifices that rescues nations from debilitating borrowing.

We have the truth. The Atlantic, “The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth,” by Deborah Brautigam and Meg Rithmire, February 6, 2021, had already contradicted WAPO statements.

Steep payments on international sovereign bonds, which comprised nearly 40 percent of the country’s external debt, put Sirisena’s government in dire fiscal straits almost immediately. When Sirisena took office, Sri Lanka owed more to Japan, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank than to China. Of the $4.5 billion in debt service Sri Lanka would pay in 2017, only 5 percent was because of Hambantota. The Central Bank governors under both Rajapaksa and Sirisena do not agree on much, but they both told us that Hambantota, and Chinese finance in general, was not the source of the country’s financial distress.

There was also never a default. Colombo arranged a bailout from the International Monetary Fund and decided to raise much-needed dollars by leasing out the underperforming Hambantota Port to an experienced company—just as the Canadians had recommended. There was not an open tender, and the only two bids came from China Merchants and China Harbor. Sri Lanka chose China Merchants, making it the majority shareholder with a 99-year lease, and used the $1.12 billion cash infusion to bolster its foreign reserves, not to pay off China Eximbank. The China impressed on our minds is not the China that exists.

The United States moves on fumes, on the energies of its past without renewable energies for an improved future. China moves on constantly reinforced energy, all engines operating at top speed, each day becoming a new future. The Pricks know they will not be able to compete economically with the BRICS. They have a choice of consolidating and working together and maintaining reduced economies, cooperating with the Brics in mutual agreements, or, by the usual United States method, resolving the situation by military action.

The threat of military force alarms and subdues the BRICS. They may be compelled to yield much in order to save all. China, guided by its Mandate of Heaven, “a political and religious doctrine that justifies the rule of an emperor based on virtue and ability to govern,” and which it has extended to relations between all nations, might do what it did in the fifteenth century. At that time, China was, by far, the leading commercial power in the world, and huge Chinese fleets sailed the world for markets for its surplus products. After meeting the imperial powers of France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands and observing their nefarious methods in subduing the Africa and Indian peoples, stripping them of resources, and forcing upon them the products manufactured from the resources, China scuttled its fleet and went into solitary confinement.

The reason for Xi Jinping’s self-sufficiency drive is clear. Save the world from nuclear conflagration and let the rest of the world rot. Pricks always lose and always think they have won.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dan Lieberman.

Mao was speaking to an audience of Chinese industrialists and merchants at a time when the country was desperately poor, its resources stretched by decades of Japanese invasion, civil war with the nationalist Kuomintang, and ongoing US aggression in Korea, where China had intervened in support of the forces of national liberation.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Tricontinental Asia.

The announcement followed a high-level visit to Beijing by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, who met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and other senior officials on Thursday. As the United States steps back from international climate diplomacy, the EU–China statement signals a clear intent to reinforce global ambition and multilateral cooperation.

Notably, the statement comes just one day after the International Court of Justice handed down a landmark ruling reinforcing states’ legal obligations to protect people from the impacts of climate change.

Key elements of the EU-China joint statement include:

• The EU and China call for “policy continuity and stability” among major economies and a clear “step up” in efforts to address climate change, signaling the need for more ambitious 2035 NDCs. Both parties confirm their intent to submit updated 2035 NDCs (national climate plans) before COP30, covering all sectors and greenhouse gases, aligned with the 1.5°C goal.
• Reaffirming the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement as the cornerstone of international climate cooperation.
• Emphasizing that climate collaboration holds “great and special significance” for upholding multilateralism and global climate governance.
• Noting a “solid foundation and broad space” for deepening green cooperation, even amid rising trade tensions. The EU and China commit to enhanced bilateral cooperation in areas such as the energy transition and green economy.

Andreas Sieber, Associate Director of Policy and Campaigns at 350.org says:

"This joint statement offers a timely stabilizing signal in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape and the United States’ withdrawal from climate diplomacy. While this statement reflects a welcome willingness for cooperation, real and ambitious action must follow. Current ambition remains far too low. With COP30 fast approaching, the EU and China must go beyond committing to update their climate targets. Drawing the line for global heating at 1.5°C will require urgent, credible action, not just diplomatic symbolism."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Call it the “new cold war,” the “beginning of World War III,” or – in Trump’s words – “endless war,” this is the era that the world has entered. The US/Zionist war against Iran has paused, but no one has any illusions that it is over. And it won’t likely be resolved until one side decisively and totally prevails. Ditto for the proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Likely the same with Palestine, where the barbarity of war worsened to genocide. Meanwhile, since Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” the empire is building up for war with China.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the empire’s war on the world assumes a hybrid form. The carnage is less apparent because the weapons take the form of “soft power” – sanctions, tariffs, and deportations. These can have the same lethal consequences as bombs, only less overt.

Making the world unsafe for socialism

Some Western leftists vilify the defensive measures that Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua must take to protect themselves from the empire’s regime-change schemes. In contrast, Washington clearly understands that these countries pose “threats of a good example” to the empire. Each subsequent US president, from Obama on, has certified them as “extraordinary threats to US national security.” Accordingly, they are targeted with the harshest coercive measures.

In this war of attrition, historian Isaac Saney uses the example of Cuba to show how any misstep by the revolutionary government or societal deficiency is exaggerated and weaponized. The empire’s siege, he explains, is not merely an attempt to destabilize the economy but is a deliberate strategy of suffocation. The empire aims to instigate internal discontent, distort people’s perception of the government, and ultimately erode social gains.

While Cuba is affected the worst by the hybrid war, both Venezuela and Nicaragua have also been damaged. All three countries have seen the “humanitarian parole” for their migrants in the US come to an end. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was also withdrawn for Venezuelans and Nicaraguans. The strain of returning migrants, along with cuts in the remittances they had sent (amounting to a quarter of Nicaragua’s GDP), further impacts their respective economies.

Higher-than-average tariffs are threatened on Venezuelan and Nicaraguan exports to the US, together with severe restrictions on Caracas’s oil exports. Meanwhile, the screws have been tightened on the six-decade US blockade of Cuba with disastrous humanitarian consequences.

However, all three countries are fighting back. They are forming new trade alliances with China and elsewhere. Providing relief to Cuba, Mexico has supplied oil, and China is installing solar panel farms to address the now-daily power outages. High levels of food security in Venezuela and Nicaragua have strengthened their ability to resist US sanctions, while Caracas successfully defeated one of Washington’s harshest migration measures by securing the release of 252 of its citizens who had been incarcerated in El Salvador’s torturous CECOT prison.

Venezuela’s US-backed far-right opposition is in disarray. The first Trump administration had recognized the “interim presidency” of Juan Guaidó, followed by the Biden administration declaring Edmundo González the winner of Venezuela’s last presidential election. But the current Trump administration has yet to back González, de facto recognizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Nicaragua’s right-wing opposition is also reeling from a side-effect of Trump’s harsh treatment of migrants – many are returning voluntarily to a country claimed by the opposition to be “unsafe,” while US Homeland Security has even extolled their home country’s recent achievements. And some of Trump’s prominent Cuban-American supporters are now questioning his “maximum pressure” campaign for going too far.

Troubled waters for the Pink Tide

The current progressive wave, the so-called Pink Tide, was initiated by Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s landslide victory in 2018. His MORENA Party successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, won by an even greater margin in 2024. Mexico’s first woman president has proven to be perhaps the world’s most dignified and capable sparring partner with the buffoon in the White House, who has threatened tariffs, deportations, military interdictions, and more on his southern neighbor.

Left-leaning presidents Gabriel Boric in Chile and Gustavo Petro in Colombia are limited to a single term. Both have faced opposition-aligned legislatures and deep-rooted reactionary power blocs. Chilean Communist Party candidate Jeanette Jara is favored to advance to the second-round presidential election in November 2025, but will face a challenging final round if the right unifies, as is likely, around an extremist candidate.

As the first non-rightist in Colombia’s history, Petro has had a tumultuous presidential tenure. He credibly accuses his former foreign minister of colluding with the US to overthrow him. However, the presidency could well revert to the right in the May 2026 elections.

Boric, Petro, Uruguay’s Yamandú Orsi, and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met in July as the region’s center-left presidents, with an agenda of dealing with Trump, promoting multilateralism, and (we can assume) keeping their distance from the region’s more left-wing governments.

With shaky popularity ratings, Lula will likely run for reelection in October 2026. As head of the region’s largest economy, Lula plays a world leadership role, chairing three global summits in a year. Yet, with less than a majority legislative backing, Lula has triangulated between Washington and the Global South, often capitulating to US interests (as in his veto of BRICS membership for Nicaragua and Venezuela). Regardless, Trump is threatening Brazil with a crippling 50% export tariff and is blatantly interfering in the trial of former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, accused of insurrection. So far, Trump’s actions have backfired, arousing anger among Brazilians. Lula commented that Trump was “not elected to be emperor of the world.”

In 2021, Honduran President Xiomara Castro took over a narcostate subservient to Washington and has tried to push the envelope to the left. Being constitutionally restricted to one term, Castro hands the Libre party candidacy in November’s election to former defense minister Rixi Moncada, who faces a tough contest with persistent US interference.

Bolivia’s ruling Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) Party is embroiled in a self-destructive internal conflict between former President Evo Morales and his former protégé and current President, Luis Arce. The energized Bolivian right wing is spoiling for the August 17^th presidential election.

Israeli infiltration accompanies US military penetration

Analyst Joe Emersberger notes: “Today, all geopolitics relates back to Gaza where the imperial order has been unmasked like never before.” Defying Washington, the Hague Group met in Colombia for an emergency summit on Gaza to “take collective action grounded in international law.” On July 16, regional states – Bolivia, Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – endorsed the pledge to take measures in support of Palestine, with others likely to follow. Brazil will join South Africa’s ICJ complaint against Israel.

At the other end of the political spectrum are self-described “world’s coolest dictator” Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and confederates Javier Milei of Argentina and Daniel Noboa of Ecuador. As well as cozying up to Trump, they devotedly support Israel, which has been instrumental in enabling the most brutal reactionaries in the region. Noboa duly tells Israel’s Netanyahu that they “share the same enemies.”

In February, the US Southern Command warned: “Time is not on our side.” The perceived danger is “methodical incursion” into our “neighborhood” by both Russia and China. Indeed, China has become the region’s second-largest trading partner after the US, and even right-wing governments are reluctant to jeopardize their relations with Beijing. The empire’s solution is to “redouble our efforts to nest military engagement,” using humanitarian assistance as “an essential soft power tool.”

Picking up where Biden left off, Trump has furthered US military penetration, notably in Ecuador, Guyana, Brazil, Panama, and Argentina. The pandemic of narcotics trafficking, itself a product of US-induced demand, has been a Trojan Horse for militarist US intervention in Haiti, Ecuador, Peru, and threatened in Mexico.

In Panama, President José Mulino’s obeisance to Trump’s ambitions to control the Panama Canal and reduce China’s influence provoked massive protests. Trump’s collaboration in the genocide of Palestinians motivated Petro to declare that Colombia must leave the NATO alliance and keep its distance from “militaries that drop bombs on children.” Colombia had been collaborating with NATO since 2013 and became the only Latin American global partner in 2017.

Despite Trump’s bluster – what the Financial Times calls “imperial incontinence” – his administration has produced mixed results. While rightist political movements have basked in Trump’s fitful praise, his escalating coercion provokes resentment against Yankee influence. Resistance is growing, with new alliances bypassing Washington. As the empire’s grip tightens, so too does the resolve of those determined to break free from it.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John Perry and Roger D. Harris.

The structure is expected to cost more than 1 trillion yuan (US$137 billion). Once completed, it would be the world’s largest hydropower dam, generating 300 billion kilowatt-hours of power annually, about three times the power of China’s Three Gorges Dam, Xinhua, a state-run news agency, reported last year. Operations are expected to begin sometime in the 2030s.

Premier Li Qiang attended a commencement ceremony with other officials in Nyingchi in southeastern Tibet over the weekend.

Xinhua reported that the electricity generated “will be primarily transmitted to other regions for consumption, while also meeting local power needs in Tibet.”

(Paul Nelson/RFA)

The river is known as Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet, Brahmaputra in India, and Jamuna in Bangladesh. It flows through all three areas from its origin in the glaciers of western Tibet.

Climate activist and researcher Manshi Asher told RFA in December that there is “substantial evidence” of negative impacts from hydropower projects in the Himalayas.

“This project will undoubtedly alter the environmental flows of the river,” Asher said. “The larger the dam, the greater the impact on the river flows.”

Neeraj Singh Manhas, a special adviser on South Asia at Parley Policy Initiative in South Korea, said in December that the dam could affect agriculture, hydropower generation and drinking water availability in India.

“Seasonal changes in water discharge could exacerbate floods or intensify droughts downstream, undermining livelihoods and ecosystems,” Manhas said.

Over the weekend, the Chinese premier said that special emphasis “must be placed on ecological conservation to prevent environmental damage,” according to Xinhua.

China has built an estimated 22,000 large dams to help fuel decades of rapid industrialization and economic growth — about 40% of the world’s total.

Includes reporting from Agence France-Presse and Reuters.

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

International public opinion continues to turn against Israel for its war on Gaza, with more governments slowly beginning to reflect those voices and increase their own condemnation of the country.

In the last few weeks, Israeli government ministers have been sanctioned by several Western countries, with the United Kingdom, France and Canada issuing a joint statement condemning the “intolerable” level of “human suffering” in Gaza.

Last week, a number of countries from the Global South — “The Hague Group” — collectively agreed on a number of measures that they say will “restrain Israel’s assault on the Occupied Palestinian Territories”.

• READ MORE: 12 countries agree to confront Israel collectively over Gaza after Bogotá summit
• Israeli attacks on aid seekers continue amid new evacuation threats
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

Across the world, and in increasing numbers, the public, politicians and, following an Israeli strike on a Catholic church in Gaza, religious leaders are speaking out against Israel’s killings in Gaza.

So, are world powers getting any closer to putting enough pressure on Israel for it to stop?

Here is what we know.

What is the Hague Group?
According to its website, the Hague Group is a global bloc of states committed to “coordinated legal and diplomatic measures” in defence of international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine.

Made up of eight nations; South Africa, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia and Senegal, the group has set itself the mission of upholding international law, and safeguarding the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, principally “the responsibility of all nations to uphold the inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, that it enshrines for all peoples”.

Last week, the Hague Group hosted a meeting of about 30 nations, including China, Spain and Qatar, in the Colombian capital of Bogota. Australia and New Zealand failed to attend in spite of invitations.

Also attending the meeting was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who characterised the meeting as “the most significant political development in the past 20 months”.

Albanese was recently sanctioned by the United States for her criticism of its ally, Israel.

At the end of the two-day meeting, 12 of the countries in attendance agreed to six measures to limit Israel’s actions in Gaza. Included in those measures were blocks on supplying arms to Israel, a ban on ships transporting weapons and a review of public contracts for any possible links to companies benefiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

Have any other governments taken action?
More and more.

Last Wednesday, Slovenia barred far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and ultranationalist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from entering its territory after the wider European Union failed to agree on measures to address charges of widespread human rights abuses against Israel.

Slovenia’s ban on the two government ministers builds upon earlier sanctions imposed upon Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in June by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and Norway over their “incitement to violence”.

The two men have been among the most vocal Israeli ministers in rejecting any compromise in negotiations with Palestinians, and pushing for the Jewish settlement of Gaza, as well as the increased building of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

In May, the UK, France, and Canada issued a joint statement describing Israel’s escalation of its campaign against Gaza as “wholly disproportionate” and promising “concrete actions” against Israel if it did not halt its offensive.

Later that month, the UK followed through on its warning, announcing sanctions on a handful of settler organisations and announcing a “pause” in free trade negotiations with Israel.

Also in May, Turkiye announced that it would block all trade with Israel until the humanitarian situation in Gaza was resolved.

South Africa first launched a case for genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice in late December 2023, and has since been supported by other countries, including Colombia, Chile, Spain, Ireland, and Turkiye.

In January of 2024, the ICJ issued its provisional ruling, finding what it termed a “plausible” case for genocide and instructing Israel to undertake emergency measures, including the provision of the aid that its government has effectively blocked since March of this year.

What other criticism of Israel has there been?
Israel’s bombing on Thursday of the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, killing three people, drew a rare rebuke from Israel’s most stalwart ally, the United States.

Following what was reported to be an “angry” phone call from US President Trump after the bombing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement expressing its “deep regret” over the attack. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

To date, Israel has killed more than 62,000 people in Gaza, the majority women and children.

Has the tide turned internationally?
Mass public protests against Israel’s war on Gaza have continued around the world for the past 21 months.

And there are clear signs of growing anger over the brutality of the war and the toll it is taking on Palestinians in Gaza.

In Western Europe, a survey carried out by the polling company YouGov in June found that net favourability towards Israel had reached its lowest ebb since tracking began.

A similar poll produced by CNN last week found similar results among the American public, with only 23 percent of respondents agreeing Israel’s actions in Gaza were fully justified, down from 50 percent in October 2023.

Public anger has also found voice at high-profile public events, including music festivals such as Germany’s Fusion Festival, Poland’s Open’er Festival and the UK’s Glastonbury festival, where both artists and their supporters used their platforms to denounce the war on Gaza.

Has anything changed in Israel?
Protests against the war remain small but are growing, with organisations, such as Standing Together, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian activists to protest against the war.

There has also been a growing number of reservists refusing to show up for duty. In April, the Israeli magazine +972 reported that more than 100,000 reservists had refused to show up for duty, with open letters from within the military protesting against the war growing in number since.

Will it make any difference?
Netanyahu’s hard-right coalition has been pursuing its war on Gaza despite its domestic and international unpopularity for some time.

The government’s most recent proposal, that all of Gaza’s population be confined into what it calls a “humanitarian city”, has been likened to a concentration camp and has been taken by many of its critics as evidence that it no longer cares about either international law or global opinion.

Internationally, despite its recent criticism of Israel for its bombing of Gaza’s one Catholic church, US support for Israel remains resolute. For many in Israel, the continued support of the US, and President Donald Trump in particular, remains the one diplomatic absolute they can rely upon to weather whatever diplomatic storms their actions in Gaza may provoke.

In addition to that support, which includes diplomatic guarantees through the use of the US veto in the UN Security Council and military support via its extensive arsenal, is the US use of sanctions against Israel’s critics, such as the International Criminal Court, whose members were sanctioned by the US in June over the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on war crimes charges.

That means, in the short term, Israel ultimately feels protected as long as it has US support. But as it becomes more of an international pariah, economic and diplomatic isolation may become more difficult to handle.

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

 Despite opposing imperialism, a tendency in the Western left is to recycle Western anti-China narratives that liken Chinese trade relations to Western imperial conduct, as in Sri Lanka and the Congo. Others have written of Chinese investments in the Occupied West Bank, and even criticize China for lack of aid to Cuba – clearly not issues the Western powers have problems with. 

 The US empire has at least 750 military bases in 80 countries. China has just one, in Djibouti – part of a UN mission against piracy. The US has continued wars against other countries on a non-stop basis, while China has invaded no country nor started any wars in close to half a century. The US instigated over 25 coups and coup attempts in Latin America just between 2000 and 2020. China has sponsored no coup attempts on any government. The US imposes blockades and “sanctions” warfare on at least 39 nations. China imposes no sanctions on anyone. The US regularly launches drone attacks on the people of other countries. China has launched no drone attacks on anyone. China is no imperial superpower, but a peaceful one. 

China is the outstanding example of a Third World country developing into a superpower despite the West’s centuries-long efforts to torpedo its progress. China engages in “win-win” economic relations with other nations. Its loans and investment are carried out based on equality, consensus and joint benefit, unlike the predatory behavior of the IMF and Western lending institutions. China is helping other countries of the Global South break out of the underdevelopment that colonialism and imperialism have imposed on their countries for 500 years.

Third World Leaders Praise China’s World Role

 At present, over 150 countries have chosen to participate in China’s economic program called the Belt and Road Initiative. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega explained why:

The People’s Republic of China has brought progress, benefits, development to peoples who were colonized, and later became independent, but who were then subjugated under the boot of the interests of the powers that had colonized them, leaving those peoples in poverty, with people in misery, people going hungry, people in illiteracy, with infant mortality, in Africa, in Asia. And the People’s Republic of China has been developing a policy bringing benefits to developing countries, without setting any conditions… The powers that have been colonialists and neocolonialists, like the US, like Europe… have not stopped being colonialists. They still are neocolonialists. They have not stopped being criminals. They still are criminals. They still are killers. 

China’s role in helping other countries to develop has been noted by several anti-imperialist leaders. Fidel Castro rejected the notion that China was an imperial power. “China has objectively become the most promising hope and the best example for all Third World countries. I do not hesitate to say that it is already the main engine of the world economy… The role that China has been playing in the United Nations, including the Security Council, is an important element of balance, progress and safeguard of world peace and stability.” Of the Chinese leader he said, “Xi Jinping is one of the strongest and most capable revolutionary leaders I have met in my life.”

Present Cuban President Diaz-Canel also had high praise for Xi Jinping.

Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez likewise said, “one of the greatest events of the 20th century was the Chinese Revolution.” Chavez considered that an alliance with China constituted a bulwark against imperialism — a “Great Wall against American hegemonism… China is large but it’s not an empire. China doesn’t trample on anyone, it hasn’t invaded anyone, it doesn’t go around dropping bombs on anyone.” 

 Bolivian President Arce said: “We have built bridges of trust between the two countries and maintain a very positive bilateral relationship.” Evo Morales, the former president, said Bolivia and China “maintain a relationship characterized by wide-ranging and diverse cooperation and reciprocity.” China “works in a joined-up way with other countries and benefits the peoples of the world; the opposite to what was imposed on us for decades by the US, where predatory, individualistic and competitive capitalism looted our people’s resources for the benefit of transnational corporations.” “China develops, and helps, invests, without any conditions, just to support our development. China is always ready to cooperate unconditionally.”

 Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro declared, “Between China and Venezuela there is a model relationship, a model of what should be the relationship between a superpower like China, the great superpower of the 21st century, and an emerging, heroic, revolutionary and socialist country like Venezuela… China has inaugurated a new era of the emergence of non-colonialist, non-imperialist, non-hegemonic superpowers.”

 Former Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa spoke highly of Chinese aid to the Citizens Revolution. China’s assistance is “an example for Latin America and for the rest of the world.”

 Burkina Faso revolutionary President Ibrahim Traoré said Chinese aid was a “testament to a mutually beneficial partnership.”

 Even President Prabowo Subianto of Indonesia recently said at the ASEAN summit, “China has consistently defended the interests of developing countries. They consistently oppose oppression, oppose imperialism, oppose colonialism, oppose apartheid, The People’s Republic of China defends liberation struggles in countries that are still oppressed by imperialism and colonialism.” 

 Recent Western Left anti-China Stories

Yet, despite the testimonies of these anti-imperialist Third World leaders, some progressives still highlight West’s anti-China narratives, such as in Sri Lanka and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Sri Lanka

The China debt-trap myth arose from Sri Lanka’s port Hambantota, that China lent money to the country to build the port, knowing Sri Lanka could not make it viable. This led Sri Lanka to default on the loans, and Beijing demanded the port as collateral. Chatham House and The Atlantic, both organs of the ruling elite, debunked this. First, the Hambantota Port project was not proposed by China, but by Sri Lanka. Second, Sri Lanka’s debt crisis resulted not from Chinese lending, but from Western loans. Third, there was no debt-for-asset swap. Rather, China leased the port for $1.1 billion, money Sri Lanka then used to pay down debts to the West. Chatham House concludes, “Sri Lanka’s debt trap was thus primarily created as a result of domestic policy decisions and was facilitated by Western lending and monetary policy, and not by the policies of the Chinese government.”

 China in Africa

Liberia’s former minister of public works, W Gyude Moore noted that under European colonialism “there has never been a continental-scale infrastructure building program for Africa’s railways, roads, ports, water filtration plants and power stations…China has built more infrastructure in Africa in two decades than the West has in centuries.”

 At the most recent Forum on China–Africa Cooperation in 2024, 53 of the 54 African countries chose to attend. China pledged $50 billion over the next three years on top of the $40 billion already invested.

 Dee Knight took up the issue of China’s exploitation in the Democratic Republic of Congo propagandized in the book Cobalt Red. He drew on Isabelle Minnon’s report, “Industrial Turn-Around in Congo?” She wrote, “China has responded to the DRC’s need to have partners who invest in industrialization.” The West had bled Congo dry through debts that prevented its development. China brought large-scale investment on a new basis, combining financing for industrial mining and public infrastructure – roads, railroads, dams, health and education facilities.

 Minion stated the result: “After decades of almost non-existent industrial production, the country became and remains the world’s leading producer of cobalt and, by 2023, became the world’s third largest producer of copper.” This “puts an end to the monopoly of certain Western countries and their large companies,” which just plundered the Congo. Furthermore, China cancelled $28 million in interest-free loans, and gave $17 million in support to the DRC.

 During the Covid pandemic, China announced that it also forgave 23 interest-free loans for 17 African nations.  This is in addition to China’s cancellation of more than $3.4 billion in debt and restructured $15 billion of debt in Africa between 2000 and 2019.

 Chinese investments in Israel

Chinese trades with Israel, as with all other countries, to establish mutually beneficial economic relations, to counter the US goal of turning countries against China. China’s trade with Israel is qualitatively different from that of the US, Britain, France, Germany and others since China does not export weaponry to Israel used to slaughter Palestinians and peoples in surrounding countries. 

Some have written of Chinese business involvement in the occupied West Bank. The report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese (which brought US sanctions on her) substantiates one such instance. China’s role contradicts its vote in favor of the 2024 UN General Assembly resolution calling for no trade or investments with Israeli operations in the occupied territories. 

 Yet China worked hard to unite the divided Palestinian resistance with the recent Beijing Declaration. China has continually denounced the US and Israel in Gaza, upholds the Palestinian right to resist occupation, and has never condemned the October 7, 2023 Hamas breakout attack. China is also a participant in the present The Hague Group calling for “concrete measures” against Israel.

 China and Cuba

Some Western leftists have criticized China for lack of support for Cuba, suffering under a now worsening US blockade. However, China is working to build 55 solar installation complexes there this year, covering Cuba’s daytime shortfall, and another 37 by 2028, for a total of 2,000 megawatts. This aid would meet nearly two-thirds of Cuba’s present-day demand. China has long been a partner of Cuba in terms of trade and investment, participating in the Mariel Special Development Zone, and in projects in the production of medicines, biotechnology and agriculture.

 China, A Superpower that Supports Third World Development

It is a contradiction that many on the Western left are not supportive of China, given that the US rulers have long called China the primacy threat to imperialist domination. 

Recognizing the US’s continued economic and military power, if not superiority, China seeks to avoid a major destructive direct confrontation. China counters the US and Western isolation strategy by fostering a world based on cooperation with all countries, even with the US and its close allies. It focuses on obtaining essential resources for its industry and for economic self-sufficiency to fortify itself in self-defense against the US strategy to isolate it economically and politically, and on meeting countries’ desire for its cheaper goods and investments. As the Third World leaders above say, most of China’s foreign loans are not capitalist investments, but government funds that have been used to free countries from the grip of imperialism.

 That has made it impossible for the West to isolate China. In Africa, Asia and Latin America, Chinese investments in schools, roads, railroads, and other needed infrastructure are generally seen as a welcome change from the neglect and underdevelopment imposed by the imperial First World.  

 Consequently, every year China becomes more and more a world power in relation to the imperialist countries.

 China’s significance for the world lies in being a singular example of a Third World country developing despite the West’s goal to thwart its rise. This is a model for other Third World countries that seek to assert their independence of the West and make their own path.

 In this process, China, which just 75 years ago, had an illiteracy rate of 80%, has just ended poverty for 800 million people, which no capitalist group of countries ever accomplished. China has achieved the fastest growth in living standards of any country in the world. It achieved this without invading, massacring, colonizing and looting other countries, but peacefully, without threatening any other people, and in cooperation with them.

 As Daniel Ortega said:

The self-same ideologues of imperialism state that what worries them is that they see the People’s Republic of China bringing benefits to these Peoples and they feel that there they are losing the power to keep these peoples enslaved…They are upset, outraged, because the People’s Republic of China is making available billions in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America. These are investments for the development of our peoples. They see that as bad for themselves, but why can’t they do the same? Why have they never brought investment with the same conditions that the People’s Republic of China is making available?

The West, with the US at its head, seeks to maintain so-called “Western civilization,” the rule of the white colonizer over the rest of the world. It regards China and Russia as the two major threats to its continued domination and seeks to disable both. China and Russia are drawn into a struggle, where their continued growth, if not existence, is at stake. The more they can neutralize the West’s goal, the more this is a victory for all the oppressed people of the world.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Stansfield Smith.

 Despite opposing imperialism, a tendency in the Western left is to recycle Western anti-China narratives that liken Chinese trade relations to Western imperial conduct, as in Sri Lanka and the Congo. Others have written of Chinese investments in the Occupied West Bank, and even criticize China for lack of aid to Cuba – clearly not issues the Western powers have problems with. 

 The US empire has at least 750 military bases in 80 countries. China has just one, in Djibouti – part of a UN mission against piracy. The US has continued wars against other countries on a non-stop basis, while China has invaded no country nor started any wars in close to half a century. The US instigated over 25 coups and coup attempts in Latin America just between 2000 and 2020. China has sponsored no coup attempts on any government. The US imposes blockades and “sanctions” warfare on at least 39 nations. China imposes no sanctions on anyone. The US regularly launches drone attacks on the people of other countries. China has launched no drone attacks on anyone. China is no imperial superpower, but a peaceful one. 

China is the outstanding example of a Third World country developing into a superpower despite the West’s centuries-long efforts to torpedo its progress. China engages in “win-win” economic relations with other nations. Its loans and investment are carried out based on equality, consensus and joint benefit, unlike the predatory behavior of the IMF and Western lending institutions. China is helping other countries of the Global South break out of the underdevelopment that colonialism and imperialism have imposed on their countries for 500 years.

Third World Leaders Praise China’s World Role

 At present, over 150 countries have chosen to participate in China’s economic program called the Belt and Road Initiative. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega explained why:

The People’s Republic of China has brought progress, benefits, development to peoples who were colonized, and later became independent, but who were then subjugated under the boot of the interests of the powers that had colonized them, leaving those peoples in poverty, with people in misery, people going hungry, people in illiteracy, with infant mortality, in Africa, in Asia. And the People’s Republic of China has been developing a policy bringing benefits to developing countries, without setting any conditions… The powers that have been colonialists and neocolonialists, like the US, like Europe… have not stopped being colonialists. They still are neocolonialists. They have not stopped being criminals. They still are criminals. They still are killers. 

China’s role in helping other countries to develop has been noted by several anti-imperialist leaders. Fidel Castro rejected the notion that China was an imperial power. “China has objectively become the most promising hope and the best example for all Third World countries. I do not hesitate to say that it is already the main engine of the world economy… The role that China has been playing in the United Nations, including the Security Council, is an important element of balance, progress and safeguard of world peace and stability.” Of the Chinese leader he said, “Xi Jinping is one of the strongest and most capable revolutionary leaders I have met in my life.”

Present Cuban President Diaz-Canel also had high praise for Xi Jinping.

Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez likewise said, “one of the greatest events of the 20th century was the Chinese Revolution.” Chavez considered that an alliance with China constituted a bulwark against imperialism — a “Great Wall against American hegemonism… China is large but it’s not an empire. China doesn’t trample on anyone, it hasn’t invaded anyone, it doesn’t go around dropping bombs on anyone.” 

 Bolivian President Arce said: “We have built bridges of trust between the two countries and maintain a very positive bilateral relationship.” Evo Morales, the former president, said Bolivia and China “maintain a relationship characterized by wide-ranging and diverse cooperation and reciprocity.” China “works in a joined-up way with other countries and benefits the peoples of the world; the opposite to what was imposed on us for decades by the US, where predatory, individualistic and competitive capitalism looted our people’s resources for the benefit of transnational corporations.” “China develops, and helps, invests, without any conditions, just to support our development. China is always ready to cooperate unconditionally.”

 Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro declared, “Between China and Venezuela there is a model relationship, a model of what should be the relationship between a superpower like China, the great superpower of the 21st century, and an emerging, heroic, revolutionary and socialist country like Venezuela… China has inaugurated a new era of the emergence of non-colonialist, non-imperialist, non-hegemonic superpowers.”

 Former Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa spoke highly of Chinese aid to the Citizens Revolution. China’s assistance is “an example for Latin America and for the rest of the world.”

 Burkina Faso revolutionary President Ibrahim Traoré said Chinese aid was a “testament to a mutually beneficial partnership.”

 Even President Prabowo Subianto of Indonesia recently said at the ASEAN summit, “China has consistently defended the interests of developing countries. They consistently oppose oppression, oppose imperialism, oppose colonialism, oppose apartheid, The People’s Republic of China defends liberation struggles in countries that are still oppressed by imperialism and colonialism.” 

 Recent Western Left anti-China Stories

Yet, despite the testimonies of these anti-imperialist Third World leaders, some progressives still highlight West’s anti-China narratives, such as in Sri Lanka and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Sri Lanka

The China debt-trap myth arose from Sri Lanka’s port Hambantota, that China lent money to the country to build the port, knowing Sri Lanka could not make it viable. This led Sri Lanka to default on the loans, and Beijing demanded the port as collateral. Chatham House and The Atlantic, both organs of the ruling elite, debunked this. First, the Hambantota Port project was not proposed by China, but by Sri Lanka. Second, Sri Lanka’s debt crisis resulted not from Chinese lending, but from Western loans. Third, there was no debt-for-asset swap. Rather, China leased the port for $1.1 billion, money Sri Lanka then used to pay down debts to the West. Chatham House concludes, “Sri Lanka’s debt trap was thus primarily created as a result of domestic policy decisions and was facilitated by Western lending and monetary policy, and not by the policies of the Chinese government.”

 China in Africa

Liberia’s former minister of public works, W Gyude Moore noted that under European colonialism “there has never been a continental-scale infrastructure building program for Africa’s railways, roads, ports, water filtration plants and power stations…China has built more infrastructure in Africa in two decades than the West has in centuries.”

 At the most recent Forum on China–Africa Cooperation in 2024, 53 of the 54 African countries chose to attend. China pledged $50 billion over the next three years on top of the $40 billion already invested.

 Dee Knight took up the issue of China’s exploitation in the Democratic Republic of Congo propagandized in the book Cobalt Red. He drew on Isabelle Minnon’s report, “Industrial Turn-Around in Congo?” She wrote, “China has responded to the DRC’s need to have partners who invest in industrialization.” The West had bled Congo dry through debts that prevented its development. China brought large-scale investment on a new basis, combining financing for industrial mining and public infrastructure – roads, railroads, dams, health and education facilities.

 Minion stated the result: “After decades of almost non-existent industrial production, the country became and remains the world’s leading producer of cobalt and, by 2023, became the world’s third largest producer of copper.” This “puts an end to the monopoly of certain Western countries and their large companies,” which just plundered the Congo. Furthermore, China cancelled $28 million in interest-free loans, and gave $17 million in support to the DRC.

 During the Covid pandemic, China announced that it also forgave 23 interest-free loans for 17 African nations.  This is in addition to China’s cancellation of more than $3.4 billion in debt and restructured $15 billion of debt in Africa between 2000 and 2019.

 Chinese investments in Israel

Chinese trades with Israel, as with all other countries, to establish mutually beneficial economic relations, to counter the US goal of turning countries against China. China’s trade with Israel is qualitatively different from that of the US, Britain, France, Germany and others since China does not export weaponry to Israel used to slaughter Palestinians and peoples in surrounding countries. 

