Copy

No Images? View In Browser

WAS THIS FORWARDED TO YOU?  SIGN UP HERE FOR A FREE TRIAL SUBSCRIPTION!

CONTENTS

Breaking News

Did Baylor College of Medicine fire two faculty members because their spouses work in China? The women, naturalized U.S. citizens, one with tenure, are married to scientists who gave up tenured positions at BCM to work at a Chinese university. Read full article →

China built a 5,000-room quarantine center for overseas arrivals. It could be the first of many. Read full article →

Only mainland residents get Olympics tickets while unvaccinated athletes arriving in the country will need to remain in quarantine for 21 days. Read full article →

China has confirmed the loss of its Shiyan-10 satellite, despite an otherwise successful liftoff on Monday, Sept. 27. Read full article → 

Don't capitalize on Buddhism! “Several state media outlets have criticized the trend dubbed ‘foyuan’ for turning religion into a profit-making tool.”  Read full article →

200,000-year-old handprints: How the world’s oldest artwork was uncovered in Tibet. Read full article →

Teaching China’s gay migrants about safe sex: “Grassroots organizations, many of them started and staffed by gay men, are doing the oft-neglected work of outreach in migrant communities.”  Read full article →

Economy

“We can hardly find any workers” said one factory owner. Foxconn is offering $2,000 bonuses  to employees who clock in for 90 days straight and help with recruiting. What’s to blame? A booming economy, a shrinking workforce; higher commodity prices preventing factories from increasing wages; educated workers’ preference for white-collar jobs; migrant workers’ fears of getting COVID-19 in cities or factories; plus more jobs closer to homeRead full article  $→

After packages are assembled by factory robots, Meituan, JD.com, and Alibaba want courier robots to deliver them. Alibaba’s “little donkey” robots delivered 1 million packages in the past year, and wants to do a million a day by 2024. The $62,000 average cost of a robot is still six times more than a human courier’s salary, but it’s falling every year thanks to cheaper partsRead full article  $→

Polestar, the EV maker backed by China's Volvo Car Group and actor Leonardo DiCaprio, agreed to go public at a roughly $20 billion enterprise valuation. $1 billion of proceeds will help Polestar bring three new models to market within the next three years. Read full article  $→

Global lenders are relocating bankers from Hong Kong to ChinaUBS shifted two senior bankers and is in discussions to move eight more to China. Credit Suisse Group AG has moved a handful in recent months and JPMorgan Chase & Co. plans to move more dealmakers to growing offices in Shanghai and Beijing. Read full article  $→

Massive rise in Hong Kong lobster imports reveals a smuggling problem: “Huge speed boats capable of carrying illicit cargo fast and stealthily enough to evade police and customs patrols are bringing record numbers of Australian rock lobster into Hong Kong on the sly, in defiance of import restrictions imposed by China.” Read full article →

Trade & Travel

The American Chamber of Commerce in China found 47% of 120 business respondents said that one of their top priorities was removal of bilateral tariffs by the end of the year. Others included resuming visa issuance for business executives, rebuilding trust between the governments and strengthening intellectual property protection in China. Tariffs had affected operations in China for 78% of respondents, with the number reporting no impact having halved since late 2020. Read full article  →

Outbound direct investment (ODI) up 12.3% last year to $153.7 billion, putting China first globally. Chinese influence in global foreign direct investment continued to grow, with its ODI flow accounting for 20.2% of the global total. Read full article  →

All aboard the Shanghai Express: The first freight train providing a railway service between Shanghai and Europe, will depart on Tuesday from Minhang Station in Shanghai destined for Hamburg, Germany. Read full article  →

Chinese companies dominate smartphone sales (58% 2021, US 15%), solar panels (67% 2020, US 1%), commercial drones (80% of US market 2020 Q1, US 4%), and telecoms equipment (36% of 2021 revenue, US 9%) but still lag in semiconductors (4% of 2020 ales, US 47%). Read full article  →

China enforced strict COVID rules for its national Olympiad. Beijing could also mandate foreign athletes, officials, and media quarantine before entering the Winter Olympics bubble and require spectators to show proof of vaccination to attend events–and foreign fans may not be allowed to attend. Read full article  $→

Technology & IP

Tiangong space station uses ion propulsion, greatly improving energy efficiency and making it the first crewed spaceship propelled by ion drives. China is betting big on ion thrusters and intends to develop them on a far greater scale for its deep-space missions. Compared to chemical propulsion, which keeps the International Space Station (ISS) in orbit, ion drives are much more efficient, requiring 8,000 pounds of rocket fuel to keep it oriented for a year, whereas ion thrusters require only 882 pounds (400kg) to do the same. Read full article $ →

Digital economy is 39% of GDP, worth $6.06 trillion. The digital economy grew 9.7% for 2020, emerging as a “key driver for stabilisation of economic growth.”E-commerce transactions hit $6 trillion, for YoY growth of 4.5%, while operating revenue from e-commerce services hit $1 trillion, for YoY growth of 22%. Read full article $ →

Chip shortage problems pale in comparison to the impending NAND apocalypse brought on by Yangtze Memory Technologies Company (YMTC). Dylan Patel says YMTC will have ~100,000 wafers per month of technologically highly competitive NAND production by early 2022. They are currently at ~80,000 and are constructing their 2nd fab–another 100,000 WPM. YMTC, headquartered in Wuhan, operated normally during the Covid lockdown, thanks to  special HSR train carriages for YMTC engineers, sanitized offices, and 24x7 individual medical monitoring. Read full article $ →

Western airplane maintenance providers rush to sign Chinese contracts: “Western aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul providers (MROs) signed a flurry of new contracts with Chinese customers and joint-venture partners at the country’s biggest air show this week to strengthen their foothold in the lucrative market.” Read full article $ →

Experts Examine China's Pioneering Draft Algorithm Regulations: Helen Toner, Rogier Creemers, and Paul Triolo provide insightful commentary on the significance of China’s new draft regulations on algorithmic recommendation systems released last month. DigiChina has translated the draft, Internet Information Service Algorithmic Recommendation Management Provisions, in full. Read all the provisions →

China and the EU are expected to publish the first set of common classification standards for sustainable finance by the end of this year, a move that aims to make it easier for companies to issue green bonds and other such investment products in foreign markets, according to Chen Yulu, a deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC). Read full article $ →

Health

Society

'Happy communities' where everything you need is at doorway: Shanghai is promoting 15-minute community life circle, which gives people access to services like meals, fitness, nursing and health care within a 15-minute walk of their home. Read full article →

Restoring an old Tibetan temple. ​Breathing new life into the Jebum-Gang Temple. The redesign aimed to restore and preserve Jebum-gang’s main building as much as possible, while making room for a modern space that could attract shows from artists around the country and the world.” Read full article →

Art

A Du Haibin Documentary on Modern China 
It’s impossible to talk about China’s independent documentary scene without mentioning director Du Haibin. Most of his works document the lives of ordinary Chinese people in the context of rapid urbanization and significant economic disparity. “Every time I rewatch my work, it feels like rereading some very old books. [It’s] very special.” You can watch six of his documentaries on Asian movie-focused streaming service Montage with a 20% discount using the code RADIICHINA. Below, we introduce the films. Read full article $→

I have just translated an old Chinese poem that went something like this: "the girls were so hot we partied all day we were racing horses and i shot two rabbits and i was the best archer and everyone said i was so cool and amazing and then we drank a lot of wine”. Honestly this made me very happy because I always thought premodern Chinese poetry was so boring and stilted (modernist bias!!!) and it turns out I was completely wrong and it's actually so vibrant and deeply emotional and at times completely ridiculous! Rebecca F. Kuang@kuangrf

Statistics

Governance

Seven cities with an urban population of more than 10 million have been ranked as "super cities" in a report by the National Bureau of Statistics: Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Chongqing, Guangzhou, Chengdu and Tianjin. Another 14 cities with an urban population of between 5 and 10 million are listed as "mega cities." Compared with 2019 statistics, Shenzhen, Chengdu, Xi'an, Foshan, Shenyang, Qingdao, Changsha and Kunming have moved up in rankings. Read full article $→

"Xinjiang Population Dynamics and Data," is the first white paper since 2015 that specifically displays demographic development in Xinjiang for the past seven decades. In 2020, the population of Xinjiang was 25.85 million, among which the Han ethnic group numbered 10.92 million, and ethnic minorities 14.93 million. The population of ethnic groups in Xinjiang increased from 4.45 million in 1953 to 14.93 million in 2020.Read full article $→

We’re not going to understand what’s happening in the United States, in England or Europe by looking only at what Marx wrote in Volume 1 of Capital, because they’re not making money industrially anymore. They're making money by being rentier economies, by landlordism, by monopolies and by bank credit, which Marx discussed in Volume 2 and 3. Now, China is asking, “Do we want to let Chinese investors make money, financially, by buying housing, becoming absentee landlords and hoping that there is going to be a housing price inflation like you have in the United States? Or, do we want to keep housing low priced and not to bid it up by credit creation and finance?”  Read full article $ →

On Monday, the State Council published a long-term development plan aimed at improving the lot of women. Highlights:

  • Encouraging women to pursue education and employment in STEM fields with scholarships, hiring incentives, and ensuring there are visible female role models
  • Cracking down on gender discrimination during recruitment and hiring by investigating reported violators
  • Guarding against employment discrimination during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding via regular inspections of employment records
  • Using public platforms to encourage partners to participate equally in family decision-making, childcare, and housework. Read full article →

The next National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) meeting will be held October 19-23 and 15 bills are up for review

  • The Family Education Promotion Law
  • The Land Borders Law
  • An amendment to the Audit Law
  • The Wetlands Protection Law
  • The Futures Law
  • An amendment to the Anti-Monopoly Law
  • A revision to the Agricultural Products Quality Safety Law
  • The Law Against Telecommunication Network Fraud
  • An amendment to the Patent Law
  • An amendment to the Organic Law of Local People’s Congresses at All Levels and Local People’s Governments at All Levels
  • A revision to the Animal Husbandry Law
  • A revision to the Sports Law
  • An amendment to the Civil Procedure Law
  • A decision on the Metrology Law
  • A decision on the National Defense Mobilization Law. Read full article →

Liu Huanxin, Vice Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, outlined Plans for making farmers rich, “The gap in development between urban and rural areas is still large, and the task of promoting the common prosperity of rural farmers is arduous. Farmers’ income from operating [farms] is just 1/3 of their total income…that income can be increased by promoting…high quality agricultural products and local employment locally…so farmers can work and earn money on their own doorsteps. There are still a lot of ‘sleeping’ assets in rural areas…that have potential to increase property incomes.” Read full article →

Propaganda

AUKUS, Western propaganda, and its hybrid war on China with Vijay Prashad

Experts from UK, Pakistan and China on Friday have rejected allegations by the US and its allies of Muslims genocide in the Muslim majority territory in northwest China. British scholar Carlos Martinez said that living in London he is exposed to very intense media propaganda in relation to Xinjiang.

“The Uyghur population from 2010 to 2018 increased from 10.2 million to 12.7 million, an increase of 25%. In the same period, the Han Chinese population in Xinjiang increased by just 2 percent. [so] if there were a genocide taking place in Xinjiang, wouldn’t we expect to see a refugee crisis? Wouldn’t we expect to see refugee camps set up on the borders with Pakistan and Kazakhstan?,” he questioned.

