Latest Updates from China Digital Times
• Minitrue: Delete Article on Economic Impact of WHO Declaring Coronavirus an “Emergency”
• Public Anger Swells Over Official Opacity on Coronavirus
• Paid Protesters at Extradition Hearings Highlight Canada’s Predicament
Photo: Shanghai From a Window in the Hostel, by Marek
Shanghai From a Window in the Hostel, by Marek (CC BY-ND 2.0)
© Josh Rudolph for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags:
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
Minitrue: Delete Article on Economic Impact of WHO Declaring Coronavirus an “Emergency”
The following censorship instructions, issued to the media by government authorities, have been leaked and distributed online. The name of the issuing body has been omitted to protect the source.
All websites delete the Sanlian Life Week article “How will China’s Economy be Impacted if the WHO Gets Involved With the Coronavirus Epidemic?” Do not continue republishing commentary. (January 29, 2020) [Chinese]
The article, published by state-owned weekly news magazine Sanlian Life Week (三联生活周刊), examined the potential economic impact that could follow the World Health Organization’s declaration of the Wuhan coronavirus (reported as “pneumonia epidemic” 肺炎疫情 throughout the article) to be a “global health emergency.” After looking at economic data from 2003, when the WHO declared SARS a global emergency, the article notes that the current economic situation could mean a harder hit this time. The report says the WHO has only applied that label to five other health situations over the past decade, and is very cautious before doing so. If the WHO declares an emergency, it will likely come with more China-focused travel warnings and import/export prohibitions from other nations. CDT Chinese has archived the article, and CDT will publish a full translation later this week.
The WHO refrained from declaring the coronavirus a global emergency last week, noting that while it is an emergency within China there is not enough information about it to declare a global crisis, adding that the decision could come with appropriate evidence. Since then, WHO officials have applauded China’s “unprecedented” decision to lock down 11 million people in Wuhan as a signal of its commitment to containing the virus, but also noted that this approach is “new to science.” (Other health experts have criticized the lockdown, which over a dozen other nearby cities also enacted, as inviting more risk.) In a press conference on Wednesday, the WHO warned that all governments should “take action” to prevent the virus as it continues to spread globally, and announced that another emergency meeting of experts will convene on Thursday to assess the global situation.
The current death toll in China is 132, with nearly 6,000 infected. While China has been more transparent about the outbreak than they were ahead of the SARS crisis in 2002-2003, local authorities in Wuhan were slow to give the situation proper priority, and central authorities are maintaining a tight leash on the narrative currently–leading to much public and online outrage in China.
© Josh Rudolph for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: censorship, coronavirus, public health, world health organization
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
Public Anger Swells Over Official Opacity on Coronavirus
As the outbreak of a novel coronavirus strain that originated in Wuhan last month continues to spread globally, official statistics from China’s National Health Commission showed 5,974 confirmed cases as of Wednesday and 132 deaths. Local authorities’ slow initial response to the outbreak, first discovered in late December and initially reported as viral pneumonia, has stoked widespread public anger, evoking memories of the official response to the 2003 SARS crisis that originated in China before killing over 800 in Asia (the total number infected with coronavirus in China has now surpassed that of SARS). While Beijing is eager to avoid a repeat of SARS and has maintained contact with the WHO since December, authorities are working hard to control the narrative: censoring online information and relevant “rumors,” penalizing those who spread “false information without verification” (even if they are frontline doctors), while broadcasting propaganda on diligent relief and containment efforts, optimistic outlooks from renowned experts, and fake images of nonexistent new hospitals for coronavirus patients.
Despite official efforts to control public opinion, Chinese web users have taken to social media to express their fears and castigate the government response. At the New York Times, Raymond Zhong reports on the surge of online vitriol directed at local and national officials:
[…] “Chinese social media are full of anger, not because there was no censorship on this topic, but despite strong censorship,” said Xiao Qiang, a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley, and the founder of China Digital Times, a website that monitors Chinese internet controls. “It is still possible that the censorship will suddenly increase again, as part of an effort to control the narrative.”
[…] Nowhere has the local government been the target of more internet vitriol than in Hubei Province, where Wuhan is the capital.
[…] On Monday, social media users were similarly unrelenting toward Wuhan’s mayor, Zhou Xianwang.
[…] Top authorities may be deliberately directing public anger toward officials in Hubei and Wuhan as a prelude to their resigning and being replaced. Many other targets within the Chinese leadership seem to remain off limits.