Some have written of Chinese business involvement in the occupied West Bank. The report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese (which brought US sanctions on her) substantiates one such instance. China’s role contradicts its vote in favor of the 2024 UN General Assembly resolution calling for no trade or investments with Israeli operations in the occupied territories. 

 Yet China worked hard to unite the divided Palestinian resistance with the recent Beijing Declaration. China has continually denounced the US and Israel in Gaza, upholds the Palestinian right to resist occupation, and has never condemned the October 7, 2023 Hamas breakout attack. China is also a participant in the present The Hague Group calling for “concrete measures” against Israel.

 China and Cuba

Some Western leftists have criticized China for lack of support for Cuba, suffering under a now worsening US blockade. However, China is working to build 55 solar installation complexes there this year, covering Cuba’s daytime shortfall, and another 37 by 2028, for a total of 2,000 megawatts. This aid would meet nearly two-thirds of Cuba’s present-day demand. China has long been a partner of Cuba in terms of trade and investment, participating in the Mariel Special Development Zone, and in projects in the production of medicines, biotechnology and agriculture.

 China, A Superpower that Supports Third World Development

It is a contradiction that many on the Western left are not supportive of China, given that the US rulers have long called China the primacy threat to imperialist domination. 

Recognizing the US’s continued economic and military power, if not superiority, China seeks to avoid a major destructive direct confrontation. China counters the US and Western isolation strategy by fostering a world based on cooperation with all countries, even with the US and its close allies. It focuses on obtaining essential resources for its industry and for economic self-sufficiency to fortify itself in self-defense against the US strategy to isolate it economically and politically, and on meeting countries’ desire for its cheaper goods and investments. As the Third World leaders above say, most of China’s foreign loans are not capitalist investments, but government funds that have been used to free countries from the grip of imperialism.

 That has made it impossible for the West to isolate China. In Africa, Asia and Latin America, Chinese investments in schools, roads, railroads, and other needed infrastructure are generally seen as a welcome change from the neglect and underdevelopment imposed by the imperial First World.  

 Consequently, every year China becomes more and more a world power in relation to the imperialist countries.

 China’s significance for the world lies in being a singular example of a Third World country developing despite the West’s goal to thwart its rise. This is a model for other Third World countries that seek to assert their independence of the West and make their own path.

 In this process, China, which just 75 years ago, had an illiteracy rate of 80%, has just ended poverty for 800 million people, which no capitalist group of countries ever accomplished. China has achieved the fastest growth in living standards of any country in the world. It achieved this without invading, massacring, colonizing and looting other countries, but peacefully, without threatening any other people, and in cooperation with them.

 As Daniel Ortega said:

The self-same ideologues of imperialism state that what worries them is that they see the People’s Republic of China bringing benefits to these Peoples and they feel that there they are losing the power to keep these peoples enslaved…They are upset, outraged, because the People’s Republic of China is making available billions in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America. These are investments for the development of our peoples. They see that as bad for themselves, but why can’t they do the same? Why have they never brought investment with the same conditions that the People’s Republic of China is making available?

The West, with the US at its head, seeks to maintain so-called “Western civilization,” the rule of the white colonizer over the rest of the world. It regards China and Russia as the two major threats to its continued domination and seeks to disable both. China and Russia are drawn into a struggle, where their continued growth, if not existence, is at stake. The more they can neutralize the West’s goal, the more this is a victory for all the oppressed people of the world.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Stansfield Smith.

Police stopped personal vehicles and public buses and directed pedestrians into shelters, such as basements and subway stations.

Some shops and restaurants pulled down shutters and turned off lights, moves aimed to reduce their visibility during a potential nighttime attack.

The drills also involved simulating wartime aid distribution and a mass-casualty event.

Earlier this week, Taiwanese forces held their largest-ever military drills, which included simulating a response to an amphibious invasion of the Penghu Islands.

Troops fired Javelin missiles, machine guns and tank rounds at maritime targets.

Taiwanese forces also conducted maritime drills around the Matsu Islands involving speed boats, drones and mortars. Soldiers fired from rubber speed boats and positions on shore, responding to a simulated “grey zone harassment” of the islands by Chinese Coast Guard and fishing vessels.

In an early morning drill, Taiwan’s military police used Taipei’s subway system as it simulated the redeployment of troops and supplies.

Taiwan’s military also practiced securing and defending a major bridge in Taipei. This time they were firing blanks.

Taiwanese military officials said the Han Kuang drills replicate full combat conditions, including simulated enemy attacks on communications and command systems and a full-blown invasion scenario.

Includes reporting from Agence France-Presse and Reuters.

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

For exiled activist Li Ying, it’s been a way to bankroll a pro-democracy community that’s challenging Chinese censorship and authoritarian rule.

Li, 32, is better known by his handle on the social media platform X: “Teacher Li is not your teacher.” He’s built a following of more than 2 million by posting news that Chinese authorities don’t want people to see.

Last December, he branched out to launch $Li, a form of cryptocurrency modeled after his own social media avatar — a hand-drawn tabby cat. The goal was to provide financial support for his initiatives to crowd-source data from inside China on social issues like overwork by students and laborers with an aim to promote change.

(li-dao.org)

But his move split the Chinese diaspora. While some supporters rallied behind Li, many activists and former supporters of Li condemned the launch as a fraud and an act of self-dealing.

On its debut, $Li reached a market capitalization in the tens of millions of U.S. dollars. But the price quickly plunged. As of the time of reporting, $Li’s market cap had dropped more than 80%, to less than $2 million.

Li concedes that his personal reputation took a beating, but he says that the coin’s launch has stimulated a debate about how cryptocurrency might be used to fund the activities of dissident groups beyond the reach of governments — not least the long arm of the Chinese Communist Party.

As an exiled influencer challenging Beijing’s censorship machine, Li said he has been facing threats and pressure from Chinese authorities.

Li said he lost his job in Italy, had his bank accounts in China frozen, and struggled to make a living through individual donations. In 2023, he publicly disclosed that his ad revenue from X averaged just €568 per month (about US$650) — well below the average monthly income in Italy.

“I had no choice but to launch a cryptocurrency,” Li told RFA.

(RFA)

According to a statement issued by Li on X, $Li had a total supply of 1 billion coins, with pricing left to market forces. A foundation was to be established to oversee the coin, with 19.5% of tokens held by the foundation and 2% held by Li himself.

Li said he froze the majority of his own holdings because he has no plans to sell. The remainder has been used for payments to staff involved in initiatives promoting democracy in China.

One of the managers of the foundation, Canada-based influencer “Toronto Squareface,” stated in a post on his X account that the use of funds would be determined through a democratic process. All transactions would be publicly recorded and transparent under the blockchain technology.

In a statement on X, Li said he plans to use the foundation to build community supporting initiatives that promote freedom of speech and press freedom in China. $Li will not hold any presale, meaning that there will be no early access sales to any investors, and the team has no authority to mint additional tokens.

According to the latest data from a trading platform GMGN, there are 6,283 holders of $Li.

今天我们很高兴的宣布，我们在Sol上发行了我们的迷因币 $LI ，以帮助我们的团队持续运营这个账号。 $LI 将以一个基金会架构, 后续会邀请更多业内人士作为基金会成员，通过多签钱包管理基金会的支出，确保基金会的去中心化，以完全公开透明的方式进行运作。… pic.twitter.com/prHOlWu9Lx

— Li (@Li_DAOmeme) December 18, 2024

Shortly after its launch, some platforms flagged $Li as a scam or high-risk token and banned its trading. Li explained to RFA that this was primarily because those platforms have Chinese ownership, such as the on-chain wallet OKX. He added that $Li was labeled a scam as part of a political attack by the Chinese authorities.

Despite the reassurances offered by Li about the management of $Li, many of his supporters turned against him after its launch, accusing him of betrayal and opportunism.

“He (Li) has changed under immense pressure and the temptation of money,” wrote Huang Yicheng, an organizer and exile who participated in China’s anti-Covid protests. He announced on X that he was cutting ties with Li.

Huang accused Li of leveraging public trust to enrich himself, which Li denies. Others claim that under the guise of promoting democracy in China, Li’s real goal was to exploit investors.

Some critics even drew comparisons to Guo Wengui, the self-styled Chinese dissident and vocal supporter of Donald Trump. Guo was convicted on multiple counts of fraud and money laundering for allegedly using his online influence to scam followers out of more than $1 billion, including through a fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme.

Li’s supporters, however, view the meme coin’s launch as an innovation in the civic movement.

“Li burst onto the scene like a disruptor no one expected,” said Jiangbu, who prefers to be identified by a pseudonym for security reasons. He’s a Paris-based non-governmental organization activist focusing on social issues in China.

Jiangbu, who once led overseas protests against China’s zero-covid policy, said he’s familiar with the slow grind of traditional non-profit work — securing grants, drafting reports, executing programs.

“What Li did was create money out of thin air,” said Jiangbu, who has served as a coordinator for one of the initiatives funded by $Li. “The project is efficient, and everyone gets a little reward and has a real sense of participation. It’s incredibly innovative.”

According to Aaron Zhang, a member of Li’s team who is also being identified by a pseudonym due to security concerns, staff chose $Li as a payment mechanism because of cryptocurrency’s anonymity. This has made it difficult for the Chinese government to trace transactions back to individual investors, thereby protecting their safety.

Despite the criticism Li has faced, he said he succeeded in building a cryptocurrency-based community capable of launching initiatives with real impact on China.

“Every time you come back from the brink,” Li said, “you come back stronger.”

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Baili Liu for RFA Mandarin.

New Zealand will not send top government representation to the Cook Islands for its 60th Constitution Day celebrations in three weeks’ time.

Instead, Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro will represent Aotearoa in Rarotonga.

On August 4, Cook Islands will mark 60 years of self-governance in free association with New Zealand.

• READ MORE: Other Cook Islands reports

It comes at a turbulent time in the relationship

New Zealand paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands in June after its government signed several agreements with China in February.

At the time, a spokesperson for Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the pause was because the Cook Islands did not consult with Aotearoa over the China deals and failed to ensure shared interests were not put at risk.

Peters and New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will not attend the celebrations.

Ten years ago, former Prime Minister Sir John Key attended the celebrations that marked 50 years of Cook Islands being in free association with New Zealand.

Officials from the Cook Islands and New Zealand have been meeting to try and restore the relationship.

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.

Rubio was in Malaysia on his first Asia trip since taking office, looking to stress U.S. commitment to the region at the East Asia Summit and ASEAN Regional Forum, as countries received notices of U.S. tariffs announced by U.S. President Donald Trump this week.

At a Thursday photo-op before the start of the U.S, Japan, Philippines trilateral meeting, Rubio learned the summit’s signature “ASEAN-way” handshake.

“How do we do that?” Rubio asked.

“The ASEAN-way” replied Philippines’ Foreign Secretary Theresa Lazaro.

Japan’s Prime Minister Takeshi Iwaya then grabbed Rubio’s hands and crossed them, with the three standing and smiling with the traditional cross-armed handshake for cameras.

Rubio also met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov where they discussed the Russia-Ukraine war.

Reporting by Reuters; edited by Charlie Dharapak.

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

Today, Taiwan is caught in the crosshairs of two imperial rivals: the US and China. This is nothing new for the island nation, which has been a battleground for competing empires for centuries, but what is new is the critical role Taiwan plays in the 21st-century world economy. For example, Taiwan manufacturers 90% of the world’s most advanced microchips—the key component in everything from consumer electronics to the US military’s F-35 fighter jets. In this episode of Solidarity Without Exception, co-host Ashley Smith speaks with Brian Hioe, journalist and editor of New Bloom magazine, about the history of Taiwanese struggles for self-determination, the country’s position in the contemporary US-China rivalry, the increasing threat of imperial war, and the urgency of building solidarity among working-class people in Taiwan, the US, and China.

Guests:

• Brian Hioe is a freelance journalist, translator, and one of the founding editors of New Bloom, an online magazine featuring radical perspectives on Taiwan and the Asia-Pacific. A New York native and Taiwanese-American, Hioe has an MA in East Asian Languages and Cultures from Columbia University and graduated from New York University with majors in History, East Asian Studies, and English Literature. He was Democracy and Human Rights Service Fellow at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy from 2017 to 2018 and is currently a Non-Resident Fellow at the University of Nottingham’s Taiwan Studies Programme, as well as board member of the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents’ Club.

Additional resources:

• New Bloom website, Facebook page, X page, and Instagram
• Eli Friedman, Kevin Lin, Rosa Liu, & Ashley Smith, Haymarket Books, China in Global Capitalism: Building International Solidarity Against Imperial Rivalry
• Brian J. Chen, Boston Review, “Semiconductor Island: The colonial making of Taiwan’s chip supremacy”

Credits:

• Pre-Production: Ashley Smith
• Stdio Production / Post-Production: TRNN

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Ashley Smith.

China’s partners have the infrastructure and the knowledge to continue to develop and innovate. The settlement of a disputed land/border issue between China and Tajikistan has been cited as an example of a non-violent win-win situation.

Above map from ResearchGate.

The below video by China Project Hub relates a win-win partnership.

Consider also Assel Bitabarova’s study — written while a PhD student at the Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University: “Contested Views of Contested Territories: How Tajik Society Views the Tajik-Chinese Border Settlement.”

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

“No one has the right to interfere or decide who the successor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be,” said Kiren Rijiju, India’s minister for minority affairs.

China’s foreign ministry urged India to be prudent in its words and actions.

“We hope the Indian side will fully understand the highly sensitive nature of Tibet-related issues, recognize the anti-China separatist nature of the 14th Dalai Lama,” said spokesperson Mao Ning.

India’s foreign ministry later on Friday released a statement on its website saying, “Government of India does not take any position or speak on matters concerning beliefs and practices of faith and religion.”

(OHHDL)

The Dalai Lama, who fled to India in 1959, stated on Wednesday that upon his death, he would be reincarnated as the next spiritual leader and that only the Gaden Phodrang Trust would be authorized to identify his successor.

Beijing maintains it has the right to approve the Dalai Lama’s successor.

The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) said in a statement: “The process of reincarnation for Tibetan Buddhists is a sacred tradition. Any attempt by the CCP to interfere in this spiritual matter is an unacceptable violation of religious liberty and must be swiftly condemned by the international community.”

Penpa Tsering, president of the Tibetan government in exile, spoke to reporters in Dharamsala at the end of the three-day conference of Tibetan religious leaders, where the Dalai Lama affirmed his succession plans.

“If China tries to use this in any way, in any means, we will not recognize it. In the future also we will not accept any of China’s choices.”

Reporting by Dawa Dolma and Tenzin Woser in Dharamsala; additional reporting from Reuters; edited by Charlie Dharapak

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

Simply put, the book’s existence is a crime against quality academic literature.

I had no expectations of strong, intellectual debate, because Cotton isn’t known for backing any of his claims with evidence (it only took me one page in to find that admittance: “I used simple common sense, not scientific knowledge or classified intelligence”), so I wasn’t disappointed by his complete lack of depth and historical accuracy.

More than anything, I was impressed that such an absurd, conspiratorial text could reach a publisher’s desk and be checked off on. It’s really not a book at all—it’s a manifesto of paranoia. The kind you expect to find written in messy, hand-scrawled letters and hidden beneath the desk of a serial killer whose crimes you are trying to piece together.

Well, Cotton’s crimes are many. This book is just one more venture in his career, full of asking, I wonder how much I can get away with?

While Tom Cotton has always been one of war’s #1 fans, his favorite of all is one still yet to happen—the one he’s trying to justify in his book. His “brave truth-telling” is nothing less than imperialist propaganda feverishly trying to manufacture an enemy and send us headlong into that war.

He starts by trying to convince us that China is the manifestation of all evil and wrongdoing, the harbinger of doom, and the pioneer of global villainy:

“China is waging economic world war.”

“Communist China is the focus of evil in the modern world.”

“China is coming for our children.”

As bewildering as these statements are, what stood out to me the most is that Tom Cotton has clearly never studied China in any real capacity. I can’t forgive him for his ignorance, because it’s undoubtedly followed closely by deep, soul-crushing racism, but I can teach him a few things he never learned in military boot camp.

Tom Cotton, here are seven things you need to learn about China.

1. China’s rise has nothing to do with the US.

Tom Cotton situates everything China has done over the past century as a calculated maneuver to outwit and conquer the United States. It’s a classic case of main-characterism, in which a subject assumes everyone’s actions revolve entirely around them.

The truth is, China’s rise has nothing to do with the US. Really, it’s none of our business. China developed because the modern era called for it. China sought economic prosperity because it had 1.4 billion citizens to provide for. China became powerful because that’s a side effect of having one of the largest economies in the world.

China’s success is its own achievement. The fact that the US considers another country’s growing prosperity to be a direct threat against it says far more about the US. Instead of buying into the existential threat narratives, we need to ask why they exist.

Why is China’s economic prosperity so terrifying to the Washington elite? Well, Tom Cotton says it loud and clear:

“Most of us take American global dominance for granted, without thinking much about it; since at least World War I, that’s just the way it’s been. World trade is conducted in dollars. English is the unofficial global language of business and politics. (…) For more than a century, Americans have reaped enormous economic and security benefits from this state of affairs.”

How dare another country become prosperous despite decades of foreign occupation, intervention, and coercion meant to reaffirm global inequality and protect US dominance?

2. China is 5,000 years old.

In 1949, when the PRC was established under the Communist Party, the US proclaimed that it had “lost China.”

Let’s get this straight: a 175-year-old country was proclaiming to have “lost” a 5,000-year-old civilization state. Isn’t that absurd? China was never ours to have or to lose, or to do anything with at all.

At the time, the US government even considered preemptively striking China to ensure it never obtained nuclear weapons. Those considerations never disappeared entirely.

We really have to consider the differences between the two states with vastly opposing backgrounds, because you can’t understand China through a Western lens. The US is a relatively young nation born out of settler colonization and genocide of the native people. Our wealth was amassed through resource extraction, exploitation, and slavery. What precedent does that set? In comparison, China has undergone thousands of years of dynastic empires rising and falling. It has a strong cultural continuity and shared historical experience that informs how it conducts itself in the global theater. Its wealth was amassed internally, not through imperialist behavior or the exploitation of another. It’s an ancient civilization with deep roots, and a unique vision of the world informed by a long philosophical tradition and an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist framework.

Additionally, China was one of the world’s largest economies for over 2,000 years, accounting for around 25-30% of global GDP. It wasn’t until the colonial period of the 1800s that colonial violence and occupation by Japan and the British Empire drove China into poverty. In the 1970s, it was one of the world’s poorest nations. The fact that China was able to return to its former prosperity despite decades of foreign intervention is nothing less than a miracle.

Tom Cotton has no understanding of these complexities. He sees China through the narrow, ultra-patriotic, super-imperialist, America-is-the-center-of-the-world-and-nobody-else-matters mindset. It doesn’t work, and it comes off incredibly cliche and small-minded.

3. You have to travel to China to understand China.

Which Cotton can’t do because he’s sanctioned from visiting. I really can’t blame China at all for that. I wouldn’t want Tom Cotton in my country either.

Regardless, I know this to be true: you have to see China for yourself to develop any real understanding of it. The fact that Tom Cotton has never been to China and will never go only proves that he has absolutely no authority, and never will, over writing a book about China’s actions and intentions.

It should be a prerequisite for any individual with any degree of political power to spend time in the country they claim to know so much about. They should be required to visit cities and towns, to learn the country’s version of its history, and to talk with local people about their unique perspectives.

Tom Cotton has not, will not, and therefore, his opinion should not be accepted or respected.

4. China does NOT want his kids.

In Chapter 6, Tom Cotton says, “China is coming for our kids.” It’s a bold statement, and he doesn’t give us much follow-up to reinforce such extremism. You’d expect something a bit more villainous, like a government-backed kidnapping ring or 5G mind control. But alas, what Cotton refers to is the growing prevalence of the social media app TikTok.

TikTok, he says, is a Chinese plot to take over the minds of the American youth.

You may recall Cotton’s viral moment when he repeatedly asked Singaporean TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew if he was Chinese. The conversation went like this:

“Of what nation are you a citizen?”

“Singapore, sir.”

“Are you a citizen of any other nation?”

“No senator.”

“Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship?”

“Senator, I served my nation in Singapore. No, I did not.”

“Do you have a Singaporean passport?

“Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore.”

“Do you have any other passports from any other nations?”

“No senator.”

“Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party?”

“Senator, I’m Singaporean. No.”

“Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party?”

“No, Senator. Again, I’m Singaporean!”

It goes without saying that the TikTok ban was dead in the water until pro-Palestinian content began proliferating. According to Congressman Mike Gallagher, “The bill was still dead until October 7th. And people started to see a bunch of antisemitic content on the platform, and our bill had legs again.”

In truth, the TikTok ban was never about China, but about shielding young minds from learning about Israel’s atrocities against the Palestinian people and the ongoing complicity of the United States. The ban now walks hand in hand with the new education reforms that seek to dispose of “anti-patriotic” fields of study like critical race theory and threatens open discussion about the genocide in Gaza by automatically deeming it antisemitic. Yes, we are watching radical censorship in action.

Anyway, Tom Cotton, China is not coming for your kids or anyone else’s, and making that claim without evidence is lazy and hysterical. This type of rhetoric serves one purpose only: to fuel fear and drive war.

5. China didn’t ruin our economy—we did.

It’s a real irony that those with all the power and money never take responsibility for their failings, but blame everyone else. And a lot of the time, people don’t see it. For instance, the elites who have crippled the US economy continue to point their fingers at those with no power at all—the impoverished, the starving, the homeless, the immigrants—and scream, it’s their fault! They did it! And the general populace turns on them with all the blame and rage of their wearisome existence. But who are the ones making all the decisions? Hoarding all the wealth? Throwing out tax breaks to billionaire friends and cutting the few life-saving programs that help regular folks get off the ground?

It’s the elites. The politicians. The CEOs.

We can’t blame China for developing. That’s its responsibility to its people. They didn’t steal our jobs. The thievery happened at home, on US soil, right under our noses. The corporate elite decided to take advantage of global inequality and save a few extra bucks by exporting industries abroad, where they could take advantage of cheap labor and exploit the resources of poorer nations.

Tom Cotton spends quite a lot of time talking about China’s “economic world war.” First of all, using war language to describe economic competition sets a dangerous precedent. Competition is natural within our economic systems, and shouting “war! “ when the US isn’t constantly on top is militant imperialist behavior (Sidenote: we must rid ourselves of the notion that there are limited resources and limited wealth. There’s plenty for everyone—the problem is the majority of wealth is hoarded by 1% of the global population.)

And secondly, I can’t help but wonder at the flips and tricks the human mind must do to accuse another nation of such an action, when the US has forever used sanctions, tariffs, and economic coercion as weapons to hurt and topple other nations, to corner them into loans and structural adjustments, and to strangulate, pressure, and punish. It makes Cotton’s particularly brief section on “economic imperialism” sound even more ridiculous.

6. China is more logical than Cotton will ever be.

My favorite section of Tom Cotton’s book began with the title, “Green is the new red.” I know it’s meant to be scary, but it reads more like one of those comedy-horrors that make you cringe, but you just can’t look away. I was particularly impressed with the impossible flexibility it takes to convince people a country is evil because it’s invested so much in… renewable energy!

Terrifying!

The mental gymnastics of this section might just be Cotton’s greatest feat ever.

One thing is for certain. There’s no logic to be found here. But there’s also no logic to be found in much of the US policy on climate change. If I had to put a symbol to it, I’d choose an ostrich sticking its head in the ground—if you don’t look, it’s not there!

Tom Cotton laments that as a result of heavy investment in solar panels, “China has devastated yet another American industry.” Those poor corporations. Those poor CEOs. How will they fare without their megayachts while the world burns?

It is an unfortunate side effect of capitalism that our system prioritizes wealth over protecting the planet. It’s a fortunate side effect of China’s socialist characteristics that they don’t. As Brazilian activist Chico Mendes said, “Environmentalism without class struggle is just gardening.”

7. China doesn’t want to go to war.

We can’t define China by what-ifs. What if China wants to conquer the Pacific? What if China invades Poland? What if China hacks into my coffee pot and deciphers my favorite brew? What if what if what if? It’s nonsensical. We can only define China by what it’s said and what it’s done.

If there’s one thing Tom Cotton needs to learn, it’s that China has no desire for war. Literally none. China has not been involved in any overseas conflict for fifty years. Compare that to the 251 foreign military interventions the US has conducted since just 1991. Really, just think about that. Don’t you think that if China had hegemonic ambitions, it would build a foreign military base in every country… or multiple? Or maybe over 900+ like the US? But no, China has just one in Djibouti. Tom Cotton thinks that the Djibouti base is suspicious and signals China’s malign ambitions. In reality, many nations have a military presence there to prevent piracy and smuggling in one of the world’s most crucial shipping lanes, the US included. Clearly, Tom Cotton lives in a different reality of his own paranoid design.

Additionally, Chinese officials have repeated—over and over and over—that they have no desire for war. I think we can take them at their word, considering their lack of war historically, and their foundational policy of “peaceful coexistence.” In Cotton’s entire book, he never once refers to China’s foreign policy principles that guide every decision made. Chinese officials have never talked about a world in which China “dominates” other countries. They have only ever talked about visions of a world built on mutual respect, sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference, cooperation, and peaceful coexistence.

Tom Cotton needs to do some more reading on Chinese political theory, but it seems like he spends most of his learning hours thinking about war: “As a senator, I regularly review war games between China and the United States—exercises where military experts play out what would happen in a war between the two nations. I’ve never seen happy results.”

You don’t need a war game to tell you that the results of war would be unhappy. Anyone could tell you that. I’m sure if Tom Cotton thought hard enough, he could even come up with that prediction all on his own.

And war between the US and China wouldn’t just be unhappy, it would be devastating. Which is why our Congress members should be doing everything they can to prevent it, not ramping up the possibility by writing tedious, hysterical conspiracies about the evilness of other nations and the inevitability of conflict.

Tom Cotton has a lot to learn about China, a lot more to learn about being a good politician, and the absolute most to learn about being a good person. But he can start with learning about China and switching his political tools to fostering dialogue, cooperation, and understanding, rather than the war-driving dribble he regularly spews.

Unfortunately, the book was published. So if you see it at your local bookstore, do us all a favor and move it to the fantasy section, where it belongs. Or, if you’re feeling extra whimsical, you can add some Tom Cotton war criminal bookmarks to surprise the next person who picks it up. Meanwhile, we’ll be putting publisher HarperCollins on notice that it needs a much better fact-checking department.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Megan Russell.

Simply put, the book’s existence is a crime against quality academic literature.

I had no expectations of strong, intellectual debate, because Cotton isn’t known for backing any of his claims with evidence (it only took me one page in to find that admittance: “I used simple common sense, not scientific knowledge or classified intelligence”), so I wasn’t disappointed by his complete lack of depth and historical accuracy.

More than anything, I was impressed that such an absurd, conspiratorial text could reach a publisher’s desk and be checked off on. It’s really not a book at all—it’s a manifesto of paranoia. The kind you expect to find written in messy, hand-scrawled letters and hidden beneath the desk of a serial killer whose crimes you are trying to piece together.

Well, Cotton’s crimes are many. This book is just one more venture in his career, full of asking, I wonder how much I can get away with?

While Tom Cotton has always been one of war’s #1 fans, his favorite of all is one still yet to happen—the one he’s trying to justify in his book. His “brave truth-telling” is nothing less than imperialist propaganda feverishly trying to manufacture an enemy and send us headlong into that war.

He starts by trying to convince us that China is the manifestation of all evil and wrongdoing, the harbinger of doom, and the pioneer of global villainy:

“China is waging economic world war.”

“Communist China is the focus of evil in the modern world.”

“China is coming for our children.”

As bewildering as these statements are, what stood out to me the most is that Tom Cotton has clearly never studied China in any real capacity. I can’t forgive him for his ignorance, because it’s undoubtedly followed closely by deep, soul-crushing racism, but I can teach him a few things he never learned in military boot camp.

Tom Cotton, here are seven things you need to learn about China.

1. China’s rise has nothing to do with the US.

Tom Cotton situates everything China has done over the past century as a calculated maneuver to outwit and conquer the United States. It’s a classic case of main-characterism, in which a subject assumes everyone’s actions revolve entirely around them.

The truth is, China’s rise has nothing to do with the US. Really, it’s none of our business. China developed because the modern era called for it. China sought economic prosperity because it had 1.4 billion citizens to provide for. China became powerful because that’s a side effect of having one of the largest economies in the world.

China’s success is its own achievement. The fact that the US considers another country’s growing prosperity to be a direct threat against it says far more about the US. Instead of buying into the existential threat narratives, we need to ask why they exist.

Why is China’s economic prosperity so terrifying to the Washington elite? Well, Tom Cotton says it loud and clear:

“Most of us take American global dominance for granted, without thinking much about it; since at least World War I, that’s just the way it’s been. World trade is conducted in dollars. English is the unofficial global language of business and politics. (…) For more than a century, Americans have reaped enormous economic and security benefits from this state of affairs.”

How dare another country become prosperous despite decades of foreign occupation, intervention, and coercion meant to reaffirm global inequality and protect US dominance?

2. China is 5,000 years old.

In 1949, when the PRC was established under the Communist Party, the US proclaimed that it had “lost China.”

Let’s get this straight: a 175-year-old country was proclaiming to have “lost” a 5,000-year-old civilization state. Isn’t that absurd? China was never ours to have or to lose, or to do anything with at all.

At the time, the US government even considered preemptively striking China to ensure it never obtained nuclear weapons. Those considerations never disappeared entirely.

We really have to consider the differences between the two states with vastly opposing backgrounds, because you can’t understand China through a Western lens. The US is a relatively young nation born out of settler colonization and genocide of the native people. Our wealth was amassed through resource extraction, exploitation, and slavery. What precedent does that set? In comparison, China has undergone thousands of years of dynastic empires rising and falling. It has a strong cultural continuity and shared historical experience that informs how it conducts itself in the global theater. Its wealth was amassed internally, not through imperialist behavior or the exploitation of another. It’s an ancient civilization with deep roots, and a unique vision of the world informed by a long philosophical tradition and an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist framework.

Additionally, China was one of the world’s largest economies for over 2,000 years, accounting for around 25-30% of global GDP. It wasn’t until the colonial period of the 1800s that colonial violence and occupation by Japan and the British Empire drove China into poverty. In the 1970s, it was one of the world’s poorest nations. The fact that China was able to return to its former prosperity despite decades of foreign intervention is nothing less than a miracle.

Tom Cotton has no understanding of these complexities. He sees China through the narrow, ultra-patriotic, super-imperialist, America-is-the-center-of-the-world-and-nobody-else-matters mindset. It doesn’t work, and it comes off incredibly cliche and small-minded.

3. You have to travel to China to understand China.

Which Cotton can’t do because he’s sanctioned from visiting. I really can’t blame China at all for that. I wouldn’t want Tom Cotton in my country either.

Regardless, I know this to be true: you have to see China for yourself to develop any real understanding of it. The fact that Tom Cotton has never been to China and will never go only proves that he has absolutely no authority, and never will, over writing a book about China’s actions and intentions.

It should be a prerequisite for any individual with any degree of political power to spend time in the country they claim to know so much about. They should be required to visit cities and towns, to learn the country’s version of its history, and to talk with local people about their unique perspectives.

Tom Cotton has not, will not, and therefore, his opinion should not be accepted or respected.

4. China does NOT want his kids.

In Chapter 6, Tom Cotton says, “China is coming for our kids.” It’s a bold statement, and he doesn’t give us much follow-up to reinforce such extremism. You’d expect something a bit more villainous, like a government-backed kidnapping ring or 5G mind control. But alas, what Cotton refers to is the growing prevalence of the social media app TikTok.

TikTok, he says, is a Chinese plot to take over the minds of the American youth.

You may recall Cotton’s viral moment when he repeatedly asked Singaporean TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew if he was Chinese. The conversation went like this:

“Of what nation are you a citizen?”

“Singapore, sir.”

“Are you a citizen of any other nation?”

“No senator.”

“Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship?”

“Senator, I served my nation in Singapore. No, I did not.”

“Do you have a Singaporean passport?

“Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore.”

“Do you have any other passports from any other nations?”

“No senator.”

“Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party?”

“Senator, I’m Singaporean. No.”

“Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party?”

“No, Senator. Again, I’m Singaporean!”

It goes without saying that the TikTok ban was dead in the water until pro-Palestinian content began proliferating. According to Congressman Mike Gallagher, “The bill was still dead until October 7th. And people started to see a bunch of antisemitic content on the platform, and our bill had legs again.”

In truth, the TikTok ban was never about China, but about shielding young minds from learning about Israel’s atrocities against the Palestinian people and the ongoing complicity of the United States. The ban now walks hand in hand with the new education reforms that seek to dispose of “anti-patriotic” fields of study like critical race theory and threatens open discussion about the genocide in Gaza by automatically deeming it antisemitic. Yes, we are watching radical censorship in action.

Anyway, Tom Cotton, China is not coming for your kids or anyone else’s, and making that claim without evidence is lazy and hysterical. This type of rhetoric serves one purpose only: to fuel fear and drive war.

5. China didn’t ruin our economy—we did.

It’s a real irony that those with all the power and money never take responsibility for their failings, but blame everyone else. And a lot of the time, people don’t see it. For instance, the elites who have crippled the US economy continue to point their fingers at those with no power at all—the impoverished, the starving, the homeless, the immigrants—and scream, it’s their fault! They did it! And the general populace turns on them with all the blame and rage of their wearisome existence. But who are the ones making all the decisions? Hoarding all the wealth? Throwing out tax breaks to billionaire friends and cutting the few life-saving programs that help regular folks get off the ground?

It’s the elites. The politicians. The CEOs.

We can’t blame China for developing. That’s its responsibility to its people. They didn’t steal our jobs. The thievery happened at home, on US soil, right under our noses. The corporate elite decided to take advantage of global inequality and save a few extra bucks by exporting industries abroad, where they could take advantage of cheap labor and exploit the resources of poorer nations.

Tom Cotton spends quite a lot of time talking about China’s “economic world war.” First of all, using war language to describe economic competition sets a dangerous precedent. Competition is natural within our economic systems, and shouting “war! “ when the US isn’t constantly on top is militant imperialist behavior (Sidenote: we must rid ourselves of the notion that there are limited resources and limited wealth. There’s plenty for everyone—the problem is the majority of wealth is hoarded by 1% of the global population.)

And secondly, I can’t help but wonder at the flips and tricks the human mind must do to accuse another nation of such an action, when the US has forever used sanctions, tariffs, and economic coercion as weapons to hurt and topple other nations, to corner them into loans and structural adjustments, and to strangulate, pressure, and punish. It makes Cotton’s particularly brief section on “economic imperialism” sound even more ridiculous.

6. China is more logical than Cotton will ever be.

My favorite section of Tom Cotton’s book began with the title, “Green is the new red.” I know it’s meant to be scary, but it reads more like one of those comedy-horrors that make you cringe, but you just can’t look away. I was particularly impressed with the impossible flexibility it takes to convince people a country is evil because it’s invested so much in… renewable energy!

Terrifying!

The mental gymnastics of this section might just be Cotton’s greatest feat ever.

One thing is for certain. There’s no logic to be found here. But there’s also no logic to be found in much of the US policy on climate change. If I had to put a symbol to it, I’d choose an ostrich sticking its head in the ground—if you don’t look, it’s not there!

Tom Cotton laments that as a result of heavy investment in solar panels, “China has devastated yet another American industry.” Those poor corporations. Those poor CEOs. How will they fare without their megayachts while the world burns?