He added that the US waged genocidal wars in Iraq and Libya, leading to the displacement of millions of people – to a refugee crisis that is still continuing today.

“How is it possible that China is carrying out a genocide but not creating any refugees?,” he questioned while referring to the US and its allies allegations of Uyghurs genocide by Chinese government.

Martinez, who visited Xinjiang in 2020 after US and its allies accused China for genocide in Muslim majority area, said he went there to seek any evidence but he could not find any reality and evidence to prove that Washington charges against China are true.

“I personally went to Ürümqi in January 2020, with a group of friends. We walked around freely and certainly didn’t see any evidence of religious or ethnic oppression. In fact we saw hundreds of Uyghur Muslims, wearing distinctive Uyghur clothing, going about their normal lives,” he said.

“We ate in Uyghur restaurants, where we had halal food and where alcohol wasn’t available. We heard the Uyghur language being spoken freely everywhere. All road signs have both Uyghur and Chinese writing. Newspapers can be seen everywhere in the Uyghur language.”

Speaking the webinar, Maria Zeb, a Pakistani youth leader, who also visited the Xinjiang region, criticised western media for spreading fake news and said she spent good time with Uyghur people.

“Western media said that mosques have destroyed by Chinese government, Uyghurs are in jails and their culture has been eliminated, its all propaganda,” she said and adding she met with local people and all of them rejected the western media propaganda and termed it “fake news”.

Currently there are more than 25,000 mosques, which are run by the local Muslim community while Chinese government is providing them funds for renovation and other facilities of the mosques.

The Chinese government also established hundreds of education enters for locals to train and educate them to run their own businesses.

“Being a journalist i visited that region and believe me there was no reality in the propaganda that is spreading by United States through their western media,” a Pakistani journalist Zamir Assadi said.

He added that Pakistan has rendered huge sacrifices, lost over 80,000 lives and over $150 billion loss to its economy because of the so-called US war on terror in Afghanistan but western media never has never appreciated that sacrifices and now trying to make Pakistan as scapegoat for their failure.

“So, US has its own political agenda and now after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya they want to use Xinjiang as weapons against China because to halt Beijing economic development,” he added.

London based scholar professor Hugh Goodacre also showed displeasure over US campaign against China, using Xinjiang as propaganda toll and said he is working with Pakistani community in London to counter this propaganda which is spreading against China.


Peace, development came in Xinjiang.

Briefing the participants about the peace and development in Xinjiang, Vice-President of CNIE, former Vice-Minister of the International Department of CPC Central Committee Xu Lvping, said that a few western countries have fabricated and spread lies about Xinjiang, maliciously discredited the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government, with extremely sinister intentions, and their actions have been despised by people in various countries.

“Both history and reality have proved that Xinjiang nowadays enjoys the best period of prosperity and development in history, with people of all ethnic groups living in harmony and working in peace and contentment.”

The living standards, health and education of ethnic groups have been widely improved. She added that Xinjiang has been free from violent terrorist cases for more than four consecutive years.

“The society is safe and stable, and the people’s sense of security has been greatly improved. It is the people living in Xinjiang who know it best.”

The rights to religious belief, culture and language are respected and protected by law. It is a beautiful homeland where people of all ethnic groups live a happy life.

The $64 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor — a network of roads, railways, and pipelines — is aiming to connect China’s strategically important northwestern Xinxiang province to the port of Gawadar in far away in Balochistan.

While the corridor will give China easy access to Africa and the Mideast, and Xinjiang will become world’s business hub while it will make Pakistan earn billions of dollars and spur business activities along the road network replacing the fabled Silk Road.


US committed genocide of Muslims

Speaking the webinar, speakers also criticised the United State for committing Muslim genocide in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries and now want politics on Uygurs Muslims.

“I went Xinjiang 9 times but never saw any incident of human rights violation or any brutal action of Chinese authorities against Muslims,” Mustafa Hyder, Executive Director of Islamabad based think tank said.

He rejected the allegations against Chinese government and said Washington want to destabilise the Muslim majority region of China.

“US invaded against several Muslim countries, killed thousand innocent Muslims and committed their genocide,” he said.

Sabah Aslam, Executive Director of IICR also raised question over US policy to become human rights defender and said why Washington is silent over grave human rights violation in Indian occupied Kashmir.

“Thousand innocent Muslim killed by Indian forces in Kashmir and now killing in other parts of India but never US speak for those innocent people, which show their hypocrisy,” she said.

Ms Pang Chunxue, Minister-Counselor of the Embassy of China concluded the session by saying that unprecedented achievements made in the socio-economic sector in Xinjiang is an epic example of social development. People are living happy and secure life, people of all the ethnic groups enjoy freedom and have full participation in political and other socio-economic spheres of life.

To keep our people safe from terrorism, Chinese government is trying hard. Adding to it, she said that the advocators of human rights who are maligning China for violations are themselves committing crimes especially US over the Islamic countries and genocide. Most of the nations are victims of US’ ill policy over counter-terrorism. US through this false propaganda wants to destabilise Xinjiang and China as a whole. Read full article $→

Twenty years ago today, Gordon Chang published his prophetic book, The Coming Collapse of China, which sold millions worldwide and convinced Western policy makers that they had nothing to fear from China. 1.4 billion Chinese owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Chang!

Many comments about Evergrande are critical of China, but a more honest assessment points in the opposite direction. Compared to how the US handled the collapse of Lehman Brothers, China is handling Evergrande well. They are holding lenders and failed business executives to account, rather than bailing out an entire generation of white collar criminals to the tune of trillions like we did. As far as I’m concerned China is proving for the first time that it may indeed be a more stable and less corrupt country than the US. Read full article $→

Geopolitics

Huawei CFO Mèng Wǎnzhōu's return to China was covered live by state TV, while the tallest building in Shenzhen, where her plane landed, “lit up with scrolling slogan ‘Welcome Home, Meng Wanzhou’ across its facade”. Social media celebrations of Meng’s return received billions of views. “Many called her a national hero, and hailed her return as a symbol of China’s victory over the West,” says CNN. “She was arrested because of a rising China,” said Xinhua, adding, “She was released for the same reason!” Read full article  $→

Imagine if Elon Musk was on a business trip in Malaysia, and the Chinese government ordered him kidnapped by Malaysian cops, claiming that he’d illegally violated Chinese sanctions against Taiwan. That would literally be the exact inverse of what happened. What do you think America would do if that happened? In China’s case, they just said “China people has a feeling this is very bad behavior and unfriendliness with a nasty spirit of rudefulness.” No one on earth would willingly choose to deal with the Americans instead of the Chinese. America is now like a belligerent drunken police officer with an assault rifle running around a resort hotel and forcing vacationers to have butt sex with each other. Read full article  $→

After Mèng Wǎnzhōu's charter flight left Canadian airspace, it was escorted by 4 Chengdu J-20 Stealth Fighters in international airspace in the region of the North Pole right to the Russian airspace. 4 Sukhoi Su-35 Fighters from the Russian Air Force took over the escort role in Russian airspace. 4 Shenyang J-16 Multi Role Fighters then took over the escort once in Chinese airspace and escorted the plane all the way to Shenzhen Airport. Read full article  $→

Frederic Pierucci, former Alstom CEO, was jailed in the US until he agreed to sell his company to a US acquirer. He was accused of corruption by the U.S., pleaded guilty in 2014, and signed his company over to the US. He sees Meng's return as a very huge win for China since it's the first time that the country stood up to the U.S.' long-arm jurisdiction in such a way.  Read full article  $→ 

President Biden announced Rahm Emmanuel is to serve as ambassador to Tokyo, and Nicolas Burns will take up the ambassadorship in Beijing, and VP Kamala Harris will carry the White House’s East Asia portfolio. None of these three has any shred of experience in or knowledge of East Asia—none. Emmanuel knows nothing about Japan, Burns nothing about China, and Harris knows nothing about anything so far as one can make out. The State Department is now in the process of organizing a “China House” within its ranks, a greatly enlarged China desk. Do not be mistaken: The intent here is not to improve Washington’s understanding of China; it is to “monitor” and record China’s every move everywhere in the world, the better to cultivate the confrontation Washington earnestly desires.  Patrick Lawrence. Read full article  →

Zambia has the largest number (18) of separate Chinese lenders of all the African countries in our data, and the second largest number of separate Chinese contractors (29). It also is the African country with the largest amount of Chinese interest-free loan debt write-offs, and the country with the highest number of separate debt cancellations. The large number of stakeholders competing for business in the "pond" of public resources created Zambia's unsustainable debt. Read full article  →

The US is unfairly targeting Chinese scientists over industrial spying: Mike German, fellow at the Brennan Center, sees “strong evidence that the Justice Department is levying charges with less evidence, perhaps counting on the bias they’re fomenting with their anti-China rhetoric to get judges and juries to convict anyway.” The Justice Department was “more likely to publicize EEA cases that involved defendants with Asian names than EEA cases brought against defendants with Western names: 51% of Western defendants have DOJ press releases, compared with 80% of all Asian defendants and 83% of defendants with Chinese heritage.” Read full declaration→

Faculty at the University of Tennessee demand that nanotechnologist Anming Hu get his job back. University officials have been tight-lipped on the next steps in Hu’s case, which has frustrated faculty members. The case has also prompted a broader discussion about how the university responds to requests from law enforcement about faculty scientists, and ignited a call for transparency overall. Read full article  →

The 20th anniversary summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, enshrined a new geopolitical paradigm. Iran, now a full SCO member, was restored to its traditionally prominent Eurasian role, following the recent $400 billion-worth trade and development deal struck with China. Afghanistan was the main topic – with all players agreeing on the path ahead, as detailed in the Dushanbe Declaration, aiming at: “a more representative, democratic, just and multipolar world order based on universally recognized principles of international law, cultural and civilizational diversity, mutually beneficial and equal cooperation of states under the central coordinating role of the UN.” Call it a multipolar development dynamic in synergy with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Read full declaration→

Defense

Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, welcomed the return of its two agents, Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, in the tweets, above. During a July visit to China U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman was given two lists of issues that China wantsresolved before it will cooperate further with the U.S.:

In the List of U.S. Wrongdoings that Must Stop, China urged the United States to unconditionally revoke the visa restrictions over Communist Party of China (CPC) members and their families, revoke sanctions on Chinese leaders, officials and government agencies, and remove visa restrictions on Chinese students.