This month, as news of the coronavirus emerged but Mr. Xi did not make public appearances to address it, people on the social platform Weibo began venting their frustration in veiled ways, asking, “Where’s that person?” [Source]
While Beijing may be hoping the buck stops with local authorities, Wuhan mayor Zhou Xianwang has also attempted to share blame with higher authorities. In an apparent attempt to appease public ire, Wuhan’s mayor simultaneously defended his actions and publicly offered (but hasn’t yet acted) his resignation, claiming responsibility for himself and Wuhan Party chief Ma Guoqiang. The public statement did little to appease angry netizens, Reuters’ Josh Horwitz and Cheng Leng report:
“We locked down the city to cut the spread of virus, but it’s likely we’ll leave a bad reputation in history,” he said. “As long as it helps contain the spread of virus, I’m willing to resign as a form of apology. Wuhan’s party chief, Ma Guoqiang, and I will take whatever the responsibility it contains.”
But many comments on Chinese social media focused instead on Zhou’s sideline remarks – made after the interview had finished but also recorded by CCTV and broadcast online – that he would rate himself at 80 out of 100 for his handling of the interview.
[…] “I now understand what shamelessness is,” said one user on Weibo, China’s version of Twitter.
Zhou acknowledged during the interview that information about the virus outbreak in the early days was not shared quickly enough with the public.
But he blamed the delay partly on regulatory requirements for local governments to seek Beijing’s approval for making such disclosures – a statement that also drew ire on social media. [Source]
Authorities “dramatic action” of locking down Wuhan just ahead of the national Lunar New Year holiday transit period inspired over a dozen other nearby cities to follow suit, which also added fuel to public outrage and resulted in the virtual quarantine of about 35 million Chinese citizens. While concerns have been reported that a sizable portion of Wuhan’s population fled the city–potentially bringing the virus with them, as it has been confirmed to be airborne and transmittable before symptoms develop–the large-scale lockdown has also been characterized by the WHO as “new to science,” and criticized by public health experts for being highly risky. At China Media Project, veteran journalist and longtime Wuhan resident Da Shiji recalls how politics and the maintenance of stability took precedent over public health in Wuhan authorities’ response and information sharing after the first cases were discovered, and provides a view from inside the “grand experiment” of Wuhan’s ongoing lockdown:
China’s capacity to impress with such grand gestures calls to mind talk of the “Chinese miracle,” often used to describe the performance of the country’s economy over four decades. But is it fair to regard this case of large-scale quarantine also as a “Chinese miracle” in public health?
Everyone must understand, first of all, that this epidemic was allowed to spread for a period of more than forty days before any of the abovementioned cities were closed off, or any decisive action taken. In fact, if we look at the main efforts undertaken by the leadership, and by provincial and city governments in particular, these were focused mostly not on the containment of the epidemic itself, but on the containment and suppression of information about the disease.
[…] China is a society closely monitored by the government, and the shadow of Big Brother is everywhere. Social media in particular are subject to very close surveillance. So when the authorities detected chatter about the re-emergence of SARS, or of a similar unknown outbreak, they took two major steps initially. First, they tried to ensure that this new outbreak remained a secret; second, they put the stability preservation system into effect (启动稳控机制). On December 30, the Wuhan Health Commission (武汉市卫建委) issued an order to hospitals, clinics and other healthcare units strictly prohibiting the release of any information about treatment of this new disease. As late as December 31, the government in Wuhan was still saying publicly that there were no cases of human-to-human transmission, and that no medical personnel had become infected. [Source]
At the Daily Beast, Brendon Hong notes that China’s infamous surveillance state, one that incorporates cutting edge biodata and metadata aggregation into a highly invasive and controversial system that is officially justified as a means to keep the population safe, is proving inadequate against the novel coronavirus:
But at a time of critical need, as a medical crisis is escalating across the country and spreading to other parts of the world, threatening to become a global epidemic if quarantines cannot be enforced, the Chinese government’s vaunted ability to monitor the population has been nullified.
In the days leading up to a citywide quarantine of Wuhan and lockdowns in nearby areas, where residents of the Hubei provincial capital have been barred from leaving its limits, 5 million people left the city nonetheless.