It is an unfortunate side effect of capitalism that our system prioritizes wealth over protecting the planet. It’s a fortunate side effect of China’s socialist characteristics that they don’t. As Brazilian activist Chico Mendes said, “Environmentalism without class struggle is just gardening.”

7. China doesn’t want to go to war.

We can’t define China by what-ifs. What if China wants to conquer the Pacific? What if China invades Poland? What if China hacks into my coffee pot and deciphers my favorite brew? What if what if what if? It’s nonsensical. We can only define China by what it’s said and what it’s done.

If there’s one thing Tom Cotton needs to learn, it’s that China has no desire for war. Literally none. China has not been involved in any overseas conflict for fifty years. Compare that to the 251 foreign military interventions the US has conducted since just 1991. Really, just think about that. Don’t you think that if China had hegemonic ambitions, it would build a foreign military base in every country… or multiple? Or maybe over 900+ like the US? But no, China has just one in Djibouti. Tom Cotton thinks that the Djibouti base is suspicious and signals China’s malign ambitions. In reality, many nations have a military presence there to prevent piracy and smuggling in one of the world’s most crucial shipping lanes, the US included. Clearly, Tom Cotton lives in a different reality of his own paranoid design.

Additionally, Chinese officials have repeated—over and over and over—that they have no desire for war. I think we can take them at their word, considering their lack of war historically, and their foundational policy of “peaceful coexistence.” In Cotton’s entire book, he never once refers to China’s foreign policy principles that guide every decision made. Chinese officials have never talked about a world in which China “dominates” other countries. They have only ever talked about visions of a world built on mutual respect, sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference, cooperation, and peaceful coexistence.

Tom Cotton needs to do some more reading on Chinese political theory, but it seems like he spends most of his learning hours thinking about war: “As a senator, I regularly review war games between China and the United States—exercises where military experts play out what would happen in a war between the two nations. I’ve never seen happy results.”

You don’t need a war game to tell you that the results of war would be unhappy. Anyone could tell you that. I’m sure if Tom Cotton thought hard enough, he could even come up with that prediction all on his own.

And war between the US and China wouldn’t just be unhappy, it would be devastating. Which is why our Congress members should be doing everything they can to prevent it, not ramping up the possibility by writing tedious, hysterical conspiracies about the evilness of other nations and the inevitability of conflict.

Tom Cotton has a lot to learn about China, a lot more to learn about being a good politician, and the absolute most to learn about being a good person. But he can start with learning about China and switching his political tools to fostering dialogue, cooperation, and understanding, rather than the war-driving dribble he regularly spews.

Unfortunately, the book was published. So if you see it at your local bookstore, do us all a favor and move it to the fantasy section, where it belongs. Or, if you’re feeling extra whimsical, you can add some Tom Cotton war criminal bookmarks to surprise the next person who picks it up. Meanwhile, we’ll be putting publisher HarperCollins on notice that it needs a much better fact-checking department.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Megan Russell.

His story and more than 4,000 like it have been submitted anonymously to a crowd-sourcing website that is shining a light on overworked Chinese students who are nervous about speaking about their plight to authorities.

(China Stringer Network via Reuters)

The site is called 611Study.ICU. The creator says that is a dark reference to the brutal schedule common at Chinese middle and high schools: classes from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. which leaves students “sick in ICU” - or “intensive care unit.”

And while it’s not state-sanctioned, the site appears to be having an impact. Within two months of its launch, many Chinese schools have announced a return to regular class schedules.

611Study.ICU is the brainchild of an exiled Chinese pro-democracy activist, Li Ying, better known by his handle on the social media platform X, “Teacher Li is not your teacher.”

Li, 32, is a former artist turned dissident influencer. He has become one of the most prominent voices challenging Beijing’s censorship. He’s best known for reposting online content that is too sensitive for China’s social media platforms, such as public protests.

(RFA)

Li innovates not just in promoting the free flow of information but also in funding it. In December 2024, he launched a meme coin, or form of cryptocurrency, called $Li. With the proceeds from coin sales, Li says he wants to build a decentralized youth community that promotes democracy, free speech and positive change in China.

The $Li community has also focused on the plight of China’s overworked labor force, but the biggest impact to date has been with 611Study.ICU.

Climb over the firewall

Li said he did not expect so many Chinese students to be willing to “climb over the firewall” and report to him on X, which is banned in China. Mainlanders need to use virtual private networks, or VPNs, to access and comment on his posts.

Li, who is based in Italy, has more than 2 million followers on X and is one of the most influential young Chinese dissidents overseas. During the pandemic, when many citizens chafed against authorities’ ‘zero’ tolerance of social interactions, people sent him videos and photos of protests against Chinese policies.

(AFP)

At first, he reposted them on Chinese microblogging platform Weibo, but after his Weibo accounts were deleted by Chinese authorities multiple times, Li migrated to X. Since then, he’s served as a hub for sensitive news about China, putting him firmly in the crosshairs of Beijing.

Li recounted to Radio Free Asia his epiphany in how he could help publicize the concerns of citizens that go unaddressed by authorities.

He received a video showing petitioners lining up outside the State Bureau for Letters and Calls in Beijing at midnight, where they hoped to submit their grievances when the office opened the next day. He said he was struck by how difficult and exhausting the petitioners’ journey must have been.

“Many people jokingly say that petitioning inside China doesn’t solve their problems, and it’s only after I post about them that things actually get resolved,” Li said.

(Andy Wong/AP)

This inspired him and his team to develop the concept of a “China Overseas Petition Bureau” — a virtual platform where people wouldn’t have to queue, and one that operated beyond the reach of China’s censorship. The goal was to present Chinese citizens’ appeals in full, without filters or restrictions.

In January, after receiving several messages from high schoolers complaining that they were being forced to return to school too soon after the winter break and were feeling overwhelmed — Li decided to first apply the “China Overseas Petition Bureau” concept to students, which led to 611Study.ICU.

People can anonymously fill out data through the website, including daily and weekly school hours, days off each month, reports of suicides, and other information about their school – such as extra costs for after-hours classes. These submissions are then reviewed multiple times by content moderators who flag suspicious entries.

(RFA Mandarin)

The website also provides data analysis based on the submissions. It shows that 56% of students reported spending 60 to 100 hours at school per week, and 35% reported studying more than 100 hours per week. Sixty percent reported that their classes start before 8 a.m., which violates regulations from the Chinese Education Bureau that prohibit middle and high schools from starting classes before 8 a.m.

On Feb. 1, shortly after 611Study.ICU went online, information began to circulate on Chinese social media platforms indicating that schools listed on the site were delaying the start of the spring semester.

In mid-March, Li posted two photos on his X account that purportedly showed Beihai middle school principal Wang Jiangang publicly denouncing him during a school assembly. In a message on a large screen, Wang alleged that students unwilling to study were “being brainwashed into feeding information” to Li. The school had restored a two-day weekend after winter break, and according to the message, the principal said this was due to the impact from Li.

(AFP)

Li’s opponents downplay his impact in this instance and say the photos of the school principal’s message were doctored. They also say that education bureaus across China already had plans to reduce students’ workload, and that the emergence of 611Study.ICU around the same time was just a coincidence.

Alang, a staff member of 611Study.ICU who is being identified by a pseudonym for security reasons, disputed that version of events – as do other supporters of Li, who hope that ordinary citizens might be able to push the Chinese government to make policy changes through collective action.

“I’m not saying the two-day weekend policy was entirely pushed by Li,” Alang told RFA. “But I do think Teacher Li played a certain role in it.”

Breaking through China’s information blockade

611Study.ICU team includes a dozen young Mandarin speakers scattered across the globe, including in mainland China.

The project coordinator, identified using the pseudonym Jiangbu due to safety concerns, knows only the time zones and internet identities of the interviewees. To ensure team safety, applicants must pass security tests, including proficiency in using Telegram groups and in using two-factor authentication for their email accounts.

(China Stringer Network via Reuters)

Raised in Hong Kong, Alang, a design college student responsible for creating graphics for 611Study.ICU, was always curious when his relatives in mainland China talked about the intense academic pressure there. Alang says his family members remain unaware of his association with Li.

Despite security measures, Jiangbu revealed that some team members, including himself, have had their identities exposed. Their parents in China were questioned by authorities in China, who labeled them as “foreign anti-China forces.”

According to Li, the 611Study.ICU website faced serious cyber attacks in May, with “dozens of AI-generated deepfake submissions flooding the site every second.”

Despite the intense pressures, the team members said they’re committed to what they are doing and to combating what Jiang calls “this greatest and most authoritarian empire.”

“Everyone knows about the problem of overtime studying in China,” a staff member using the pseudonym Aaron Zhang for security reasons said. “But there was no way to understand how severe it really is, or its regional distribution.”

(AFP)

For Zhang, the far-reaching significance of the ICU project lies in overcoming China’s control of official data, to which the public has gradually lost access. At the same time, the Chinese government has tightened restrictions on third-party data providers working with foreign entities. Researchers warn that these moves will make it increasingly challenging for companies, governments and academics to assess China’s future developments in key sectors.

Li’s projects attempt to overcome the information blockade by prompting citizens to submit data voluntarily, although there is a downside. When data is submitted anonymously it’s hard to verify its authenticity.

Not long after the overworking student project took off, Li and his team launched another initiative: Niuma.ICU, a crowdsourcing project targeting workplace overtime in China.

At the time of publication, it has collected data from 4,962 entities across China, including responses from state-owned enterprises and government departments. The statistics show that 79% of respondent entities work six to seven days a week. Nearly 40% reported working more than 12 hours per day.

In a flagging Chinese economy, Niuma.ICU has not created the kind of stir that 611Study.ICU has. Li attributes that to the benefit that the government derives from the status quo where few workers enjoy a two-day weekend.

“The more intensely factories exploit workers, the more profit the [Chinese] government can extract from it,” he said.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Baili Liu for RFA Mandarin.

The decision, he said in a statement that he read aloud during the opening day of a three-day conference of spiritual leaders in Dharamsala, came after years of appeals from Tibetan religious and secular leaders, as well as people and organizations from around the world.

“In particular, I have received messages through various channels from Tibetans in Tibet making the same appeal,” he said. “In accordance with all these requests, I am affirming that the institution of the Dalai Lama will continue.”

His statement did not mention China by name, but it said that selecting the next Dalai Lama should be carried out “in accordance with past tradition.”

“No one else has any such authority to interfere in this matter,” he said.

The Chinese foreign ministry reiterated on Wednesday that the selection of a new Dalai Lama must follow Chinese law and that it had to take place in China.

(Tenzin Woser/RFA Tibetan)

Tibetan Buddhists believe that when the Dalai Lama dies, his spirit will reincarnate in a new body. A search committee traditionally composed of high-ranking monks and lamas is formed to find a child born within a year of the Dalai Lama’s death who exhibits exceptional qualities and behaviors similar to his predecessor. The current Dalai Lama was two years old when he was identified.

In a book written earlier this year, the Dalai Lama said that his successor would be born in the “free world,” which he described as outside of China.

In 2011, the Dalai Lama said he would decide whether he would have a reincarnated successor “when I am about 90.” The Tibetan spiritual leader turns 90 on Sunday. Celebrations for the milestone birthday kicked off in Dharamsala on Monday.

Reporting by Dawa Dolma, edited by Greg Barber

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

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Faramarz Farbod.

Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month.

The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilise, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the US-Israeli dyad.

The good news for my region is that Iran’s resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the US pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China.

• READ MORE: Ramzy Baroud: The fallout — winners and losers from the Israeli war on Iran
• Caitlin Johnstone: The fictional mental illness that only affects enemies of the Western empire
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth.  Iran is the weakest.  If Iran falls, war in our region — intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely.

Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs.

“Tomorrow”, people in this part of the world naively think, “will always be like yesterday”.

That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here’s why.

US chooses war to re-shape Middle East
Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn’t supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries.

In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi’s Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all — the Islamic Republic of Iran.

One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success — if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of.

With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years.  A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft.

Now — with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered (“We came, we saw, he died”, Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine — the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns — or, rather, bombs — on the great prize: Iran.

Iran’s missiles have checked US-Israel for time being
Things did not go to plan. Former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours.

Iran’s missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the US will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over — a serious pivot to Asia.

Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into powderkeg?
For us in Asia-Pacific a major US pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric — all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg.

Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world — bellum Americanum — as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask?

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

Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month.

The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilise, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the US-Israeli dyad.

The good news for my region is that Iran’s resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the US pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China.

• READ MORE: Ramzy Baroud: The fallout — winners and losers from the Israeli war on Iran
• Caitlin Johnstone: The fictional mental illness that only affects enemies of the Western empire
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth.  Iran is the weakest.  If Iran falls, war in our region — intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely.

Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs.

“Tomorrow”, people in this part of the world naively think, “will always be like yesterday”.

That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here’s why.

US chooses war to re-shape Middle East
Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn’t supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries.

In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi’s Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all — the Islamic Republic of Iran.

One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success — if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of.

With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years.  A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft.

Now — with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered (“We came, we saw, he died”, Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine — the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns — or, rather, bombs — on the great prize: Iran.

Iran’s missiles have checked US-Israel for time being
Things did not go to plan. Former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours.

Iran’s missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the US will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over — a serious pivot to Asia.

Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into powderkeg?
For us in Asia-Pacific a major US pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric — all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg.

Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world — bellum Americanum — as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask?

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

“Next year would have marked the 20th anniversary of our founding, but we will not make it to that day,” LSD said in a media notice on Friday. “We are announcing our dissolution.”

A source told RFA Cantonese that LSD was warned several times, beginning in April, that it must dissolve before July 1 or risk being forcibly disbanded.

Incumbent LSD chairperson Chan Po-ying has previously declined to comment. On Friday, she again said she would not respond before the press conference.

“No Resistance, No Change”

Founded in 2006, LSD’s slogan was “No resistance, no change.” The party made headlines in 2008 when it secured three seats in the Legislative Council with Wong Yuk-man, Leung Kwok-hung, and Albert Chan, becoming the third-largest pro-democracy party. Known for its confrontational style, LSD lawmakers famously threw bananas at then-Chief Executive Donald Tsang during a LegCo session, becoming a symbol of the city’s radical democrats. Outside the legislature, LSD organized and participated in numerous protests and civil disobedience campaigns.

In 2009, LSD and the Civic Party launched the “Five Constituencies Referendum” campaign, in which five lawmakers resigned and re-contested their seats to demand universal suffrage. All five, including LSD’s Leung Kwok-hung, Wong Yuk-man, and Albert Chan, and Civic Party’s Alan Leong and Tanya Chan, were re-elected in the May 2010 by-election.

(Anthony Wallace/AFP)

Legislative filibusters and internal splits

In 2011, LSD launched a “vote repayment” campaign targeting the Democratic Party for its role in pushing forward Beijing-approved electoral reforms. Internal disagreements over strategy led to a split, with Wong Yuk-man and Albert Chan forming People Power. Leung Kwok-hung then took over as LSD chair. The party retained only one LegCo seat in the 2012 and 2016 elections but continued legislative filibusters and budget protest actions alongside People Power.

In 2016, Leung Kwok-hung was disqualified from LegCo for holding a yellow umbrella and tearing up a copy of the NPC’s “831” decision during his oath-taking. Since then, LSD has had no seats in the legislature but continued grassroots activism and protest actions.

Leung Kwok-hung still imprisoned

Many LSD members have served jail time for civil disobedience. Leung Kwok-hung, now 69, remains in prison as a defendant in the 47 democrats’ national security case. LSD vice-chair Jimmy Sham, also one of the 47, was released last month after serving his sentence.

Even after other pro-democracy parties such as the Democratic Party and Civic Party disbanded, LSD continued street actions under the National Security Law era — addressing issues like labor importation and minimum wage.

Earlier this year, the party planned a protest outside government headquarters on Budget Day but canceled due to “immense pressure.” Some LSD members also had their bank accounts frozen or closed, and several were charged for “unauthorized fundraising in public” and “unauthorized display of posters.”

Edited by Greg Barber

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

A new poll by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union shows that almost half of respondents oppose the Cook Islands having automatic New Zealand citizenship.

Thirty percent of the 1000-person sample supported Cook Islanders retaining citizenship, 46 percent were opposed and 24 percent were unsure.

• The Cook Islands government is pursuing closer strategic ties with China, ignoring New Zealand’s wishes and not consulting with the New Zealand government. Given this, should the Cook Islands continue to enjoy automatic access to New Zealand passports, citizenship, health care and education when its government pursues a foreign policy against the wishes of the New Zealand government?
• READ MORE: Other Cook Islands reports

Taxpayers’ Union head of communications Tory Relf said the framing of the question was “fair”.

“If the Cook Islands wants to continue enjoying a close relationship with New Zealand, then, of course, we will support that,” he said.

“However, if they are looking in a different direction, then I think it is entirely fair that taxpayers can have a right to say whether they want their money sent there or not.”

But New Zealand Labour Party deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni said it was a “leading question”.

‘Dead end’ assumption
“It asserts or assumes that we have hit a dead end here and that we cannot resolve the relationship issues that have unfolded between New Zealand and the Cook Islands,” Sepuloni said.

“We want a resolution. We do not want to assume or assert that it is all done and dusted and the relationship is broken.”

The two nations have been in free association since 1965.

Relf said that adding historical context of the two countries relationship would be a different question.

“We were polling on the Cook Islands current policy, asking about historic ties would introduce an emotive element that would influence the response.”

New Zealand has paused nearly $20 million in development assistance to the realm nation.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the decision was made because the Cook Islands failed to adequately inform his government about several agreements signed with Beijing in February.

‘An extreme response’
Sepuloni, who is also Labour’s Pacific Peoples spokesperson, said her party agreed with the government that the Cook Islands had acted outside of the free association agreement.

“[The aid pause is] an extreme response, however, in saying that we don’t have all of the information in front of us that the government have. I’m very mindful that in terms of pausing or stopping aid, the scenarios where I can recall that happening are scenarios like when Fiji was having their coup.”

In response to questions from Cook Islands News, Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown said that, while he acknowledged the concerns raised in the recent poll, he believed it was important to place the discussion within the full context of Cook Islands’ longstanding and unique relationship with New Zealand.

“The Cook Islands and New Zealand share a deep, enduring constitutional bond underpinned by shared history, family ties, and mutual responsibility,” Brown told the Rarotonga-based newspaper.

“Cook Islanders are New Zealand citizens not by privilege, but by right. A right rooted in decades of shared sacrifice, contribution, and identity.

“More than 100,000 Cook Islanders live in New Zealand, contributing to its economy, culture, and communities. In return, our people have always looked to New Zealand not just as a partner but as family.”

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.

On Saturday local time, the US announced that it had launched airstrikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran. This marks the first time the US has officially intervened militarily in this round of the Iran-Israel conflict, drawing widespread shock from the international community. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said on social media that the move was “a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.” China’s Foreign Ministry also strongly condemned the US attacks on Iran. US action, which seriously violates the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, not only heightens tensions in the Middle East but also risks triggering a wider crisis.

Attacking nuclear facilities is extremely dangerous. Due to their unique nature, damage to such sites could lead to severe nuclear leaks, potentially resulting in humanitarian disasters and posing grave risks to regional safety. The tragic past lessons of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents already showed that the consequences of nuclear leaks don’t pose a threat to a single country – they impact neighboring nations and the global security environment.

By using “bunker-buster” bombs to “accomplish what Israel could not,” the US has deliberately escalated the level of weaponry used, pouring fuel on the flames of war and pushing the Iran-Israel conflict closer toward an uncontrollable state.

What the US bombs have impacted is the foundation of the international security order. By attacking nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Washington has set a dangerous precedent. This action, in essence, bypasses both the UN Security Council and the IAEA framework, attempting to unilaterally “resolve” the Iranian nuclear issue through force. This is a serious violation of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, as well as a rejection of the principled position of the international community, including China and the European Union, which has dealt with the Iranian nuclear issue through multilateral negotiations for many years. Washington’s boast of close cooperation with Israel “as a team” confirms its nature of dragging its ally against international morality and multilateralism.

For Iran, the strike is a blatant provocation. After responding that it “reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests and people,” Tehran on Sunday launched the powerful Kheibar Shekan missile targeting Israel for the first time. According to media reports, Ismail Kowsari, a member of the National Security Commission of the Parliament in Iran, said the country’s parliament voted to approve the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council is expected to weigh in and make a final decision on the matter. Iran is located in the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, which around one-fifth of the world’s total oil and gas consumption transits through. Once this channel is blocked by the war, international oil prices are bound to fluctuate dramatically, while global shipping security and economic stability will face serious challenges.

The US military’s “direct involvement” has further complicated and destabilized the Middle East situation, drawing more countries and innocent civilians into the conflict and forcing them to face a loss. Even the Associated Press called the airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities a “perilous decision,” while the New York Times warned that US military action against Iran would “bring risks at every turn.” What is also receiving a lot of attention is that due to US strike on Iran, Yemen’s Houthis announced it would resume attacks on US ships in the Red Sea. The region is already entangled in a complex web of sectarian divisions, proxy wars and external interventions. The facts show that US involvement is causing the Iran-Israel conflict to spill over. Within just one day, international investors rushed to sell off risk assets, and discussions of a “sixth Middle East war” surged across media platforms, reflecting the global community’s growing anxiety over the region’s spiraling instability.

China has consistently opposed the threat and abuse of using force. It advocates resolving crises through political and diplomatic means. In a recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward a “four-point proposal” regarding the Middle East situation: promoting a cease-fire and ending the hostilities is an urgent priority; ensuring the safety of civilians is of paramount importance; opening dialogue and negotiation is the fundamental way forward; and efforts by the international community to promote peace are indispensable. This proposal reflects China’s long-standing and farsighted security vision. History in the Middle East has repeatedly shown that external military intervention never brings peace – it only deepens regional hatred and trauma. The false logic behind US coercion by force runs counter to peace. Hopefully, the parties involved, especially Israel, will implement an immediate cease-fire, ensure the safety of civilians and open dialogue and negotiation to restore peace and stability in the region.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Global Times.

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China.

The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after the latter failed to provide satisfactory answers to Aotearoa’s questions about its partnership agreement with Beijing.

The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.

• READ MORE: Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements
• Other Cook Islands crisis reports

The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Foreign Minister Winston Peters said had not been honoured.

Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown both have a difference of opinion on the level of consultation required between the two nations on such matters.

“There is no way that the 2001 declaration envisaged that Cook Islands would enter into a strategic partnership with a great power behind New Zealand’s back,” Clark told RNZ Pacific on Thursday.

Clark was a signatory of the 2001 agreement with the Cook Islands as New Zealand prime minister at the time.

“It is the Cook Islands government’s actions which have created this crisis,” she said.

Urgent need for dialogue
“The urgent need now is for face-to-face dialogue at a high level to mend the NZ-CI relationship.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has downplayed the pause in funding to the Cook Islands during his second day of his trip to China.

Brown told Parliament on Thursday (Wednesday, Cook Islands time) that his government knew the funding cut was coming.

He also suggested a double standard, pointing out that New Zealand had also entered deals with China that the Cook Islands was not “privy to or being consulted on”.

A Pacific law expert says that, while New Zealand has every right to withhold its aid to the Cook Islands, the way it is going about it will not endear it to Pacific nations.

Auckland University of Technology senior law lecturer and a former Pacific Islands Forum advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific that for Aotearoa to keep highlighting that it is “a Pacific country and yet posture like the United States gives mixed messages”.

“Obviously, Pacific nations in true Pacific fashion will not say much, but they are indeed thinking it,” Tekiteki said.

Misunderstanding of agreement
Since day dot there has been a misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on, and the word consultation has become somewhat of a sticking point.

The latest statement from the Cook Islands government confirms it is still a discrepancy both sides want to hash out.

“There has been a breakdown and difference in the interpretation of the consultation requirements committed to by the two governments in the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration,” the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Immigration (MFAI) said.

“An issue that the Cook Islands is determined to address as a matter of urgency”.

Tekiteki said that, unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration was not “legally binding” per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in “recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years”.

He said the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security.

However, he added that there was a commitment of the parties to “consult regularly”.

This, for Clark, the New Zealand leader who signed the all-important agreement more than two decades ago, is where Brown misstepped.

Clark previously labelled the Cook Islands-China deal “clandestine” which has “damaged” its relationship with New Zealand.

RNZ Pacific contacted the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment but was advised by the MFAI secretary that they are not currently accommodating interviews.

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.

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.

The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.

• READ MORE: Why New Zealand has paused funding to the Cook Islands over China deal
• Other Cook Islands and China reports

“[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”

Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.

“Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”

Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.

Ensured good outcomes
Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.

“I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.

“Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”

The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.

The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.

In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.

The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.

‘Beg forgiveness’
Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.

“[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”

But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.

“It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.

“What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”

Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.

Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.

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.

Reliable left observers like Ann Garrison, writing in Black Agenda Report, have voiced concerns about Chinese investments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, based on Siddharth Kara’s book, Cobalt Red, How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives. Kara contends that Chinese are engaged in a brutal competition to acquire a raw material essential to battery manufacturing, participating in the highly exploitative practice of artisanal cobalt mining.

More recently, Razan Shawamreh has challenged the PRC’s economic engagement with Israel. Writing in Middle East Eye. Shawamreh cites three different Chinese state-owned companies heavily invested in Israeli firms servicing or operating in illegal settlements — ChemChina, Bright Foods, Fosum Group — that own or have a majority stake in an Israeli corporation. She charges Peoples’ China of hypocritically publicly denouncing Israeli policies while quietly aiding the cause of Israeli settlers.

On May 22, Kim Petersen posted a thoughtful, well reasoned piece on Dissident Voice, entitled “Palestine and the Conscience of China.” Petersen persuasively lauds the many achievements of Peoples’ China. It is easy to forget the century of humiliation that this once proud, advanced society suffered at the hands of European imperialism. After 12 years of fighting Japanese invaders and enduring a bloody civil war costing tens of millions of casualties, China’s advance since — under the leadership of the Communist Party of China — has been truly remarkable.

As Peoples’ China celebrates meeting its goal of becoming a “moderately prosperous” society, it is important to see how far it has come from 1949. When Western apologists for the market economy brag of the aggregate economic gains that global markets have brought to the developing world, they are largely talking about China (and, more recently, Vietnam and India).

By any measure of citizen satisfaction with their government by international surveys, the PRC consistently ranks at or near the top.

At the same time, Petersen raises questions about the seeming inconsistency of the Chinese government’s vocal criticism of Israel’s genocidal policies in Gaza and Peoples’ China’s continuing economic engagement with Israel. The PRC accounts for over 20% of Israeli imports.

Petersen quotes Professor T.P. Wilkinson: “Non-interference is China’s top principle — business comes first. If there is any morality it only applies in China.” And it is precisely China’s moral conscience that Petersen finds wanting.

Nick Corbishley, writing on June 6 in Naked Capitalism adds:

However, not everyone is trying — or even pretending — to distance themselves from Tel Aviv right now. The People’s Republic of China, for example, is actually seeking to strengthen its ties with Israel.

After initially siding with Palestine (and Hamas) following October 7, Beijing is now looking to rebuild ties with Israel. Just four days ago, as Israel’s Defence Forces were unleashing coordinated attacks on aid depots, China’s ambassador to Israel Xiao Junzheng discussed “deepening China-Israel economic and trade cooperation” with Israel’s Minister of Economy and Industry, Nir Barkat.

Still others ask why Peoples’ China, a self-described socialist country, has failed to replace the Soviet Union in guaranteeing the economic vitality of tiny socialist Cuba– a country starved by a US blockade and harsh sanctions upon anyone defying that blockade. It is difficult to reconcile the PRC’s modest economic aid to Cuba with China’s $19 billion dollars of annual exports to proscribed Israel.

China’s Foreign Policy in Retrospect

China’s foreign policy is a direct reflection of the political line of the Communist Party of China, a line changing often in the Party’s history. At the 10th National Congress (August, 1973) — the last before Mao’s death — Zhou Enlai delivered the main report. He affirmed that:

In the last fifty years our Party has gone through ten major struggles between the two lines… In the future, even after classes have disappeared… there will still be two-line struggles between the advanced and the backward and between the correct and the erroneous… there is the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road, there is the danger of capitalist restoration… The Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Documents), p. 16 [my emphasis]

Zhou explains that the opposition in the last two Congresses — led by Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao — advocated that the main contradiction facing the party was “not the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but that ‘between the advanced socialist system and the backward productive forces of society’”. In short, the two lines continually challenging the Party, as explained at the tenth congress, were that of the “productionists” — those giving priority to the development of the productive forces — and that of the class warriors — those giving priority to political struggle.

The CPC’s failure to simultaneously advance the productive forces and, at the same time, carry out a consistent, comprehensive class line accounts for its often inconsistent foreign policy.

Since the “opening” — the Deng reforms, beginning in 1978 — the productionist line has held sway in the Communist Party of China.

From the time of the rebuilding of the Party based on the rural peasantry after the destruction of its urban working-class base in 1927, Mao had sided with the class warriors.

Even in the era of the united front against Japanese aggression, Mao wrote in On New Democracy (1940) of the necessity of a cultural revolution, a focus on political and cultural struggle over other forms:

A cultural revolution is the ideological reflection of the political and economic revolution and is in their service. In China there is a united front in the cultural as in the political revolution… and the cultural campaign resulted in the outbreak of the December 8th Movement of the revolutionary youth in 1935. And the common result of both was the awakening of the people of the whole country… The most amazing thing of all was that the Kuomintang’s cultural “encirclement and suppression” campaign failed completely in the Kuomintang areas as well, although the Communist Party was in an utterly defenceless position in all the cultural and educational institutions there. Why did this happen? Does it not give food for prolonged and deep thought? It was in the very midst of such campaigns of “encirclement and suppression” that Lu Hsun, who believed in communism, became the giant of China’s cultural revolution… New-democratic culture is national. It opposes imperialist oppression and upholds the dignity and independence of the Chinese nation. It belongs to our own nation and bears our own national characteristics… [my emphasis]

The centrality of cultural revolution likely comes from the class base shaping the trajectory of Chinese Communism. Because the Kuomintang wiped out the CPC’s urban working-class centers in 1927, the Party became based in the rural peasantry, as Mao freely concedes in On New Democracy:

This means that the Chinese revolution is essentially a peasant revolution…. Essentially, mass culture means raising the cultural level of the peasants… And essentially it is the peasants who provide everything that sustains the resistance to Japan and keeps us going. By “essentially” we mean basically, not ignoring the other sections of the people, as Stalin himself has explained. As every schoolboy knows, 80 per cent of China’s population are peasants. So the peasant problem becomes the basic problem of the Chinese revolution and the strength of the peasants is the main strength of the Chinese revolution. In the Chinese population the workers rank second to the peasants in number…

On New Democracy suggests that Mao places primacy of place in the struggle for the support of the peasantry, a struggle that is cultural in form and national in scope. While Mao locates the Party’s battles within the world revolutionary process, he doesn’t see it as an immediate fight for socialism, but apart from it, for China’s national liberation:

This is a time … when the proletariat of the capitalist countries is preparing to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, and when the proletariat, the peasantry, the intelligentsia and other sections of the petty bourgeoisie in China have become a mighty independent political force under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Situated as we are in this day and age, should we not make the appraisal that the Chinese revolution has taken on still greater world significance? I think we should. The Chinese revolution has become a very important part of the world revolution… [my emphasis]

The separation between the proletariat’s role in the capitalist countries and the Party’s “independent” role in shaping a multi-class force could not be clearer.

Absent from the 1940 statement of Mao’s vision is any endorsement of the Communist International’s broad principles of solidarity. Instead, the Party operated under the Three Principles of the People, the CPC’s revision of Sun-Yat Sen’s original Three Principles. On New Democracy defines them as:

Three Great Policies of alliance with Russia, co-operation with the Communist Party and assistance to the peasants and workers. Without each and every one of these Three Great Policies, the Three People’s Principles become either false or incomplete in the new period…

Thus, “alliance with Russia” (USSR) became central to China’s foreign policy and expanded to alliance with other socialist countries. After liberation in 1949, the PRC practiced that line by aiding the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, especially in repelling the US and its allies as they invaded DPRK territory. The PRC military fought in the DPRK until the armistice of 1953. Over 183,000 Chinese died resisting the invasion of the North.

The CPC established ties with various liberation movements after the Korean War, with Peoples’ China offering military aid and training to many movements in Asia and Africa. At the same time, the PRC adopted Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to lead foreign relations: respect for territory and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs, equality and cooperation for common benefit, and peaceful coexistence.

The Five Principles were strikingly similar to the natural-law doctrines adopted by the early mercantilist theorists of bourgeois international relations; they constituted an even less robust version of the eight points of the 1941 Atlantic Charter crafted by Roosevelt and Churchill. Nonetheless, they were enshrined in the constitution of Peoples’ China:

China pursues an independent foreign policy, observes the five principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, mutual noninterference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence, keeps to a path of peaceful development, follows a mutually beneficial strategy of opening up, works to develop diplomatic relations and economic and cultural exchanges with other countries, and promotes the building of a human community with a shared future. [my emphasis]

By the end of the 1950s, The CPC had rejected the first of the “three great policies”: the “alliance with Russia”. The PRC had embarked on a period of bitter conflict with the USSR, culminating with a split in the unity of the World Communist Movement. It is source of great irony that many of the charges the CPC made against the Soviets in the Mao era were and are features of China today that have drawn the same charges from some on the left: The Chinese attacked the Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence with the US, taunting the US as a paper tiger; they accused the Soviets of being “social-imperialist” intent on global hegemony; they claimed a restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union; they accused the Soviet Party of revising Marxism-Leninism. All charges that resonate for some in current policies of Peoples’ China.

It is difficult to reconcile the Five Principles with the PRC support for the US proxies in the former Portuguese African colonies. For over a decade, the PRC sided with South Africa, Israel, the US, and bogus liberation movements in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau, delivering weapons, training, and material support to surrogates fighting the internationally recognized freedom fighters. It was left for thousands of Cuban internationalists to give their lives to finally close the door on this ugly chapter and open the door to the fall of Apartheid.

It is difficult to reconcile the Five Principles with the PRC 1979 invasion of Vietnam, ostensibly in response to Democratic Vietnam’s overthrow of the Khmer Rouge — an intervention, if principally motivated, that cannot be squared with the PRC’s vocal denunciation of the Warsaw alliance’s engagement in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

It is difficult to reconcile the twists and turns of Peoples’ China’s foreign policies with its once radical denouncement of Soviet foreign policy as “social-imperialist.” The late, estimable Al Szymanski– a scrupulous researcher– met those charges in great detail (“Soviet Socialism and Proletarian Internationalism” in The Soviet Union: Socialist or Social-Imperialist?, 1983), showing that Soviet “export of capital” outside of the socialist community was minimal, largely limited to establishing enterprises that expedited trade. Soviet assistance was limited almost entirely to countries outside of or escaping the tyranny of global markets. Soviet trade was minimal — Szymanski argued that it was the world’s most self-sufficient system (no doubt often through forced isolation). Its importing of raw material was minimal: “In short the Soviet economy, unlike those of all Western imperialist countries… has no… need to subordinate less developed countries to obtain raw materials.”

Also, the Soviet Union frequently paid higher prices for imported goods than market prices. Citing Asha Datar, “[O]f the 12 leading export commodities studied…, six were consistently purchased by the USSR at higher than their world prices, three usually purchased at prices higher than those paid by the capitalist countries, and two purchased on a year to year basis sometimes above and sometimes below the world market price.”

Suffice it to say, the Soviet Union substantially subsidized trade with fraternal countries, especially within the socialist community (CMEA), Cuba receiving especially generous terms of exchange.

It would be interesting to compare the PRC’s current foreign policy with the internationalist standards set by the former Soviet Union.