China also urged the United States to stop suppressing Chinese enterprises, stop harassing Chinese students, stop suppressing the Confucius Institutes, revoke the registration of Chinese media outlets as "foreign agents" or "foreign missions", and revoke the extradition request for Meng Wanzhou. Read full article →

Canada's Matthew Eheret says, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG)’s website, Michael Kovrig has been a member of the ICG since 2017, as their Northeast Asia Advisor. Earlier, he worked for the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, based in China from 2012 - 2016. The ICG's funding was provided by George Soros, who recently stated, “I consider Xi Jinping the most dangerous enemy of open societies in the world,” and from many NATO member states, Canada included. Kovrig’s writings on North Korea demonstrated his adherence to the ICG’s mission of undermining the North Korean government and viewed the Chinese state’s compliance with Western regime change aims as necessary to facilitate regime change in North Korea. Furthermore, Spavor’s posting of Belt-and-Road Initiative infrastructure, military personnel and equipment on social media could easily be seen by the Chinese government as an opportunity to be exploited by NATO in order to sabotage key BRI infrastructure or develop military responses to North Korea. Considering that Spavor also passed on photos of military equipment from China to Kovrig, their actions could allow NATO and the West more broadly to exploit weaknesses in the Chinese military as well. Consequently, China understandably acted against Kovrig and Spavor to protect its national security, its ally in the region (North Korea), and the BRI from being undermined by the NATO-affiliated International Crisis Group. Read full article →

It will be 20 years before the first new Australian submarine is put to sea. Meanwhile, China will add six nuclear-powered attack submarines by 2030 and is expanding production facilities, in addition to rapid constructing diesel-electric submarinesRead full article →

Beijing commissioning more subs than it decommissions. Washington is commissioning fewer subs than its decommissions. The PLAN force isn’t getting much bigger, b ut it's getting a whole lot better.  “China has been steadily modernizing its submarine force, and most of its submarines are now built to relatively modern Chinese and Russian designs,” the US CRS stated in the April 2020 report. The Chinese sub fleet could grow from 66 boats in 2020 to 76 in 2030. Read full article →

A new version of China’s most advanced air-to-air missile, the PL-15, is destined for export. The missile can strike manned and unmanned aircraft and cruise missiles from a range of 90 miles at four times the speed of sound, powered by a dual-thrust, solid-fuel motor. Military source says Pakistan will receive the new version. Read full article →

China's high-speed drone can fly for 24 hours: A high-altitude, long-endurance drone that can fly for around 20 hours and reach top speeds of 700 kilometers an hour (435 miles an hour) was one of the flying gadgets unveiled at Airshow China 2021 in the southern city of Zhuhai on Tuesday. The CH-6 is aimed at high-end arms use while its long flying range means it could be used for a variety of military and civilian missions. Unveilings include the domestically developed J-16D "electronic warfare aircraft" and the WZ-7 high-altitude drone, used by the People's Liberation Army for border reconnaissance and patrol of territorial waters. Read full article $→
Chinese radar can detect everything that flies, says Cao Jian, deputy director of the CETGC institute. CETGC has created a family of anti-stealth surveillance equipment covering all wavebands, by combining various systems of reconnaissance and integrating ground, sea, air and space surveillance equipment–making it among the most advanced systems in the world. Read full article →
LONG READS
Wuhan Virus Lab
How US Media Misrepresent the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Laboratories and Safety Protocols

 
Even if we were to accept all the accusations against the WIV regarding their alleged subpar safety standards, none of it has any relevance to the Covid-19 pandemic unless it can be shown the WIV possessed SARS-CoV-2 in its lab before the outbreak, and there is no evidence of that.

Joshua Cho
 
WUHAN, CHINA — While many people have already criticized the lack of evidence and scientific basis for the hypothesis that the Covid-19 pandemic originated from a laboratory, both critics and proponents of the lab-leak theory appear to have uncritically accepted false or unproven premises regarding work done at the laboratory most often implicated in these speculations, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Some of the most prominent accusations pointed at the WIV are that it was conducting research as part of China’s alleged biowarfare program, and was conducting its experiments in substandard biosafety conditions. The implication is that if the WIV lied about not having SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak, the virus would also be more likely to have originated from there owing to their inadequate biosafety standards. However, after investigating these widely circulated claims and contacting several scientists, it turns out there is actually little evidence for any of these allegations.
 

State Department cable a ‘nothing burger’


The claim that the WIV was conducting its experiments in substandard or unsafe working conditions started gaining mainstream acceptance when Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin published an op-ed based on redacted State Department cables from 2018. Rogin claimed that the redacted cables were evidence of “safety issues” at the WIV:

Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, U.S. Embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats.

What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.

Certainly, when reading Rogin’s contrived interpretations of the cables, it’s understandable why these characterizations of the WIV’s biosafety standards would create a sense of mass panic and hysteria among people unfamiliar with laboratory work. However, around the time of publication, Rogin’s opinion piece was already criticized by experts like virologist Angela Rasmussen at the University of Saskatchewan, who tweeted that Rogin’s claims were not only “extremely vague” — with the portions of the cables cited not demonstrating a “clear and specific risk” — but also highly inaccurate.
 

The sections Rogin cites from the January 19, 2018 cable are:

During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory…

Most importantly, the researchers also showed that various SARS-like coronaviruses can interact with ACE2, the human receptor identified for SARS-coronavirus. This finding strongly suggests that SARS-like coronaviruses from bats can be transmitted to humans to cause SARS-like diseases. From a public health perspective, this makes the continued surveillance of SARS-like coronaviruses in bats and study of the animal-human interface critical to future emerging coronavirus outbreak prediction and prevention.

Rasmussen pointed out the main takeaway is that the cables conclude “it’s important to continue working on bat CoVs because of their potential as human pathogens,” and that it “doesn’t suggest that there were safety issues specifically relating to WIV’s work on bat CoVs capable of using human ACE2 as a receptor.” Other critics at the time argued that if Rogin truly believed the State Department cable was as damning for Beijing as he claimed it was, there was little reason for him to refuse to release its full contents in his op-ed upon publication, or when people voiced their skepticism of his presentation of it afterward.

Rasmussen’s skepticism and expert judgment were vindicated three months later, when the Post released the full cable after it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, and reported that Rogin’s selective leaks “sparked unproven speculation.” It noted, “The full cable does not strengthen the claim that an accident at the lab caused the virus to escape, nor does it exclude the possibility.”

Rasmussen later remarked that the full cable is a “big old nothing burger,” because it doesn’t actually raise any concerns with the WIV’s work. Rather, the cable showed how the WIV “wanted to ensure staff working with dangerous pathogens were trained so they could do so safely.” This would explain why the cable requested further aid and training for the lab’s projects and personnel, instead of trying to cancel them.

The Post also pointed out that the lack of trained personnel is not a problem unique to the WIV, as it cited Rob Grenfell, the director of health and biosecurity at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (an Australian government biomedical research agency), saying “All [such] facilities around the world face this challenge.”
 

No proof WIV’s BSL-4 lab involved with bioweapons research

As confirmed by the release of the full cable, the “new lab” mentioned is the WIV’s BSL-4 laboratory (the highest biosafety level), which first opened in 2018. Many irrelevant speculations have surrounded this BSL-4 facility, as it deals with the most dangerous pathogens, like smallpox and SARS-CoV-1, that cannot be handled at lower biosafety levels.

Journalist Sam Husseini, one of the biggest promoters of the laboratory origin hypothesis, has recounted his suspicions regarding the possibility of the SARS-CoV-2 virus originating from the WIV’s BSL-4 laboratory when he asked a CDC representative about the facility:

I asked if it was a “complete coincidence” that the pandemic had started in Wuhan, the only place in China with a declared biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory. BSL4 laboratories have the most stringent safety mechanisms, but handle the most deadly pathogens.

Husseini goes as far as to insinuate that the mere existence of a BSL-4 laboratory is evidence of China’s biowarfare program, largely based on his assertion that the concepts of “biodefense” and “biowarfare” are “largely indistinguishable:”

“Biodefense” implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight them….

The U.S. and China each have dual-use biowarfare/biodefense programs. China has major facilities at Wuhan — a biosafety level 4 lab and a biosafety level 2 lab. There are leaks from labs.

The talking point that the distinction between concepts like “biowarfare” and “biodefense” is merely a “rhetorical sleight of hand” is a popular assertion among journalists promoting the lab-leak theory’s legitimacy, as journalist Glenn Greenwald also claimed something similar:

But ultimately, that distinction barely matters. For both offensive and defensive bioweapons research, scientists must create, cultivate, manipulate and store non-natural viruses or infectious bacteria in their labs, whether to study them for weaponization or for vaccines.

These claims by journalists with no formal science background struck me as far-fetched, so I contacted microbiologist Stanley Perlman at the University of Iowa, virologist Stephen Goldstein at the University of Utah, and virologist James Duehr at the University of Pittsburgh, to check these assertions. Both Perlman and Goldstein simply rejected the assertion that “biowarfare” and “biodefense” are “largely indistinguishable” concepts, with Perlman stating that the claim “doesn’t make sense.” Duehr responded:

Saying that there is no difference between “biodefense” and “biowarfare” is like saying there is no difference between developing bullet-proof vests and armor-piercing bullets. Sure, knowing how one works helps you develop better versions of the other, but conflating them is really missing the point.”

Australian virologist Danielle Anderson, the only foreign scientist to work in the WIV’s BSL-4 laboratory until November 2019, has attested that claiming “the Wuhan Institute of Virology as ‘one of only two bioweapons research labs in all of China’ is simply false,” undermining Husseini’s claim that the WIV’s BSL-4 lab is evidence of China’s alleged dual-use “biowarfare” program. Critics of Husseini’s allegation that the WIV is engaged in “biowarfare” research — one being Claudia Chaufan, director of the graduate program of health policy at York University — have punctured his logic on several grounds. Chaufan stated:

That linguistic sleight of hand in particular, the equivalence of biowarfare and biodefense, is factually not true, and is certainly not true in one very obvious way regarding the Wuhan lab: If there were a biowarfare arms race happening around the world, the countries putatively at war with each other — the U.S. and China — would not share or allow access to their labs to a competitor state, collaborate, or exchange their research and researchers.

But the fact is the U.S. was given wide access to the Wuhan Labs — not just scientists but also U.S. State Department functionaries — as were French scientists.  The Wuhan lab solicited U.S. aid and funding. (Husseini seems to believe that biowarfare labs openly solicit funding from other countries). Scientists in the U.S. and China collaborated and worked together collegially, trained each other, shared information, published papers and still maintain some relations.”

It is true that the WIV has carried out unspecified classified research projects, and has heightened secrecy due to the inherent national security risks of handling dangerous pathogens. However, it’s also true that initial reports explained why WIV officials claimed that “transparency is the basis” for the BSL-4 lab, and why the WIV frequently collaborates with foreign scientists and openly publishes its research — further undermining the allegation that bioweapons research is being conducted there. According to the scientific journal Nature, when the BSL-4 lab was getting cleared to operate:

It will focus on the control of emerging diseases, store purified viruses and act as a World Health Organization ‘reference laboratory’ linked to similar labs around the world. “It will be a key node in the global biosafety-lab network,” says lab director Yuan Zhiming…

The opportunities for international collaboration, meanwhile, will aid the genetic analysis and epidemiology of emergent diseases.

The preventive (rather than militaristic) nature of the WIV’s research is also corroborated by the judgments of U.S. diplomats in the Post’s unredacted State Department cable when it described how the 2002-03 SARS outbreak “convinced China to prioritize international cooperation for infectious disease control:”

This state-of-the-art facility is designed for prevention and control research on diseases that require the highest level of biosafety and biosecurity containment.
 

WIV’s biosafety practices not substandard

For the sake of argument, even if one grants the unproven premise that the WIV’s BSL-4 lab was engaged in bioweapons research, it is still irrelevant to the question of whether SARS-CoV-2 originated there, since the WIV doesn’t conduct coronavirus research at a BSL-4 setting. Most coronavirus research around the world is conducted at BSL-2 and BSL-3 settings.