In a cold winter where people are bundled up, and where many are donning face masks, face-scanning software has been rendered moot. And though every SIM card purchase requires a face scan to verify a user’s identity, tracking down millions of travelers who have left the viral outbreak’s epicenter is proving to be a Sisyphean task. […] [Source]
At ASPI’s The Strategist blog, Minxin Pei compares official opacity on the coronavirus to date to previous massive public health disasters in China, arguing that this new outbreak is a “disease of Chinese autocracy”:
It should be no surprise that history is repeating itself in China. To maintain its authority, the Chinese Communist Party must keep the public convinced that everything is going according to plan. That means carrying out systematic cover-ups of scandals and deficiencies that may reflect poorly on the CCP’s leadership, instead of doing what is necessary to respond.
[…] Yet again, the Chinese government’s attempts to protect its image proved costly, because they undermined initial containment efforts. The authorities have since switched gears, and their strategy now appears to show how seriously the government is taking the disease by imposing drastic measures: a blanket travel ban on Wuhan and neighbouring cities in Hubei province, which together have a population of 35 million.
At this point, it’s unclear whether and to what extent these steps are necessary or effective. What is clear is that China’s initial mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak means that thousands will be infected, hundreds may die and the economy, already weakened by debt and the trade war, will take another hit.
But perhaps the most tragic part of this story is that there’s little reason to hope that next time will be different. The survival of the one-party state depends on secrecy, media suppression and constraints on civil liberties. […] [Source]
Another element of Beijing’s current authoritarian governance that could prove disastrous amid the outbreak is the existence of a network of extralegal internment camps holding Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. At Vox, Sigal Samuel examines the risk these camps pose for infection:
“Cramped conditions, poor hygiene, cold, stressed immune systems — this could be a massive disaster,” wrote James Millward, a professor of Chinese history at Georgetown University who monitors the Xinjiang camps closely, on Twitter.
[…] China should do everything in its power to prevent the spread of the Wuhan virus into any camps because the consequences will be catastrophic, resulting possibly in the deaths of tens of thousands of Uighurs arbitrarily detained in the past three years,” said Dolkun Isa, the president of the World Uyghur Congress.
Some worry that if outbreaks were to hit the camps, China might cover up the problem rather than working quickly and transparently to save lives. The government may have initially censored or at least downplayed information about the coronavirus, as it did during the SARS outbreak of 2003. What’s more, the Communist Party sees the Uighur people as a separatist and terrorist threat, and it has attempted to keep the true goings-on in the camps a secret. [Source]
At the Los Angeles Times, Alice Su recaps the slow local response to the disease, Beijing’s recent taking-of-charge by appointing Premier Li Keqiang the head of a new task force on virus control, and the dramatic quarantine efforts, to highlight the test that the coronavirus is posing to China’s central leadership:
[…] Beijing’s takeover of the virus response is a test of and window into the Communist Party’s style of governance. With China’s strong centralized control come mass mobilization and authority that would be unthinkable anywhere else. But that top-down grip also creates inertia that allows containable problems to flare into crises that demand wider action.
[…] Part of that opacity is purely bureaucratic. Local officials can’t release information about a confirmed new coronavirus until they get verification from the city, then from the county, then all the way up to the central disease control center, Huang said, calling the process “onerous.”
Another part of it is political. Local officials are rewarded for performance, which often translates into them concealing problems rather than exposing and solving them. Willy Lam, professor of China studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said that provincial officials’ reluctance to disclose “embarrassing or negative developments” in their areas of governance is “long-standing Chinese political culture.”
[…] Failure to control the disease would come at a cost for China’s leadership and for the world, said Dali Yang, professor of political science at the University of Chicago.
The Communist Party has built a reputation on its ability to “concentrate resources to get things done — and big things done,” he said. “I hope they will rise to the occasion, because the consequences are not just for China.” [Source]
[…]
As China’s leadership struggles to maintain control of the narrative while also mitigating the domestic spread of the outbreak, the WHO is again considering declaring the virus an international emergency amid uncertainty over the potential of a global pandemic. British Airways has canceled all flights to and from China, joining a list of American and European airlines. Meanwhile, some forecasts suggest that the impact to domestic economic growth could be as high as four percent, double the quarter-on-quarter hit seen in 2003. Others, though, predict a more modest impact. Forecasting firm Oxford Economics suggested that “the faster reaction time by the Chinese authorities this time around, with increased transparency and firm actions taken recently, are certainly helpful in mitigating the impact on public health, confidence and the economy.” But The New York Times’ Peter S. Goodman highlighted doubts about the full, accurate, and timely release of information from Chinese authorities as a factor in the uncertainty fueling broader unease. He cited Oxford Economics’ Luis Kuijs’ observation that “this is, of course, still a government system where transparency is not really held up as an important criterion [….] This is still an overall system in which discretionary decisions by bureaucrats are driving everything instead of very clear rules.” The outbreak has triggered stock slides around the world, particularly affecting multinational companies with disrupted operations or those with dampened sales prospects in sectors such as travel or luxury goods.