Nonetheless, Peoples’ China — since the victory of the productionist line under Deng’s leadership — has largely been a force for stability in international relations. Over the last thirty or so years, the PRC has sought to maintain a peaceful stage for its trade-based economic expansion while the US and its capitalist allies have engaged in one bloody, imperialist adventure after another. Entry into the global market and acceptance into its market-based institutions has been well served by its Five Principles foreign policy.

But it has been naive to expect capitalist great powers to respect the high-minded, Enlightenment values of the Five Principles and simply stand by while the PRC rises to challenge their dominance of the world economy. Since Engels’ early writings, Marxists have understood that competition is the motor of the commodity-based economy. And since Lenin, Marxists have understood that competition between monopoly capitals and their hosts have spawned aggression and war.

It is equally naive — or disingenuous — to equate the Five Principles with the proletarian internationalism, class solidarity that has been embraced by the international Communist movement throughout the twentieth century. From Comintern activity, to the internationalist sacrifices made for democratic Spain, to the generous support for liberation movements, and the aid to the people of Vietnam, militant, principled internationalism differs fundamentally from the neutrality embodied in the Five Principles. The Five Principles serve a world with no injustice, a world without class struggle, a world without aggression and war.

Indeed, the solidarity advocated in the PRC constitution — “China consistently opposes imperialism, hegemonism and colonialism, works to strengthen its solidarity with the people of all other countries, supports oppressed peoples and other developing countries in their just struggles to win and safeguard their independence and develop their economies, and strives to safeguard world peace and promote the cause of human progress” — is inconsistent with the neutrality and non-intervention of the Five Principles, in any realistic sense.

Where neutrality may have borne few negative consequences during the PRC’s isolation from global markets, China’s profound economic relations with virtually every country in the twenty-first century, do have consequences, consequences of enormous moral impact.

Like other countries that engage economically or refrain from engaging economically (sanctions, tariffs, boycotts, blockades, etc.), the PRC must be judged by that engagement.

With the daily slaughter of Gazan civilians, the brutal actions of Israel cannot be separated from its trading partners: China, the US, Germany, Italy, Turkiye, Russia, France, South Korea, India, and Spain, in descending order of dollar volume of exports to Israel.

And now with the brazen, unprovoked Israeli attack on its putative “friend” Iran, the neutrality of the Five Principles is even less defensible. The “win-win” strategy of many CPC leaders and their allies is a utopian dream that social justice cannot afford.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Greg Godels.

New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year.

This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local political leader calling it “a significant escalation” between Avarua and Wellington.

A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Cook Islands did not consult with Aotearoa over the China deals and failed to ensure shared interests were not put at risk.

• READ MORE: Other Cook Islands and China reports

On Thursday (Wednesday local time), Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown told Parliament that his government knew the funding cut was coming.

“We have been aware that this core sector support would not be forthcoming in this budget because this had not been signed off by the New Zealand government in previous months, so it has not been included in the budget that we are debating this week,” he said.

How the diplomatic stoush started
A diplomatic row first kicked off in February between the two nations.

Prime Minister Brown went on an official visit to China, where he signed a “comprehensive strategic partnership” agreement.

The agreements focus in areas of economy, infrastructure and maritime cooperation and seabed mineral development, among others. They do not include security or defence.

However, to New Zealand’s annoyance, Brown did not discuss the details with it first.

Prior to signing, Brown said he was aware of the strong interest in the outcomes of his visit to China.

Afterwards, a spokesperson for Peters released a statement saying New Zealand would consider the agreements closely, in light of the countries’ mutual constitutional responsibilities.

The Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship
Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand. The country governs its own affairs, but New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief and defence.

Cook Islanders also hold New Zealand passports entitling them to live and work there.

In 2001, New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a joint centenary declaration, which required the two to “consult regularly on defence and security issues”.

The Cook Islands did not think it needed to consult with New Zealand on the China agreement.

Peters said there is an expectation that the government of the Cook Islands would not pursue policies that were “significantly at variance with New Zealand’s interests”.

Later in February, the Cooks confirmed it had struck a five-year agreement with China to cooperate in exploring and researching seabed mineral riches.

A spokesperson for Peters said at the time said the New Zealand government noted the mining agreements and would analyse them.

How New Zealand reacted
On Thursday morning, Peters said the Cook Islands had not lived up to the 2001 declaration.

Peters said the Cook Islands had failed to give satisfactory answers to New Zealand’s questions about the arrangement.

“We have made it very clear in our response to statements that were being made — which we do not think laid out the facts and truth behind this matter — of what New Zealand’s position is,” he said.

“We’ve got responsibilities ourselves here. And we wanted to make sure that we didn’t put a step wrong in our commitment and our special arrangement which goes back decades.”

Officials would be working through what the Cook Islands had to do so New Zealand was satisfied the funding could resume.

He said New Zealand’s message was conveyed to the Cook Islands government “in its finality” on June 4.

“When we made this decision, we said to them our senior officials need to work on clearing up this misunderstanding and confusion about our arrangements and about our relationship.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is in China this week.

Asked about the timing of Luxon’s visit to China, and what he thought the response from China might be, Peters said the decision to pause the funding was not connected to China.

He said he had raised the matter with his China counterpart Wang Yi, when he last visited China in February, and Wang understood New Zealand’s relationship with the Cook Islands.

Concerns in the Cook Islands
Over the past three years, New Zealand has provided nearly $194.6 million (about US$117m) to the Cook Islands through the development programme.

Cook Islands opposition leader Tina Browne said she was deeply concerned about the pause.

Browne said she was informed of the funding pause on Wednesday night, and she was worried about the indication from Peters that it might affect future funding.

She issued a “please explain” request to Mark Brown:

“The prime minister has been leading the country to think that everything with New Zealand has been repaired, hunky dory, etcetera — trust is still there,” she said.

“Wham-bam, we get this in the Cook Islands News this morning. What does that tell you?”

Will NZ’s action ‘be a very good news story’ for Beijing?
Massey University’s defence and security expert Dr Anna Powles told RNZ Pacific that aid should not be on the table in debate between New Zealand and the Cook Islands.

“That spirit of the [2001] declaration is really in question here,” she said.

“The negotiation between the two countries needs to take aid as a bargaining chip off the table for it to be able to continue — for it to be successful.”

Dr Powles said New Zealand’s moves might help China strengthen its hand in the Pacific.

She said China could contrast its position on using aid as a bargaining chip.

“By Beijing being able to tell its partners in the region, ‘we would never do that, and certainly we would never seek to leverage our relationships in this way’. This could be a very good news story for China, and it certainly puts New Zealand in a weaker position, as a consequence.”

However, a prominent Cook Islands lawyer said it was fair that New Zealand was pressing pause.

Norman George said Brown should implore New Zealand for forgiveness.

“It is absolutely a fair thing to do because our prime minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”

Brown has not responded to multiple attempts by RNZ Pacific for comment.

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.

Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee said Tuesday that since the promulgation of the National Security Law in 2020, 332 individuals have been arrested. That was an increase of six arrests since Secretary for Security Chris Tang stated on June 1 that 326 people had been arrested under the law, with 165 convictions.

When local media asked about the new arrests, the Security Bureau said detailed breakdowns of arrest figures are “classified information related to safeguarding national security in the HKSAR and thus will not be made public.” HKSAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Political commentator Sampson Wong said that in the past the Hong Kong government rarely used national security as a reason to withhold information, and now the public’s basic right to know was being damaged.

“At this point, reporters can still detect some of these arrests, but how long will that last? In the future, will people be arrested without anyone knowing?” Wong asked.

“Anything could be labelled a breach of confidentiality. If this continues, the truth will be completely under the control of national security authorities,” he said.

(Louise Delmotte/AP)

The National Security Law was adopted after massive pro-democracy protests in 2019 as Beijing tightened controls over Hong Kong, which had enjoyed greater civic freedoms than mainland China and greater government transparency, including by police. China maintains the 2020 law was required to maintain order.

Last month, the Hong Kong government bypassed Legislative Council procedures and unilaterally enacted two new subsidiary laws under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which significantly expanded the powers of Beijing’s office overseeing national security in the city.

Under the measures, it is prohibited to disclose or film the office’s operations; civil servants must cooperate with and support national security operations; and any act that obstructs national security officers from performing their duties is criminalized.

While it remains unclear which six arrests happened in the past two weeks, on June 2, the National Security Department arrested one man and four women for allegedly conspiring to commit terrorist activities. The suspects had reportedly used phones, emails, and messaging apps to send messages threatening to bomb central government offices and a sports park, while also promoting pro-independence messages for Taiwan and Hong Kong.

On June 6, prominent democracy advocate Joshua Wong, who is already serving a four-year-and-eight-month sentence for subversion, was formally arrested on an additional charge of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.”

Last week, authorities also launched a national security investigation into six unnamed persons on suspicion of “colluding with a foreign country.” But the Security Bureau clarified that no arrests had been made as yet related to that probe.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

The Chengdu-based human rights activist and Chinese performance artist was released on March 24 after serving a four-year prison sentence in the southwestern province of Sichuan. But his friends say his freedom has been largely illusory, as police have repeatedly summoned him for interrogations and severely restricted his movements and ability to resume work.

Chen has faced repeated persecution for his criticism of the Chinese Communist Party and commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen protests, including demands that the government investigate the crackdown and compensate victims. In 2021, he was sentenced to four years in jail on of child molestation which he denied and said were intended to smear his reputation.

Most recently, on the eve of the 36th anniversary of the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests crackdown, the National Security Bureau and local police subjected Chen to a five-hour interrogation, where he was forced to sit on the ‘tiger bench,’ Chen’s friend and colleague Guan told Radio Free Asia on Wednesday.

‘Tiger bench’ is a form of torture used to restrain and immobilize detainees during questioning. Chen, like many others RFA interviewed for this story, asked to be identified only by a single name for fear of reprisals.

“The police accused him of ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble,’” said Guan, referring to a criminal charge frequently used by Chinese authorities to carry out arbitrary detentions against rights activists and dissidents.

The charges were based on Chen’s social media activity, including reposts of tweets by Ming Chu-cheng, an honorary professor of politics at National Taiwan University, and prominent dissidents Pastor Wang Yi, the pastor of a banned Protestant church in Chengdu, and citizen journalist Cai Chu, said Guan.

Despite the lack of a subpoena, the police summoned Chen for questioning, confiscating his mobile phone and Wi-Fi equipment for three days, before returning them on June 3 night after repeated protests, Guan said.

Chen’s livelihood has also been impacted, his friends said. Upon release from prison, Chen found that his nursery business, which he had operated for many years, was emptied of all assets, causing him to lose his source of income, said Yang, another friend of the activist.

The courts have also listed him as a “dishonest debtor,” preventing him from accessing his bank accounts or resuming work, Yang said.

“He now has difficulty even renting a house and can only survive on donations from friends and through loans,” said Fang Liang, another friend of Chen’s.

(Chen Yunfei)

‘Secondary punishment’

During Chen’s most recent imprisonment, his 91-year-old mother was also forcibly and violently removed from her Chengdu rental home by community workers, during which she suffered a head injury that required over a month of hospitalization, Guan said.

During the forced eviction, many of the family’s assets of value disappeared, including $30,000 of pension money that his mother had set aside for her granddaughter’s education abroad, $5,800 in cash, and about 40,000 yuan (or US$5,560) in Chinese currency, Guan said.

When Chen attempted to file a police report after discovering his empty home upon release, authorities refused to issue a receipt or open an investigation, said Yang.

“They don’t allow you to have any evidence to sue them,” said Yang. “The government said it’s not their responsibility, and the police said to contact the community — they just pushed the matter back and forth.”

Despite the ongoing harassment, Chen’s friends say he is preparing to file a civil lawsuit to recover his mother’s lost property and challenge the police’s abuse of power.

Shandong-based legal scholar Lu described Chen’s ongoing troubles as a consequence of a typical “secondary punishment” model that is designed to maintain control over dissidents through non-judicial means.

“Administrative review is inactive, the police deliberately do not issue receipts, and elderly mothers are forced to become homeless,” Lue said “This is not law enforcement, but political coercion.”

Written by Tenzin Pema. Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Rise of Asia.

On June 16, Trump posted to his Truth Social and to Facebook, this warning for everyone in Tehran to evacuate the City:

He has said there that America is in this war not to invade Iran but to protect Israel. However if Iran will have any success, then Americans, and not ONLY Israelis, will be bombing Iran. (And, of course, virtually all of Israel’s weapons do already come from America.)

The U.S. Government, and not ONLY Israel’s, actually invaded Iran on June 13 and had co-planned that aggression together.

So, this invasion of Iran IS the policy of the U.S. Government, and not (as the propaganda describes it) ONLY the policy of Israel’s Government.

And here was Trump’s Truth Social post on that day:

In that post, he unintentionally made clear that he never actually “negotiated” with Iran; he ORDERED Iran to do Netanyahu’s bidding. And, NOW, he and Netanyahu intend to forcibly (militarily) regime-change Iran, simply because Iran refused to comply with Netanyahu’s (and Trump’s, and Biden’s) DEMAND (that Iran be subordinated to Israel).

This is now heading into WW3. On June 16, the excellent news-site, which analyzes international-policy issues of protecting Russia from the U.S. empire’s constant aggressions to weaken or replace Russia’s Government, en.topcor.ru/news/, headlined “CRINK Air Force Could Help Iran Stand Up to Israel,” and here was its grim but entirely realistic analysis:

The military defeat of Iran, if it also leads to the beginning of the process of disintegration of the Islamic Republic into a number of quasi-states, will become the gravest geopolitical defeat [that the] informal anti-Western alliance CRINK led by Russia and China [have faced]. The ally [member, actually: Iran is the “I” in “CRINK”] must be saved, but how, exactly?

At the moment, the war between Israel and Iran is characterized by a remote exchange of air strikes using aircraft, ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones, as well as sabotage and terrorist attacks by Israeli special services in the Iranian rear.

Given that they have no common border and the US’s stated non-interference, large-scale ground operations are out of the question, so sending international brigades of Russian, North Korean or Chinese volunteers to help the Persians makes no sense. However, Tehran would certainly not refuse help in the fight against Israeli aviation, so it is worth remembering that something similar has already happened in modern history.

“Flying Tigers”

Let us recall that even before the start of World War II, a war between the Chinese Republic and the Japanese Empire that had attacked it had already begun in the European theater of operations in Southeast Asia on July 7, 1937. At the same time, the Japanese were taking out the poorly prepared Chinese aviation with one hand. However, in that historical period, China enjoyed support not only from the USSR, but also from the USA.

Retired US Air Force Major Claire Lee Chennault, sent there as a military adviser, proposed creating a special air unit in which the pilots would be American volunteers flying American planes. And that was done. President Roosevelt officially allowed US Air Force pilots to take leave and fight on a purely volunteer basis on the side of China against Japan.

A special aviation unit called the Flying Tigers was then created, consisting of three fighter squadrons flying American aircraft purchased under Lend-Lease. Its pilots signed a contract with the Chinese private firm CAMCO (Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company), under the terms of which they received $500 for each enemy aircraft destroyed.

American volunteers successfully fought on the side of the Chinese Republic until 1942, after which the Flying Tigers were withdrawn from the Chinese Air Force and included in the 23rd Fighter Group of the 10th Air Force of the US Army, and in 1943 it was transformed into the 14th Air Force of the US Army, consisting of 60 bombers and more than 100 fighters. Their commander, Claire Lee Chennault, became a general.

Legion “Condor”

Around the same time, the Condor Legion, created in Nazi Germany to help the future Franco regime in Spain, was operating in the European theatre of military operations. The number of this “volunteer” unit was relatively small, reaching 5,5 thousand people.

However, in the Third Reich, Condor was seen as a training ground for personnel, a testing ground for modern weapons, and a source of up-to-date combat experience. In addition to four bomber squadrons and four fighter squadrons, the legion included anti-aircraft and anti-tank defense units, an armored group of four battalions, transport sections, anti-tank artillery, and flamethrower units.

During the Spanish Civil War, the German army trained its best future aces and tested the latest aircraft that later fought in World War II. The Europeans intend to do something similar today, sending a so-called fighter coalition to Ukraine to help the Zelensky regime, which will protect Kyiv and the right bank from Russian missile and air strikes.

CRINK Air Army?

Returning to the topic of Iran, one must ask why, in fact, Russia, the DPRK and China should be interested in Tehran not losing and not following the path of Syria, which lost its sovereignty and turned into a terrorist enclave?

Our country needs Iran as a friendly partner, covering the southern flank and providing access to the Indian Ocean through the Caspian Sea. The oil fields that Israel threatens to bomb already belong to Beijing, which has invested huge amounts of money in the Iranian oil and gas sector. And for Pyongyang, Tehran has long been a technological partner in the development and production of various weapons.

What could the CRINK alliance actually do to help its ally, who has been dealt a vile blow and is being prepared to be destroyed by “Western partners” at the hands of Israel? Based on the above, there are two possible paths.

The first is the creation of an international volunteer unit of Russian, North Korean and Chinese “vacationers” who would receive modern fighters and air defense systems purchased by Iran under Lend-Lease and would go to gain real combat experience in air battles against the ultra-modern Israeli aviation.

Bearing in mind that the Russian Federation is facing a direct conflict with NATO, which has placed its bets on aviation, the DPRK has South Korea right next door, and the AUKUS alliance has already been created against China and a military operation against Taiwan is looming, such relevant experience in air combat would be, to put it mildly, not superfluous. Taking it into account, the Russian and Chinese defense industries could appropriately modify their aircraft and create a center for joint training of pilots from Iran, the DPRK, the Russian Federation and China.

The second path is a little less demonstrative and involves the creation of a hypothetical aviation PMC, for the needs of which Tehran could buy modern aircraft from Russia and China and hire vacationing pilots from the Russian Federation, China and, possibly, North Korea, who would be ready to cover Iran from Israeli air strikes.

There are options, if there is a desire.

All of the propaganda in The West PRESUMES that The West has decency and international law on its side and that all OTHER countries are inferior to it — less good, less decent, than are the U.S.-and-allied nations. The reality is the exact opposite.

For example, the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia (which blacklists — blocks from linking to — sites that aren’t CIA-approved) article on “CRINK” redirects the reader to their article “Axis of Upheaval”, which opens:

“Axis of Upheaval” is a term coined in 2024 by Center for a New American Security foreign policy analysts Richard Fontaine and Andrea Kendall-Taylor and used by many foreign policy analysts,^[1][2][3] military officials,^[4][5] and international groups^[6] to describe the growing anti-Western collaboration between Russia under Vladimir Putin, Iran, China, and North Korea beginning in the early 2020s. It has also been called the “axis of autocracies“,^[7][8][9] “quartet of chaos“,^[10][11][12] the “deadly quartet“^[4] or “CRINK“.^[13][a]

The loose alliance generally represented itself in diplomatic addresses and public statements as an “anti-hegemony” and “anti-imperialist” coalition with intentions to challenge what it deemed to be a Western-dominated global order to reshape international relations into a multipolar order according to their shared interests. While not a formal bloc, these nations have increasingly coordinated their economic, military, and diplomatic efforts, making strong efforts to aid each other to undermine Western influence.^[1]

Central to its opening paragraph is the Center for a New American Security (CNAS); and, as is made clear at one of the CIA’s NON-approved sites, the “Militarist Monitor”, their article “Center for a New American Security” (which thus is not used as a source by Wikipedia) makes clear that CNAS is totally neoconservative (a marketing-arm of the U.S. weapons-manufacturing industry), but even that site (MM) says nothing about who funds it. Another CIA-banned site, “WSWS”, has a far more comprehensive article about CNAS, titled “Democratic think tank plots war against Russia and China: What is the Center for a New American Security?”, and it makes explicit that CNAS’s main donors are “Defense contractors” (which sell ONLY to the U.S. Government and its allies) and secondarily “High tech” (which sell both to those Governments and to the public). In other words: the CIA represents the billionaires who are heavily invested in those two industries — as well as in the ‘news’-media (such as Wikipedia) that propagandize for America’s armaments companies in their ‘news’, editorials, and ads. (For example: even if a pharmaceutical company is simply advertising in these billionaires’ ‘news’-media, it is thereby funding the necon operation.) In 1922, Walter Lippmann invented the phrase “manufacture of consent” to refer to this then-new type of ‘democracy’; but it became big-time only after Truman started the Cold War and the U.S. global-hegemonic empire, on 25 July 1945.

The hegemonic (or “hegemoniacal”) global empire that U.S. President Truman started on 25 July 1945, needs now, finally, to be defeated decisively. This means without reaching the stage of a nuclear war against Russia, because that could end ONLY in the defeat of both sides and the end of all human civilization. However, I am personally inclined to think that The West have become SO desperate to rule the entire world, so that Russia — and perhaps all of the CRINK — need now to announce publicly that they will NOT allow Iran to be defeated, and that this means that they ARE willing to go nuclear against America and Israel, in order to PREVENT Iran’s defeat — if that’s what would be needed in order to PREVENT the U.S. from providing such backup to Israel’s invasion of Iran.

Trump (like Biden) never planned for that possibility. If there is to be a WW3, then the most evil empire in all of history, America’s empire, must be prevented from starting it (e.g., by extending Israel’s war against Iran into becoming fully a U.S.-Israel invasion of Iran). It must instead be started by their main targets — CRINK — if it MUST start, at all. The initiator of a war (such as Israel and the U.S. are, in regard to their joint war against Iran) always has the advantage of surprise (such as on June 13th), and thus the higher likelihood of eliminating the other side’s central command (as Israel has largely done). That way (by CRINK’s joining with Iran on this war), if there will be any future afterwards, it WON’T be dominated by the world’s most evil nations — the U.S.-empire nations. Planning for a post-WW3 world has now become important, because of Trump’s commitment now of greatly increased U.S. backup of Israel’s war to conquer Iran. Post-WW3 would be hell in any case, but simply allowing the U.S.-Israel-UK empire to take the entire world would LIKEWISE be hell. And that’s what we all are now heading toward.

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

That’s forcing families to slash spending. It is also triggering deflationary concerns as businesses enter into desperate price wars.

From Beijing’s central government offices to provincial agencies across China, as well as major state-owned enterprises like investment bank China International Capital Corp (CICC), employees have faced substantial pay reductions that have reduced household budgets and fundamentally altered consumer spending patterns.

“I used to earn 6,000 yuan (or US$835) a month but now I only get 5,000 yuan (US$696), and some allowances have been removed too,” Li, an employee at a Beijing-based state-owned enterprise, told RFA. Like many others interviewed for this story, Li wanted to be identified by a single name for safety reasons.

“Some people in my wife’s company have also had their salaries cut and some have received layoff notices, saying they will only work until July-end,” said Li.

In Zhejiang, regarded one of China’s most prosperous provinces, ordinary civil servants have had their annual salaries slashed by 50,000 to 60,000 yuan (or US$6,964-US$8,356) this year, Zheng, a resident of the province’s Zhuji city, told RFA.

Civil servants in more senior positions have seen deeper reductions to their annual pay of around 80,000 to 100,000 yuan (or US$11100-US$13900) and others in still higher levels by about 150,000 yuan (or US$20,890), Zheng said.

“There was already a reduction two years ago. This year’s salary is reduced again,” he added.

The cuts indicate the financial strain on local governments, as domestic economic challenges lead to tepid consumer demand and price pressures. That’s impacting businesses’ ability to pay taxes. Additionally, local governments are grappling with a decline in land transfer sales revenue amid weak property market demand.

For 2025, China’s provincial regions have set cautious fiscal revenue estimates, with an average growth target of 2.8% for their general public budget revenue, which is the sum of tax and non-tax revenue. That’s down 1.6 percentage points from 2024’s target average, as revenue generation challenges continue to weigh on local governments, economists say.

For example, in Shandong, many real estate projects have been suspended for the past two years with no land sales recorded, impacting the local government’s already large fiscal debt levels, said one blogger based in the northeastern coastal province, according to texts and pictures posted on X account @whyyoutouzhele, also known as “Mr. Li is not your teacher,” who posts content on that platform to circumvent Chinese government censorship.

Another Shandong resident, named Geng, told RFA, that county and township level officials in the province have had their salaries slashed by 30%, with payments frequently delayed.

“Now the county-level finances have been depleted, and the benefits for police officers have also been reduced,” Geng, a resident of Qingdao city, said.

Police officers in many other regions have also seen significant cuts to their annual salaries, down to 200,000 yuan (US$27,856) this year from 300,000 yuan (US$41,784) a year ago, said a legal professional based in southeast China’s Guangdong province.

(Andy Wong/AP)

Widespread pay cuts

Employees of major Chinese state-owned commercial enterprises, such as investment bank CICC and China Development Bank, have not been spared either, with companies executing cost-cutting “optimization measures,” including wage reductions and layoffs, amid a government campaign to cap pay ceilings at financial institutions and bring it more on par with other civil servants

But an employee at CICC said the salary cuts have affected virtually all staff levels. “Almost everyone in our building has had their salaries cut. The lowest-level employees have also had their salaries cut by 5%. I heard that the reductions for mid- and high-paid employees are even greater,” he said.

According to a report from Beijing-based Caixin media group, 27 government-owned financial enterprises have begun to implement salary cuts, mainly aimed at reaching the goal of capping annual income of staff at these firms at 1 million yuan (US$139,180), as Beijing moves forward with a campaign, known as “common prosperity” drive, to narrow income and wealth inequality.

Ma, who works at a Beijing-based state-owned enterprise, said his company has already conducted two rounds of salary cuts and layoffs since 2023. “The basic salary has shrunk, and the company has also cancelled meal and transportation subsidies,” Ma said. “The work that used to be done by two or three people now has to be done by one person.”

Another employee of a state-owned bank based in Guangdong’s Dongguan city said his salary had been reduced by 30% in the past two years, with performance bonuses “almost completely cut.”

(Andy Wong/AP)

Consumer ‘belt-tightening chain’

The salary reductions have sparked a sharp decline in consumer spending, creating deflationary pressures across the economy, as businesses engage in aggressive price cutting in a desperate bid to attract cash-strapped consumers.

“The price war has become the latest struggle for many small businesses,” Meng, a Shandong resident, told RFA.

“For example, the good ribs here only sell for 12 yuan (or US$1.67) a pound, and the purchase price of live pigs is only a few yuan … restaurants are desperately offering discounts to survive. This is not competition, but dragging each other down.”

In Beijing, small supermarkets are “slashing prices like crazy,” said Su, a resident of the city’s Haidian District. “I’m afraid they will all go bankrupt in a few months at this rate.”

In her own home too, Su has observed major changes in spending patterns, with fewer family gatherings and less frequent restaurant meals, as household budgets tighten.

Economist Wu Qinxue warned that the current situation highlights continued decline in local governments’ fiscal levels and is not just a temporary belt-tightening.

“The (local) government has no money to manage people, and no one is willing to spend money,” he said. “From salary cuts within the system to the collapse of consumption among ordinary people, the entire society is quietly forming a top-down (consumer belt-) ‘tightening chain.’”

Written by Tenzin Pema. Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.

China could also potentially have as many intercontinental ballistic missiles as either Russia or the United States by the turn of the decade.

Those findings are in the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) annual assessment of armaments, disarmament and international security, released Monday.

SIPRI concludes that nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states - the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel - continued intensive nuclear modernization programs in 2024, upgrading existing weapons and adding newer versions.

It highlights the rapid growth of China’s arsenal, now estimated to have at least 600 nuclear warheads. It says it has grown by about 100 new warheads a year since 2023.

By January 2025, China had completed or was close to completing around 350 new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos in three large desert fields in the north of the country and three mountainous areas in the east, SIPRI says.

“Depending on how it decides to structure its forces, China could potentially have at least as many ICBMs as either Russia or the USA by the turn of the decade,” the report says.

In December, the U.S. Department of Defense offered a similar estimate of China’s warhead count, tripling its estimated arsenal in just four years.

However SIPRI adds that even if China reaches the maximum projected number of 1,500 warheads by 2035, that will still amount to only about one third of each of the current Russian and U.S. nuclear stockpiles.

Russia and the U.S. together possess around 90 per cent of all nuclear weapons. Both have about 1,700 deployed warheads and more than that each in storage.

On Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun was asked about the SIPRI report, and said China follows a nuclear strategy that focuses of self-defense.

“China always keeps its nuclear capabilities at minimum level required by national security, and never engages in arms race,” Guo told a Beijing news briefing, adding that China has a ‘no first use’ policy on nuclear weapons.

SIPRI estimates that North Korea has assembled around 50 warheads and possesses enough fissile material to produce up to 40 more warheads and is accelerating the production of further fissile material.

It says North Korea “continues to prioritize its military nuclear program as a central element of its national security strategy,” also noting that leader Kim Jong Jun in November called for its “limitless” expansion.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

The closure of China Labor Bulletin, announced Thursday, came as authorities launched a new national security investigation into six unnamed people and one organization suspected of “colluding with a foreign country.”

Shortly after officials launched the probe, China Labor Bulletin – which receives funding from various foundations based outside China – announced its closure, saying: “The company is no longer able to maintain operations and has decided to dissolve and initiate the relevant procedures.”

Radio Free Asia could not immediately reach Han, a long-time contributor to RFA’s Mandarin Service, producing radio segments focusing on workers’ issues in China.

But Han, who founded China Labor Bulletin in 1994, told Taiwan’s Central News Agency that the shutdown was his decision and that he would remain in Hong Kong.

The bulletin advocated for the rights of Chinese workers and provided them legal support. It has served as a source of information for activists, journalists, and scholars on worker issues and unrest in China.

In its statement, the bulletin said: “As of today, our website will stop updating content and other social media platforms have also been removed,” the statement said.

RFA found that China Labor Bulletin’s website appeared to have been shut down on Friday, displaying a host error message, and its social media accounts on Facebook and Instagram have been deactivated.

(Anthony Wallace/AFP)

The development came as China’s National Security Office in Hong Kong ordered Hong Kong authorities to “interview” and investigate six individuals and one organization suspected of “colluding with a foreign country or external forces to endanger national security” between November 2020 and June 2024.

Authorities on Thursday executed court-approved searches of the homes of the six people and an office, located in Hong Kong’s Kwai Chung district, of the organization under investigation, seizing bank documents and equipment. All six individuals were required to surrender their travel documents.

The authorities did not provide the names of the six people or the organization under investigation.

The development underscores Beijing’s systematic dismantling of Hong Kong’s once-vibrant civil society, as authorities continue using broad national security provisions to investigate suspected foreign collaboration and force long-established organizations to shutter operations.

Since the implementation of Hong Kong’s National Security Law in 2020, at least 58 civil society organizations have been forced to disband.

Written by Tenzin Pema. Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

But it seems like whichever side you choose, it could get you into trouble in Hong Kong.

This week, the city’s police issued a stark warning against downloading the mobile app “Reversed Front: Bonfire” on the grounds that the game is “advocating armed revolution and the overthrow of the fundamental system of the People’s Republic of China.”

The police force’s National Security Department, or NSD, said in a statement Tuesday that any person who shares or recommends the app, or makes in-app purchases, may be violating articles of the city’s draconian national security law that punish incitement to secession and subversion. A person who downloads the app would be in possession of a publication with a “seditious intention.”

The statement concluded that such acts are “extremely serious offences” and that police would strictly enforce the law.

“Members of the public should not download the application or provide funding by any means to the relevant developer. Those who have downloaded the application should uninstall it immediately and must not attempt to defy the law,” it said.

Welcome to Hong Kong in 2025, where even gaming apps are in the cross-hairs of authorities.

Until a few years ago, the city was famed for its vibrant civic society and freedoms which had persisted since the territory came under Chinese control in 1997.

“It’s absurd that the government fears this game, especially when players are free to choose any faction—including the Red Army,” one gamer who goes by the alias Fu Tong told Radio Free Asia. “Their reaction just reflects an authoritarian regime’s deep fear of freedom and how brittle the system really is.”

Widening crackdown

The warning, apparently the first issued in Hong Kong against a gaming app, was the latest sign of a widening crackdown on basic freedoms that has ensued since massive anti-government protests that broke out six years ago. That movement was followed by the passage of the 2020 national security law imposed by Beijing and a law enacted by the Hong Kong legislature 2024.

The app’s developer, ESC Taiwan, did not immediately respond to an RFA request for comment on Tuesday’s police statement.

ESC has described itself as a civilian volunteer group that was set up in 2017 to “coordinate with overseas anti-Communist organizations and assist foreign allies with outreach and organizing efforts.” It doesn’t disclose who its members are but says they are mostly Taiwanese, with a few Hongkongers and Mongolians.

The game’s first online version was released in 2020, and a board game version launched in the same year. At the time, China’s state-run Global Times published a critical editorial accusing the game of promoting “Taiwanese independence” and “Hong Kong separatism.”

According to a person familiar with the operations of ESC, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, the developers had raised over HK$6 million (US$760,000) via crowdfunding in Taiwan and Hong Kong in 2019 to develop the game, and a portion of the game’s revenue is donated to anti-China Communist Party organizations abroad.

Players of “Reversed Front: Bonfire” can assume the role of rebels from places such as Hong Kong, Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, Taiwan and the Uyghur region trying to overthrow the communist regime.

“Or you can choose to lead the Communists to defeat all enemies and resume the century-long march of the Communist revolution to the other side of the land and sea!” ESC says in its promo for the app.

For the Hong Kong option, numerous game characters are inspired by the city’s past protest culture. For example, one character, “Ka Yan,” hails from Yuen Long - a town in Hong Kong’s western territories - and wears blue-and-white striped tape often used by Hong Kong police. Another, “Sylvia,” wears a gas mask and a uniform printed with the slogan, “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times.”

The game’s dialogue is also steeped in Hong Kong culture and includes an instrumental version of “Glory to Hong Kong,” a banned anthem that was popular during 2019 pro-democracy protests.

While the police statement on Tuesday appeared to boost interest in the game, The Associated Press in Hong Kong reported that the app was not available in Apple app story by Wednesday morning. It remains available in the United States.

One gamer, Andy, said that after the statement was issued Hong Kong-themed player groups within the game quickly cleared their chat logs fearing they could be trawled by authorities.

He praised the game as reflecting current geopolitical realities, including China’s approach to Taiwan - the self-ruling island that Beijing claims as part of China.

Supporting this game, Andy added, also allows players to symbolically “defend Hong Kong territory.”

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

But it seems like whichever side you choose, it could get you into trouble in Hong Kong.

This week, the city’s police issued a stark warning against downloading the mobile app “Reversed Front: Bonfire” on the grounds that the game is “advocating armed revolution and the overthrow of the fundamental system of the People’s Republic of China.”

The police force’s National Security Department, or NSD, said in a statement Tuesday that any person who shares or recommends the app, or makes in-app purchases, may be violating articles of the city’s draconian national security law that punish incitement to secession and subversion. A person who downloads the app would be in possession of a publication with a “seditious intention.”

The statement concluded that such acts are “extremely serious offences” and that police would strictly enforce the law.

“Members of the public should not download the application or provide funding by any means to the relevant developer. Those who have downloaded the application should uninstall it immediately and must not attempt to defy the law,” it said.

Welcome to Hong Kong in 2025, where even gaming apps are in the cross-hairs of authorities.

Until a few years ago, the city was famed for its vibrant civic society and freedoms which had persisted since the territory came under Chinese control in 1997.

“It’s absurd that the government fears this game, especially when players are free to choose any faction—including the Red Army,” one gamer who goes by the alias Fu Tong told Radio Free Asia. “Their reaction just reflects an authoritarian regime’s deep fear of freedom and how brittle the system really is.”

Widening crackdown

The warning, apparently the first issued in Hong Kong against a gaming app, was the latest sign of a widening crackdown on basic freedoms that has ensued since massive anti-government protests that broke out six years ago. That movement was followed by the passage of the 2020 national security law imposed by Beijing and a law enacted by the Hong Kong legislature 2024.