This demonstrates that those who suspect the pandemic originated from the WIV’s BSL-4 lab don’t seem to be aware of basic information about coronavirus research. Some notable examples are people like novelist Nicholson Baker citing Husseini’s suspicions of the WIV’s BSL-4 facility in a lengthy speculative piece for New York Magazine. Others include Josh Rogin citing similarly ignorant anonymous Trump administration officials to imply that the irrelevant State Department cable is “evidence” that supports “the possibility that the pandemic is the result of a lab accident in Wuhan.”

However, lab-leak proponents like disgraced science writer Nicholas Wade — who penned an influential Medium blog post that was later reprinted by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists — are also fond of moving the goalposts to argue their evidence-free conspiracy theory. Wade cites Rogin’s long-debunked and irrelevant op-ed to claim that the BSL-4 lab’s “state of readiness considerably alarmed the State Department inspectors who visited it from the Beijing embassy in 2018,” before going on to make an entirely separate argument that the WIV’s biosafety standards were substandard and amounted to professional malpractice:

The real problem, however, was not the unsafe state of the Wuhan BSL4 lab but the fact that virologists worldwide don’t like working in BSL4 conditions…. 

Before 2020, the rules followed by virologists in China and elsewhere required that experiments with the SARS1 and MERS viruses be conducted in BSL3 conditions. But all other bat coronaviruses could be studied in BSL2, the next level down. BSL2 requires taking fairly minimal safety precautions, such as wearing lab coats and gloves, not sucking up liquids in a pipette, and putting up biohazard warning signs. Yet a gain-of-function experiment [wherein a pathogen is reasonably anticipated to gain enhanced virulence and/or transmissibility] conducted in BSL2 might produce an agent more infectious than either SARS1 or MERS. And if it did, then lab workers would stand a high chance of infection, especially if unvaccinated.

Wade briefly explained biosafety levels to readers before taking a quote from Dr. Shi Zhengli — the renowned virologist at the WIV — out of context to maximize the impression that the WIV’s biosafety standards were unprofessional:

There are four degrees of safety, designated BSL1 to BSL4, with BSL4 being the most restrictive and designed for deadly pathogens like the Ebola virus….

Much of Shi’s work on gain-of-function in coronaviruses was performed at the BSL2 safety level, as is stated in her publications and other documents. She has said in an interview with Science magazine that “[t]he coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.”

Wade also seemed comfortable parroting molecular biologist Richard Ebright’s heavily disputed claim that BSL-2 conditions are about as safe as a “dentist’s office,” which has been uncritically parroted in other reports as well:

“It is clear that some or all of this work was being performed using a biosafety standard — biosafety level 2, the biosafety level of a standard U.S. dentist’s office — that would pose an unacceptably high risk of infection of laboratory staff upon contact with a virus having the transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2,” Ebright says.

Although Wade provides the link to the Science interview, he omits crucial context that dramatically changes the impression of Shi’s answer and the professionalism of the WIV’s work. When one actually reads the interview, one quickly discovers that the interviewer takes it for granted that most coronavirus research is actually conducted in BSL-2 and BSL-3 settings:

Q: Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 Labs — and indeed, your WIV didn’t even have an operational BSL-4 until recently — why would you do any coronavirus experiments under BSL-4 conditions?

University of Utah virologist Goldstein also explained why likening a BSL-2 lab to a dentist’s office is a “ridiculous comparison:”

In BSL2, experiments are conducted inside a class II biosafety cabinet. These have negative pressure, so air circulates within the cabinet but doesn’t escape, and the air is HEPA filtered as it circulates inside the cabinet. A dentist’s office has none of these critical safety controls.”

This helps prevent aerosol droplets or splashes of samples (like viruses) from traveling around inside the air of the cabinet — though one can simply see for oneself how a biosafety cabinet works, and the proper precautions scientists follow while using it, to confirm how it differs from a mere “dentist’s office.”

Wade actually provides yet another damning instance of misrepresenting sources — consistent with his history of misrepresenting scientists — when he critiques an influential Nature letter ( he mischaracterizes it as a mere “opinion piece,” instead of being a short report on original research for “an outstanding finding”), which corroborates the opposite of what Wade claims in his blog post. The Nature letter in question is a study by a group of virologists led by Kristian Andersen, and it states that the “possibility of an inadvertent laboratory release of SARS-CoV-2” must be examined because SARS-like viruses (not SARS-CoV-1) found in bats are often studied at BSL-2 settings:

Basic research involving passage of bat SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses in cell culture and/or animal models has been ongoing for many years in biosafety level 2 laboratories across the world, and there are documented instances of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV.

The authors later concluded that they “do not believe any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” and the statements above undermine Wade’s depiction of the WIV’s professionalism.

When I asked Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Perlman (who both research coronaviruses) to confirm this information, they each agreed that most coronavirus research is done at BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratories and that there’s nothing unusual about Chinese scientists also doing coronavirus research in those settings. Goldstein declined to specifically comment on the quality of the WIV because he has never visited, and Perlman suggested that some scientists were concerned about experiments with bat viruses being performed at BSL-2 settings, even if they were “all done following the precautions used at the time.”

However, Dr. Rasmussen clarified in a tweet that “many labs studied bat CoVs at BSL2 pre-Covid,” and that “there is no evidence that lab work was occurring with substandard containment,” further corroborating the claim in the Nature study, though she seemed to suggest that the practice “should be revisited.” Dr. Duehr also explained that “more biosafety controls are not always better,” and that “too many biosafety controls can also be dangerous,” because that can lead scientists to become fatigued and careless, as how scientists put on and take off gear are some of the most important moments in biosafety. This is why scientists use the appropriate amount of biosafety controls, rather than pointlessly using the most restrictive equipment for every experiment.
 

Experiments with bat viruses in BSL-2 labs

MIT’s Technology Review article “Inside the Risky Bat-Virus Engineering That Links America to Wuhan” cited a few scientists critical of the WIV conducting similar experiments to the heavily scrutinized 2015 Nature study, led by virologist Ralph Baric (which has frequently been misrepresented as “gain-of-function” research), at a lower biosafety setting than the ones conducted at the University of North Carolina:

The Chinese work was carried out at biosafety level 2 (BSL-2), a much lower tier than Baric’s BSL-3+….

Today a chorus of scientists, including Baric, are coming forward to say this was a misstep. Even if there is no link to Covid-19, allowing work on potentially dangerous bat viruses at BSL-2 is “an actual scandal,” says Michael Lin, a bioengineer at Stanford University.

In response to the news that the WIV conducted more experiments with bat virus WIV1 at the BSL-2 level in another study published in 2017, Technology Review cited criticisms from other virologists like Ian Lipkin:

“That’s screwed up,” the Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin, who co-authored the seminal paper arguing that covid must have had a natural origin, told the journalist Donald McNeil Jr. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.”

However, Dr. Duehr explained to me that the U.S. CDC’s own Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories manual states that viruses related to “Risk Group 3” pathogens (the kinds typically handled at BSL-3), which lack the virulence in humans that the BSL-3 viruses have, can often be safely handled in BSL-2 or BSL-2+ settings (p. 307).

CDC’s Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories manual
Page 307 of the CDC’s Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories manual
This is precisely Dr. Shi’s explanation given to Technology Review for conducting experiments with the WIV1 virus in a BSL-2 lab:

In an email, Zhengli Shi said she followed Chinese rules that are similar to those in the U.S. Safety requirements are based on what virus you are studying. Since bat viruses like WIV1 haven’t been confirmed to cause disease in human beings, her biosafety committee recommended BSL-2 for engineering them and testing them and BSL-3 for any animal experiments.

Duehr also explained that the SARS-like bat viruses used in the Baric study appear to have previously infected humans, but that those persons didn’t recall any symptoms or worrisome illnesses. Given that data, it was reasonable to infer that any infection was likely either asymptomatic or extremely mild, so a similar rationale would explain why scientists inferred these viruses were less virulent and could be handled at a lower biosafety level. Duehr expressed agreement with Dr. Rasmussen’s statement that the scientific community should reconsider the practice of conducting experiments with bat coronaviruses that haven’t been shown to be virulent in humans in BSL-2 laboratories, but also stated that we “should not fault researchers at the WIV for doing what was common practice all around the world at the time.”
 

Intercept’s reporting is actually evidence against a lab leak

Two recent reports on a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to the EcoHealth Alliance — detailing research by the WIV, following FOIA litigation by The Intercept — were misleadingly presented as “new evidence” that U.S.-funded experiments in China “posed biosafety risks” and constituted “high-risk research.” However, it is unclear whether Intercept journalists Sharon Lerner and Mara Hvistendahl understood the significance of the documents they obtained.

Soon after the publication of the first report, Dr. Goldstein argued that The Intercept actually provided evidence against a lab leak because they further confirmed what we have already known since the beginning of the pandemic: that the WIV was only working on “SARS1-like viruses,” with “not a hint of experimental work” on viruses related to SARS-CoV-2.

Virologist Stuart Neil stated on Twitter that there’s “absolutely nothing new here” apart from “disabusing everyone of the notion that animal experiments were carried out at BSL2” because they were carried out in a BSL3 animal facility at the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, and not at the WIV as was previously assumed, which is “entirely appropriate for this work and should provide more than adequate containment.” Dr. Duehr added that the grant also shows us that WIV scientists were doing animal work with SARS-like bat coronaviruses at BSL-3 (not SARS-CoV-1 or 2) (p. 126), which is also how American scientists would handle these bat viruses.

The Intercept also credulously cites biologist and prominent lab-leak booster Alina Chan’s fearmongering and irrelevant speculations that WIV researchers potentially getting bitten by a bat during fieldwork could have led to the pandemic, citing a risk assessment of some of the WIV’s fieldwork:

The grant proposal acknowledges some of those dangers: “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled.”

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute, said the documents show that EcoHealth Alliance has reason to take the lab-leak theory seriously. “In this proposal, they actually point out that they know how risky this work is. They keep talking about people potentially getting bitten — and they kept records of everyone who got bitten,” Chan said. “Does EcoHealth have those records? And if not, how can they possibly rule out a research-related accident?”

However, it would actually be more worrisome if there were no risk assessments for fieldwork to cite at all. Dr. Neil ridiculed Dr. Chan on Twitter for criticizing scientists for writing “a proper risk assessment” for fieldwork “after all the accusations of unsafe working.” Dr. Perlman stated that scientists “have to write risk assessments for their work” in order to get funded and that it was “the right thing to do.”

But perhaps more importantly, citing Dr. Chan’s speculations about the pandemic originating from a bat bite is proof that neither she nor The Intercept’s journalists are aware of basic information about SARS-CoV-2 being a respiratory virus.

In order for that scenario to have any basis, SARS-CoV-2 would also have to be a bloodborne pathogen because the virus from an infected animal bite would pierce the skin and enter the bloodstream, but there is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 being a bloodborne pathogen. Dr. Rasmussen pointed out that there is no known case of anyone contracting a sarbecovirus like SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 from an animal bite, and that while it is “theoretically possible,” it does not actually happen in real life because, as the FDA’s own website confirms, respiratory viruses generally aren’t known to spread via blood-mediated transmission. Dr. Perlman agreed with Rasmussen’s statements and told me that if he were bitten by a bat during fieldwork, he’d “worry about rabies,” not SARS-CoV-2.