To stay up-to-date on the domestic and global implications of the novel coronavirus outbreak, follow live coverage from The New York Times and The Washington Post. With relevant concerns capable of obscuring fact, also follow Buzzfeed’s Jane Lytvynenko on Twitter, where she is keeping track of debunked fake news on the topic.
© Josh Rudolph for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: censorship, coronavirus, propaganda, public health
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
Paid Protesters at Extradition Hearings Highlight Canada’s Predicament
Court hearings on the prospective extradition of Huawei CFO and founder’s daughter Meng Wanzhou from Canada to the U.S. ended inconclusively last week. Meng’s arrest in Vancouver in December 2018 prompted a flurry of retaliation from China, most notably the detentions of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who now face prosecution on charges involving state secrets. Although cases against top Huawei executives have reportedly been under consideration since 2010, long before Donald Trump’s election, the case has become inextricably entangled in the current wave of trade and technology disputes between China and the U.S.—not least because of Trump’s publicly declared willingness to use Meng as a bargaining chip. Canada’s uncomfortable position in the middle has heightened domestic disagreement over how best to navigate the trilateral relationship. From AFP, on last week’s hearings:
“I’m reserving judgement,” British Columbia supreme court Justice Heather Holmes said at the end of a four-day hearing.
Further hearings are scheduled for later this year on allegations of a conspiracy to arrest Meng – the eldest daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei.
If extradited, Meng would face US prosecution on charges of fraud linked to violations of sanctions against Iran.
Four days of legal arguments this week focused on whether the US charges would stand up in Canada, a key test for extradition.
Appeals by either side could also drag out the case – which has strained relations between the world’s two largest economies – for years. [Source]
Holmes had previously warned government lawyers last week, according to The Globe and Mail’s Sean Fine, that “this country needs to be wary of sending someone to face trial in circumstances that Canadians would find objectionable. Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes of the B.C. Supreme Court did not say that the U.S. request for Ms. Meng’s extradition is objectionable. But she raised the possibility for the first time that a case like this one might be – and that it would be a judge’s role to say so, and to reject the case for that reason.”
An attention-grabbing sideshow to the hearings was the appearance of a small group of ostensible protesters holding signs calling for Meng’s release:
Within hours, some of the “protesters” had come forward, now “pretty ashamed and embarrassed,” saying that they had been paid CA$100-150 either to protest or to appear as extras in a film or music video. (Others, tracked down through social media, have insisted that the protest was genuine.) From Andrea Woo at The Globe and Mail”:
The group of roughly two dozen supposed protesters immediately raised suspicions of media outside the courthouse on Monday, the first day of extradition proceedings. The group held signs bearing identical slogans: “Free Ms. Meng,” “Bring Michael home,” “Trump stop bullying us,” and “Equal justice.” The handwriting on each sign was the same. Those who held them refused to answer questions.
The repeated references to a singular “Michael” seemed detached from the fact that two Michaels – Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig – were seized by Chinese authorities after Ms. Meng’s arrest in December, 2018, and have languished in detention centres since.
[…] China Central Television, China’s main state television broadcaster, reported on Monday’s proceedings, including images of the pretend protesters. “Locals gathered outside the courthouse, calling for the release of Meng Wanzhou,” a narrator’s voice said in Mandarin.
CCTV did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday. [Source]
Both Huawei and the local Chinese consulate have denied involvement, dismissing the suggestion as “purely a malicious smear.”
Whoever was behind the paid protesters, various elements of their supposed demands have arisen elsewhere in the public debate surrounding the case. Eddie Goldenberg, former chief of staff for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, argued in a Globe and Mail op-ed ahead of last week’s hearings that “there is only one surefire way to obtain the freedom of the two Canadians: free Ms. Meng as part of a prisoner exchange.” “It has been clear from the start that the Trump administration considers the matter to be in the realm of geopolitics,” he added. “Submitting to unjustified American pressure is no better than submitting to Chinese blackmail.”