The app’s developer, ESC Taiwan, did not immediately respond to an RFA request for comment on Tuesday’s police statement.

ESC has described itself as a civilian volunteer group that was set up in 2017 to “coordinate with overseas anti-Communist organizations and assist foreign allies with outreach and organizing efforts.” It doesn’t disclose who its members are but says they are mostly Taiwanese, with a few Hongkongers and Mongolians.

The game’s first online version was released in 2020, and a board game version launched in the same year. At the time, China’s state-run Global Times published a critical editorial accusing the game of promoting “Taiwanese independence” and “Hong Kong separatism.”

According to a person familiar with the operations of ESC, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, the developers had raised over HK$6 million (US$760,000) via crowdfunding in Taiwan and Hong Kong in 2019 to develop the game, and a portion of the game’s revenue is donated to anti-China Communist Party organizations abroad.

Players of “Reversed Front: Bonfire” can assume the role of rebels from places such as Hong Kong, Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, Taiwan and the Uyghur region trying to overthrow the communist regime.

“Or you can choose to lead the Communists to defeat all enemies and resume the century-long march of the Communist revolution to the other side of the land and sea!” ESC says in its promo for the app.

For the Hong Kong option, numerous game characters are inspired by the city’s past protest culture. For example, one character, “Ka Yan,” hails from Yuen Long - a town in Hong Kong’s western territories - and wears blue-and-white striped tape often used by Hong Kong police. Another, “Sylvia,” wears a gas mask and a uniform printed with the slogan, “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times.”

The game’s dialogue is also steeped in Hong Kong culture and includes an instrumental version of “Glory to Hong Kong,” a banned anthem that was popular during 2019 pro-democracy protests.

While the police statement on Tuesday appeared to boost interest in the game, The Associated Press in Hong Kong reported that the app was not available in Apple app story by Wednesday morning. It remains available in the United States.

One gamer, Andy, said that after the statement was issued Hong Kong-themed player groups within the game quickly cleared their chat logs fearing they could be trawled by authorities.

He praised the game as reflecting current geopolitical realities, including China’s approach to Taiwan - the self-ruling island that Beijing claims as part of China.

Supporting this game, Andy added, also allows players to symbolically “defend Hong Kong territory.”

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

But it seems like whichever side you choose, it could get you into trouble in Hong Kong.

This week, the city’s police issued a stark warning against downloading the mobile app “Reversed Front: Bonfire” on the grounds that the game is “advocating armed revolution and the overthrow of the fundamental system of the People’s Republic of China.”

The police force’s National Security Department, or NSD, said in a statement Tuesday that any person who shares or recommends the app, or makes in-app purchases, may be violating articles of the city’s draconian national security law that punish incitement to secession and subversion. A person who downloads the app would be in possession of a publication with a “seditious intention.”

The statement concluded that such acts are “extremely serious offences” and that police would strictly enforce the law.

“Members of the public should not download the application or provide funding by any means to the relevant developer. Those who have downloaded the application should uninstall it immediately and must not attempt to defy the law,” it said.

Welcome to Hong Kong in 2025, where even gaming apps are in the cross-hairs of authorities.

Until a few years ago, the city was famed for its vibrant civic society and freedoms which had persisted since the territory came under Chinese control in 1997.

“It’s absurd that the government fears this game, especially when players are free to choose any faction—including the Red Army,” one gamer who goes by the alias Fu Tong told Radio Free Asia. “Their reaction just reflects an authoritarian regime’s deep fear of freedom and how brittle the system really is.”

Widening crackdown

The warning, apparently the first issued in Hong Kong against a gaming app, was the latest sign of a widening crackdown on basic freedoms that has ensued since massive anti-government protests that broke out six years ago. That movement was followed by the passage of the 2020 national security law imposed by Beijing and a law enacted by the Hong Kong legislature 2024.

The app’s developer, ESC Taiwan, did not immediately respond to an RFA request for comment on Tuesday’s police statement.

ESC has described itself as a civilian volunteer group that was set up in 2017 to “coordinate with overseas anti-Communist organizations and assist foreign allies with outreach and organizing efforts.” It doesn’t disclose who its members are but says they are mostly Taiwanese, with a few Hongkongers and Mongolians.

The game’s first online version was released in 2020, and a board game version launched in the same year. At the time, China’s state-run Global Times published a critical editorial accusing the game of promoting “Taiwanese independence” and “Hong Kong separatism.”

According to a person familiar with the operations of ESC, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, the developers had raised over HK$6 million (US$760,000) via crowdfunding in Taiwan and Hong Kong in 2019 to develop the game, and a portion of the game’s revenue is donated to anti-China Communist Party organizations abroad.

Players of “Reversed Front: Bonfire” can assume the role of rebels from places such as Hong Kong, Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, Taiwan and the Uyghur region trying to overthrow the communist regime.

“Or you can choose to lead the Communists to defeat all enemies and resume the century-long march of the Communist revolution to the other side of the land and sea!” ESC says in its promo for the app.

For the Hong Kong option, numerous game characters are inspired by the city’s past protest culture. For example, one character, “Ka Yan,” hails from Yuen Long - a town in Hong Kong’s western territories - and wears blue-and-white striped tape often used by Hong Kong police. Another, “Sylvia,” wears a gas mask and a uniform printed with the slogan, “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times.”

The game’s dialogue is also steeped in Hong Kong culture and includes an instrumental version of “Glory to Hong Kong,” a banned anthem that was popular during 2019 pro-democracy protests.

While the police statement on Tuesday appeared to boost interest in the game, The Associated Press in Hong Kong reported that the app was not available in Apple app story by Wednesday morning. It remains available in the United States.

One gamer, Andy, said that after the statement was issued Hong Kong-themed player groups within the game quickly cleared their chat logs fearing they could be trawled by authorities.

He praised the game as reflecting current geopolitical realities, including China’s approach to Taiwan - the self-ruling island that Beijing claims as part of China.

Supporting this game, Andy added, also allows players to symbolically “defend Hong Kong territory.”

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

“The Lennon Wall is an important collective memory for us (Hong Kongers),” said Hong Kong artist Kacey Wong, who moved to Taiwan’s Taichung city in 2021. “From 2014 to 2019, it was the place where we spread our democratic demands. Now the Lennon Wall and democracy and freedom in Hong Kong are gone.”

Hong Kong’s Lennon Walls – named after musician John Lennon’s peaceful activism and inspired by Prague’s Velvet Revolution of the 1980s – became iconic features of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement, transforming public spaces into canvases for democratic expression.

Filled with colorful displays of sticky notes, posters, artwork, and messages such as “We Hong Kongers never give up”, Hong Kong’s Lennon Walls allowed ordinary citizens to express their political views and demonstrate their solidarity.

Lennon Walls sprouted on available public spaces across Hong Kong, including underground tunnels and on pillars outside railway stations, during the 2014 Umbrella Movement and again in 2019, during the anti-extradition movement when millions took to the streets to protest a proposed legislation that would allow criminal suspects to be extradited to mainland China.

In Taiwan, the Lennon Wall in Taichung’s pedestrian underpass is the only such publicly accessible wall in the region, and Hong Kong exiles in the democratic island are keen to preserve it, even as they look to establish more such walls, including one in capital Taipei.

Among them is Wong, who with his friends on Thursday marked the anniversary of the anti-extradition movement with a visit to the Lennon Wall in Taichung and sang before it the protest anthem of the 2019 pro-democracy protests, “Glory to Hong Kong.”

Earlier this year, part of the Lennon Wall in Taichung was reportedly cleared during a regular cleanup and maintenance of the underpass by volunteers. This prompted a statement from city officials who said they respect the wall as a symbol of public expression and that any future cleaning must be reported in advance.

Wong now leads efforts to preserve and refresh the display on the Lennon Wall in Taichung, particularly in the cleared sections, viewing it as both an act of commemoration and resistance.

“Crisis brings opportunity. As a curator, I want to turn the cleaned sections into art spaces,” said Wong, who comes to the Lennon Wall in Taichung every week and pays out of pocket to reprint and post high-quality artworks.

“If someone tears it down again, I’ll repost it — just like we did during the 2019 protests. That persistence is the resilience of resistance,” he said.

(Credit: AFP)

Another Hong Kong exile Fu Tang is currently looking for a location in Taipei to establish a permanent Lennon Wall in the city. He believes that protecting these spaces represents core Taiwanese values too.

“The Lennon Wall represents the right to freedom of expression of diversity and tolerance,” Fu said. “Protecting the Lennon Wall is not only about protecting the freedom of expression of Hong Kong people in Taiwan, but also about protecting the important values of peace and tolerance in Taiwan.”

Fu believes the establishment of a permanent Lennon Walls in Taiwan will also serve as reminders for the Taiwanese people to cherish their existing freedoms. “It also tells the world that Taiwan is not part of China, because there is no room for Lennon Walls in China,” added Fu.

Taiwan, which China claims as its territory, has welcomed Hong Kong refugees through various humanitarian programs, and many Hong Kongers who participated in the 2019 anti-extradition protests have now made the democratic island their home.

Among them is Tsai Chih-hao, who was one of the protestors who stormed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council in 2019.

“As a protester, I am very happy that I can still see the Lennon Wall in Taiwan,” Tsai said. “There are still people willing to maintain it and allow people who come to Taiwan to visit it. This means that there are still people who remember the 2019 anti-extradition movement and the efforts made by the people of Hong Kong for democracy.”

Translated by Rachel C. Edited by Tenzin Pema.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.

Police in Lanzhou, the capital of Gansu province, have been summoning writers who don’t even live there. A report from Caixin media group said some have been referred to police for prosecution, and anecdotal evidence indicates writers are facing substantial fines.

A source who spoke to Radio Free Asia on condition of anonymity for safety reasons said the crackdown could involve 200-300 writers.

Their cases have also sparked a legal debate over the definition of “obscene materials” and renewed public discussion on the boundaries of creative freedom. Known as “Danmei,” the genre features romantic relationships between male characters. It originated in Japan and has become popular in China.

Amid tightened restrictions in China, many writers have turned to Haitang Culture, a Taiwanese-based adult fiction website established in 2015 to publish their work. The website on the democratic island doesn’t force censorship and allows explicit written content. Most readers are females.

Authorities in China have reacted. Last year, two China-based distributors affiliated with Haitang Culture were arrested for “assisting in information network criminal activities,” according to Shuiping Jiyuan, a news portal on the WeChat social media platform.

The recent police crackdown in Lanzhou followed similar moves in the eastern province of Anhui in June 2024, where authorities began arresting writers of online erotic fiction under the charge of “producing and distributing obscene materials for profit,” resulting in heavy fines and even prison sentences.

Police are seeking out writers even when they leave outside their jurisdiction - a practice that critics call “offshore fishing,” implying the motive of police is financial or political, rather than strictly legal.

“I don’t understand what they’re trying to do—are they pushing political correctness, or are they just desperate for money?” said Liu Yang, a veteran media professional in Lanzhou, told Radio Free Asia. “The police are short on funds, and now even arrests have become a way to make money.”

Two coins in tips

Cases in Anhui appeared focused on how much profit writers made. But according to multiple Chinese media reports, police in Lanzhou pursued suspects on the basis of what sort of traffic they were generating.

Many of those summoned are young women, including college students. A well-known Chinese online cultural critic Li Yuchen wrote on WeChat that one writer who received only “two Haitang coins” in tips was also placed under investigation and then moved to prosecutors.

Haitang refers to the Taiwan-based fiction website. RFA has sought comment from Haitang Culture but has yet to receive a response.

Song Tao, a Chinese university law lecturer, told RFA that Lanzhou police crackdown is one of the most expansive and controversial uses of the law on “producing, reproducing, publishing, or distributing obscene materials for profit” in recent years.

Tsinghua University legal scholar Lao Dongyan expressed concern on the Chinese microblogging platform Weibo, writing that the use of inconsistent legal standards risks undermining law enforcement and the justice system.

The case has triggered intense debate in Chinese legal circles. Several attorneys have posted on Weibo and WeChat offering free legal assistance to the families of those who have been detained.

The Emperor’s Scandalous History

Yunjian, one of the top writers on Haitang Culture, was arrested last year by Anhui police and later sentenced to four years and six months in prison, according to the news portal Shuiping Jiyuan. One of Yujian’s top works of fiction, The Emperor’s Scandalous History, is about a non-binary emperor who has relationships with male characters, including generals and chancellors.

Several fiction writers have posted online about their brush with Lanzhou police, although most online references to the crackdown have been removed from Chinese social media platforms, meaning only screenshots made by other users are still viewable.

“Probably in the past 20 years of my life, I never imagined that my first time flying would be to visit a police station in Lanzhou,” said one writer named Sijindesijin who claimed in a post on Weibo that she’d been contacted by Lanzhou police over stories she earned 4,000 yuan ($670) for. Her post, since deleted, implied that she’d had to fly to Lanzhou to deal with the matter. It wasn’t clear where she lived.

Some netizens posted on Weibo in support of Sijindesijin, whose handle translates as “silky silky.” RFA couldn’t reach Sijindesijin for comment or confirm the details of what allegedly happened and if the writer was detained.

Another writer named Jidepihuangmajia, who described herself as an undergraduate student, wrote in a post on Weibo that she flew to Lanzhou from Chongqing, a municipality which is administratively separate from Lanzhou, to meet with the local police and was asking for help from other users in borrowing money to pay the fine. The writer said that police claimed she had earned 21,313 yuan ($3,044) from writing the stories in question, and she was advised to return the money for a reduced punishment. This writer owed between 50,000 and 60,000 yuan ($7,100 to $8,500), including the fine.

Another writer from a top-tier university named Shijieshiyigejudadejingshenbingyuanha, whose handle translates as “The world is like a giant mental hospital,” claimed in the post that she was taken in for questioning by police and that her university had subsequently canceled her admission to graduate school.

Lawyers question police overreach

Chinese lawyer Ma Guoguang told RFA that under China’s Criminal Procedure Law, criminal cases should be investigated by police in the suspect’s place of residence or where the alleged crime occurred.

“The legality of Lanzhou police pursuing writers across the country—thousands of kilometers away—under the so-called ‘offshore fishing’ model is highly questionable,” he said.

But Chinese lawyer Tang Hongyang, who defended for several writers arrested by Anhui police last year, explained to Sanlian Lifeweek, an in-depth reporting magazine in China, “for crimes committed via the internet, there is a special legal provision: any location where the content can be accessed online is considered a place where the consequences of the crime occur.”

According to Sanlian Lifeweek, Lanzhou police summoned local readers of Haitang in Lanzhou to serve as witnesses while also summoning writers from other provinces.

Ma pointed out that China currently lacks clear judicial interpretations on fictional literary works containing explicit content. According to him, the line between online erotic fiction or adult fiction and actual obscene materials remains undefined, as does the legal threshold for what constitutes “public harm.”

The main guidelines of definition of obscene materials date back more than 20 years and were established when the internet was far less developed. Tsinghua University’s Lao argued that the definition should evolve with shifting social attitudes.

“They set relatively low thresholds for what constitutes ‘serious circumstances’,” Lao wrote in her post. “But in today’s more open environment, the bar for what qualifies as obscenity should clearly be raised.”

Ma warned that aggressive criminal enforcement under such vague standards could have a chilling effect on creative writing in China.

RFA contacted Lanzhou police but calls went unanswered.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.

Bougainville, an autonomous archipelago currently part of Papua New Guinea, is determined to become the world’s newest country.

To support this process, it’s offering foreign investors access to a long-shuttered copper and gold mine. Formerly owned by the Australian company Rio Tinto, the Panguna mine caused displacement and severe environmental damage when it operated between 1972 and 1989.

It also sparked a decade-long civil war from 1988 to 1998 that killed an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 civilians and caused enduring traumas and divisions.

• READ MORE: 28 years later: NZ to host Bougainville talks for a peaceful future
• Burnham Camp – the spiritual home of Bougainville peace process – Marape
• Other Bougainville reports

Industry players believe 5.3 million tonnes of copper and 547 tonnes of gold remain at the site. This is attracting foreign interest, including from China.

Australia views Bougainville as strategically important to its “inner security arc”. The main island is about 1500 km from Queensland’s Port Douglas.

Given this, the possibility of China’s increasing presence in Bougainville raises concerns about shifting allegiances and the potential for Beijing to exert greater influence over the region.

Australia’s tangled history in Bougainville
Bougainville is a small island group in the South Pacific with a population of about 300,000. It consists of two main islands: Buka in the north and Bougainville Island in the south.

Bougainville has a long history of unwanted interference from outsiders, including missionaries, plantation owners and colonial administrations (German, British, Japanese and Australian).

Two weeks before Papua New Guinea received its independence from Australia in 1975, Bougainvilleans sought to split away, unilaterally declaring their own independence. This declaration was ignored in both Canberra and Port Moresby, but Bougainville was given a certain degree of autonomy to remain within the new nation of PNG.

The opening of the Panguna mine in the 1970s further fractured relations between Australia and Bougainville.

Landowners opposed the environmental degradation and limited revenues they received from the mine. The influx of foreign workers from Australia, PNG and China also led to resentment. Violent resistance grew, eventually halting mining operations and expelling almost all foreigners.

Under the leadership of Francis Ona, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) fought a long civil war to restore Bougainville to Me’ekamui, or the “Holy Land” it once was.

Australia supported the PNG government’s efforts to quell the uprising with military equipment, including weapons and helicopters.

After the war ended, Australia helped broker the Bougainville Peace Agreement led by New Zealand in 2001. Although aid programmes have since begun to heal the rift between Australia and Bougainville, many Bougainvilleans feel Canberra continues to favour PNG’s territorial integrity.

In 2019, Bougainvilleans voted overwhelmingly for independence in a referendum. Australia’s response, however, was ambiguous.

Despite a slow and frustrating ratification process, Bougainvilleans remain adamant they will become independent by 2027.

As Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama, a former BRA commander, told me in 2024:

“We are moving forward. And it’s the people’s vision: independence. I’m saying, no earlier than 2025, no later than 2027.

“My benchmark is 2026, the first of September. I will declare. No matter what happens. I will declare independence on our republican constitution.”

Major issues to overcome
Bougainville leaders see the reopening of Panguna mine as key to financing independence. Bougainville Copper Limited, the Rio Tinto subsidiary that once operated the mine, backs this assessment.

The Bougainville Autonomous Government has built its own gold refinery and hopes to create its own sovereign wealth fund to support independence. The mine would generate much-needed revenue, infrastructure and jobs for the new nation.

But reopening the mine would also require addressing the ongoing environmental and social issues it has caused. These include polluted rivers and water sources, landslides, flooding, chemical waste hazards, the loss of food security, displacement, and damage to sacred sites.

Many of these issues have been exacerbated by years of small-scale alluvial mining by Bougainvilleans themselves, eroding the main road into Panguna.

Some also worry reopening the mine could reignite conflict, as landowners are divided about the project. Mismanagement of royalties could also stoke social tensions.

Violence related to competition over alluvial mining has already been increasing at the mine.

More broadly, Bougainville is faced with widespread corruption and poor governance.

The Bougainville government cannot deal with these complex issues on its own. Nor can it finance the infrastructure and development needed to reopen the mine. This is why it’s seeking foreign investors.

Open for business
Historically, China has a strong interest in the region. According to Pacific researcher Dr Anna Powles, Chinese efforts to build relationships with Bougainville’s political elite have increased over the years.

Chinese investors have offered development packages contingent on long-term mining revenues and Bougainville’s independence. Bougainville is showing interest.

Patrick Nisira, the Minister for commerce, Trade, Industry and Economic Development, said last year the proposed Chinese infrastructure investment was “aligning perfectly with Bougainville’s nationhood aspirations”.

The government has also reportedly made overtures to the United States, offering a military base in Bougainville in return for support for reopening the mine.

Given American demand for minerals, Bougainville could very well end up in the middle of a struggle between China and the US over influence in the new nation, and thus in our region.

Which path will Bougainville and Australia take?
There is support in Bougainville for a future without large-scale mining. One minister, Geraldine Paul, has been promoting the islands’ booming cocoa industry and fisheries to support an independent Bougainville.

The new nation will also need new laws to hold the government accountable and protect the people and culture of Bougainville. As Paul told me in 2024:

“[…]the most important thing is we need to make sure that we invest in our foundation and that’s building our family and culture. Everything starts from there.”

What happens in Bougainville affects Australia and the broader security dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. With September 1, 2026, just around the corner, it is time for Australia to intensify its diplomatic and economic relationships with Bougainville to maintain regional stability.

Dr Anna-Karina Hermkens is a senior lecturer and researcher in anthropology, Macquarie University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

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

Bougainville, an autonomous archipelago currently part of Papua New Guinea, is determined to become the world’s newest country.

To support this process, it’s offering foreign investors access to a long-shuttered copper and gold mine. Formerly owned by the Australian company Rio Tinto, the Panguna mine caused displacement and severe environmental damage when it operated between 1972 and 1989.

It also sparked a decade-long civil war from 1988 to 1998 that killed an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 civilians and caused enduring traumas and divisions.

• READ MORE: 28 years later: NZ to host Bougainville talks for a peaceful future
• Burnham Camp – the spiritual home of Bougainville peace process – Marape
• Other Bougainville reports

Industry players believe 5.3 million tonnes of copper and 547 tonnes of gold remain at the site. This is attracting foreign interest, including from China.

Australia views Bougainville as strategically important to its “inner security arc”. The main island is about 1500 km from Queensland’s Port Douglas.

Given this, the possibility of China’s increasing presence in Bougainville raises concerns about shifting allegiances and the potential for Beijing to exert greater influence over the region.

Australia’s tangled history in Bougainville
Bougainville is a small island group in the South Pacific with a population of about 300,000. It consists of two main islands: Buka in the north and Bougainville Island in the south.

Bougainville has a long history of unwanted interference from outsiders, including missionaries, plantation owners and colonial administrations (German, British, Japanese and Australian).

Two weeks before Papua New Guinea received its independence from Australia in 1975, Bougainvilleans sought to split away, unilaterally declaring their own independence. This declaration was ignored in both Canberra and Port Moresby, but Bougainville was given a certain degree of autonomy to remain within the new nation of PNG.

The opening of the Panguna mine in the 1970s further fractured relations between Australia and Bougainville.

Landowners opposed the environmental degradation and limited revenues they received from the mine. The influx of foreign workers from Australia, PNG and China also led to resentment. Violent resistance grew, eventually halting mining operations and expelling almost all foreigners.

Under the leadership of Francis Ona, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) fought a long civil war to restore Bougainville to Me’ekamui, or the “Holy Land” it once was.

Australia supported the PNG government’s efforts to quell the uprising with military equipment, including weapons and helicopters.

After the war ended, Australia helped broker the Bougainville Peace Agreement led by New Zealand in 2001. Although aid programmes have since begun to heal the rift between Australia and Bougainville, many Bougainvilleans feel Canberra continues to favour PNG’s territorial integrity.

In 2019, Bougainvilleans voted overwhelmingly for independence in a referendum. Australia’s response, however, was ambiguous.

Despite a slow and frustrating ratification process, Bougainvilleans remain adamant they will become independent by 2027.

As Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama, a former BRA commander, told me in 2024:

“We are moving forward. And it’s the people’s vision: independence. I’m saying, no earlier than 2025, no later than 2027.

“My benchmark is 2026, the first of September. I will declare. No matter what happens. I will declare independence on our republican constitution.”

Major issues to overcome
Bougainville leaders see the reopening of Panguna mine as key to financing independence. Bougainville Copper Limited, the Rio Tinto subsidiary that once operated the mine, backs this assessment.

The Bougainville Autonomous Government has built its own gold refinery and hopes to create its own sovereign wealth fund to support independence. The mine would generate much-needed revenue, infrastructure and jobs for the new nation.

But reopening the mine would also require addressing the ongoing environmental and social issues it has caused. These include polluted rivers and water sources, landslides, flooding, chemical waste hazards, the loss of food security, displacement, and damage to sacred sites.

Many of these issues have been exacerbated by years of small-scale alluvial mining by Bougainvilleans themselves, eroding the main road into Panguna.

Some also worry reopening the mine could reignite conflict, as landowners are divided about the project. Mismanagement of royalties could also stoke social tensions.

Violence related to competition over alluvial mining has already been increasing at the mine.

More broadly, Bougainville is faced with widespread corruption and poor governance.

The Bougainville government cannot deal with these complex issues on its own. Nor can it finance the infrastructure and development needed to reopen the mine. This is why it’s seeking foreign investors.

Open for business
Historically, China has a strong interest in the region. According to Pacific researcher Dr Anna Powles, Chinese efforts to build relationships with Bougainville’s political elite have increased over the years.

Chinese investors have offered development packages contingent on long-term mining revenues and Bougainville’s independence. Bougainville is showing interest.

Patrick Nisira, the Minister for commerce, Trade, Industry and Economic Development, said last year the proposed Chinese infrastructure investment was “aligning perfectly with Bougainville’s nationhood aspirations”.

The government has also reportedly made overtures to the United States, offering a military base in Bougainville in return for support for reopening the mine.

Given American demand for minerals, Bougainville could very well end up in the middle of a struggle between China and the US over influence in the new nation, and thus in our region.

Which path will Bougainville and Australia take?
There is support in Bougainville for a future without large-scale mining. One minister, Geraldine Paul, has been promoting the islands’ booming cocoa industry and fisheries to support an independent Bougainville.

The new nation will also need new laws to hold the government accountable and protect the people and culture of Bougainville. As Paul told me in 2024:

“[…]the most important thing is we need to make sure that we invest in our foundation and that’s building our family and culture. Everything starts from there.”

What happens in Bougainville affects Australia and the broader security dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. With September 1, 2026, just around the corner, it is time for Australia to intensify its diplomatic and economic relationships with Bougainville to maintain regional stability.

Dr Anna-Karina Hermkens is a senior lecturer and researcher in anthropology, Macquarie University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

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

One of Hong Kong’s most prominent pro-democracy activists, Joshua Wong, was transported from prison to court Friday and charged with colluding with foreign forces, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Wong, 28, is already serving a four-year-and-eight-month sentence for subversion. He is currently due for release about one-and-a-half years from now. If found guilty on the new charge it could prolong his imprisonment.

Wong is one of the most internationally recognizable faces of the now-quashed democracy movement in the city. He was among 45 Hong Kong opposition politicians and pro-democracy activists who were convicted with “conspiracy to commit subversion” under the city’s 2020 National Security Law for taking part in a democratic primary in the summer of 2020.

Wong appeared at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Friday afternoon wearing a navy blue shirt. He appeared in good spirits. After the court clerk read out the charge, Wong responded, “Understood,” and waved and nodded to supporters as he left. The entire hearing lasted about three minutes.

He was charged with one count of “conspiring to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security.” He was specifically accused of conspiring with exiled activist Nathan Law and others in 2020.

The case was adjourned until Aug. 8 to allow for further investigation, and Wong did not apply for bail and will remain in custody. He was not required to enter a plea.

(Kin Cheung/AP)

Dozens of uniformed officers were stationed outside the courthouse. Police set up barricades and vehicle-stoppers at nearby intersections, and police dogs were deployed for searches.

Sarah Brooks, China director at Amnesty International, said: “This new charge underscores the authorities’ fear of prominent dissenters and their willingness to do whatever it takes to keep them locked up for as long as possible.”

The nongovernment Hong Kong Human Rights Information Centre condemned what it called strategic abuse of the National Security Law to launch politically motivated prosecutions of pro-democracy leaders.

The group said the timing of the new charge—nearly five years after the alleged events—as clearly designed to avoid any overlap in sentencing, thereby maximizing Wong’s time in prison.

Wong rose to prominence during student-led protests more than a decade ago. He also joined massive democracy rallies in 2019 that triggered the imposition of the national security law.

China maintains the law is required to maintain order. It has cracked down on political dissent and squelched a once vibrant civil society in the territory.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

President Donald Trump and China’s Xi Jinping agreed on fresh trade talks to overcome a tariff stalemate in a highly anticipated phone call on Thursday that China’s state media reported first, stressing that it was the U.S. leader who initiated it.

On his social media feed, Trump described the 90-minute conversation as a “very good phone call.” It came during a tense period in U.S.-China relations after Washington accused Beijing of backtracking on a May 12 agreement to reduce tariffs by not freeing up imports of critical minerals needed for hi-tech industries.

“There should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Our respective teams will be meeting shortly at a location to be determined.”

(Andy Wong/AP)

But unusually for a high-level diplomatic interaction, it was China’s state-run Xinhua news agency that first reported the news of the call, which analysts suggested was an effort to drive the narrative. The two leaders last spoke by phone three days before Trump took office for his second term this January.

Chinese media reported that the call was made at Trump’s request. It cited Xi as saying: “Now that a consensus has been reached, both sides should abide by it. The U.S. side should look at the progress made in a realistic way and withdraw the negative measures it has taken against China.”

Xi also raised the issue of Taiwan - the self-ruling island that China regards as part of its territory. He called on the United States to prevent what he described as “separatists” from dragging China and the U.S. “into a dangerous situation of conflict and confrontation.”

Comparing the bilateral relationship to a big ship, Xi said that the two sides need to steer carefully in a good direction and for them to “eliminate all kinds of interference and even sabotage,” Xinhua reported.

Trump’s description of the call was upbeat. He said Xi “graciously” invited him and first lady Melania Trump to China, and Trump reciprocated with his own invitation for Xi to visit the U.S.

It was a change in tone from a a day earlier, when Trump had posted on social media: “I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!”

It remains to be seen how the two sides can iron out their many differences, not least on trade, where the U.S. racked up a nearly $300 billion dollar deficit with China in 2024.

For its part, China’s government objects to America restricting its sale of advanced chips and its access to student visas for college and graduate students. High U.S. tariffs have had a direct impact on its manufacturers.

Since Trump took office, he has repeatedly threatened punitive measures on trading partners, only to revoke some of them at the last minute. At one point, his administration set 145% tariffs on China, then lowered them last month to 30% for 90 days to allow for talks. China also reduced its taxes on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%.

That volatility and uncertainty has roiled global markets. Resolving the tariff impasse between the world’s two leading economies will be the task in the follow-up talks the two leaders agreed to Thursday.

Lin Fei, a commentator familiar with China’s national conditions, said that Beijing leadership was careful to “pre-set the tone” for the Xi-Trump call on Thursday in an effort to guide international public opinion and avoid appearing passive.

Hong Kong financial analyst Yan Baogang predicted, however, that the negotiations between the two countries will remain deadlocked, and it will be difficult to reach an agreement after the 90-day deadline - which expires July 8 - and U.S. tariffs on China may be increased again.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

For the first time, authorities banned the members of the Tiananmen Mothers group from carrying mobile phones and cameras as they gathered at the Wan’an cemetery, severing their contact with the outside world. But the elderly mothers still laid flowers for their loved ones who were killed in the June 4, 1989, crackdown, Radio Free Asia learned.

(Courtesy of the Tiananmen Mothers)

“This year, the authorities are more sensitive to the June 4 incident than ever before,” said Li, a former reporter at the state-run People’s Daily who witnessed the 1989 incident. Like other sources in this article, he requested anonymity for safety reasons.

“The Tiananmen Mothers’ memorial service is the most basic expression of humanity, but it is regarded as a political act,” Li added.

Another source confirmed to RFA that the memorial proceeded under heavy surveillance on Wednesday. A group of family members visit the cemetery every year, despite China’s ban on public commemoration of June 4.

(Greg Baker/AFP)

“Several elderly mothers walked into the cemetery silently, holding white chrysanthemums in their hands, and laid flowers in front of their relatives’ graves,” said the source, who observed the scene at the cemetery.

“There were plainclothes officers patrolling the gate and the surrounding area, and parking was prohibited on the roadside,” the source said.

On the evening of June 3, National Security Bureau agents warned participants against bringing phones or cameras, demanding “civilized mourning,” the source added.

RFA could not reach Tiananmen Mothers representatives on Wednesday, and attempts to contact their relatives, human rights lawyers, and scholars who follow the group also yielded no response. Nor could RFA reach the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau office to seek comment.

On May 31, the Tiananmen Mothers issued an open letter signed by 108 relatives of victims. In it, they reiterated their long-held demands from the ruling communist party: investigate the incident without bias, publicize records of the incident with names of the victims and compensate their families, and prosecute those responsible.

“For 36 years, we have repeatedly sought dialogue with authorities, but we have only been monitored and suppressed,” 88-year-old Zhang Xianling, one of the founding members of the group, said in a recent video, her voice breaking with emotion as she spoke.

Zhang’s son Wang Nan was shot dead at the intersection of Beijing’s Nanchang Street and Chang’an Avenue in the early hours of June 4, 1989. He was 19 at the time.

(Andy Wong/AP)

Estimates of the death toll from the Tiananmen massacre have ranged from a few hundred to several thousands. In 2009, the Tiananmen Mothers published a detailed map showing where some of the victims died. The Chinese government, however, has never made public the actual number of those who died or were injured.

Widespread digital censorship

In the days leading up to and on the June 4 anniversary, Chinese authorities imposed strict digital censorship measures.

In early June, users of Tencent’s mobile game “Golden Spatula Wars” found their WeChat profile pictures were uniformly changed to green penguins, with the ability to modify avatars disabled.

“Penguins were originally a symbol of entertainment, but now they have become a mask of censorship,” wrote one user on X.

On June 4, all WeChat users, as well as users of other Tencent platforms, found they couldn’t modify their profile pictures. Tencent attributed the restrictions to “purifying the online environment during the college entrance examination period,” but netizens questioned whether this represented another form of political censorship.

(Ng Han Guan/AP)

Every year around the anniversary, Chinese social media platforms block keywords such as “square,” “tank,” and “8964.” “June 4” is also a banned online search term, while any social media posts related to the incident are immediately deleted, with accounts that post such content facing suspension.

Human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was ordered by Chinese police on Wednesday to delete his commemorative post on X. Meanwhile, the embassies of Germany, Britain, Canada and other countries in China posted commemorative messages on Weibo, triggering a large number of comment deletions.

The British Embassy uploaded photos and cartoon videos of “Tank Man” – the iconic image of a lone protester facing down tanks at Tiananmen Square.

Restrictions in Hong Kong

Tight security was imposed at Hong Kong’s Causeway Bay and Victoria Park. These used to be sites of annual candlelight vigils and memorials but the gatherings have stopped since Beijing tightened its grip over the once semi-autonomous territory.

Armored vehicles and a large number of security personnel were deployed to the two sites on Wednesday morning, two sources said.

By noon, several people who were suspected to be marking the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre were taken away, including an elderly woman and two middle school girls holding white flowers, sources said. Another man who was seated silently at Victoria Park with his eyes shut and holding a white electronic candle was also taken away by police officers, they added.

(Tyrone Siu/Reuters)

Hong Kong police also inspected several “yellow economic circle” themed businesses. The color yellow has been associated with the democratic cause since the 2014 umbrella mass protest movement in the city. Pro-government and pro-police views are described as “blue.”

The consulates of several countries in Hong Kong, including Britain and Canada, posted photos of a candlelight and messages to not forget the June 4 incident.

The U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong also posted U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s message marking the anniversary.

“Today we commemorate the bravery of the Chinese people who were killed as they tried to exercise their fundamental freedoms, as well as those who continue to suffer persecution as they seek accountability and justice for the events of June 4, 1989,” Rubio said.

“The CCP actively tries to censor the facts, but the world will never forget,” Rubio said, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.

Commemorations in Taiwan

Like Rubio, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, in posts on X and Facebook, praised the courage of the Chinese students who participated in the 1989 pro-democracy protests, saying their “courage and sense of responsibility have left a profound testimony to humanity’s pursuit of ideals.” He added that the June 4 incident must never be forgotten.