It’s also unclear why Dr. Chan is still repeating her baseless claims when Dr. Rasmussen had already criticized her “inexperience with virology” for speculating that it’s “plausible” for humans to be infected by a mouse-adapted strain of coronavirus if lab workers were bitten by mice back in January.

Perhaps The Intercept would not have presented their documents in a way that promotes the lab-leak theory despite it being evidence of the opposite, or published Dr. Chan’s embarrassing speculations, had they sought out other scientists who could have helped them understand their material. But the only scientists asked to opine on the significance of their documents in their bad-faith report were lab-leak boosters like Richard Ebright and Alina Chan.

A second Intercept article cited virologist Jesse Bloom’s opinion that the WIV “creating chimeras of SARS-related bat coronaviruses that are thought to pose high risk to humans entails unacceptable risks.” However, the virus being discussed in the article is WIV1, which hasn’t been shown to cause disease in humans, which is why Dr. Perlman stated that he thinks it’s “not a risk” to study it and that some of the titles of Dr. Baric’s papers on the virus, like “SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence,” may have given the “misleading impression” that it was. Dr. Duehr also agreed that it isn’t a risk to study a SARS-like virus like WIV1, and told me:

The chimeric experiments that Bloom says we should not be doing, are how we find out whether it would pose a risk to humans. He’s assuming that we know the virus is high risk before doing them.”

Dr. Rasmussen disagreed with Dr. Bloom’s personal assessment of the WIV1 experiments and questioned why he thinks he should be the sole arbiter of whether the experiments posed an “unacceptable risk,” when the WIV’s work is subject to external oversight (which is how it was FOIA-ed), and showed that WIV scientists aren’t reckless and don’t singlehandedly decide what is an acceptable risk or not.
 

Judgments of scientists directly familiar with the WIV

Arguably, the opinions of scientists and biosecurity experts directly familiar with the WIV’s safety protocols should count more than others. And they paint a very different picture from the one painted by the critics, and argue that reports insinuating that the laboratory was operating under subpar safety conditions are misrepresentations.

French biosecurity expert Gabriel Gras — who oversaw safety standards at the WIV from 2012 to 2017, since the WIV’s BSL-4 laboratory is a joint collaboration between China and France — dismissed the lab-leak theory and vouched for the WIV’s professionalism and safety standards. He also stated that a BSL-3 laboratory is usually used to study a coronavirus, as it made little sense to use BSL-4 facilities owing to the time and cost considerations. Dr. Danielle Anderson testified that the WIV was being misrepresented by critics and the media:

Half-truths and distorted information have obscured an accurate accounting of the lab’s functions and activities, which were more routine than how they’ve been portrayed in the media. …It’s not that it was boring, but it was a regular lab that worked in the same way as any other high-containment lab. What people are saying is just not how it is.”

American scientists who trained WIV staff attested that the safety protocols at the WIV are not only practiced by scientists all over the world, but that those safety protocols and practices were partly shaped by WIV scientists themselves, owing to their excellence. Some of the safety protocols include wearing safety equipment to prevent themselves from getting infected while doing field work, and making sure that the samples they handle in the lab are “inactivated,” and aren’t actually infectious, by using a chemical process that breaks apart the virus itself, while preserving its genetic material for study.

But even if we were to accept all the accusations against the WIV regarding their alleged subpar safety standards, none of it has any relevance to the Covid-19 pandemic unless it can be shown the WIV possessed SARS-CoV-2 in its lab before the outbreak, and there is no evidence of that either.

In hindsight, it seems there may be a legitimate debate to be had over whether certain experiments conducted at the WIV should have been handled at higher biosafety settings, even if they weren’t out of the ordinary. However, it’s clear that accusations of the WIV being a nefarious bioweapons lab conducting research in subpar safety conditions compared to the rest of the world at the time are misleading at best, and at worst unproven or false. Mint Press

Joshua Cho is a Korean-American writer based in New York. Dr. James Duehr assisted with fact checking this article, and Dr. Diana Lu provided research assistance. 

 
Pax Americana
Pax Americana: Pivot to the Pacific

 Steve Brown

Of perhaps minor newsworthy note in the west is the release of Meng Wangzhou. Meng was falsely ‘arrested’ by the US regime for “colluding with Iran” in 2018, via typical delusional paranoid charges, typical of the failing states obsession with Iran and an excuse (at the time) to leverage Trump’s trade war. Ordering the arrest of Meng via its compliant neighbor to the north, that subservient serfdom obediently arrested her. Now, almost three years later, she has been released in exchange for two lowly serfs (as far as the media is concerned) held by China, in what the former United States deemed to be tit-for-tat arrests. While the story may fall flat and deemed worthy of only a New York Times minute and a giant yawn from cheese eaters, the ‘Story of Meng’ is a resounding celebratory success in China, and is heralded all over that nation.

In a way, the story of Meng is in microcosm all that is wrong with the west. In pursuit of its militarist Pax Americana the Meng affair is just one more progression in a crescendo of bitterly bad foreign policy decisions made by US State. It is a Pax Americana an assassinated president warned about, with so many historic failures. From Mossadegh, Lamumba; Bay of Pigs; Vietnam; Iraq; Chile; El Salvador; Syria, Libya… the list goes on and on and on. After so many failures, the former United States eventually settled on a failed state policy as we have already explored in numerous articles, almost as numerous as the failed states listed.

There are many more examples, some seemingly minor, but they signal a major turning point for the Pax Americana now. For example, the US defeat in Afghanistan was a given from the start because the pax does not belong there. Afghanistan is a place the west will never dominate or control. But regardless of circumstance… defeat is defeat. Likewise, a brutal and despotic US ally – Saudi Arabia – just suffered major defeat in Yemen. Now only one other brutal and despotic US ally – the UAE – must be confronted there. And we see another defeat for the west with Daraa in Syria. Daraa was a victim of the redirection policy described by Seymour Hersh and pioneered by former NSA head Elliott Abrams in 2006.

The insurgency in Syria was enabled by collusion of the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. But the US presence in Syria will soon be irrelevant. The US and Israel not only miscalculated with regard to Iran’s and Russia’s support for Syria, but the US is forced to acknowledge that its failed state policy pursued in tandem with Israel cannot succeed and cannot be maintained. Daraa of course is a setback for Israel, which occupies large areas of Syria and defacto parts of Lebanon. Israel’s illegal occupation of Syrian land was a motivating factor for Israel ordering the US to intervene and support terror in Syria, just as the former United States has funded and armed terror in Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Haiti, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.
 

Pax Americana: Pivot to the Pacific

Despite talks of Israeli ‘normalization’ with Arab states, that’s largely a geopolitical irrelevance. Israel has brutally besieged Gaza for fourteen years, just as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have destabilized Yemen for twenty years. Israel’s daily genocide and violation of Palestinian human rights is quite apparent to the globe despite shin bet’s best efforts to suppress the evidence. A case in point, the Gilboa prisoner escape. The foregoing is not a propaganda end, but only to illustrate how geopolitical perceptions are changing. The west has isolated itself by its inability to adhere to the values of democracy that it hypocritically pretends to champion; and by its enthusiasm for war, failed states, and havoc to justify the militarism Pax Americana requires. The hypocrisy and failure of the west is witnessed by all and really only the west itself denies that. Such is empire.

Now we come to the point. The Pax Americana a murdered president warned us about is now attempting to slow the inevitable decline brought about by its own hand, over many decades. So how can the hegemon slow that decline?

Perhaps it’s better to view the Pax Americana in the form of its opposition, being an alliance between Russia, China, Iran, and perhaps a rogue four-headed snake in the mix too – NATO ‘ally’ Turkey, with India as an also-ran. For the failing hegemon that leaves only the alliance France is whining about: US, UK, with outliers Australia, India, and Japan to hold down the Pacific. That’s how it must be.

In the context of the contagion, slowing trade routes, a collapsing global reserve currency, and endangered trade and energy agreements, the Pax Americana has already been forced to ditch Asia and the Middle East with the exception of its unwavering support for Israel. That leaves Europe, Africa, and Latin America as a much smaller sphere of influence for the US hegemon. China has made great strides in parts of Africa too, with growing influence there. Russia’s energy dominance in Europe will likely marginalize or even neutralize US Liquid Natural Gas ambitions in Europe.

By its trade sanctions, weaponization of the US dollar, predilection for war, support for brutal regimes, and cloistered, unrealistic, myopic view of what’s truly a multipolar world, the United States has painted itself into a serious corner. That corner is becoming ever tighter, and ever more uncomfortable. It’s something US State is either too stupid or too arrogant to see… as is the way of all empire. The only thing that really maintains the pax is the US dollar and trillions in share markets. When the dollar and those markets experience true peril, that’s when the Pax Americana will truly fail. And any pivot to contain China, Russia, Iran and the Pacific will not save it. Southfront.
The Long Game 
The Long Game and Its Contradictions

Impatient short-termers by definition, understanding history's rhythms is alien to the American capitalist mind.

He Zhao

During the first phase of Reform and Opening up, roughly 1980 to 2000, developing from having lower GDP than the African average, China has focussed on building the productive forces on top of the industrial foundation laid down in the previous era, growing a strong mixed economy for which foreign investment was crucially important, and drastically improving conditions for the working class and rural poor. The second phase, roughly 2000 to now, has been focused on overcoming the problems which have arisen from the developmental process of the first phase. Uneven development/wealth inequality, corruption, pollution/environmental degradation, and various labour issues are problems par the course of adopting a hybrid economy in a global market dominated by neoliberalism, and of using private entrepreneurship as a tool of development.

Uneven development between urban East Coast and the large inner and Western rural regions has been addressed by the building of an elaborate highspeed rail system which connects regional economies and various initiatives which strengthen inter-regional trade. Uneven development between the entrepreneurs who got rich first and the working class and especially migrants has been addressed by a series of labour reform policies which have resulted in dramatic growth in the lowest-earning segments of Chinese society. By the most modest estimation, between 1990 and 2018 the number of Chinese people living in extreme poverty was reduced from 750m to less than 10m (Economist).

One of Xi JinPing’s first major projects after becoming leader was the epic anti-corruption drive, which punished 1.5 million state officials and business leaders for unjustly benefiting themselves at the expense of the people. Also implemented was a wide array of new policies which further restricted the excesses of private enterprise, in terms of trade practices, environmental regulation, worker’s rights, etc.

To combat pollution and climate change, during this second phase of development many decisions were made and initiatives were implemented from local to international level. These have included the reduction of reliance on coal, banning it in Beijing altogether (although not yet completely eliminated); massive reforestation projects; and becoming the global leader in green-technology investment.

On the path toward full socialisation, it is in the interest of the CPC to improve conditions for workers, fix labor issues, fight pollution, increase equality, and address uneven development, on its own terms, and according to its plans. Many such measures have taken place in recent years, such as the millions of urban youths sent to rural areas to assist in development and education, or the many stricter rules regarding worker well being which private businesses must follow at the risk of their companies being collectivised (a not at all uncommon occurrence).

But at the same time, grassroots labor movements are not only allowed, but encouraged. The vast majority of strikes and protests in China are against unjust CEOs and local officials, appealing to the central government. Beijing usually steps in on the side of the workers, punishing the capitalists and corrupt politicians, forcing them to change their ways. The few strikes and protests which are suppressed mostly belong to the category of anti-communist trouble makers with ties to insidious imperialist entities, whose aim is destabilisation (and these are of course amplified in Western media).