John Manley, a former deputy prime minister under Chrétien, has argued similarly, conceding that “I think it is clear that Chinese authorities took the two Michaels into custody in response to Madame Meng being arrested,” but nevertheless describing them as blameless “victims only of the actions of the Canadian government.” Chrétien himself said in December that the current situation is “a trap that was set to us by Trump, and then it was very unfair, because we paid the price for something that Trump wanted us to do.” (Critics have suggested that such advice may reflect current business interests more than reluctant pragmatism born of political experience.)
Elsewhere, former ambassador to China John McCallum was removed last year after stating that it would be “great for Canada” if the U.S. were to drop its request. A Vancouver MP for the New Democrat Party said at a consulate-hosted Chinese New Year party last week that “I thought from the beginning that this case was tainted by the political interests of the United States and Donald Trump. I think that’s clear from Mr. Trump’s own words.”
This political backdrop was described in February’s Wired magazine by Garrett M Graff, who wrote that Huawei itself had been “caught in a geopolitical vise as the United States seemed to project all of its technological anxiety about China and globalization onto a single company [….] About the only thing that is clear is that the Trump administration’s fight isn’t really about Huawei at all.”
President Trump […] almost immediately appeared to indicate that Meng’s case might be handled differently, and that the independence of the judicial process was up for negotiation. Just days after her arrest, Trump suggested to Reuters in an Oval Office interview that he might be willing to intercede on Meng’s behalf in exchange for better trade terms. “Whatever is good for this country, I will do—if I think it’s good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made,” he said, “I would certainly intervene.”
Trump’s comments left both Justice officials and Huawei executives fuming. Huawei leaders, who told me that they’d long respected the sacred place of the rule of law in the US system and wanted China to model it, now wondered how sacred it really was. [Source]
While Goldenberg suggested that both Canadian law and its extradition treaty with the U.S. allow Canada’s Minister of Justice to order Meng’s release, the Liberal federal government maintains otherwise. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rejected the suggestion of a prisoner exchange, saying that “we are a country of the rule of law and we will abide by the rule of law.” Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has said that Canada will “honour our extradition treaty commitments.”
A Globe and Mail editorial ahead of the hearings supported the government’s course and appeal to the rule of law, but also expressed frustration with the U.S. side, describing the U.S. as “AWOL” in the aftermath of Meng’s arrest.
[… T]he Canadian government did the right thing when it respected an extradition request from an American court in late 2018. This is what countries that follow the rule of law do.
If there is one thing that everyone can agree on, it’s that, by its conduct, Beijing has revealed its true face. The law in China is whatever the Communist Party wants it to be.
Canada stands for something different, and better. We don’t want a world where Group of 20 members settle disputes by kidnapping each other’s people and holding them for ransom.
[…] Where Ottawa now needs to direct its attention is Washington. The U.S. extradition request put Canada in this position, and we need its help and its heft, to take on Beijing. Help hasn’t exactly been forthcoming.
That, too, is a source of frustration. Canada is effectively standing up for the U.S. justice system, even as the United States is led by an impeached President who views the rule of law with Beijing-style contempt. [Source]
In an op-ed also at The Globe and Mail, lawyers Times Wang and Ti-Anna Wang wrote that Meng’s case offered a potent showcase of Canadian rule of law:
We speak from hard-won experience. Our father is Dr. Wang Bingzhang, the McGill-educated pro-democracy activist who is nearing two decades in Chinese prison. In our efforts to free him, we’ve learned that the only way to guarantee victory when your opponent is as powerful a bully as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is to not just hold fast to your principles, but to broadcast them – especially when you know people are listening.
The reasons boil down to this: The nature of the CCP, combined with its international might, means that nothing short of near-total capitulation to its will can assure the release of people like our father, or of the two hostages taken by it, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. In our father’s case, that would mean, among other things, confessing to absurd crimes that other governments have already exonerated him of, as well as, on our part, staying silent.
Yet, release on such terms would be no victory for us; indeed, for our father, it would be worse than dying in prison. It would, however, be a victory for the CCP, which is eager to prove that its opponents are engaging in empty rhetoric when they talk about freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and that what everyone really cares about in the end is money and power. Against such cynicism, the surest way to win is to live in a way that proves otherwise. One example of doing so comes from our father himself.
[…] As for Ms. Meng’s case, if she can substantiate her claims about her rights being violated, we hope and trust she will prevail. Regardless of the outcome, we are proud of the way she has been treated by the Canadian government thus far, and we look forward to the day when people in China can enjoy such treatment themselves. [Source]
Despite this apparent openness to Meng’s legal victory, Times Wang was dismissive of the prospect of a prisoner exchange in a roundup of views by The Globe and Mail’s Nathan VanderKlippe:
It’s a “bonkers” idea, Times Wang countered. “It’s telling the Communist Party that might equals right, and we agree with you.”