“Authoritarian regimes erase history; democracies have a duty to preserve it,” Lai said.

“Today, we remember those who marched for freedom in Tiananmen Square. Taiwan stands firm with like-minded partners on defending democracy and human rights to ensure a free society for future generations,” he wrote on X.

(Ann Wang/Reuters)

In Taiwan, around 3,000 people gathered outside Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in Taipei on Wednesday evening to mourn the victims of the Tiananmen massacre.

Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council, which oversees cross-strait issues, condemned bomb threats that it and other government departments had received to scare off participants at the June 4 commemoration event.

Edited by Tenzin Pema and Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin and Chen Zifei for RFA Cantonese.

An unidentified man dressed in black suddenly jumped a barricade during a flag-raising ceremony at Tiananmen Square in Beijing and was wrestled away by security, a video posted on social media showed.

Video of the incident, which reportedly took place on Monday, two days ahead of the anniversary of June 4, 1989, crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square, was posted on the X by “Mr. Li is not your teacher,” who posts content on that platform to circumvent Chinese government censorship.

The man, wearing glasses, and a black jacket and trousers, ran toward the flag pole during the final bars of the People’s Republic of China national anthem. He was tackled by guards and plainclothes personnel, as bystanders at the ceremony filmed on their cell phones. Some onlookers could be heard in the video exclaiming, “Someone rushed in!”

A few seconds later, the man was carried out by half-a-dozen security personnel and taken to a police van without struggling.

The man’s identity, nationality and motives remain unclear. On Tuesday, security inside and outside Tiananmen Square was reportedly stepped up.

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

China’s mixed and managed economy is designed to match its stage of development and is well managed. The U.S. non-managed economy has no design and does not match its advanced stage of economic development. China uses exports to grow its economy and limit debt. The U.S. runs severe deficits in its trade balance and needs a growing debt to finance the trade deficit and to increase the GDP. The rapidly growing debt portends economic decline, and there is no certified way to escape the predicament. U.S. hegemony and world leadership appears doomed. The sooner the U.S. leaders recognize the dangers and readjust the economy, the less will be the slide. More on this later. Facts and statistics supply the proof that the PRC has successfully met the challenges.

Overly contentious USA

Using sanctions from legislative directives, rather than pursuing cooperative efforts to combat China’s rise to the world’s number one industrial power, the U.S motivates China to become self-sufficient in technological applications, temporarily interrupts China’s advances, and eventually causes havoc to American companies

Citing security concerns, the U.S. Congress, in 2019, passed the National Defense Authorization Act and essentially banned use of telecommunication equipment from 5G network pioneer Huawei and smartphone manufacturer ZTE. In June 2020, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) designated ZTE a national security threat. The security concerns proceeded from a possibility that the Chinese government could demand the habits of American citizens, similar to the information that Google and a host of advertising firms gather from internet searchers.

Huawei is of more major significance, but ZTE’s shrugging off the sanctions deserves mention. Its steady revenue growth until facing competition from other companies, relates its success.

This telecom company entered the smartphone market in 2010 and now has the 12th spot in the listing of the Largest Smartphone Manufacturers & Brands in the World. ZTE is also the 6th largest supplier in the Global 5G Infrastructure Market.

Huawei, global leader in development of 5G networks and China’s technology powerhouse, reeled from U.S. sanctions and stumbled as a boxer from an unaware punch. Predictions had Huawei barely surviving. Labelled as a company the U.S. could not do with, Huawei is now the company the world cannot do without. Refuting U.S. attempts to restrict its advances, Huawei expanded into new markets, into new industries, and developed unique alternatives to the denied technologies.

After years of “barely surviving,” Huawei is a leading network company on the globe, having constructed approximately 30% of worldwide 5G base stations, and is fourth in global smartphone manufacturing. After losing access to Google’s Android and Oracle’s software, Huawei developed its own operating system, Harmony OS, which has become the second most popular mobile operating system in China and, by 2025, was installed in over 900 million devices.

In 2022, the Commerce Department informed NVidia and AMD to restrict exports of AI-related chips to China, and informed chip equipment makers — Lam Research, Applied Materials and KLA — to restrict sending tools to the PRC for manufacturing advanced chips. China’s tech giant responded by challenging NVidia artificial intelligence dominance with its Ascend 910D AI processor chip, which “reflects China’s strategic push to develop indigenous semiconductor capabilities.” The U.S. did not respond to Huawei’s advance with its own technology advancements and again responded with threats. On May 15, 2025, the Trump administration warned that using Huawei’s AI chips might violate US export laws.

Ignoring U.S. threats, Huawei expanded use of its chips into the automotive industry and set a new standard for smart driving and self-driving technology.

Huawei’s ambitious undertaking includes the introduction of cutting-edge smart vehicles equipped with advanced autonomous driving technologies. The company is leveraging its prowess in artificial intelligence (AI) and big data to enhance vehicle performance and safety features. With a focus on seamless connectivity and user experience, Huawei is positioning itself as a significant player in the highly sought-after smart driving space, previously dominated by traditional automotive giants and tech firms like Tesla.

In August 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order “Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern.” The order prohibited U.S. investments in semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and artificial intelligence technologies in China. In November 2024, “The U.S. reportedly ordered TSMC to halt shipments of advanced chips to Chinese customers that are often used in artificial intelligence applications.”

As a result, Xiaomi, a leading smartphone manufacturer, which has expanded into electric SUV car production, developed its 3-nanometre XRing O1 system-on-a-chip (SoC). Following Apple, Qualcomm, and MediaTek, Xiaomi became the fourth tech company in the world to design a 3-nanometer mobile SoC for mass production. A Chinese company can now compete with American companies in selling the unique chips, and Qualcomm, which has been a long-standing supplier of mobile chips to Xiaomi, might have its sales disrupted.

Statistics tell the story

What have all these underhanded means to stifle the Chinese economy accomplished? Statistics in the following table tell the story. The Chinese economy surpassed the U.S. economy in 2022 and is leaving Uncle Sam far behind.

The U.S. has a higher GDP than China. China has a higher GDP/PPP. Unlike nominal GDP, which uses current exchange rates, GDP/PPP adjusts for differences in price levels between countries and provides a more realistic measure of the value of goods and services produced. Another consideration is the value given to components of the GDP. Capital, hard goods, and agriculture supply the most needed wants to a community, and their purchases play a more significant role in the economy. The service economy, a paramount feature of the U.S. economy, exaggerates its GDP. One dollar of purchase in goods production requires time for feedback to the manufacturer before other goods are replenished and additional purchases augment the GDP. Purchases in the service economy quickly pass the same money from one service provider to another and elevate the GDP. Industrial output, whether for domestic or foreign use, more appropriately demonstrates the robustness of an economy. China leads the United States in industrial output and demonstrated robustness by becoming the leading manufacturer and exporter of automobiles.

A comparison between two dynamos of each nation, U.S. Tesla and China BYD, automobile manufacturers and innovators that rose rapidly against established competitors, complete the story. BYD, which started at about the same time as Tesla, has surpassed Tesla in automobile sales.

BYD Revenue

Tesla Revenue

<

More than that, BYD has accomplished what was never considered possible; with a fully charged battery and a full tank of gas, unbiased testing of its new hybrid auto technology showed a driving range of 1,305 miles before charge or fill up. Its fully electric models use advanced sodium ion batteries and, in 5 minutes, can be charged to obtain a 250 mile range. A vertically integrated company, which manufactures its parts and is a leading provider of electric car batteries, BYD sells its autos at the lowest prices in China.

Revisions by BYD include paring the price of its Seagull hatchback to 55,800 yuan ($7,780), a 20% reduction to a model that was already the carmaker’s cheapest and one that had garnered global attention for its sub-$10,000 price tag. The Seal dual-motor hybrid sedan (direct competitor to the $37,000 Tesla Model 3) saw the biggest price cut at 34%, or by 53,000 yuan to 102,800 yuan ($14,333). (ED: These may be temporary price cuts.)

Fatal Decline of the Imperial Power

The U.S. cannot compete with or contain China. Using China as a scapegoat for its global economic decline has proved counterproductive. Better for the U.S. to cooperate with the PRC, realistically examine its economy, become aware of its limitations, and take decisive action to prevent a fatal decline.

The hindrances to economic progress is fourfold:

(1) Debt drives the economy and the debt has become unmanageable.
(2) Manufacturers have established offshore facilities to open new markets and to compete more effectively.
(3) Off shore production and having the dollar as an international currency has produced a high trade deficit.
(4) U.S. markets in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America have eroded.

Debt drives the U.S. economy and, the two charts indicate that without increasing the exorbitant debt, the economy will stagnate.

GDP/PPP

All Sectors Debt

Given a money supply to purchase goods and services, how can production and eventual sales of goods and services advance without increases in the money supply? One way is to increase the velocity of money, which occurred with on-time inventory, credit card purchasing, and computer speedup of financial transactions. These phenomena occurred during past decades and exploded the GDP. Another means is by having a positive trade balance; selling goods externally. If these means are not occurring, and they no longer are, increases in the money supply are required to increase production and sell additional goods.

U.S. goods trade deficit increased in 2024 to a record $1.2 trillion, and, although many economists excuse the trade deficit, saying that,

a trade deficit can only arise if foreigners invest more in the US than Americans invest abroad. In other words, a country can only have a trade deficit if it also has an equally sized investment surplus. The US is able to sustain a large trade deficit because so many foreigners are eager to invest here,

is more a rationalization than a reality. The trade deficit arose because American industry found it more profitable to produce overseas and made the dollar the international currency. As an international currency, the dollar is in demand and its exchange rate is high compared to other currencies. The strong dollar raises the prices of U.S. goods, makes its exports expensive and its imports cheap. Yes, the balance of payments must be equalized, and the dollars return as either purchase of government securities ─ one principal reason for rise in government debt ─ or purchase of U.S. assets. The former has become unwieldly, leading to high interest rates and the latter gives foreign interests increased power in the American system. Having a positive balance of trade reduces government debt and foreign influence.

Government debt is not the total problem. A system that exists by debt is the real problem. For a free wheeling and profit first economy that generates huge trade deficits to grow, the money supply must grow. Because money is created by either bank loans (debt) or Federal Reserve borrowings from the Treasury (debt), all money is debt. For the economy to continually grow, debt must continually grow. Soon, financing the debt and its increasing interest rates will be a difficult problem. Credit will freeze, loans will default, and the money supply will shrink. Boom will become bust. The United States has no choice but to have its economy more managed and align government and industry in common goals that correct the trend to a fatal decline.

Tariffs as a government money raiser and incentive to produce locally will be another tax on the American consumer and will not stimulate private investment in internal production to replace foreign imports. So, why not maintain low priced imports and tax the consumer for another goal ─ government investment in competitive industries. Cooperation between government and industry, rather than free-wheeling economics will enable more rational decisions and predictable operations.

The United States pioneered the global economy but globalization is no longer a perfect fit for the economically mature nation. Markets once lost are usually lost for a long time. Preserving present markets and finding niche markets for specialized goods, which the omnipresent U.S. economy has many, will stabilize exports.

History shows that private industry has never been the source of solutions to economic lapses. Changes in life style and a return to the cohesion and social legislation that characterized the Franklin Delano Roosevelt era might solve the economic, social, and political declines predicted for America’s future. The democratic socialization of America is begging to begin.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dan Lieberman.

Note: This article contains a graphic description that some readers may find upsetting.

An 88-year-old mother whose son died in the 1989 Tiananmen massacre has trouble even walking to a Beijing cemetery to commemorate his passing every June 4, but authorities still keep her under surveillance. “Am I that scary?” she asks.

Zhang Xianling is one of the founding members of the Tiananmen Mothers group that represents the families of victims of the crackdown on pro-democracy protesters that left hundreds if not thousands dead. The incident is expunged from the public record in China.

(Courtesy of the Tiananmen Mothers)

Each year, the mothers submit a letter to Chinese leaders, calling on the ruling communist party to publicize records about the June 4, 1989, incident, award compensation and to hold accountable those responsible for the killings.

Zhang told Radio Free Asia that although she is old, has difficulty getting about and needs a wheelchair, as long as her physical condition allows, she will definitely go to Beijing’s Wan’an Cemetery on June 4 to pay tribute to her son Wang Nan who died in the crackdown - as a group of mothers does each year.

Last year, on the eve of June 4, her phone line was cut and she lost contact with the outside world. This year, starting from April, she said she has been under close surveillance.

(Andy Wong/AP)

“They (the authorities) keep a close eye on me,” Zhang told RFA Mandarin, recounting how on a recent trip outside Beijing she got home around midnight and state security agents called her to say they would post someone outside her door.

“At 6:00 the next morning, they sent someone to guard my door. I don’t know why they are so afraid of me. I am 88 years old and I have to use a wheelchair if I have to walk 200 meters. Am I that scary?” she said.

Fallen silent

The annual gathering of the Tiananmen Mothers at the cemetery is a defiant act. Public commemoration of the massacre is banned in China. An annual candlelight vigil that for three decades marked the anniversary in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park has also fallen silent for the past five years amid a crackdown on pro-democracy activists there since Beijing tightened its grip over the once semi-autonomous territory.

While China has never made public the numbers who died or were injured on June 4, the Tiananmen Mothers published a detailed map in 2009 showing where some of the victims died. Estimates of the death toll have ranged from a few hundred to several thousand. June 4 is also a forbidden search term on the internet in China.

(AP)

Zhang’s son Wang Nan was a 19-year-old student at Beijing’s Yuetan High School when he was shot dead by martial law troops in the wee hours of June 4 at an intersection north of the Great Hall of the People, according to a record of victims curated by the non-government group, Human Rights in China. The bullet entered the left side of his forehead and came out behind his left ear, leaving a bullet hole at the back of the motorcycle helmet he was wearing.

Troops buried Wang Nan’s body with others in a shallow grave west of Tiananmen Gate but heavy rains washed the soil away a few days later. His body was taken to a hospital morgue and was initially mistaken as that of a soldier as he’d recently returned from military training and was wearing an old military uniform. His family was only able to recover his body on June 14, and his cremated remains were interred at Wan’an Cemetery.

Promise not to see reporters

Thirty-six years on, and the anniversary of Wang Nan’s passing still looms large in Zhang’s life and remains politically sensitive.

Zhang said that she had protested against the authorities’ frequent deployment of guards at her gate. She said a policeman she had contacted about this had urged her against seeing journalists.

“They asked me to promise not to see reporters and not to say anything, I said, ‘I can’t do that.’ I said that if I spread rumors and you arrest me, I have no objection. I said everything I said is true. You (the Chinese government) don’t tell the truth, and if people come to ask me, won’t I tell it? If people come to me, whether they are reporters or not, I will tell them about June 4,” Zhang told RFA.

Zhang said she feels very sad every year when the anniversary of her son’s death approaches, and that the pain of losing him will not be diluted or erased by the years.

“Between April and June, if the current government didn’t say it was a sensitive period, I would (still) be sad,” she said. “As a mother, it is impossible for me to forget, especially such a sudden death.”

“The pain is deeply engraved in my heart. This is different from the original grief. It is a kind of pain. One is the pain of missing (him), and the other is the pain of not having resolved this matter.”

‘I will not stop fighting’

Zhang said that the members of Tiananmen Mothers are scattered and cannot meet often, but judging from the number of people who sign the open letter every year demanding answers, many of the victims’ families are as committed as she is, which has strengthened her belief and determination.

(Tiananmen Mothers)

“I will not stop fighting,” she said. “We want to seek justice for those who died in the June 4 incident. We have this firm belief, so we have persisted up to now. I just want to tell my children that Mom is still persisting, and also to tell the authorities that we are still persisting.”

Zhang added that no matter how powerful the regime is, it cannot completely erase what has happened.

“The (June 4) massacre took place in full view of the public, so it is not something that will be easily forgotten. Although the candles in Victoria Park (Hong Kong) were blown out by the strong wind, the spark of justice is still burning in the hearts of every person with a conscience,” she said.

“As long as there is a spark, and one person commemorating, it is meaningful to our family … No matter how many people there are, it is a kind of comfort and support to us, and it also gives us spiritual strength."

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.

The Great Firewall Report (GFW Report) highlights how the central Chinese province of Henan has adopted its own provincial firewall which is less sophisticated and robust than the central government’s but more volatile and aggressive, blocking significantly more websites than the national-level censorship system.

Local sources told Radio Free Asia that the heightened restrictions at the provincial government level may reflect uncertainty about instructions from higher authorities, leading to “excessive blocking” to avoid blame for failing to carry out their duties.

GFW Report is a censorship monitoring platform, primarily focused on China. During one experiment its researchers ran between Dec. 26, 2023 and March 31, 2025, they found that the Henan Firewall blocked 4.2 million domains, about six times that of the 741,542 at the national level.

Since 2023, netizens in Henan had reported a rise in the number of websites that were inaccessible in the region but accessible elsewhere in China, the study found.

“This localized censorship suggests a departure from China’s centralized censorship apparatus, enabling local authorities to exert a greater degree of control within their respective regions,” researchers Mingshi Wu at GFW, Ali Zohaib and Amir Houmansadr at University of Massachusetts Amherst, Zakir Durumeric at Stanford University, and Eric Wustrow at the University of Colorado Boulder wrote in the GFW Report published in May, “A Wall Behind A Wall: Emerging Regional Censorship in China.”

But the phenomenon extends beyond Henan, sources inside China told RFA.

Local governments in neighboring Hebei, another central Chinese province, as well as those in Tibet and Xinjiang have been operating similar censorship systems as the one reported in Henan for at least four years, Zhao Yuan, a network engineer based in Hebei, said.

“In the past, we could access overseas websites that were not blocked by the national firewall,” Zhao said. “Now, even virtual private networks (VPNs) in Henan and Hubei don’t work.”

While the national-level firewall, known as the Great Firewall, targets more news and media sites, in line with China’s long-standing policy of censoring politically sensitive information, the provincial-level firewall systems, like the one in Henan, blocks domains focusing on topics like the economy, technology, and business, GFW Report researchers found.

The Chinese Communist Party has, in recent years, emphasized a multi-pronged approach to censorship, including the management of all types of propaganda at the domestic and international level through a framework known as “territorial management” and implementation of “digital stability maintenance” measures, such as policing of sensitive content online on dates deemed politically sensitive by the government.

“Local governments have taken the initiative to establish local blocking systems, indicating that the top leaders are increasingly vigilant about the flow of information,” Wei Sicong, a Beijing-based political observer, said.

(Andy Wong/AP)

‘Turning off the whole world’

Researchers at GFW found that the Henan firewall monitors and blocks traffic leaving and entering the province, as opposed to the national-level censorship system that is focused on traffic entering and exiting the country.

Other sources in the region told RFA that the heightened restrictions at the provincial government level suggest lack of clear legal know-how about how to enforce instructions from higher-ups.

“Officials would rather block more and more than take responsibility. So the result you see is ‘turning off the whole world’,” network engineer Zhang Jianan said.

GFW Report researchers said their analysis showed no regional censorship in other areas they studied, such as Beijing, Guangdong, Shanghai, and Jiangsu.

In Henan and Hebei, however, local residents told RFA that even the websites of some foreign universities are inaccessible, as a result of which they turn to VPNs and other circumvention tools to bypass government censorship and surveillance.

“Some classmates can connect in Beijing and Shanghai, but we can’t in Zhengzhou and can only rely on circumvention software,” Zhang, a student at Henan’s Zhengzhou University, said.

Hebei-based network engineer Zhao said, “The censorship is getting stricter and stricter. We can’t even connect to some foreign university websites.”

RFA found that as early as December 2023, a university in Henan province sought to purchase a “public opinion monitoring system,” specifically aimed at international students, students and dissidents, and had conducted an open bidding process.

Henan University of Science and Technology had laid out a 2024-2025 budget of 120,000 yuan (or US$16,657) for the public opinion monitoring service system to provide 24/7 real-time monitoring, early warning analysis and crisis response of public opinion information on the entire network, covering news websites and social media platforms such as Weibo and Douyin, the university’s website showed.

When RFA contacted the university, a teacher confirmed they are using an old monitoring system and that they have now started a bidding process for a new one.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang and Tenzin Pema for RFA.

The Great Firewall Report (GFW Report) highlights how the central Chinese province of Henan has adopted its own provincial firewall which is less sophisticated and robust than the central government’s but more volatile and aggressive, blocking significantly more websites than the national-level censorship system.

Local sources told Radio Free Asia that the heightened restrictions at the provincial government level may reflect uncertainty about instructions from higher authorities, leading to “excessive blocking” to avoid blame for failing to carry out their duties.

GFW Report is a censorship monitoring platform, primarily focused on China. During one experiment its researchers ran between Dec. 26, 2023 and March 31, 2025, they found that the Henan Firewall blocked 4.2 million domains, about six times that of the 741,542 at the national level.

Since 2023, netizens in Henan had reported a rise in the number of websites that were inaccessible in the region but accessible elsewhere in China, the study found.

“This localized censorship suggests a departure from China’s centralized censorship apparatus, enabling local authorities to exert a greater degree of control within their respective regions,” researchers Mingshi Wu at GFW, Ali Zohaib and Amir Houmansadr at University of Massachusetts Amherst, Zakir Durumeric at Stanford University, and Eric Wustrow at the University of Colorado Boulder wrote in the GFW Report published in May, “A Wall Behind A Wall: Emerging Regional Censorship in China.”

But the phenomenon extends beyond Henan, sources inside China told RFA.

Local governments in neighboring Hebei, another central Chinese province, as well as those in Tibet and Xinjiang have been operating similar censorship systems as the one reported in Henan for at least four years, Zhao Yuan, a network engineer based in Hebei, said.

“In the past, we could access overseas websites that were not blocked by the national firewall,” Zhao said. “Now, even virtual private networks (VPNs) in Henan and Hubei don’t work.”

While the national-level firewall, known as the Great Firewall, targets more news and media sites, in line with China’s long-standing policy of censoring politically sensitive information, the provincial-level firewall systems, like the one in Henan, blocks domains focusing on topics like the economy, technology, and business, GFW Report researchers found.

The Chinese Communist Party has, in recent years, emphasized a multi-pronged approach to censorship, including the management of all types of propaganda at the domestic and international level through a framework known as “territorial management” and implementation of “digital stability maintenance” measures, such as policing of sensitive content online on dates deemed politically sensitive by the government.

“Local governments have taken the initiative to establish local blocking systems, indicating that the top leaders are increasingly vigilant about the flow of information,” Wei Sicong, a Beijing-based political observer, said.

(Andy Wong/AP)

‘Turning off the whole world’

Researchers at GFW found that the Henan firewall monitors and blocks traffic leaving and entering the province, as opposed to the national-level censorship system that is focused on traffic entering and exiting the country.

Other sources in the region told RFA that the heightened restrictions at the provincial government level suggest lack of clear legal know-how about how to enforce instructions from higher-ups.

“Officials would rather block more and more than take responsibility. So the result you see is ‘turning off the whole world’,” network engineer Zhang Jianan said.

GFW Report researchers said their analysis showed no regional censorship in other areas they studied, such as Beijing, Guangdong, Shanghai, and Jiangsu.

In Henan and Hebei, however, local residents told RFA that even the websites of some foreign universities are inaccessible, as a result of which they turn to VPNs and other circumvention tools to bypass government censorship and surveillance.

“Some classmates can connect in Beijing and Shanghai, but we can’t in Zhengzhou and can only rely on circumvention software,” Zhang, a student at Henan’s Zhengzhou University, said.

Hebei-based network engineer Zhao said, “The censorship is getting stricter and stricter. We can’t even connect to some foreign university websites.”

RFA found that as early as December 2023, a university in Henan province sought to purchase a “public opinion monitoring system,” specifically aimed at international students, students and dissidents, and had conducted an open bidding process.

Henan University of Science and Technology had laid out a 2024-2025 budget of 120,000 yuan (or US$16,657) for the public opinion monitoring service system to provide 24/7 real-time monitoring, early warning analysis and crisis response of public opinion information on the entire network, covering news websites and social media platforms such as Weibo and Douyin, the university’s website showed.

When RFA contacted the university, a teacher confirmed they are using an old monitoring system and that they have now started a bidding process for a new one.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang and Tenzin Pema for RFA.

China announced Friday it was replacing its top official in Hong Kong who was regarded as a symbol of Beijing’s hardline approach toward the territory since 2019 pro-democracy protests.

China’s Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security said it was removing Zheng Yanxiong from several key positions including as director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Zheng was viewed as the Chinese Communist Party’s top envoy in Hong Kong and a key liaison with Hong Kong’s chief executive, John Lee, who was appointed by China’s State Council as the head of the Hong Kong government.

No reason was given Friday for removing Zheng and if he was being appointed to another position.

Zheng was dispatched by Beijing to Hong Kong in 2019 to oversee the crackdown on the protests, before his appointment in 2020 as the first head of the Office for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong. In 2023, he was promoted to director of the Liaison Office - the position he’s now vacating.

Throughout his tenure, he aggressively promoted the enforcement of Hong Kong’s National Security Law as Beijing looked to curtail the freedoms that had set the city apart from the mainland since the 1997 handover from British control. His tenure saw tighter controls over the press, academia, and civil society — drawing widespread international criticism.

In 2020, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Zheng under the Hong Kong Autonomy Act for undermining the city’s autonomy, banning him from entering the United States.

In 2023, Zheng took the unprecedented step of reviewing a Hong Kong police graduation ceremony, warning new officers of “hostile foreign forces” trying to make a comeback. Analysts said that was intended to assert Beijing’s firm control over security in the territory.

Friday’s announcement said China’s State Council has now appointed Zhou Ji to succeed Zheng as director of the Liaison Office and national security adviser in Hong Kong.

Zhou previously served as executive deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macao Work Office of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee and of the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

In the U.S., Chinese students expressed worries they may not be able to travel freely, and one student who is a human rights activist said she now felt pressure both from the Chinese government and U.S. government.

“The current situation in the U.S. feels increasingly uncertain — even dangerous,” Mary, who graduated from an American college this month, told Radio Free Asia. She requested a pseudonym for security reasons. “This dual threat is devastating,” she said.

In China, prospective students also took to social media to express confusion and distress after the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Wednesday that the U.S. will work “aggressively” to revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or studying in critical fields.

The U.S. will also revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Hong Kong, Rubio said, in a statement titled “New Visa Policies Put America First, Not China.”

U.S. lawmakers have long raised concerns about China acquiring access to sensitive technology and know-how through American colleges.

But China’s government said it “firmly opposes” the decision and has protested to the U.S. for using ideology and national security as a pretext for taking actions that are “fully unjustified.”

“This politically motivated and discriminatory move exposes the U.S. hypocrisy over freedom and openness. It will further damage the image and reputation of the U.S. itself,” Mao Ning, spokesperson for the Chinese government, said at a press briefing on Thursday.

Mao said the move “seriously hurts” the rights and interests of international students from China and disrupts people-to-people exchanges between the two countries.

(U.S. State Department)

Rubio’s announcement risks deepening tensions in a U.S.-China relationship already strained over trade.

It follows other steps by the Trump administration to deter international students, including ordering embassies to pause new student visa appointments amid enhanced social media vetting.

While the U.S. has only a few hundred students in China, Chinese students only rank behind India in their numbers in the U.S.

There were 277,398 Chinese students in the U.S. during the 2023-24 academic year, second to India, at 331,602, according to the U.S. State Department-sponsored “Open Doors report on International Educational Exchange”. Together, India and China accounted for 54% of all the international students, the report showed.

Rubio’s announcement on Wednesday generated hundreds of comments on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu, known as RedNote in English, including questions of what subjects of study would be impacted.

“Cognitive neuroscience, brain science, computational linguistics, biomedical engineering — are any of these considered critical fields?” asked one netizen named Nailong.

Rubio did not specify which fields were considered “critical.” Neither was there any clarification provided on what “connections to the CCP” would be scrutinized. It could account for a major chunk of China’s student body.

The Communist Youth League of China, for example, had around 75.32 million members aged 14-28 by end-2024, and roughly 2 million related organizations at schools, colleges, and universities, with around 98.5 million members.

Darkest moment

Mary, the human rights activist who just graduated in the U.S., said she was urgently reassessing her future career plans and was now considering seeking job opportunities abroad.

“For Chinese students, international students, and the entire education sector, this week may have marked a darkest moment,” Andrew Chen, Vice-Chair of China Member Interest Group at NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, said in a video posted on WeChat.

“But everyone must take responsibility for their own growth and future. Every family needs to make choices quickly — to improve their academic and employment abilities,” said Chen, who advised that Chinese students keen on pursuing further studies in the U.S. eschew defense-related majors and sensitive institutions within China.

(Tenzin Pema/RFA)

Chinese students who are already in the U.S. should work to improve their profile “as fast as possible,” so they can find a job in the country more easily in the near future, he added.

On social media platforms, Chinese students currently based in the U.S. expressed worries they may not be able to travel freely amid the stricter visa measures.

“If you’re in the U.S., you can’t go home anymore. I miss home,” wrote one netizen, Chaochao, on RedNote.

Other Chinese nationals also expressed worries about their future. “Will this affect an EB-1 application?,” asked one netizen named QuQ, referring to a U.S. employment-based visa for people with extraordinary abilities in their respective fields.

According to NAFSA, a U.S.-based nonprofit association focused on international education, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported 378,175 jobs during the 2023-2024 academic year.

For every three international students, one U.S. job is created and supported through spending by international students on accommodation, higher education, dining, retail, health, telecommunications, and transportation, it added.

The U.S. House Select Committee on the CCP welcomed Rubio’s Wednesday announcement. Chairman John Moolenaar on Thursday said, “America’s student visa system has become a Trojan horse for Beijing, providing unrestricted access to our top research institutions and posing a direct threat to our national security.”

“If left unaddressed, this trend will continue to displace American talent, compromise research integrity, and fuel China’s technological ambitions at our expense,” Moolenaar said.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tenzin Pema and Rachel C for RFA.

Hong Kong police have questioned two relatives of actor and journalist Joe Tay in the latest case of authorities targeting the family of wanted overseas pro-democracy activists.

Tay, who lives in Canada, is among six pro-democracy campaigners that the Hong Kong government in December accused of violating a national security law, offering rewards of HK$1 million (US$130,000) for help in arresting them. The six were accused of crimes including incitement to secession, subversion of state power, and collusion with foreign forces.

Tay has lived in Canada since 2020. In 2021, he set up a YouTube channel, HongKongerStation, focusing on Chinese government repression in Hong Kong. He recently ran, unsuccessfully, as a Conservative Party candidate in Canada’s federal election.

On Thursday, officers from Hong Kong’s National Security Department brought in Tay’s cousin and the cousin’s spouse for questioning, Hong Kong media reported. After several hours, they were released and escorted out by police.

In response to media inquiries, Hong Kong police confirmed that two individuals had been summoned on Thursday to assist in an investigation. They added that the case remains under investigation and no arrests have been made.

Earlier this month, a 57-year-old male cousin of Tay and that cousin’s spouse were also taken from their home by national security police for questioning and later released.

Authorities allege that Tay, 62, violated the National Security Law by publishing videos and posts promoting Hong Kong independence and calling for foreign sanctions on China and Hong Kong, including invoking the Magnitsky Act – U.S. legislation to sanction human rights abusers - to target Hong Kong officials.

Hong Kong authorities in recent weeks have questioned the relatives of other accused activists, including the parents of Frances Hui, a pro-democracy advocate based in the United States.

Earlier this month, Hong Kong police made the first formal prosecution of a relative of a wanted individual. They charged Anna Kwok’s father, Kwok Yin-sang, with “attempting to handle the assets of an absconder,” making him the first family member prosecuted under the National Security Law passed last year. Kwok, 68, was granted bail last week.

Anna Kwok is executive director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, a Washington-based advocacy group.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

U.S. experts speak of war with China. The U.S. and China are apparently preparing for it (Peter Apps, “US Prepares for Long War with China that Might Hit Its Bases, Homeland,” Reuters, 19 May 2025). And according to opinion polls, a large percentage of Americans, if not the majority, do support using U.S. troops to defend Taiwan. Thus it is important in 2025 to understand Taiwan’s special status and U.S.-China relations.

The civil war between the Nationalist Party (Guomindang) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continued intermittently from 1927 until 1949, when the Communists won control over mainland China. The war resulted in the premature deaths of millions of people, with a large portion of those non-combatants. In 1949 the head of the Guomindang, Chiang Kaishek (1887-1975), known today as “Jiang Jieshi” by most mainland Chinese speakers, retreated to the Island of Taiwan with the remnants of his forces and “established a relatively benign dictatorship” there, executing one thousand farmers, workers, intellectuals, students, labor union activists, and apolitical civilians during the White Terror in the 1950s. (Po Chien CHEN and Yi-hung LIU, “A Spark Extinguished: Worker Militancy in Taiwan after World War II [1945-1950],” Ivan Franceschini and Christian Sorace, eds., Proletarian China: A Century of Chinese Labour, Verso, 2022). The martial law that Jiang Jieshi imposed in 1949 lasted for nearly four decades, until 1987.

Under his reign there were two Taiwan Strait crises in which a hot war between the Guomindang and the CCP almost broke out. The most dangerous, in terms of the prospects for decent human survival, was probably the second crisis, in 1958. It almost resulted in a nuclear war, according to the late Daniel Ellsberg. At a point in time when U.S.-backed Jiang Jieshi aspired to take back all of China, the U.S. had a secret plan to “hit every city in the Soviet Union and every city in China.” The U.S. military was prepared to annihilate 600 million people, a “hundred Holocausts,” Ellsberg explained. Today the Island of Taiwan may or may not be the “most dangerous place on Earth,” as the Economist called it (Justin Metz, “The Most Dangerous Place on Earth,” The Economist, 1 May 2021), but given the constant tension between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (i.e., Taiwan) during the last three quarters of a century, the fact that the U.S. and the PRC are both nuclear powers, the fact that U.S. intelligence leaders have recently called the CCP the “most consequential threat” to U.S. national security, and the fact that the Trump administration is riddled with China hawks underscores how important it is, for our species as a whole, and especially for people in East Asia, that sincere agents of peace understand Taiwan.

Over the course of nearly half a century, Jiang Jieshi and his party received constant diplomatic support, weapons, and billions of dollars in aid from the U.S.  Our government has recently even “quietly unfrozen about $870 million in security assistance programs for Taiwan.” With all this U.S. “support” for, or U.S. domination of, Taiwan, what does the word “sovereignty” mean in Taiwan’s case? And what does it mean for an island of 23 million people to prepare to fight with the PRC, with its population of 1.4 billion? How can Lai Ching-te say that they must prepare for war?

To understand the fight between the Republic of China and the PRC, and the intervening/interfering role of the U.S., one must have a basic understanding of the nature of this fight. A little study of the historical context in which Jiang Jieshi first seized power a century ago might help. This month marks 100 years since the start of the May Thirtieth Movement, when Chinese workers stood up against the imperialism of the West and Japan, while at the same time taking on the greedy business class and the power-hungry warlords of China.

Chinese Workers Struggle for Dignity in 1925

Back in 1925, Shanghai was known as “the Paris of the East,” and like Paris, it was a place where the rich could have fun as they liked and the poor had to suffer as they must. The workers of Shanghai suffered the injustices of colonialism and racism. Rich Europeans and Japanese colonizer-parasites had carved up the city and set up their own “International Settlement,” that they, rather than the Chinese, governed. This Settlement allowed them to live among and exploit the local laborers even as they disrespected them with the pejorative “coolies.” Some Japanese said they were “worthless” and called them “foreign slaves” (S.A. Smith, Like Cattle and Horses: Nationalism and Labor in Shanghai, 1895-1927, Duke UP, 2002, page 163).