The lessons of compromised independent labor unions used by hostile bourgeois states to destroy socialism such as Solidarność in Poland, which doomed the nation to 4 decades of neo-liberal poverty and under development, and paved the way for the rise of Polish fascism today, are heeded by the CPC, and such organisations are not allowed. But at the end of each day, any still existing legitimate discontent and criticism must be viewed in the context of material reality: in the past 4 decades, the working class of China have seen a 400% increase in terms of real purchasing power.

According to the longest study of a people’s satisfaction with their government ever conducted by the Ash Center in China, and published by Harvard:

“In 2016, 95.5 percent of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with Beijing.”
 

INTERNATIONAL

Internationally, China’s socialist foreign policy is decidedly not a continuation of the past socialist export of revolutions, but focused on the restructuring of global trade. It is a new form of internationalism based on the promotion of independent economic development of the over-exploited nations of the Global South, through mutually beneficial relationships and a policy of peaceful co-existence. The long term goal is nothing short of the elimination of the primary contradiction of imperialist capitalism — inter-continental inequality. Ending the fundamental injustice of our age, disparity between rich and poor countries, will also spell the end of myriads of cascading ancillary injustices. Alleviating poverty, promoting trade and learning, and building relationships based on respect and cooperation, new economic alliances between colonised regions will together displace Western hegemony, break imperialist cycles of violence, and end capitalist domination.

The creation of a more equal and level global playing field will have two major effects upon the world. One: workers in the imperial core, the Global North, the “first world”, will again have bargaining power to make demands, because their jobs will no longer be easily exported to poor regions with low wages. Two: people of the imperial periphery, the Global South, the “third world”, will be empowered to set the terms of their own engagement in the world, and have the chance to build independent economic strength. This reduction of global inequality produces the material conditions necessary for global socialism with local characteristics.

Contradictions in the foreign policies of the CPC include those which result from the strict non-interference in the affairs of foreign states, which has characterised Chinese foreign relations for thousands of years, and the prioritising of larger international trade relationships over ideological conflicts. One example is unscrupulous business deals with right-wing governments, such as Saudi Arabia or Israel. The “live and let live” ethic of this modus operandi even applies to ideological enemies: China also trades with the biggest terrorist organisation in the world, the USA, without even criticising its long list of illegal wars and heinous crimes against humanity (although this may be changing). Another is not supporting local leftist struggles in partner nations, such as guerrilla Maoist insurrections in SE Asia, if it might jeopardise trade relations with state entities. If the temporary “ethical net-losses” of these contradictions lead to larger “net-gains” and positive results in the long term, they are calculated as worthwhile or unavoidable.

The CPC understands that national leaders and ruling parties are fickle and ephemeral, but development and the improvement of material conditions will have long-lasting effects. Creating a more balanced global playing field is the long game, which will create the conditions necessary for systemic change in each country, by their own agency. The phrase “Socialism With Chinese Characteristics” may have seemed clumsy and overly wordy at first, but the world will slowly come to understand its internationalist meaning, and that it is this way for a very specific reason: in anticipation of Socialism with Indian Characteristics, Socialism with French Characteristics, Socialism with USAmerican Characteristics, and 1000 socialisms with local characteristics to bloom.

As of 2019, 125 countries have signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative, The PRC’s epic effort to connect the world through infrastructure and trade, to foster cooperative relationships, to develop under-developed regions, to strengthen nations weakened by imperialism, in a world historic process of actual, material decolonisation. Due for completion by later this century, the Bri will provide ground work for further sustainable international cooperative ventures such as the Global Energy SuperGrid or the Health Silk Road.

It is a long and treacherous strategy on a grand global chessboard shaped by layers of devastating historical injustice and the cascading chaos produced by exploitative and oppressive processes, and in order to win, relatively minor contradictions and problematic particularities must not obscure or impede the realisation of larger goals.
 

HISTORY / THEORY

In 1921, Sun Yat Sen predicted that the fate of the Chinese people would most likely be that of the Native Americans: almost completely wiped out. Due to monarchic rot, foreign domination and abuse, and the country torn apart by warlords, infrastructure, industry, and agriculture lay in ruins; 20% of the population were addicted to opium; piles of corpses lay in the streets.

In 1950, at the birth of modern China and the Communist Party, the average life expectancy was 35 years. 2.5 decades later, at the end of the Mao era in the late 70s, it had doubled to 70, but the average citizen still lived on less than $1 a day, by many measures poorer than people in Africa, and did not have luxuries [necessities] such as indoor plumbing, refrigerators, or television sets.
Socialism could not have survived, much less thrived, under such conditions.

The 80s was an era that saw the destruction of many socialist states around the world which succumbed to ceaseless imperialist economic, political, and military violence, from USSR to Yugoslavia. In a world almost totally dominated by neo-liberalism, there were no other options for China to develop its economic strength other than growth via a limited private sector. But while capitalists exist in a mixed economy, they do not control politics like in capitalist countries, and are completely answerable to the socialist state.

In every way, the economic program devised by Zhou Enlai, under the leadership of Deng XiaoPing, continued in the direction of Maoist visionary development, in line with Lenin’s economic policies of the early USSR, and rigorously following the Marxist credo that liberation can only come from material abundance. No nation, whether socialist or capitalist, can survive in isolation, and no socialism can be built on hunger and poverty. 40 years ago the great policy of Reform-and-Opening-

Up entered China into the international market, a trajectory which, in every way, should be seen as a continuation and extension of the historical legacy of Marxist Leninist theory and practice. “it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity.

“Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse”. –– Karl Marx, “The German Ideology”

“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” — Karl Marx, “in the critique of the Gotha Program”

“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly”
“The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.“ — Vladimir Lenin, Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?

“”We want to do business.” Quite right, business will be done. We are against no one except the domestic and foreign reactionaries who hinder us from doing business. … When we have beaten the internal and external reactionaries by uniting all domestic and international forces, we shall be able to do business with all foreign countries on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty.” –– Mao Ze Dong, On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship

“So, to build socialism it is necessary to develop the productive forces. Poverty is not socialism. To uphold socialism, a socialism that is to be superior to capitalism, it is imperative first and foremost to eliminate poverty. True, we are building socialism, but that doesn’t mean that what we have achieved so far is up to the socialist standard. Not until the middle of the next century, when we have reached the level of the moderately developed countries, shall we be able to say that we have really built socialism and to declare convincingly that it is superior to capitalism. We are advancing towards that goal.” — Deng XiaoPing

SOCIALISM WITH CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS

The Communist Party of China does not in fact claim that China is today already fully socialist, but a country with a mixed economy, led by a communist state, that is actively working toward the officially stated goal of “Fully Developed Lower Stage Socialism by 2050”.
Now here are a few characteristics of socialism in China:
  1. Never privatised major industries, which are all public owned. Compare this to the collapse of Yugoslavia, USSR, etc., which were all marked by an immediate devouring of national industry by private entities: true transitions to capitalism.
  2. Land remains collectivised, and leased to private persons or business entities for a maximum of 70 years. While home ownership numbers are extremely high in China compared to other countries, property inheritance does not exist, thus neither does a landlord class.
  3. The rich do not control politics. The CPC is comprised almost entirely of working class representatives, extremely few capitalists. In the highest governing body, the National People’s Congress, there are 26 owners of private enterprises among 2600+ members (2018).
  4. In Democratic Centralism, directly democratic decision-making through elections proceeds from neighbourhood and local councils up to the National Congress, and from there and above are appointed by elected officials, according to merit. This combines the best of both democracy and meritocracy, while the dangers of both are checked by the other.
  5. Never experienced the boom-bust cycles typical of capitalist economies in its 40 years of steady development at a rate of roughly 10% per year.
  6. Incomes of bottom of society grew wages 400% since 1979; bottom segments of USA during same period: 1%. If the USA is not a good comparison due to its drastic differences in history and position, a much better one is India, another post colonial nation developing during the same period, which actually transitioned to capitalism: exponentially more inequality, nearly no progress or even regress for the poorest segments of society.
  7. CPC representatives oversee all operations of corporations, which are entirely answerable to the state. CEOs, capitalists, and the super-wealthy do not control politics and influence policy via lobbies and campaign contributions, and are not at all above the law like in the capitalist West.
  8. 1.5 million capitalists and state officials punished for corruption since 2007, 17% of whom were imprisoned or executed. Compare this to capitalist countries that always reward the excesses and crimes of their elites, such as the Wall Street bankers whose excesses caused the 2008 global financial crash.
  9. Problems such as uneven development, inequality, bad work conditions, corruption, pollution, etc. are clearly and repeatedly addressed publicly, and in no uncertain terms. Correctional policies addressing each of these problems have been implemented, and already have had significant results.
  10. Foreign engagement is always mutually beneficial, guided by the millennia old policy of strict non-interference, in support of independent development of regions dominated by imperialism. The New Silk Road, or Belt and Road initiative, seeks to build an international brotherhood of former colonised nations, together in strength against capitalist hegemony and imperial domination.
If private property, money, abstract value production, class society, and the state, are abolished prematurely, when the oppressive logic and power of capital still controls the entire world, China would become vulnerable to both external imperialist violence and internal reactionary sabotage (no doubt under the banner of “democracy”). The Communist Party would be immediately compromised by foreign backed elements; the country might be torn apart once again by civil war, and once again subjected to imperialist domination. The Chinese revolution, what so many millions fought, worked tirelessly, and sacrificed their lives for, will have been for nothing.

Marxism is anything but rigid and dogmatic, and has always been about adapting to the ever changing objective conditions of each era, using whatever is available toward revolutionary goals. The opinion of those baizuo who think that China should have chosen the disastrous course of action described above, or at least remained underdeveloped, poor, and weak, in order to satisfy their fundamentalist interpretation of Marxism, should not be indulged. These myopic and short-sighted “left com”, “ultra-left”, or modern “Maoist” types love to denounce modern China as a betrayal of socialism, without considering that it is the failure of the Western left to do successful revolutions in their countries which made it necessary for existing socialist states to adapt to the global conditions of entrenched neo-liberal capitalism.

Those who think that 1.4 billion people, who for 200 years suffered so immensely under vicious colonial rule and brutal capitalist domination, will so quickly forget what their true enemy is, don’t know much about capitalism, colonialism, or people.

The fight against capitalism continues, but on economic grounds. Because war is the way of imperialism, and military spending accounts for 90% of US GDP, while Chinese socialism is developing alliances with Africa, South America, Europe, and other parts of Asia based on mutual development. Socialists will beat the capitalists at the (what they consider their own) game of markets with rational planning, and through peaceful trade and prosperity for all, end bourgeois global hegemony.

But at the same time, criticism and self-criticism remain of course a central part of Maoist thought and practice. And yes, as communists, we should of course support authentic labor movements while opposing neo-liberal forces, but also careful not to repeat the same mistakes of ultra-leftism 60 years ago which resulted in the catastrophic Cultural Revolution. The CPC has been so extraordinarily competent and successful exactly because of having adapted to much critique, and addressed the demands of activists over the years. We must remain ever vigilant, instead of becoming lazy and putting blind trust in the state, which is always in danger of being corrupted and led astray, by (in the context of Chinese socialism) either the left or right.