[…] If the Justice Minister “decides to intervene and release Meng, it means he’s telling the world that even in a democratic society, judicial independence should remain subservient to national interests and political consideration,” said Mo Shaoping, a prominent Chinese human-rights lawyer. It’s a matter with significance beyond Canada, he said.
In China, the Communist Party controls courts, and top judges have dismissed the concept of judicial independence. “China does not believe in rule of law in democracies either, believing it’s also a political tool just as it is in China,” said Yaxue Cao, the founder and editor of ChinaChange.org, which publishes news and commentary related to Chinese civil society and human rights.
A political intervention to release Ms. Meng, even if justified by law, “will only prove to China that rule of law in the West is just like their rule by law,” warned Ms. Cao. “It will also send a message to China that Canada is weak and can be bullied into submission.” [Source]
While attracting some praise for holding firm over Meng’s case, Canada’s federal government has been criticized elsewhere for being too cautious toward China. It voted unsuccessfully in Parliament against the creation of a Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, which held its inaugural meeting last week, and has faced questions over the strength of its position on mass detentions in Xinjiang and protests in Hong Kong. Last week saw the launch of Alliance Canada Hong Kong, an umbrella organization for an initial 14 advocacy groups pressing MPs for firmer action. From The Star’s Jeremy Nuttall:
“Ultimately, it comes to the bad choices of this government,” [Cherie] Wong says of the reason the alliance was formed. She is now executive director of the group.
[…] At today’s official launch, the organization unveiled five “demands” to be made to the Canadian government, crafted from a survey of 13,000 Hong Kong and Canadian residents, 2,000 from Canada. The survey was open to anyone and posted on social media by pro-Hong Kong democracy activist organization Citizens’ Press Conference.
The demands include using Canada’s so-called Magnitsky legislation to punish Chinese officials who have committed human rights violations, investigate foreign influence into Canadian public and private institutions and to provide humanitarian support for asylum seekers from China.
Ottawa must also condemn China’s human rights violations and protect Canadian’s freedoms from erosion by CPC supporters in Canada, say the demands.
But ACHK isn’t just disappointed in the federal government. The organization has also targeted progressive Canadians, accusing many on the left of being silent on the issue of China’s human rights abuses. [Source]
A propaganda directive on Meng’s case obtained by CDT last May ordered outlets to “follow authoritative media coverage and the Foreign Ministry’s stance without exception. Do not reprint related foreign media reports without permission.”
Meng’s story, and the broader U.S. campaign against Huawei’s role in the global deployment of next-generation 5G cellular networks, have seen the company hailed at home as a patriotic choice and a national champion. This picture has been was complicated late last year with a public backlash, predictably censored, against Huawei’s reportedly frequent orchestration of police detention for employees involved in disputes against it. One case, that of 42-year-old Li Hongyuan, who was detained for 251 days, “struck a nerve for many in China’s expanding middle class, serving as a reminder of the tenuous state of the rule of law in the mainland for any individual when facing powerful interests.”
Other countries have also been caught up in the campaign against Huawei. The New York Times’ Katrin Bennhold and Jack Ewing reported last week that Germany faces threats from America of curtailed intelligence cooperation and from China of retaliation against its car industry. At Foreign Policy, Mario Esteban and Miguel Otero-Iglesias described Spain’s similar dilemma. These and other cases are playing out against a backdrop of separate tensions in trade relations between the U.S. and European Union. The British government announced this week that it would allow Huawei a “limited role” away from “sensitive ‘core’ parts of 5G,” to the U.S.’ reported disappointment. Canada’s Public Safety Minister said last week that Ottawa was weighing security and “other significant economic and even geopolitical considerations” regarding 5G, but that there is no current timetable for a final decision.
U.S. companies, meanwhile, are losing business with Chinese customers to foreign rivals, and seeing China ramp up efforts to nurture domestic competitors. Huawei itself, according to Bloomberg News early this month, “isn’t just surviving; it’s actually thriving in some areas,” with sales last year rising 18% to record levels. “The question is for how long,” the report added, as the situation drags on, inventory stockpiles run low, and the Trump administration eyes further restrictions.
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: 5G, Canada, Canada relations, donald Trump, extradition, extradition treaty, huawei, Justin Trudeau, Meng Wanzhou, rule of law, United States
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