Shanghai had been a frequent site of labor “unrest” for some time. It was not a coincidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had been founded there in 1921. Early in 1925 a Japanese company that owned a cotton mill had rejected an agreement made by the striking workers and a mediation board. The conflict reached a head on the 15th of May that year when the managers of the mill locked out the workers and stopped paying their wages. (Apo Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement to the Canton Strike,” Proletarian China: A Century of Chinese Labour). In this conflict, Japanese supervisors physically beat several workers and one foreman shot and killed a 20-year-old worker, a Communist, by the name of Gu Zhenghong.

This was not the first time that foreign bosses had murdered Chinese workers, but it was said that “Japanese capitalists treat Chinese laborers like cattle and horses” (S.A. Smith, Like Cattle and Horses 164). Many people, not only workers and students but also Chinese business persons, were fed up that year, in 1925. On the 30th of May nearly 10,000 demonstrators marched through the streets of Shanghai to the International Settlement where the British, French, Japanese, and other privileged foreigners lived. It was guarded by foreign soldiers and police. (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”). The British chief of police gave orders to fire on the protesting workers and students, and thirteen people were killed, shot at “point-blank range” (Working Class History, PM Press, 2020, page 111-12).  Dozens were injured. This triggered what is known today as the May Thirtieth Movement. Through the cooperation of workers, students, and many Chinese businesses, a general strike was organized in Shanghai. There were at least 135 solidarity strikes in other regions. (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”).

By one estimate, there were already 84,000 unionized workers in Shanghai at this time and many unions had contributed to building worker solidarity (Smith, Like Cattle and Horses 154). Up until the May Thirtieth Incident, the Shanghai Federation of Syndicates (SFS) had been a leading labor organization, if not the leading organization in Shanghai. It had been established in 1924, mainly by right-wing members, but also by many anarchists, such as Shen Zhongjiu (1887–1968), the editor of the anarchist journal Free Man (Ziyou ren) and later the chief editor of Revolution (Geming). Anarchism was the “central radical stream” in China after the First World War. And there had been a “long-standing indigenous libertarian tradition” in China (Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, PM Press, 2010, page 519).

Many SFS labor activists distrusted the Communist Party because they felt that CCP intellectuals tried to speak for the workers. The SFS had a “vaguely anarchist orientation,” but did not espouse federalism. (Smith, Like Cattle and Horses 155-59). Chinese anarchists in general, regardless whether they were members of SFS, had vocally opposed the CCP’s statist goals and promotion of “proletarian dictatorship” and “iron discipline.” But the fledgling CCP was on the ball. They “instantly launched a campaign calling for solidarity with the textile workers, a boycott of Japanese products, and a public funeral” for Gu Zhenghong (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”).

In the city of Guangzhou, already an industrial center near Hong Kong then, anarchists had established at least 40 unions by 1921, and had been collaborating since 1924 with the Guomindang labor leaders in the syndicalist movement. The Guomindang was founded in 1924 by Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925) in Guangzhou, and many anarchists and communists had collaborated with them for years.  In May 1925 the “Second National Labour Conference” was held in Guangzhou. The All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) was established, representing 166 trade unions and 540,000 members. It was a national umbrella organization that functioned as a platform to coordinate different forces among workers, including non-party actors. After the Shanghai Massacre, the ACFTU called for a demonstration on 2 June and a solidarity strike. In the wake of the Massacre, many more workers joined unions (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”).

Union leaders organized a strike in Guangzhou and in nearby Hong Kong. This strike began on 19 June. Soon, 250,000 workers hand had joined and many students in Hong Kong were also mobilized. In fact, half the labor force of Hong Kong was on strike, paralyzing the city. By the 21st of June, there was a full embargo against the foreign powers, and on the 23rd of June, a public procession in solidarity with the May Thirtieth Movement. The joint foreign security force with police from multiple countries opened fire on students and killed fifty-two people.

1925 was the beginning of a period of very active worker resistance, that is sometimes called the “Revolution of 1925-1927.” It was a time of many large uprisings, often or usually very violent, and a time of dedicated labor organizing. Through this revolution, Chinese workers regained some dignity, but true liberation was put on the back burner. According to the historian Gotelind Müller, “the CCP worked on Comintern instructions in a united front with the Guomindang, an authoritarian party populist in rhetoric but tied in practice to defending the interests of China’s business groups and rural elites. The terms of the alliance required the CCP’s subordination to the Nationalist [i.e., Guomindang] leaders and the submersion of its membership.” She explains that, just as with anarchists elsewhere, “Chinese anarchists were at first sympathetic to the Bolsheviks but by the mid-1920s they saw the regime in Moscow as oppressive.”

Meanwhile, Mao Zedong knew that something was happening, and he became very interested in this movement in the summer of 1925 (Rebecca Karl, Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth Century World, Duke UP, 2010, page 29). In addition to labor unions in the city, peasant unions were also forming, appearing in Hunan and surrounding provinces. Mao saw revolutionary potential among them, even more than among workers in the cities. This put him in opposition to the orthodox Marxist approach.

A Year of Strikes: 1926

There were even more strikes in 1926 than in 1925, and some of the rulers of China resorted to violence to keep them down. “During 1926 in Shanghai there were, according to one official survey, 169 strikes affecting 165 factories and companies and involving 202,297 workers.” Half of them were “wholly or partially successful.” (Harold Isaacs, The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution, 1938). In May 1926 the Third Labor Congress was held in Guangzhou, with the participation of 699 labor organizations, who claimed to represent 1.24 million workers.

And it was at this point, when things were going so well for the workers, that Jiang Jieshi started abandoning them and dismissed his Soviet advisors (Dennis Showalter, “Bring in the Germans,” The Quarterly Journal of Military History 28:1, page 60). It was the Soviets who had urged the Communists of China to work with the Guomindang.

On 18 March, there was a massacre of anti-imperialist protesters in front of Beiyang Government headquarters. The Beiyang Government was run by warlords like Duan Qirui (1865-1936), who was tight with Japan. They were the main government of China between 1912 and 1928, and were based in Beijing.

Among those injured during the 18 March massacre was the leader Li Dazhao (1889-1927), who had co-founded the CCP with Chen Duxiu (1879-1942). Chen Duxiu had also founded the progressive journal New Youth (Xin Qingnian) in 1916, advocating human rights, democracy, science, and even Esperanto. Influenced by the October Revolution, it was openly promoting communism in 1920.

The great writer Lu Xun, who is often credited with modernizing Chinese literature, wrote about the March 1926 massacre in some detail in “In Memory of Miss Liu Hezhen.” Lu Xun wrote, “On March 18 in the fifteenth year of the Republic of China, Duan Qirui’s government ordered guards with guns and bayonets to surround and slaughter the unarmed protesters in front of the gates of the State Council, the hundreds of young men and women whose intent was to lend their support in China’s diplomatic dealings with foreign powers. An order was even issued, slandering them as ‘mobsters’!” (Lu Xun, “In Memory of Liu Hezhen,” Jottings Under Lamplight, Harvard UP, 2017, page 72).

Meanwhile in June, Jiang Jieshi was put in charge of the Northern Expedition aimed at removing the warlords from power and unifying the country.

Jiang Jieshi’s 1927 Slaughters

In 1927 rich men slaughtered workers like never before. Early on, the CCP suspected that something was up. On 26 January an internal Party memo read, “The most important problem which requires our urgent consideration at the moment is the alliance of foreign imperialism and the [Guomindang] right wing with the so-called moderate elements of the [Guomindang], resulting in internal and external opposition to Soviet Russia, communism, and the labor and peasant movements” (Michael D. Wilson, United States Policy and the Nationalist Revolution in China, 1925-1928, UCLA dissertation, 1996, page 121). The Communists knew that the Guomindang was allied with the “Powers,” i.e., the empires of the West and Japan. Yet they still encouraged workers to trust the Guomindang.

Around this time in early 1927, a powerful Communist-led union called the Shanghai General Labour Union (GLU) launched two insurrections. Their first insurrection was a general strike from the 19th to the 22nd of February, and their second was a strike supported by an armed militia from the 21st to 22nd of March. The strike in February “shut post offices, all cotton mills, and most essential services” (S.A. Smith, “The Third Armed Uprising and the Shanghai Massacre,” Proletarian China: A Century of Chinese Labour, and Working Class History 41). This contributed greatly to the popularity of both the Guomindang and the CCP in Shanghai.

For their second insurrection in March, the GLU’s plan was “to take control of the city first and then welcome” Jiang Jieshi. But the British, the Americans, and the Japanese in Shanghai already knew the script. Written in 1938, Harold Isaacs’ historical account got to the heart of the matter:

The prevailing attitude among them during those early weeks of 1927 seemed to be to hear and protect the evils they had rather than fly to others they knew not of. For to your foreign business man, banker, soldier, consul, and missionary, this incomprehensible unrest, these endless slings and arrows for which they were the quivering targets, seemed the blows of a universally outrageous fortune. They could not make out who were the hares and who the hounds. So they barricaded their settlements behind gates and barbed wire. From overseas came regiment after regiment and whole fleets to protect them against all contingencies. Only the keenest among them understood from the beginning that their bread was buttered on the same side as that of the Shanghai bankers and oriented themselves accordingly. They knew Chiang Kai-shek [Jiang Jieshi] as a politically-minded militarist who wore a coat of many colours. If the Shanghai bankers were ready to back him, they knew they could follow suit. Only the workers of Shanghai stood between them and the consummation of the deal. Chiang’s coming would remove this obstacle. Thus by February when Chiang’s troops advanced into Chekiang, the situation was vastly clarified for all concerned except the workers and the Communist leaders for whom Chiang still remained the hero-general of the revolution. (Harold Isaacs, The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution, 1938).

But as evidenced by the quote from the CCP internal Party memo, the Communist leaders, too, knew what was happening, that Jiang Jieshi was not on their side.

“On 21 March between 600,000 and 800,000 workers struck in demand for an end to militarist rule of the city. Among the workers who played key roles were the printers, postal workers, and mechanics. Several thousand radicals also formed an armed militia that occupied key sections of the city” (St. James Encyclopedia of Labor History Worldwide: Major Events in Labor History and Their Impact).

On the same day that these Communist supporters of Jiang Jieshi launched their violent take-over of Shanghai, Guomindang troops took control of the City of Nanjing, attacked foreigners and looted foreign property there, “including the American, British, and Japanese consulates.” (Wilson, United States Policy and the Nationalist Revolution in China, 1925-1928, page 111). Foreigners were frightened by these attacks and they blamed it on communists, not on Jiang Jieshi. “Actually, however, the nationalists [i.e., Guomindang] were the perpetrators of this series of attacks on foreign civilians. Some foreign officials, such as the Japanese Consul General, thus advised [Jiang Jieshi] to crack down on the radical elements in the city” (St. James Encyclopedia…). This is remembered as the “Nanking Incident of 1927.”

On 22 March, the stage was set for the great betrayal and a years-long bloodbath. On that day, a subordinate of Jiang Jieshi, called off the strike in Shanghai and ordered the suppression of the labor unions and other radical groups (Wilson 110). With thousands of soldiers in toe and at his command, Jiang Jieshi himself arrived on 26 March and began meeting with members of the local Guomindang, the Shanghai business community, and the gangsters. He was promised financial support “if he broke from the communists and pledged to ‘regulate’ the relationship between labor and capital” (St. James Encyclopedia…).

April 1927: Let the Reign of Terror Begin

Jiang Jieshi agreed with these parasitic foreigners that the changes being proposed by the workers and the Communists were too radical. “It should have come as no surprise to anyone that [Jiang Jieshi] decided to move against the radicals, as he had already done so in several other cities in late March” (St. James Encyclopedia…), but many Chinese workers as well as French, German, and Russian communists continued to believe in him.

After the Guomindang’s attack on Westerners and Japanese in Nanjing (i.e., the Nanking Incident of March 1927), Jiang Jieshi started to seek support from Japan and the U.S. rather than the USSR and the CCP (Wilson 33, 72, 134).

Jiang Jieshi viewed the success of the peasants and the workers as a threat to his party’s political, military, and social control, and this is one reason why he initiated the April 12th Shanghai Massacre, in which the Guomindang slaughtered communists in Shanghai and other places. According to Vincent Kolo, the “capitalist class and rural landowners whose sons were well represented in the officer corps of the [Guomindang] armies grew fearful of the increasingly radical demands of the working class (for shorter work hours and against the terror regime in many factories) and the peasantry (for land reform and against the crushing taxes of the landlord class)” (Kolo, “90 Years since Chiang Kai-shek’s Shanghai Massacre,” Chinaworker.info).

On 5 April Jiang Jieshi “instituted martial law and ordered the disarming of all bearers of arms not properly registered with the Nationalist Army” (Wilson 123). On the 11th, Wang Shouhua [the President of the GLU] was thrown in a sack and “buried alive” (Smith, “The Third Armed Uprising”). By the morning of the 12th, the worker militias “had been crushed,” according to historian S.A. Smith. That day, Jiang Jieshi hired hundreds of armed gangsters to massacre labor leaders and communists (Wilson, page 124).

Even so, the tenacious workers, led mainly by the GLU, called a general strike for the 13th of April. “240,000 workers walked out” (Smith, “The Third Armed Uprising”). Machine gunners opened fire on their parade. “Attackers” engaged in “stabbing, shooting, and clubbing the panic-stricken crowd.” One hundred were killed. But even on the 14th, the majority of striking workers did not give up.

By the 15th, the GLU estimated that three hundred trade union activists had been killed. It is estimated that by the end of the year, two thousand “Communists and worker militants” had lost their lives. The Guomindang killed “thousands of worker activists” in Shanghai, Wuhan, and Guangzhou (Leong, “From the May Thirtieth Movement…”). “Over the following twelve months, more than three hundred thousand people would be killed in the Guomindang’s anti-communist purges” (Working Class History 80-81).

The police of “Qingbang and Hongbang brutally executed the captured communist and union members by slaughtering them and putting them in the crater of a locomotive.” (“4.12 Shanghai Coup,” Namuwiki, 15 April 2025). Communists refer to the following years of Guomindang massacres as the “White Terror.” By one estimate, this White Terror resulted in the deaths of one million people (Karl, Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth-Century World 33). Enabled by the governments of the U.S. and other countries, Jiang Jieshi began in 1947 another White Terror on the Island of Taiwan. It did not end until 1987.

This is the way that Jiang Jieshi thanked the peasant and worker revolutionaries who had propelled his party to power. His rewards for this great achievement of “unifying” the nation included generous financial support from the business class of Shanghai (David Lowe, “Generalissimo,” The Weekly Standard 9:27:22, page 43), lots of help of various kinds from the Powers of the West and Japan, and recognition from the Empires that he was the legitimate ruler of China.

With his solid track record of bullying into submission Chinese workers, the U.S. showered Jiang Jieshi with treasure for decades, until his death in 1975. The U.S. was the first foreign country to step forward and grant recognition to his new regime (in 1928), and soon the U.S. would begin supporting him financially and militarily, too, even when informed U.S. observers, such as John King Fairbank (1907-91) labeled his Party as “proto-fascist.” For Fairbank, the Guomindang were a “small political group holding tenaciously to power…with hopes of using industrialization as a tool of perpetuating their power and with ideas which are socially conservative and backward-looking” (Wilson 2).

Yokomitsu Riichi, the Japanese ultra-rightist author who wrote the novel Shanghai (1931), presented in that story a surprisingly similar picture of the political and economic situation of China, a country where parasites of the West, Japan, and even China committed state violence against them and stole the fruits of their labor. For example:

He [Sanki] fell silent. He had detected the strength of will of the authorities who had hired Chinese to kill Chinese.

[Fang Qiu-lan, a woman to whom Sanki is attracted and a Communist who organizes workers in Japanese textile factories:]  “That’s right. The craftiness of the British authorities isn’t new. The history of the modern Orient is so filled with the crimes of that country that if you tried to add them up, you’d be paralyzed. Starving millions of Indians, disabling Chinese with the opium trade. These were Britain’s economic policies. It’s the same as using Persia, India, Afghanistan, and Malaysia to poison China. Now we Chinese must resist completely.” (Yokomitsu Riichi, Shanghai: A Novel by Yokomitsu Riichi, Dennis Washburn, trans., Center of Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 2001, page 153).

Since 1950, the United States has sold Taiwan nearly $50 billion in “defense equipment and services, with a number of large sales during recent U.S. administrations.” Is this how we deliver “power to the people” and peace in East Asia? Were we promoting industrial democracy by increasing the wealth and power of Jiang Jieshi even after he committed massacres of Chinese workers with impunity? Don’t the people of Taiwan, the vast majority of whom are Han Chinese, deserve credit for sprouting democracy even under the sun-starved, U.S.-backed dictatorship of Jiang Jieshi? Where in the U.S. is there any recognition of the crimes that the U.S. committed against the Han Chinese and other ethnic groups of Taiwan and the rest of China? How solid is the foundation on which the current President Lai Ching-te stands, the man who called himself a “pragmatic worker for Taiwan independence” in 2017? When we spend 250 million U.S. dollars on an upgrade on our “informal,” 10-acre embassy in Taiwan, is that an example of how we adhere to our One China policy? Even merely with the foregoing brief exploration of the history of the obvious class struggle in China a century ago, and quick examples of U.S. support for Jiang Jieshi’s attacks on the working class of China, one can see that U.S. dollars were spent on death, destruction, and tyranny rather than on democracy and peace.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Joseph Essertier.

Under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing has disbursed over $1 trillion in loans to more than 150 countries to build a network of roads, airports, railways, telecommunication networks, and seaports to connect China to the rest of the world. Critics have accused China of setting up debt traps and expanding geopolitical and economic influence through BRI.

According to the report by the Lowy Institute, developing countries owe a record $35 billion in debt repayments to China in 2025, with debt servicing costs on projects financed by BRI – which Chinese President Xi Jinping launched with great fanfare in 2013 – set to remain elevated for the rest of the decade.

Around $22 billion, or about two-thirds of the total $35 billion in debt repayments due in 2025, will be made by 75 of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries, threatening critical spending for health, education, poverty reduction and climate adaptation efforts, the report said.

“China’s role as a lender has passed a watershed,” wrote Riley Duke, the author of the report titled “Peak Repayment: China’s Global Lending”.

“The nation that was once the developing world’s largest source of new finance has now wholly transitioned to being the world’s largest single destination for developing country debt service payments,” added Duke, research fellow on the Lowy Institute Pacific Aid Map.

New Chinese loan commitments have also remained at around $7 billion per year since 2023, shifting from being a net provider of financing – where it lent more than it received in repayments – to a “net drain,” as repayments now exceed loan disbursements, the report said.

In 2012, China was a net drain on the finances of only 18 developing nations; by 2023, that number has more than tripled to 60.

“China is grappling with a dilemma of its own making: it faces growing diplomatic pressure to restructure unsustainable debt, and mounting domestic pressure to recover outstanding debts, particularly from its quasi-commercial institutions,” wrote Duke.

(Hu Chao/AP)

Geopolitical leverage

Despite the broader decline in global lending, China continues to finance strategic or “politically significant borrowers,” and remains the largest bilateral lender in seven out of its nine land neighbors. These include Laos, Myanmar, Pakistan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

The report said that new loans also feature as a diplomatic dealmaking tool, particularly in getting other countries to adopt Beijing’s “One China” policy, which states that the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China, including self-ruling Taiwan as part of its territory.

For example, China announced new financing for several countries, including Honduras, Nicaragua, and Solomon Islands, just months after they officially declared that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory” and switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing.

In June 2023, Honduras became the latest Central American country to join BRI, reducing Taiwan’s diplomatic allies in the region to just two – Guatemala and Belize – amid China’s growing economic influence through investments, loans, and trade.

New loan deals have been resilient also for developing countries that are exporters of critical mineral resources or battery metal, such as Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, receiving more than $8 billion in disbursements in 2023, or over a third of China’s total loan outflows for that year, the report said.

“Rising debt-service costs raise questions about whether China could use the repayments for geopolitical leverage,” wrote Duke. “Some argue that China’s lending boom in the 2010s reflected an intentional effort at ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ aimed at pushing countries into debt problems so that geopolitical concessions could later be extracted,” he added.

(Achmad Ibrahim/AP)

On Tuesday, in response to a query about the key findings in the Lowy Institute report, Chinese government spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters that China’s cooperation on investment and financing with developing countries follows international practice, market principles, and the principle of debt sustainability.

“A handful of countries are spreading the narrative that China is responsible for these countries’ debt,” Mao said. “They ignore the fact that multilateral financial institutions and commercial creditors from developed countries are the main creditors of developing countries and the primary source of debt repayment pressure. Lies cannot cover the truth and people can tell right from wrong,” she added.

Impact of debt burden

Today, China is the largest source of bilateral debt service for developing countries, accounting for more than 30% of all such payments in 2025, according to data reported by debtor governments to the World Bank.

As of 2023, some 3.3 billion people live in countries that spend more on interest payments than on health or education, the report said.

“The high debt burden facing developing countries will hamper poverty reduction and slow development progress while stoking economic and political instability risks,” Duke wrote in the report.

In 54 out of 120 developing countries with available data, debt service payments to China exceed the combined payments owed to the Paris Club — a bloc that includes all major Western bilateral lenders, the report said.

Chinese debt servicing is particularly dominant in Africa but also equals or exceeds that owed to Paris Club members by a majority of countries in South America, the Pacific Islands, South Asia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, the report said.

“As Beijing shifts into the role of debt collector, Western governments remain internally focused, with aid declining and multilateral support waning. Without fresh concessional financing or coordinated relief, the squeeze on budgets will tighten further, deepening development setbacks and heightening instability risks,” Duke added.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tenzin Pema for RFA.

Several weeks ago, Michael Langley, the head of US Africa Command (or AFRICOM), testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee and stated that Ibrahim Traoré, the current president of Burkina Faso, “is using the country’s gold reserves for personal protection rather than for the benefit of its people,” an absurd claim, considering that the US Department of Defense, which Langley works for, has stolen $1 trillion from US taxpayers in this year’s budget alone. What’s more, AFRICOM itself has a deadly, well-documented history of plundering the African continent, often in coordination with NATO.

Take a guess why Langley might want to delegitimize Traoré’s governance and the larger project of the Alliance of Sahel States/AES (made up of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, all of which have recently allied under a confederation after recent seizures of power). Any takers? Hint: the answer is natural resources and military presence. Traoré has nationalized Burkina Faso’s foreign-owned gold mines in an attempt to actually use the land’s resources to benefit its people. Similarly, upon taking power in Niger, the current president, Abdourahamane Tchiani, nationalized uranium and banned foreign exports. Notably, a quarter of Europe’s uranium, crucial for energy usage, comes from Niger. Considering Traoré’s crucial role in developing the identity of the AES as one of the more vocal and charismatic leaders, targeting Traoré is part of a larger project by the US/EU/NATO axis targeting the AES project at large. Recently, this new AES leadership has launched new green energy and educational initiatives. Meanwhile, the US has pulled out of the Sahel states as the AES asserts its sovereignty in defiance of decades of Western-backed instability.

Traore’s Burkina Faso is not the first Pan-African project to come under attack by the US/EU/NATO axis of power. Just as the vague claims from Langley serve to cast doubt on Traore’s ability to lead a nation, past Pan-African leaders who have dared to challenge imperialism and prioritize their citizens have also come under fire. For instance, former president of Burkina Faso, Thomas Sankara, was assassinated in 1987 after putting the Burkinabè people’s needs first by rejecting IMF loans and demands, implementing nationwide literacy and vaccine campaigns, and spearheading housing and agrarian reform. Time and again, France and the US have taken decisive action against leaders who have promoted Pan-Africanism and environmental stability over the interests of Western powers. We’re watching it happen live now, and have a responsibility to stand up for Traorè and the AES before it’s too late.

When a country doesn’t bend its knees to Washington, the standard US playbook is one of environmental death, either via hybrid or classic warfare. Venezuela has refused to grant US corporations unfettered access to its oil reserves – the world’s largest –  and thus has been forced to use them as a lifeline. The US has punished Venezuela by imposing unilateral sanctions that have prevented the proper maintenance of the country’s oil pipelines, resulting in harmful leaks. In the Congo–one of the lungs of the Earth–the West’s decades-long quest for uranium and other rare minerals has led to mass deforestation, destroyed water quality, and unleashed military forces that have killed millions. And of course, the US is backing the ecocide/genocide in Palestine in order to maintain the existence of a proxy-state in an oil-rich region.

When the US military – the #1 institutional polluter in the world – “intervenes”, the only environmental outcome is climate collapse. And even when countries play by Washington’s rules, the US will still militarize, build more toxic bases, seek continued extraction, and create mass poverty. For the survival of the people and planet, we must resist this imperial expansion.

Any movement concerned with transitioning from an extractive to a regenerative economy must stand against US and Western intervention in the Sahel and advocate for Pan-African projects and a multilateral world. The emergence of a multipolar world means that projects like the AES have partners beyond the region: during Traoré’s most recent visit to Moscow, he met with the heads of state of Russia, China, and Venezuela. The US, of course, threatened by the loss of its dominion, insists on pursuing a dangerous cold war against China, to contain China’s influence, refuses to cooperate on green technology, and plows through any region that it views as a battleground, be it the Asia-Pacific or the Sahel. And always at the expense of life in all forms.

So if we are in a project for life, why, then, are we often met with hesitation in climate spaces to stand against this imperialist extraction? We need to reflect on a few questions. Whose lives do we sacrifice for “strategy”? Which environmental sacrifice zones are we silent about because of the “bigger picture?” What extraction and militaristic build-up do we let happen to theoretically prevent planetary death that is already happening via our own government down the road? Are we avoiding building connections with popular movements because of donors who only fund dead ends? We have a choice to make: allow the doomsday clock threatening climate death and total catastrophe to keep ticking or reverse course and breathe life into something new.

Traorè’s historic meeting with China, Russia, and Venezuela is a glimpse of what’s on the horizon. As people of the world rise against imperialism and neocolonialism, it is up to us in the US climate movement to stand unequivocally in support of projects of self-determination.

Although our lifestyles will certainly look different once we no longer have uninhibited access to the gold, cobalt, uranium, and other resources that are routinely extracted from the African continent and its people, we must prioritize building a more just and healthy relationship with the planet and all its people. If leaders such as Traore succeed in revolutionizing agriculture and resource extraction at a sustainable pace that benefits workers, what might that signal for a new world order in which exploited Africans and their lands do not form the cheap material base for the world? What might we build in place of extractive economies to usher in a green future for all?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Aaron Kirshenbaum and Jasmine Butler.

Departing from a policy from trying to speak with a unique voice and not being derivative, I prefer to publish a view that is similar to my own but has been already published, is highly informative, and is eloquently expressed.

The secret sauce of Chinese industrial success
Smart state planning plus ferocious market competition
Hua Bin, May 23

The planning function is carried out by the China State Planning and Development Commission, which assembles the best minds in the government, academia, think tanks, and industries and goes through multi-year research, studies, and survey to understand and predict key technological trends and future market demand. Then they iterate and socialize the plans until there is broad buy-in.

Once top-line state planning priorities are set, central government empowers local governments to implement the policies. At the implementation level, fierce market competition becomes the norm.

Local governments compete with each other. Each local government is powerfully incentivized to create local tech and industrial champions as career advancements are typically tied in with achievements of national priorities.

Local governments unleash suites of policy support measures to attract and help businesses succeed, including

• Preferential tax
• Land use priority
• Preferential bank loans, even venture capital financing from government agencies (e.g. Shanghai and Shenzhen each has multi-billion dollar semiconductor funds)

Other policy support even extends to

• Establishing educational programs at universities to train and develop scientific and technical talents specifically for identified industries and technologies (e.g. AI, robotics, hypersonics, rare earth mining and refining, rail, ship building, etc.)
• Rolling out talent acquisition programs to provide housing, allowances, and compensation equalization schemes to attract talents to move to their cities. Some governments even provide WeWork type of office facilities to startups for free.
• investing in infrastructure upgrades including 5G coverage, EV charging stations, high speed rail, ports, bridges, etc. to enable smooth operation of large industrial enterprises.
• Investing in local parts and components supply chains that can be plugged into specific manufacturing sectors.
• Promoting successful technical leaders and executives in critical industries into senior government positions (e.g. the head of AVIC, the leading aeronautic business in China, was promoted to become a provincial governor)

The central government went so far as to crack down on monopolistic consumer tech companies such as Alibaba and Tencent in 2019 as these companies were consuming too much financial and talent resources and preventing startups from emerging. The main goal of the crackdown was to redirect resources (funding, talent) to more productive directions such as AI and hard tech.

As a result, in the key technological and industrial hubs across China, from Shanghai, Shenzhen, Wuhan, Chengdu to Hefei and Changsa, you will find hundreds of EV companies, solar energy companies, AI and robotics startups, ship builders, and drone companies that are developing innovative technologies, building production capacity, and engage in intense competition for consumers.

In the competition, there are private businesses, state owned enterprises, and foreign companies as well. All have to compete for customers on price and quality and operate with razor thin margin. Innovation and cost efficiency are prized in the never-ending loop of hyper competition.

The Chinese industrial and technological ecosystem is often described by insiders as “arena for gladiators”. In a survival of the fittest environment, the winners of such competitions emerge as world class champions.

The same model is replicated in industry after industry from EV, smart phones, solar energy, robotics, ship building, AI large language models, drones, chip making, and biopharmaceuticals.

Many people mistakenly assume the Chinese state planning model means the government picks the winners and losers. That cannot be further from the truth. State planners pick the priority industries, define the swim lane, provide policy incentives, and then market takes over to decide the winner.

In contrast, the US industrial policy is more guilty of government picking winners – just witness how both Biden and Trump surround themselves with senior executives of incumbent tech giants when they announce policies such as the Chips Act, Inflation Reduction Act, or the Stargate program. Almost by definition, the main beneficiaries of these industrial policies will be the companies in the room. Market competition doesn’t seem to play the same decisive rule as in China.

As China accelerates the third mixed-economy phase of its industrial development, we can expect to see more Chinese companies will innovate faster, scale in the largest single market in the world, and become world-class competitors in their industries. Profit margins will be kept low as competition will never rest. However, more consumer surplus will accrue to customers, leading to improvement of living standards for all.

Hua Bin details the advances in China’s economy and describes why those advances will continue and cannot stall ─ the government apparatus plans ahead, outlines alternative directions to roadblocks, and facilitates shifts in production, enabling government industry to step in when private initiative falters. No matter how the U.S. contends China, the PRC will find a way to deter the contention and, in the end, the U.S. will lose, and lose until, as a last resort….

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dan Lieberman.

The blaze at the Sichuan Jinyu Textile Company at the Wangchang Industrial Park in Pingshan county of Sichuan’s Yibin city raged for about 37 hours causing significant property damage and sparking intense discussions online about labor rights.

Social media posts indicated that Wen, 27, had a heated exchange with his employers over his back wages before setting fire to the factory on Tuesday.

The economic losses from the fire are estimated to be as high as tens of millions of yuan, according to preliminary estimates quoted by a number of netizens.

The Pingshan county police confirmed an incident of arson and said the arsonist had been detained at the scene of the fire. It said on Friday that the case is under further investigation, including an assessment of total losses incurred.

Police, however, said the claim that “800 yuan in wages were owed” was false, and that the company was in the process of approving payment of 5,370 yuan in wages. It blamed the factory fire on the arsonist’s suicidal thoughts, and said police would deal strictly with those spreading rumors.

The Jinyu Textile Company and Pingshan county office could not immediately be reached for comment.

After Tuesday’s incident, Chinese netizens took to social media to express their sympathy for the plight of workers like Wen, whose actions they believe, while extreme, were desperate. They said he was “forced to do so” out of sheer frustration over the lack of options to recover his money and have his voice heard.

“I read online that Wen’s family is poor and in a dire situation, and that his mother is ill and they are in urgent need of money,” Wang Shudong, an online user from Yibin city, told RFA on Friday.

“When those who were owed wages sought legal help, the judges disappeared, and the labor department staff also disappeared. But when Wen set fire to the factory, the police came and so did the officials from the legal system,” Wang noted.

Preventing ‘800 Brother’-like incidents

Calling him “800 Brother,” to denote the 800 yuan Wen was owed by the factory, netizens and experts said more needs to be done to prevent “800 yuan tragedies” from happening in future.

They also questioned what legal rights and avenues are available for ordinary workers with months of unpaid wages.

“Chinese society is heading towards an unpredictable future, and the relationship between people is becoming increasingly tense under the pressure of economic downturn,” Sichuan-based scholar Tang Gang told RFA.

Xue, a Guizhou labor relations researcher, said government departments, companies, and all sectors of the society should work together to address worker concerns over unpaid wages and benefits to prevent more “800 Brother” incidents.

“If companies can establish a sound wage payment mechanism to ensure that employees receive their wages on time and in full, the probability of such extreme incidents can be effectively reduced,” said Xue, who wanted to be identified by a single name for safety reasons.

RFA has reported a spate of protests in recent days by Chinese teachers, medical staff, construction workers, and factory employees demanding unpaid wages.

“In addition to legal redress, there is an urgent need for institutional repair, humane grassroots governance, and a social mechanism that truly listens to the voices of ordinary people,” Yue Tianli, a sociologist based in Lanzhou, told RFA.

Edited by Mat Pennington and Tenzin Pema.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.

Rep. John Moolenar, Republican chairman of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, wrote Wednesday to the CEOs of Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt, demanding to know whether they were using the term at Beijing’s request.

(RFA Cantonese)

“Using terminology such as ‘Taiwan, China,’ gives false credence to the PRC’s position of authority and sovereignty over Taiwan and implies that Taiwan is the property of the PRC,” they wrote in the letter, using the initials of the People’s Republic of China.

“Not only does this directly contradict U.S. policy, but it also undermines Taiwan’s democratic system. Other major U.S. companies with an international presence correctly identify Taiwan as an entity separate from that of China, and we urge your companies to follow suit,” they said.

The letter references the Taiwan Relations Act, which since Washington’s formal recognition of the PRC government in Beijing in 1979 has defined the substantial but non-diplomatic ties between the United States and Taiwan.

“This relationship is of the utmost importance to the economic and national security of the United States, and the government and the private sector alike must take steps to bolster and support Taiwan, one of our most important allies in the region,” the letter said.

Radio Free Asia found that a quick search for a hotel in Taiwan on the websites of all three chains turned up results for “Taiwan, China.”

RFA has sought comment from Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt but has yet to receive a response.

China regards Taiwan as part of its territory although the island is self-ruling and has a democratically elected government. The communist government in Beijing has threatened to take the island by force should it declare independence.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

[A] lot of people across the global majority are asking the extremely serious question: why the BRICS, and especially why Russia and China, are not doing more than what they’re doing on behalf of Palestine and to defend Palestine. This is an extremely serious question and it’s not being addressed by Russia and China. We have to be straightforward about that, right? The only ones who are actually doing something, once again, are the Houthis in Yemen. Heroes of the whole planet.

— Journalist and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar in a Youtube interview with Danny Haiphong, streamed live on 17 July 2024 (approximately 18:16 to 18:54)

The sentiments expressed by Escobar were expressed to me at an earlier date by author Randy Shields:

… if all Russia and China are going to do is talk they could start talking about a one state solution. They could put some urgency into the situation. They could let Abbas and the Gulf family dictatorships know that the status quo is unacceptable. They could start telling the truth to the world that the “two state solution” is impossible and was only ever a delaying tactic by Israel. They could even announce that Palestine is under consideration for BRICS membership…. They could cut off whatever trade they have and cut off diplomatic relations with Israel, recall ambassadors, etc…

Godfree Roberts, author of Why China Leads the World gave his take on China and Palestine in his 1 May 2025, “Xi the Merciful?: The fate of China’s worst enemy lies in Xi Jinping’s hands”:

Beijing is hunting much bigger game than tariffs: the liberation of Palestine. China, Palestine’s oldest and most loyal friend, has endured America’s genocidal mania for generations and now has the tools to end their shared misery….