The entrenched and pervasive structures of capitalism took 500 years to build, and the propertarian system of which it is an extension, 6000 years. Its dissolution requires strategies on a scale bigger and longer than is easily conceived or understood by any individual without many years of dedication, and will take more than a few decades to unfold.

Western liberals think in terms of quarterly reports and election cycles. Eastern communists think in terms of centuries, if not millennia. Greanville Post.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: He Zhao is a Renaissance man. Radical Politics, Radical Design, Radical Rhythm, Radical Optimism. Marxis musicologist, and many other things. goodsforthepeople.com
THIS ESSAY APPEARED ON THE AUTHOR'S PAGE ON MEDIUM.  THIS ESSAY IS AVAILABLE IN AN AUDIO/VIDEO VERSION
Media
Ignorance?
When it comes to China, our media ‘experts’ need a lot of help

By Gregory Clark


Since the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal our mainstream media experts have doubled down on the claim Beijing is expansionist. Since few of them can read or speak Chinese maybe I can help them.

First of all there are two entities claiming to represent China. One is the communist government in Beijing which calls itself the People’s Republic of China; the other is the nationalist government in Taipei which calls itself in English the “Republic of China” (in Chinese, ‘Chung Hua Min Kuo Seifu’ —The Chinese People’s Government). And while the nationalist government in Taipei lacks power, on paper at least it is much more expansionist than the government in Beijing.

It has denounced almost all the border agreements Beijing has negotiated with its neighbours. It says they sacrifice sacred Chinese territory.

This has included the difficult 2129km border with Myanmar where Beijing has conceded much of the formerly China-controlled tribal areas. Its concession of the 10,000-square-kilometre strip occupied by the Kokang Chinese — a Mandarin-speaking group who in the 18th century came to what later was called Burma — and the Namwan tract, yet another British land grab during China’s 19th century weakness, was condemned by Taipei as treasonous.

Over Mongolia and the territories Russia grabbed in Siberia and its Far East, Beijing has conceded away more than 3 million square kilometres, an area equal to much of WA and NT combined. Taipei turned apoplectic over these deals.

The only time I have ever seen any mention by Canberra of these very generous concessions was Paul Hasluck in Moscow in November 1964 telling the Soviet leadership that the likelihood Beijing might renege on these deals was a good reason why they, the Soviets, should join us in fighting the Viet Cong in Vietnam.

Only over India does Beijing seem to have problems, which is understandable. New Delhi seems to have felt it once had some claim to a large piece of China, called Tibet. With Western support it has been arguing about the borders ever since.

As China desk officer in Canberra during the first India-Tibet border disputes of 1960s I saw close up how the Indian intrusions into Tibet were routinely condemned by Canberra and elsewhere in the West as Chinese aggressions.

Many of the Indian intrusions were across borders laid down 19th century by expansionist Brits — the MacMahon Line particularly. Even though those borders favoured India, New Delhi wanted more.

Following the Indian 1962 Dhola Strip intrusion across the MacMahon line China obviously decided it had enough. It attacked south far into Assam and, having given India a lesson, it withdrew, returning the weapons it had captured but retaining small disputed pockets elsewhere. (Canberra should take note: Beijing’s tolerance has limits. Cross them and it hits back hard. But having made its point it then withdraws.)

The one objective book on the China-India border, by area expert Alastair Lamb, was banned in India. The other border experts are in Taipei. They have long condemned Beijing for not claiming much more, including all of Assam.

The critics claim Beijing does salami slicing along India’s borders. In that case Taipei has wanted large gobs of raw meat.

Turning to the East and South China Seas both Taipei and Beijing have their claims. Both have tacitly dropped claims justified by China’s traditional nine dash map line embracing most of the South China Sea, the Spratley and Paracel island groups especially.

Despite past clashes with Hanoi over some Paracel Islands Beijing now seems close to agreement. However, both Chinas maintain some claims in the Spratleys — Beijing to some dredged up sandbars or atolls claimed mainly by the Philippines; Taipei to the large island of Taiping claimed also by the Philippines.

Finally we have the Senkakus claimed by both Japan and Taipei. Beijing is ritually accused of aggression but in fact it simply backs up Taipei’s claims, which are strong.

The islands are connected to Taiwan by a volcanic island chain. Japan is far away, separated by the deep Okinawa Trench.

Japan’s claim dates from China’s 19th century period of weakness. It did not even have a name for the islands and has had to borrow an English name, Pinnacle Islands (Senkaku Retto in Japanese translation), given by 18th century British explorers.

The Beijing/Taipei name — Diaoyu-tai, or fishing platform — dates back many centuries when the whole area was a Chinese lake. For the Japanese it was a pirates’ paradise.

The US seized the islands from Japan in 1945. But when returning them to Japan with Okinawa in 1971, unlike with Okinawa, it specifically refused to recognise Japan’s sovereignty, even in residual form, out of respect for Taiwan’s strong claims.

Today, seeing a chance for yet another conflict with China the US makes little mention of these details. It insists it gave Japan administrative rights, whatever that is.

The critics also make little mention of the fact Taipei still claims and occupies a bunch of islands — the Offshore islands — along the Chinese coast. In the past they were used for running spy and commando raids into China. Beijing could rightfully have seized them some 60 years ago, but for US threatening nuclear war. Today it leaves the islands in peace, under Taipei control.

Finally we come to Taiwan itself. Beijing’s claim to Taiwan is condemned as contrary to a rules-based international order. Yet all major nations, including Australia, and many smaller ones have signed formal agreements recognising or acknowledging Beijing’s claim to Taiwan.

Beijing’s critics clearly must be making it up as they go along since obeying an international agreement is about as rules-based as it gets. Ditto for the constant media claim Beijing sees Taiwan as a renegade province. The words “renegade province” do not even exist in Chinese, let alone the concept.

Beijing religiously sticks to the concept we all signed up for in the seventies but have since forgotten, namely that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. That, incidentally, is why Beijing now accepts Taiwan’s occupation of those Offshore islands.

For if Taiwan is to be seen as part of China then automatically the islands it occupies are also part of China.

When it comes to logic Beijing runs rings around our media experts. Our  ‘experts’ need a lot more learning about China. Their ignorance is embarrassing and dangerous. Pearls & Irritations

Gregory Clark began his career in Australia’s Department of External Affairs, with postings to Hong Kong and Moscow. Resigning in 1964 to protest at Australia’s participation in the Vietnam War he moved to Japan, becoming emeritus president of Tama University in Tokyo and vice-president of the pioneering Akita International University. He continues to live in Japan and has established himself as a commentator/academic. Between 1969-74 he was correspondent for The Australian in Tokyo.
More on www.gregoryclark.net
Green Finance

GREEN FINANCE

Trivium China Deep Dive
 


Last year, Xi Jinping pledged that China will peak carbon emissions before 2030 and become carbon neutral before 2060. But reaching net zero won’t come cheap. In fact, it’s going to be eye-wateringly expensive.  According to the head of the central bank (PBoC), Yi Gang:

  • China will need to come up with $352 billion per year to reach the 2030 goal.
  • This outlay will grow to $624 billion annually from 2030 to 2060.

That’s $22.4 trillion–five times Germany's GDP – to fund Xi’s climate pledge. 

Looking at those kinds of numbers, it’s clear the government can’t fund this mega-transformation of the economy alone.
 

That’s where green finance comes in.

What is green finance? And how is China supporting it? We’re glad you asked – because answering those questions is the very reason we put this latest Trivium China Deep Dive together. 

The definition: 

  • Green finance is a set of policy and bureaucratic arrangements and incentives meant to channel non-state (aka private sector) capital into green projects and industries.
  • Green financial products are primarily loans and bonds.
  • And as with just about everything, China has its own approach to setting up a green finance system.

If you’re keen to understand that unique approach, well by all means, keep reading. 
 

The lay of the land

China got serious about green finance in 2016 when the government prioritized the “holistic development of a green financial system” in the 13th Five-Year Plan.
  • This priority reflected heightened government attention on addressing serious domestic pollution concerns and, more recently, staking China’s claims to global leadership in tackling climate change.

Since then, key Chinese government entities have been trying to set up the basics of the domestic green financing system, with some success.

By the numbers: 

  • By 2020, green bond issuance in China had skyrocketed to RMB 813 billion – up from just RMB 238 billion in 2016.
  • And in the same year, green lending by 21 major financial institutions – which account for over 80% of Chinese banking assets – reached RMB 11 trillion, up from RMB 7.5 trillion in 2016.

But as always in China – while the absolute numbers are large, the proportions tell a different story.

  • In 2020, green loans only accounted for less than 7% of the credit market, and green bonds less than 1%.

Even before Xi’s climate pledge, these numbers were nowhere near high enough to fund China’s green commitments.

So how to spur growth in green financing? There are two main issues at the center of policymakers’ attention:

  • Ensuring green investments are financially attractive
  • Ensuring funded projects are environmentally impactful

Those are two pretty fundamental challenges that are still being thought through – which tells us how far there is to go. But the increased political will to address these challenges is palpable.
 

Beyond the numbers

As the green finance issue moves up the priority chain, however, sheer political will won’t be enough – policymakers realize the need to focus on the economics.

  • While there is plenty of political pressure on banks and companies to get behind green finance, the financial incentives are just not there yet to attract the vast levels of investment needed.

Indeed, for now, green finance often comes at a net economic cost for borrowers and lenders.

  • Banks say the material incentives for green lending are not enough to make such products cheaper than “regular financing” products.
  • What’s more, even if interest rates on green finance products are competitive, borrowers and lenders need to comply with a list of complex requirements and produce all the paperwork documenting how they meet those requirements, to boot – creating significant additional compliance burdens.
  • And importantly, green funds aren’t fungible – by definition, they have to be used for specific activities, which further dents their attractiveness.

So with all these headwinds, why are the numbers up at all?

  • Participating in green finance often makes political and reputational (if not economic) sense for borrowers.
  • Lenders often approve green lending to demonstrate they’re on board with the government’s plan.
  • And quelle surprise: State banks have to support the goals of the state. So there’s that.

The bottom line: The political incentives for green finance are firmly in place – getting the economics right is now the key challenge for policymakers.
 

Flipping the switch

The PBoC has recently upped its policy game to address the persistent lack of financial incentives for lenders.

  • Stay with us for a minute because we are about to go all Party-speak.

The PBoC’s efforts will be guided by the “three major functions” and the “five pillars.”

The “three major functions” refer to the main types of policy support for green finance, including:

  • Resource allocation: Guiding financial resources into green investments through tools including monetary policy, credit policy, regulatory policy, and project evaluation.
  • Risk management: Improving the financial system’s ability to manage risks related to climate change through tools such as climate-risk stress tests, environmental analysis, and green-asset risk weightings.
  • Market pricing: Building a national carbon emissions trading market, developing derivative trading products, and setting a reasonable price for carbon emissions through the market trading system.

The “five pillars” refer to activities that support the development of China’s green finance ecosystem:

  • Improving the green finance standards system by unifying domestic standards and aligning them with international ones
  • Strengthening oversight of financial institutions and their information disclosures
  • Improving incentive and restraint mechanisms – through policies like performance evaluations and interest-rate subsidies
  • Encouraging innovation in green financial products and markets
  • Increasing international cooperation

But the PBoC’s challenge isn’t just about increasing the volume of green finance. It’s also about ensuring funds are spent on genuinely impactful projects – and preventing “greenwashing.”