This year, we will witness the most momentous events since WWII. Global leadership will return to Asia, America will enters [sic] its post-imperial twilight, and Palestine will become free and independent, and the Zionists return to Ukraine whence they came.

Shields is skeptical:

There’s no evidence to back up what [Roberts] says. Russia and China continue to maintain trade and diplomatic ties with a genocidal apartheid state committing 24/7 live-streamed genocide.

China plays a long game. There is plenty of evidence of Chinese advancements in science, technology, supply chains, manufacturing, arts, etc. The question is whether China (and Russia) will come through with morally based support befitting a leading world economy?

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has made great strides for its people, having achieved a xiaokang (moderately prosperous) society in 2021. Moving forward, China aims for gongtong fuyu (common prosperity) — a society based on social equality and economic equity.

On the road to gongtong fuyu, the CPC’s next five-year plan targets “the goal of basically realizing socialist modernization, with a view to building a great country and advancing national rejuvenation” in the period 2026 to 2030. China’s rise is also meant to benefit the world as it seeks peaceful win-win relationships. Chairman Xi Jinping said, “Long ago China made a solemn declaration to the world that it is committed to pursuing peaceful development.”¹

This commitment to pursuing peaceful development has recently been thrown into question by China’s business arrangements connected to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which can hardly be construed as peaceful development from the Palestinian side (or any morally based side).

China’s Support for Palestine

China’s support for the human and territorial rights of Palestinians dates back to the time of chairman Mao Zedong. Mao’s China supported anti-imperialist and national liberation movements worldwide; this included support for the Palestinian cause. In May 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was ensconced in a Beijing office and accorded diplomatic privileges and immunity. During a meeting with a visiting PLO delegation in 1965, Mao said: “Imperialism is afraid of China and of the Arabs. Israel and Formosa are bases of imperialism in Asia. You are the front gate of the great continent, and we are the rear.”²

Post-Mao, on 20 November 1988, China officially recognized the State of Palestine and established official diplomatic relations between the two countries. On 31 December of the same year, the PLO’s office in Beijing was upgraded to the Embassy of the State of Palestine in China, and its head was appointed as the ambassador of the State of Palestine to China.

However, China has a uneven history of supporting the Palestinian cause and opposing Zionism.³

More recently, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 22 February 2024, Ma Xinmin, director-general of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Chinese Foreign Ministry “unequivocally stated”:

“The Palestinian-Israeli conflict stems from Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and Israel’s longstanding oppression of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people fight against Israeli oppression and their struggle for completing the establishment of an independent state on the occupied territory are essentially just actions for restoring their legitimate rights.”⁴

Moreover,

Citing numerous articles of international laws, Ma claims that “the struggle waged by peoples for their liberation, right to self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression, domination against foreign forces should not be considered terror acts” and that “armed struggle in this context is distinguished from acts of terrorism. It is grounded in international law. This distinction is acknowledged by several international conventions.” He further declares, “in pursuit of the right to self-determination, Palestinian people’s use of force to resist foreign oppression and complete the establishment of an independent state is an inalienable right, well-founded in international law.”⁵

Regarding the deliberations by the ICJ on the charge of genocide being carried out by the state of Israel, China supports the ICJ’s role in upholding justice and international law, and calls for an immediate ceasefire in Palestine, humanitarian assistance, and a two-state solution to achieve lasting peace in the region.

On 14 April 2025, Times of India reported that Russia and China criticized Israel for turning humanitarian assistance to Gaza into “a tool of war.” Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya alleged that Israel was attempting to make the UN an accomplice to its warring in Gaza. This sentiment was echoed by China’s envoy Fu Cong.

As Shields, and many others, would point out this is just more words.

What is China doing in Israeli Occupied Palestine?

But the situation vis-à-vis Palestine appears decidedly more sinister.

Razan Shawamreh is a Palestinian researcher interested in Chinese foreign policy in the Middle East. She has thrown a wrench into Chinese good intentions supporting Palestinian resistance and self-determination in its territories. Shawamreh wrote an article, “How China is quietly aiding Israel’s settlement enterprise,” for the Middle East Eye in which she charges, “Away from Beijing’s lofty rhetoric about defending Palestinians, Chinese firms are helping to sustain illegal settlements.” Despite China having supported the UN General Assembly resolution 3379 that defined Zionism as a “form of racism and racial discrimination” in 1975, Shawamreh provides numerous examples of Chinese support for Zionism.

• Adama Agricultural Solutions, a former Israeli company now fully owned by the Chinese state-run firm China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) is directly “linked to the militarised destruction of Palestinian livelihoods.”
• This is not an exception. Shawamreh writes, “In recent years, several state-owned Chinese companies, along with other private Chinese firms, have invested directly or indirectly in Israeli settlements or companies operating within them. Take the case of Tnuva, a major Israeli food producer that operates in illegal settlements. Despite international calls to boycott the company, China’s state-owned conglomerate Bright Food acquired a 56 percent stake in Tnuva in 2014. In 2021, Tnuva won a tender to operate 22 public transportation lines that serve 16 settlements in Mateh Yehuda – all built on occupied land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. These aren’t just buses; they’re infrastructure supporting colonial entrenchment, making settler life easier and more permanent.”

An earlier article by Shawamreh concluded, “China’s alleged impartiality serves to undermine Palestinian rights.”⁶

I have seen no official Chinese response to the reports of abetting the Israeli Jews’ dispossession of Palestinians. What did appear on 17 May 2025 was a Youtube video by global impulse, titled “The SHOCKING Truth Behind China’s Gaza Aid | 60,000 Families Saved,” which claimed, “But one thing is clear, China is no longer content to be a passive observer in Middle Eastern Affairs.” Two months earlier, The Indian Express showed a video that China had sent its first batch of 60,000 packages of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza via Jordan.

Can the guilt of colluding in the genocide and dispossession of indigenous Palestinians bring comfort to the Chinese soul through providing aid parcels?

Xi Jinping on Israel and Palestine

In a speech on 5 June 2014 chairman Xi Jinping spoke of “hundreds of years [of] peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning, and mutual benefit” between the Chinese and Arab peoples. “We will not forget the promise to support the cause of the Palestinian people that China made to the Arab states … at the Bandung Conference 60 years ago.”⁷ [Emphasis added]

Mao laid the foundation for the PRC in dealing with Palestinians. As part of a symposium to commemorate the 120th anniversary of Mao’s birth, Xi channelled Mao in a speech titled “Carry on the Enduring Spirit of Mao Zedong Thought”:

We stand for peaceful resolutions to international disputes, oppose all forms of hegemony and power politics, and never seek hegemonism nor engage in expansion.⁸

The Conscience of China

China is important. Its dedication to peaceful development and diplomacy is laudatory and in stark contrast to the bombastic hectoring and warring of the US-NATO block. China cares for the well-being of all its citizens; it seeks win-win relationships with other countries — not the win-lose entanglements of the capitalist West. As such China gives substance and believability to reifying that elusive, illusory, transient, teasing, wishful abstraction called hope — hope that all too often leads to bitter disappointment.

I have been disappointed before upon hearing of Chinese involvement in an unsavoury circumstance. A few years back, I came across an article that was scathing of a big Chinese tuna-fishing company, Dalian Ocean Fishing, for alleged maltreatment of foreign workers, workers who fell sick, died, suffered abuses, substandard food, excessive working hours, and withholding of pay.

I inquired about the situation and discovered it was a rogue private company that was selling its catch to a Japanese company, Mitsubishi. Nonetheless, that does not let China off the hook. Perfection is not expected, but how Chinese-licensed private companies do business at home and abroad does reflect back on the home country.

While beyond the scope of the present article, deeper consideration of the role of the Chinese State vs. Private Capital in China’s external relationships demands elucidation. What exactly does win-win mean?
While state-owned firms are clearly extensions of Chinese policy, how China manages — or fails to manage — the conduct of private or semi-state firms abroad, especially in contested or ethically sensitive zones speaks to the conscience of a nation.

Especially concerning, is the case of Chinese state-owned companies doing business for an occupier in occupied territory. This is morally magnified when the occupier, Israel, is under scrutiny by the World Court for committing genocide. Genocide is an act that morally upstanding countries will emphatically denounce as reprehensible; in addition, morally upstanding countries will take measures to publicly distance their state from such an evil-doer until such time as it sincerely atones for its crime against humanity. Highly moral countries — for example, Yemen — will make sacrifices to bring an end to such horrific crimes.

Professor and author T.P. Wilkinson, a keen China observer, remarked, “Non-interference is China’s top principle — business comes first. If there is any morality it only applies in China.”

China does not interfere in the culture and politics of other nations. That is understood. Nonetheless, morally centered people do not wish to see their country or any other country engage in violence against other nations in the world. And morally centered people do not wish to see their country abetting violence, not borne of self-defense, by another country. For allying with unrepentant rogue actors such as the United States and Israel, vassal states in Canada, Oceania, and Europe deserve to be regarded scornfully.

As an emerging superpower, China has increasingly garnered respect for pledging and delivering peaceful, win-win relations with other countries. That needs to be across the board. China is now faced with serious allegations, and it needs to come clean on what its companies are doing in occupied Palestine. One cannot expect that a country’s political leader is up-to-date and aware of all the ongoing functions of a country, domestically and externally, especially in a rapidly rising colossus of 1.4 billion people. However, when sordid facts come to the fore, a leader must lead. It is morally incumbent that chairman Xi deal forthrightly and promptly with any Chinese involvement in ignoble business affairs or crimes against humanity.

What Would Meaningful Action Look Like?

If Chinese firms are confirmed to be operating illegally in the occupied territories of Palestine, then I submit that an official Chinese public apology is demanded, also an immediate cessation of Chinese operations in what was once known as Mandate Palestine, and a turning over of Chinese assets in Mandate Palestine to Palestinian authorities. But it is for the Palestinians to determine what would be the proper rectification by China.

Why, one may ask, is such atonement not demanded of Canadians, American, and European interests in Mandate Palestine? It is and should be, but western governments have been unabashed in supporting colonialism, imperialism, and racism abroad. This speaks to the nature and conscience of Western governments that were so quick to fallaciously accuse China of genocide in Xinjiang, and yet they are loathe to acknowledge the factually undeniable genocide in Palestine. China, on the other hand, is viewed by much of the world’s people as a cut above the western governments.

Geopolitical Realism vs. Moral Idealism

While the present article acknowledges the current realpolitik constraints that China faces in balancing ties with Israel, the US, Arab countries, and the rest of the world, it posits the primacy of moral responsibility. Morality is what separates capitalism’s dog-eat-dog law-of-the-jungle from socialism, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is what is practiced by China.

As such an unflinching moral audit of China’s actions in occupied Palestine is called for. Therefore, to maintain its high regard, China must earn and hold onto the people’s trust through morally centered economic activities at home and abroad, as is implied by win-win relationships. In a truly multipolar world not only must power be redistributed more equitably but shared moral standards must also be elevated.

It is decidedly not a win-win relationship when Palestinians are subjected to starvation, humiliation, murder, bombardment, theft of territory, and the indignity of the World Court taking what must seem like an eternity to put a halt to a crime that demands immediate action: genocide. That China companies would profit from a genocide would cast a pall over China that would be hard to shake.

If China aspires to genuine global leadership, then it must lead not just in development and diplomacy — but in conscience.

ENDNOTES:

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

From China’s northern province of Hebei to the southern autonomous region of Guanxi, bordering Vietnam, and its neighboring coastal province of Guangdong to the east – Chinese workers are facing the full impact of cash-strapped institutions grasping for ways to survive the economic downturn.

In an example of measures by local governments to raise funds, the village committee of Pingtang in Gushan Town, in the eastern province of Zhejiang, issued a notice stating that “sanitation management fees” and “parking fees” would be collected from all residents from May 10.

Those failing to pay on time would be subjected to additional fees and vehicles being clamped, starting from June 1. Speaking to Radio Free Asia, some locals and rights activists called the move a “blatant extortion” and “illegal.” The local government said it was investigating the matter.

Last November, China’s Ministry of Finance announced 10 trillion yuan (US$1.38 trillion) of new measures to help cash-strapped local governments struggling with mounting debt levels spurred by a property market slump that has crushed land transaction sales, one of their main sources of fiscal revenue.

“High local debt and tightening central policies have seriously affected grassroots fiscal operations. The most direct victims are front-line workers and contract workers,” Zhang, a retired teacher from Guizhou University in Guizhou province’s Guiyang city, told RFA. He wanted to be identified by a single name for security reasons.

【中国多地爆发集体讨薪事件】#欠薪 #讨薪 pic.twitter.com/yF9Mpbxh7q

— 自由亚洲电台 (@RFA_Chinese) May 21, 2025

On May 19, workers of the No. 10 section of the Yangxin expressway civil engineering project under China Railway Seventh Group Co. Ltd. gathered in front of the Branch of the Management Department and demanded they be paid their back wages, according to a video posted by a prominent citizen journalist who manages the X account @whyyoutouzhele, also known as “Mr Li is not your teacher.”

“We live in a boarding house and wait every day. They have said several times that they will pay our wages, but they didn’t even give a date,” said one worker in the video posted on X.

In Nanning city in Guangxi, 32 construction workers have been camped outside Guangxi Power Transmission and Transformation Construction Co., Ltd. since May 16, demanding their wages.

A video posted by X user ‘@YesterdayBigCat,’ a prominent source of information about protests in China, showed the protestors making a fire and cooking meals in large woks at the entrance of the company, suggesting they were in it for the long haul.

“Our work is hard and tiring … but our money has been delayed. Some workers have sick family members and are urgently waiting for money to save their lives,” one worker, who was among the protesters at a project site of China Communications Construction Group in Hebei province’s capital Shijiazhuang, told RFA.

On May 18, the protesters held up banners to demand the long-term wage arrears due to them. The same worker told RFA that the company had repeatedly promised to pay them their wages but has failed to do so.

Workers at the Qianlima Embroidery Factory in Haimen city in the coastal province of Jiangsu resorted to protesting outside their boss’s home for two consecutive days this week, but still haven’t been paid, according to a video posted by @YesterdayBigCat.

Stability unraveling?

While worker protests and labor disputes are not uncommon in China, social media posts point to an uptick in protests among sectors such as education, healthcare and sanitation.

This adds to broader dissatisfaction with the economic situation. Retail sales growth and industrial production slowed in April. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods took effect in March and increased to 145% in April, weighing on shipments and export activity. Respite came in May, after the two governments agreed to a sharp tariff reduction for 90 days to allow time for talks.

Fu Linghui, a spokesperson for the National Bureau of Statistics said this week that the reduction in tariffs between China and the U.S. will be beneficial for bilateral trade and the global economy. He said despite external uncertainties, the “fundamental aspects of China’s improving economy remain unchanged.”

But the foundation for a sustained economic recovery needs to be “further consolidated” in China with the implementation of various macro policies, Fu said.

【中国多地爆发讨薪潮】
【村庄强收“卫生费”引发民怨】… pic.twitter.com/tqWR5B20hv

— 自由亚洲电台 (@RFA_Chinese) May 21, 2025

“They (the protesters) are the most vulnerable group,” said Zhang, the retired teacher. “Once they speak out, they will be suppressed as ‘troublemakers’, but in fact they just want to survive.”

“In the past, it was migrant workers and laborers who demanded wages, but now it is teachers, doctors, and sanitation workers. This shows that China’s ‘stable structure’ is beginning to unravel,” he said.

Several teachers who were employed on a contractual basis in Zaozhuang prefecture-level city in the southern Chinese province of Shandong said their salaries were six months in arrears.

“Our monthly salary is only around 3,000 yuan (or $416), and we have been living on borrowed money for the past six months,” one primary school teacher said.

Another teacher in Shanxi province in northern China said her school was demanding the return of year-end bonuses previously paid out to staff since 2021, along with a part of the pay they received for after-school activities.

These moves have caused widespread dissatisfaction, the teacher said in a post on social networking platform Xiaohongshu, known as RedNote.

Healthcare and sanitation workers face similar issues.

A nurse at a public hospital in northwestern Gansu province said her monthly salary is only 1,300 yuan (or US$180) and that her performance bonus had not been paid for four months.

Edited by Tenzin Pema and Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association said that at least eight independent media outlets and about 20 journalists and their family members have been subjected to tax audits by the Inland Revenue Department for tax claims dating back seven years.

The association expressed concern that this could further reduce the operating space for small-scale and independent news outlets in a city once known for its freewheeling media. It called for the revenue department to stop audits without clear justification and to publicly explain the rationale for what it sees as a potentially coordinated crackdown on independent journalism.

“For small outlets like ours, this is a serious reputational attack. Being accused of tax evasion is defamation. The authorities’ frequent scrutiny of journalists and media organizations creates anxiety and casts a shadow over press freedom in Hong Kong,” Selina Cheng, the association’s chair, told a news conference.

The affected organizations include the association itself, Independent Media, The Witness, Hong Kong Free Press, DB Channel and ReNews. The targeted individuals are primarily current or former directors of news outlets, shareholders, journalists and their relatives.

(AP)

Cheng said audits are riddled with errors and irregularities. Examples include demands to pay profit tax for years before a company was established; assigning business registration numbers to individuals without any registered business; and incorrectly treating all bank deposits as taxable income. In some cases, people were audited as spouses although they were not married at the time, or as dependents despite not claiming any allowances.

Cheng said the revenue department was imposing “preemptive penalties without due process.” She said many journalists have limited incomes and resources to defend themselves.

In response, the Inland Revenue Department told The Associated Press in an email that it has established procedures to review the information provided by taxpayers and that it will follow up on cases in which information shows a possible breach of rules.

“The industry or background of a taxpayer has no bearing on such reviews,” it said, declining to comment on any particular case.

Hong Kong has seen a shrinking in the space for independent media, particularly in the wake of mass protests for democratic freedoms in 2019 as Beijing tightened its grip on the territory. Hong Kong had been permitted more liberties than mainland China, including media freedoms, after the U.K. ceded control of the city in 1997.

Several major independent outlets in Hong Kong have been shuttered and had staff arrested since Beijing-backed security legislation was passed in 2020 and then beefed up in 2024. Radio Free Asia closed its bureau in Hong Kong in March 2024.

In the global press freedom ranking issued annually by Reporters Without Borders, Hong Kong stood at 18th out of 180 countries and territories in 2002, but fell to 148th in 2022. The city’s ranking now stands at 140, between Sri Lanka and Kazakhstan.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

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

How global power struggles are impacting in local communities, culture and sovereignty in Kanaky, New Caledonia, the Solomon Islands and Samoa.

In episode one, The Battlefield, broadcast today, tensions between the United States and China over the Pacific escalate, affecting the lives of Pacific Islanders.

Key figures like former Malaita Premier Daniel Suidani and tour guide Maria Loweyo reveal how global power struggles impact on local communities, culture and sovereignty in the Solomon Islands and Samoa.

• WATCH: The first episode of this new series

The episode intertwines these personal stories with the broader geopolitical dynamics, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of the Pacific’s role in global diplomacy.

Fight for the Pacific, a four-part series by Tuki Laumea and Cleo Fraser, showcases the Pacific’s critical transformation into a battleground of global power.

This series captures the high-stakes rivalry between the US and China as they vie for dominance in a region pivotal to global stability.

The series frames the Pacific not just as a battleground for superpowers but also as a region with its own unique challenges and aspirations.

Republished from Al Jazeera.

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

South Africa severed formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1997 and recognized Beijing as the government of China. But in the nearly three decades since, it has retained unofficial ties with Taipei and a trading relationship.

However, it’s recently moved to diminish Taiwan’s unofficial status in the country. South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation now categorizes the Taiwan Liaison Office – which functions as a de facto embassy but without official diplomatic status – as a “Taipei Commercial Office” on its official website, and has removed the name of the Taiwanese Representative Oliver Liao under the listing.

On Friday, Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung accused China of putting pressure on South Africa to make the changes. He said the liaison office had requested negotiations with the South African government about it.

Analysts told Radio Free Asia that the changes highlight China’s continued efforts to use its influence in Africa and the Global South – a diverse set of countries across Africa, Latin America, Asia and Middle East – to prevent Taiwan from gaining international recognition and to hurt its ability to pursue its diplomatic interests abroad.

“Taiwan’s representative offices are its way to make its voice heard diplomatically, in the face of declining official recognition. But China’s deep pockets and military aggression have left quite a mark on smaller, developing nations,” Anushka Saxena, China analyst at Bengaluru, India-based think tank Takshashila Institution, said.

China claims Taiwan as part of its territory and maintains that the self-ruling island has no right to independent diplomatic relations.

As it is, Taiwan retains formal ties with only a dozen countries, mostly smaller and less developed nations. In that context, even nominal changes in recognition by foreign governments send a strong signal to Taipei.

(Alet Pretorius/Reuters)

Last October, the South African government announced that Taiwan’s liaison office would be “rebranded” as a trade office and said the same change would be effected for the South African liaison office in Taipei.

Under its foreign representation listing section on the website, the South African government now shows the address of the Taiwan liaison office as being in the nation’s economic hub Johannesburg, not the administrative capital Pretoria, although Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin told reporters Friday that it continues to operate normally in Pretoria.

South Africa last October described the relocation of the office from the capital as “a true reflection of the non-political and non-diplomatic nature of the relationship between the Republic of South Africa and Taiwan.”

The email address for the office is also changed in the South African government listing from the official domain name of @mofa.gov.tw to one under a South African telco provider, @telkomsa.net.

Analysts viewed the steps taken by South Africa as predictable despite Taiwan’s attempts to engage in dialogue to address the issue.

“This has been part of China’s ongoing mission to shrink Taiwan’s international space, so it’s not surprising that talks have fallen through despite Taiwan’s persistence,” Sana Hashmi, Fellow at Taipei-based Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation, told RFA.

South Africa is a significant diplomatic player and the largest economy in Africa - a continent where China has built economic and security ties over the past two decades or more. South Africa is also set to host this year’s summit of Group of 20, or G-20, nations.

Ties between China and South Africa have strengthened significantly since the two established formal relations in 1998. China is now South Africa’s largest trading partner. In 2024, their bilateral trade was $52.4 billion, compared with Taiwan-South Africa trade which averages around $2 billion annually.

As a member of the BRICS, an intergovernmental organization consisting of 10 countries, South Africa also collaborates with China on economic, political, and developmental initiatives, aligning with Beijing on global governance reforms.

Song Guocheng, a researcher at the Center for International Relations Research at National Chengchi University, said China uses both inducement and pressure tactics to strong-arm South Africa into taking a slew of measures against Taiwan that may eventually culminate in more drastic ones, including closure of office or expulsion.

“It is possible that under the pressure of the CCP, it will take a more overbearing approach to Taiwan,” Song told RFA, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.

While Taiwan is seeking negotiations with South Africa, analysts say it has little leverage. Taiwan’s government should focus instead on expanding its economic interdependence with its partners in South and Southeast Asian economies and on building ties with countries that can contribute to deterrence and its defense, they said.

On Tuesday, President Lai Ching-te, who has been dubbed a “separatist” by Beijing, marked the completion of his first year in office, which has been marked by growing military pressure against the island.

He said Taiwan wants peace and is ready to engage in talks with China, as long as there is “reciprocal dignity,” with dialogue replacing confrontation.

Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Chen Meihua and Tenzin Pema for RFA.

In Danish here for Danish readers.

The development – or decline – of the Danish daily newspaper Politiken as a quality newspaper in the field of foreign policy pains me. Allow me a personal, somewhat nostalgic introduction. I wrote frequently for Politiken from 1971 to 1994. As a 20-year-old sociology student, I was naturally proud to be published in what was then a prestigious, liberal media outlet, which was initially shaped by Hørup’s anti-militarism and cultural radicalism.

In Denmark, there was a – albeit quite traditional but serious and multifaceted – discussion about the state of the world. There was actually quite a lot of room for different opinions, and it was natural that many opinions were expressed and met in the Danish media – creating the social debate that is essential for security, peace and democracy. There were debates on security policy around the country – in folk high schools, assembly halls, upper secondary schools and trade unions.

How I miss that Denmark, which is dead and gone today.

Back then, no one would dream of excluding/cancelling discussions about peace – nor did anyone suggest that Denmark should contribute to the militarisation of the world or participate in wars abroad – no, Denmark should first and foremost be able to defend itself against an attack or if, God forbid, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty should come into force. Denmark was called a ‘footnote nation;’ the principles were upheld that NATO membership was compatible with the country never accepting nuclear weapons, foreign bases, pre-positioning of equipment, weapons and ammunition on its soil, and that Denmark should not participate in NATO’s nuclear planning group.

Those were the days. There were politicians who could both read books and write books – readable ones at that.

And back then, long ago, Politiken was, in my view, the leading newspaper (along with Information, which, however, had less general influence) for common sense, diversity, broad social debate and room for both pro- and anti-military perspectives.

And peace – and futurology, including global perspectives, Club of Rome reports, which I reviewed, etc.

OK, things change over 50 years, of course. But Politiken’s current position on foreign and security policy is not a law of nature. Over time, the owners and editorial managers of the daily newspaper could have chosen to preserve at least some of the soul of what Politiken used to be.

But where does Politiken – which still confidently calls itself ‘the organ of the highest enlightenment since 1884’ – stand today?

For me, with the above background to compare (there are advantages to getting older…), it stands as one of the highest organs of propaganda about other countries and their – Western-determined – role as threats to the fine, pure, innocent Western world. Whether intentional or not, Politiken legitimises and promotes militarism infinitely more strongly than anti-militarism and peace.

Today, it can rightly be called PolitPravda.

My younger readers should know that Pravda was the organ of the Soviet Communist Party; Pravda means ‘the truth’ – and that wasn’t exactly what Pravda contained.

In the areas of foreign and security policy, today’s Politiken runs on what I call FOSI – Fake+Omission+Source Ignorance. The newspaper’s management clearly sees its role as blindly loyal support for the militarism of the American empire – NATO, interventions, bombings, regime change, hatred of Russia – although not necessarily for Trump’s policies or the grabbing of Greenland.

FOSI has been and continues to be practised in the coverage of Syria, Israel, Russia, Ukraine… Palestine. And China, which I discuss further down.

*****

I have just listened to the fifth episode of Politiken’s populist podcast series: Putin – The World’s Most Dangerous Man? The episode is alternately titled The Grand Plan and How He Is Creating a Generation of Ardent Nationalists. Listen here.

It is incomprehensibly trivialising, intellectually lazy and unprofessional, with a few facts and guesswork about, for example, Putin’s daily routines, spiced with the journalist’s personal opinions and ‘assessments,’ interrupted now and then by exclusively US-Western media Russophobic expert quotes, which are concocted into breakneck interpretations of the banal central thesis that Putin is power-mad with his Grand Plan for the re-establishment of the old Soviet empire.

No, dear reader, this is not political satire on Politiken’s humour page, ATS, or elsewhere. These are grown adults conveying this message without any form of analysis or arguments for or against the thesis, based solely on Western mainstream sources. It is blatant Russophobia, entirely in line with the relentless opinion-shaping efforts of the government, the military’ intelligence’ agency, FET, and other media outlets. It is opinion journalism of the worst kind and of no use whatsoever to anyone seeking qualified knowledge.

There are no theories or concepts, and therefore no rigour. It is tabloid drivel at the lowest level of information and limited in its understanding, in that Russia and Putin are not seen as part of the international system or as a partner in a very complex conflict with the cultural West, which all Soviet/Russian leaders since Gorbaechev, also Putin, has stated clearly that they feel their country belongs to. In this presentation, Russia is an isolated entity – only action and never reaction. It is about a Russia that is only itself and in no way navigates the challenges posed by, for example, NATO. At Politiken, Russia is a pariah that can be talked about – and disparaged – however one pleases.

This is the result of 110% groupthink, and there is only one possible attitude towards ourselves and towards Russia (and China). From my own experience, I know that it is impossible to get a response from today’s journalists if you point out that their portrayals are, for example, factually incorrect, biased and lacking in basic knowledge and fairness. Or if the top management has chosen a very specific systematic approach to reporting.

How many times have you seen that this or that country is engaging in dis/misinformation – and that we must protect ourselves against this sedition? We are to understand that it is only the others who do this; we in the West do not engage in such mis/dis behaviour. It is only Russia that threatens us – we cannot in any way be perceived as threatening in the eyes of Russia or China. We have good intentions, but they do not.

Coincidentally, this awful story about the CIA’s activities in China came out at the same time as Politiken’s series. You will not find that story in Politiken.

Thus, nothing is too low, simple or stupidly propagandistic. It would be demeaning to children to describe it as ‘sandbox level.’

This fifth podcast about the world’s most dangerous man is completely uninteresting if you want to know anything about Russia, Putin and international politics – including the invasion/war in Ukraine, which, in NATO agitprop style, is of course and quite foolishly called ‘full-scale,’ which is about the only thing (along with ‘unprovoked’) it cannot be described as. It is simply factual nonsense and should not have made it through quality control. When it does, it is because it is NATO speak, and therefore, there is no professional or ethical problem.

I wonder how far they can go – and how long it will take – before loyal readers of the highest organ of propaganda realise that they are being deceived? When will the Pravda Moment hit Politiken’s readers?

And if it is not deliberate deception, then it is simple ignorance and professional incompetence. A third – entirely hypothetical, of course – possibility is that senior editors at Politiken a little too often have lunch with people from the American embassy and say ‘No, thank you’ if they receive invitations from embassies that do not represent NATO and the EU.

*****

In keeping with the West’s incredible, rapid intellectual decline and impending fall, coupled with its support for armament and militarism, Politiken has also descended into pure propaganda when it comes to China. In an ‘analysis’ a few days ago, it claimed that China is hunting down critics all over the world. Read it here.

In another, the theme is that China has infiltrated the UN and distorts and lies about everything related to human rights. Read it here. These are pure smear articles by journalist John Hansen and the newspaper’s Asia correspondent Sebastian Stryhn Kjeldtoft – who is based in Taipei, Taiwan, and not in mainland China.

China has infiltrated the UN with an army of fake NGOs. Meet the gongos

This is yet another example of how the media sees it as its primary task to write only negatively about China. You hardly ever see anything positive about China and its impressive development over the past 40 years. The classic themes are Tibet, Hong Kong, the ‘genocide’ and ‘concentration camps’ in Xinjiang, Xi Jinping is a dictator – and the system is a dictatorship because it is not a democracy in the Western sense – Chinese researchers, students and agents have stolen everything in the West, China’s military build-up is a threat to the Western world – and then, of course, Taiwan, which, according to Western media, is an independent state (or should be), but is constantly threatened by an invasion launched by Beijing.

On the other hand, you never hear about what the US and the rest of the West are doing vis-à-vis China – and it is not small stuff and is not done on small budgets. TFF and my staff have mapped out this entire media-based Cold War initiated by the West. Read the full report with extensive, concrete documentation here.

Both articles are based on material from an organisation that Politiken neither describes nor provides its readers with a link to, namely ‘the journalistic network ICIJ’ – as if readers already knew what ICIJ stands for, much like NATO or the EU. ICIJ’s website can be found here.

I visited this website on 6 May 2025 and found that of the 13 top articles, 11 are about China – and only about how terrible China is. Several focus on the well-worn story of how China persecutes all Uyghurs. In Politiken, the issue of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is presented by quoting Zumretay Arkin, vice-president of the World Uyghur Congress, ‘who is fighting for democracy and independence for the Uyghurs, an ethnic minority in the Xinjiang region of western China.’ (My italics).

However, the whole thing is a little more complicated. A very small minority of Uyghurs want an independent East Turkestan and have been trying to achieve this goal for a couple of decades by carrying out around 1,200 terrorist attacks in and outside Xinjiang. The United States and US-backed terrorist movements support them, and the East Turkestan government-in-exile has been based in Washington for 20 years!

Many have been arrested and sentenced to prison or re-education camps in China – and it is certainly no fun to be there. But it is also no fun for China that the United States supports violent separatist movements in its largest province – and that some of these Uighur terrorists have been trained by al-Nusra and have been fighting in Syria for years with the aim of returning to Xinjiang and ‘liberating’ it – a province considerably larger than France and with extensive natural resources, through which China’s new Silk Road project, BRI, involving 140 countries runs.

But in Western media and political propaganda, the terrorist element of this is never mentioned; it is simply that China persecutes Muslims in general and Uighurs in particular. Because remember: this was said by Trump’s then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – a habitual liar and former CIA chief who has himself said that he is proud to have trained CIA agents to ‘lie, cheat and steal.’ On his last day at work, he left a ‘statement’ saying that what was happening in Xinjiang was genocide. Full stop. To date, the State Department has never backed this up with any form of documentation. But TFF has documented how this outright lie has come about, how it is part of the US media’s Cold War against China, and here you can read a report from Xinjiang, which I co-authored.

People who have no idea what social analysis or journalism is – but have a political agenda – have since promoted the lie, the fake and omission. Whether they know what they are doing or are simply ignorant, I will leave unsaid – but neither is particularly honourable. And the very same media and politicians are simultaneously concealing the actual Israeli/Zionist genocide and ensuring that it is not stopped. The US and its media allies are – once again – at the centre of moral decay.

Back to the ICIJ website. The ICIJ’s ‘Our team’ consists of 42 journalists; no less than 25 of them are listed as ‘United States,’ and it is indeed in Washington that the organisation has its headquarters. The chairwoman of the board, Rhona Murphy, has worked with a number of leading conservative American media outlets.

And who finances the ICIJ – which Politiken’s source-uncritical China smear campaign chooses not to reveal to its readers in the two articles? Well, as I thought – yes, I have a nasty mind: A long list of government organisations, foundations and funds in NATO countries, in the West in general – none outside. See the list here.

Three stand out: the EU, the US State Department and the usual suspect, NED – The National Endowment for Democracy, which is indisputably well known as a front organisation for the CIA. There is hardly a US regime change where NED has not pumped money into NGOs to carry out colour revolutions, etc. The organisation was created by Ronald Reagan, and a former NED director has stated that most people would not want to accept money directly from the CIA and that NED appears less controversial as an NGO.

As I write this article, Politiken publishes another smear article on 6 May and an editorial by Marcus Rubin – a law graduate, former US correspondent for Politiken and now feature editor and member of the editorial board – with the cultured, journalistically objective headline: “China’s oppression is both lawless and boundless. It makes for frightening reading about an extremely powerful dictatorial regime.”

A taste:

It makes for frightening reading about an extremely powerful dictatorial regime whose power is spreading both in Asia and throughout the rest of the world, and which will stop at nothing. The goal of the campaign of repression is to stifle any criticism of the regime in Beijing by persecuting, subjugating and destroying its critics – wherever they may be. The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) acknowledges the problems and assesses that China is also ‘attempting to exercise control over Chinese people in Denmark to a large extent.

Not a single fact, not a single example, not a single piece of evidence. No documentation. It is as if Rubin asked an AI machine to ‘Write some shit about China.’

The third article in the “highest level of information” about China appeared on 28 April with this sober headline: “Eric compares his former workplace to the Gestapo.” And the introduction reads:

Chinese people who criticise the Communist Party are hunted down all over the world. Now one of the regime’s former manhunters, the spy “Eric”, tells his story in Politiken. For 15 years, he helped spy on and plan the kidnappings of dissidents, even though he secretly hated the Communists. Now Eric himself has become a victim.

Like the other articles, the story is accompanied by a tasteful illustration of this type and begins:

We meet “Eric” at dusk in an anonymous car in a secret location in Australia. He fumbles with the video camera, nervous that some detail in the background might reveal his location. He knows better than most what China’s hackers are capable of. Eric is convinced that his life is in danger. That is why Politiken does not publish his real name…