The toolkit: As we lay out below, financial officials are primarily employing three main tools to boost financial incentives for green lending and investment.
 

Tool #1: Making green finance more attractive to banks

In recent years, the PBoC has pursued a range of measures to make green finance more attractive for lenders, including: 

  • Re-financing funds designated for green financial products
  • Allowing green bonds to be used as collateral for PBoC lending facilities

What’s more, in August, the PBoC said it plans to develop more financial instruments that offer preferential interest rates for green financing – as well as providing targeted and direct support for green development.

Translation: The PBoC will boost subsidies for green investment to get more banks on board.

Subsidizing a portion of investments is cheaper than putting the entirety of project financing on the public books. But, ultimately, the entire point of developing a green finance system is to make green investments financially attractive – without the need for direct government subsidization.

To do that, officials will need to entice a wider array of players into the green financing market.

What to watch: That will take time, so for now, direct subsidies will remain the order of the day.

Our question: Once investors bake subsidies into their financial models for green investment, will the government be able to pull back?

  • That’s easier said than done, as shown by the painful extraction of subsidies from the solar sector.


Tool #2: Increasing the weight of green finance in bank assessments

The PBoC already considers green credit and green bond performance in its macroprudential assessment (MPA) framework – which policymakers employ to give banks quarterly performance and risk evaluations.

  • But the weighting of these metrics in evaluating bank performance is set to increase.

How does that work? The increased weighting of green finance within the MPA framework should incentivize banks to boost capital allocation to green projects – because it will boost the overall MPA score, which brings a broad range of benefits to lenders. 

As an example: Higher MPA scores lead to increased access to central bank facilities and lower interbank borrowing costs.

The roadmap: In early February, Wang Xin, director of the PBoC’s research bureau, announced that the central bank would incorporate more and more forms of green finance – including green trusts and green equity investments – into the MPA.

The upshot: Using indirect incentives, like lower wholesale funding costs tied to intermediary evaluations, could be one key way for the PBoC to avoid leaning too heavily on direct subsidies in boosting green finance.

  • That’s what we call a market-forces win-win.

Mark your calendars: Wang expects the revised MPA framework to drop before the end of 2021.


Tool #3: Getting more investors involved

Policymakers know that when it comes to green finance, the more the merrier.

That’s why they are looking to harmonize green finance standards with international best practices – to help foreign and local investors identify, screen, and (hopefully) fund green assets in China.

The latest: 

  • In February, the PBoC’s Research Bureau noted they were on track to publish the China-EU Shared Classification Catalogue for Green Finance.
  • And in April, the PBoC, CSRC, and National Reform and Development Commission updated their green bond endorsed-project catalog, harmonizing standards across the three regulatory bodies.

Beijing is also keen to tap into the growing interest in ESG to speed up green investments.

  • The number of ESG indices in China doubled in 2020 from 2019.
  • The scale of ESG funds grew by more than 60% in the same period.

But folks in the know tend to agree that ESG investing suffers from some significant issues, particularly in China, including:

  • Domestic investors’ general lack of practical experience with ESG investing
  • The lack of unified ESG standards, which drives vast variability in rating agencies’ ESG scores

To address these long-term challenges, the PBoC is looking to get strategic-minded funds – such as pension funds and social security funds – to lead the way in thinking through proper ESG investment.

  • In the meantime, the securities regulator (CSRC) has signaled that it’s also working to align domestic ESG disclosure standards with international ones, to make it easier for investors to assess the ESG-ness of companies. 

Get smart: Bringing domestic ESG and green finance standards and best practices closer to international ones will make it easier for investors to make informed decisions regarding the Chinese market.

But, but, but: These standards will still be a far cry from what you might see in other countries.

  • The overarching idea in aligning standards is to entice foreign capital to support domestic green requirements – not necessarily to fit domestic green projects and financial instruments into international investors’ frameworks.

Proper assessment mechanisms will be crucial to success

Banks, financial institutions, and investors are all eager to be seen supporting China’s green drive.

But the last thing the PBoC wants is to see money gushing into ineffective projects that do little or nothing to reduce emissions and end up as non-performing assets a few years down the road.

  • Getting this right will require ongoing assessment and information disclosure mechanisms to enable all stakeholders to assess the quality and impact of investments along the way.

To this end, the PBoC has emphasized that green finance should be “workable, measurable, and verifiable.”

What does that mean?

  • Workable – Investments should support sectors that can achieve clear, significant reductions in carbon emissions
  • Measurable – Financial institutions must be able to calculate the carbon emission reductions stemming from green funds directly – and must publicly disclose that information
  • Verifiable – Officials will establish a network of third-party professional institutions to verify the integrity of information disclosures

That may seem like a heavy lift. But the PBoC’s recently launched environmental information disclosure pilot in the Greater Bay Area (GBA) gives us a good idea of how all this might eventually look.

  • Thirteen banks in Guangzhou, Zhuhai, Huizhou, Zhongshan, Dongguan, Foshan, Jiangmen, and Zhaoqing are participating in the pilot.

The selected banks must include details on the following in mandatory annual reports: 

  • Overall project governance structures
  • Objective analyses of the financial institution’s environmental risks and opportunities
  • Environmental risk management and processes
  • Impacts of business activities on the environment
  • Impacts of investment and financing activities on the environment

What to watch: Given that the government is setting up the GBA as a key zone for innovating financial reform, we’ll be keeping close tabs on how well these environmental information disclosures work – or don’t.

The bottom line: Green finance can’t not work

Despite some enormous challenges, China’s financial officials must find a way to make green finance work – to fund China’s lofty carbon neutrality goals.

  • Indeed, given the domestic political imperatives, they simply have to find a way.
  • And that’s not to mention what it would mean for the world if China’s attempt to set up a workable green financing system fell flat.

For those of us on the outside, keeping tabs on these developments will be critical. Apart from the obvious life-or-death benefits of China achieving carbon neutrality, there are many other reasons to root for policymakers’ success.

 

Our take on the stakes: 

  • China’s bid to achieve net zero is not just about reducing emissions – it’s about transforming the country’s entire economic model, with ramifications across all sectors.
  • Most of the technology required to reach net zero doesn’t even really exist yet, or is only in its infancy. These discoveries will likely drive transformations across industries (even in some not directly related to the green enterprise) – and ensuring proper funding behind these technologies will be vital.
  • Environmental protection will also likely be incorporated as a core element of the latest incarnation of “common prosperity.” Smart companies and investors will strategically dovetail their corporate and portfolio positioning – and messaging – with this new reality.
  • China is not the only country trying to make green finance work. China’s approach, and failures and successes, could help inform solutions globally as other countries struggle to fund their own green transformations.
  • Green development is a long-term, large-scale enterprise. Given the sheer scale of the outlay required, investors can’t afford to sit this one out.

In conclusion: Chinese financial regulators are moving from a crawl to a walk in building out a viable system of green financing. They will soon be running, and the rest of us need to be ready to keep up.

Trivium China Deep Dives are curated content, drawn from our paid research services for companies and investors. There’s A TON more where this came from. If you are an executive or investor and you want a gander at the good stuff, send us a note at hq@triviumchina.com, or click the link below to request a free 30-day trial. SIGN UP NOW

Data Control
Data Control 

China’s central bank scoops up Alipay’s credit data

Matt Haldane

It is no secret that Beijing has been fixated on data security of late. While this was not a reason for scuttling the initial public offering of Alipay owner Ant Group last year, regulators are looking to break up what they perceive as an “information monopoly” in the fintech industry.

Ant, an affiliate of South China Morning Post owner Alibaba Group Holding, is now feeding credit data from its microloan service Huabei to the People’s Bank of China. This removes another brick from the walled gardens of China’s tech giants that are slowly being dismantled. Tencent just last week said it wouldunblock external links to rivals on WeChat.

There are practical reasons for wanting to keep consumer credit data consolidated where it can be easily accessed. Still, breaking up an “information monopoly” dovetails nicely with Beijing’s efforts to bring more of the big data handled by Big Tech under its control.

Financial data is a particular area of concern for Beijing authorities. It is singled out as “critical information infrastructure”, which is governed by the Data Security Law that went into effect this month.

Tech companies are still waiting to find out precisely what the new data governance regime means in terms of liabilities. There is still no conclusion in sight for for the cybersecurity investigation into ride-hailing giant Didi Chuxing as it approaches its 60th working day, when such reviews are normally supposed to finish, according to regulations.

Amid the uncertainty, orders have fallen on Didi’s app, which was pulled from Chinese app stores in July but reappeared in Baidu’s store on Friday. Reuters also reported that the company president Jean Liu,daughter of Lenovo founder Liu Chuanzhi, had confided with associates that she was looking at jumping ship. Didi denied the report and threatened legal action over the “malicious” spreading of rumours.

In some ways, China’s efforts to keep data close to home mirror what’s happening elsewhere in the world, such as in the European Union under the General Data Protection Regulation. But China’s rules tend to be more vague and thus more broad. This could complicate trade relationships: a researcher from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology questioned this week whether the country’s new data laws might hinder its recent bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Restrictions on cross-border data flows are not inherently at odds with the CPTPP, which offers some allowances to achieve a “legitimate public policy objective”, but the breadth of China’s restrictions and moves to reign in Big Tech raise questions for potential partners like Japan.
 

What’s next for Chinese smartphone makers?

Software and services: It’s tough to be a smartphone maker when just about everyone who can afford a handset already owns one. Perhaps that’s why smartphone shipments in China fell 17 per cent in the second quarter this year.

China’s myriad smartphone brands are already trying to find ways to cope. Oppo announced this week that it is opening a 5G research and development lab in Shenzhen in partnership with Sweden’s Ericsson. Yes, the same Ericsson whose fortunes have fallen in China after Sweden’s decision to keep Huawei out of its domestic 5G network.

The new lab will be dedicated to finding “killer apps” for 5G, or applications of the technology that actually make it worthwhile for consumers to switch from older 4G devices and services. To do this, Oppo is relying on its software capabilities, according to Chris Shu, Oppo’s vice-president and general manager of product strategy and cooperation.

It’s too early to know what they might come up with, but a reliance on software and services is increasingly common among gadget makers since hardware has effectively become commoditised. Xiaomi and Huawei started building ecosystems to lock in users years ago.

Apple has been the most successful in this approach, and it continues to pay off even in China, where consumers had pre-ordered millions of iPhone 13s a week after the launch. The slight price dip from the previous iPhone 12 line of phones didn’t hurt, either.

Lenovo has recognised the need to move in this direction, as well. The world’s largest personal computer maker is moving into services long dominated by software giants like Tencent and Google. In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Lenovo’s head of Solutions & Services Group Ken Wong compared the shift to offering to cook customers’ meals in addition to selling them the best ingredients.

I’ll let Lenovo’s hardware speak for itself, but it’s clear that just making high-end products is no longer enough. After-sale services count for a lot. And for companies that operate their own app stores like Apple, Google, Xiaomi and Huawei, that’s where the real profit is.

But as the case brought against Apple by Fortnite maker Epic Games has shown, even that business could soon become a lot less profitable. That could send tech giants scrambling for a new area of opportunity. A “metaverse” gold rush in China suggests companies might be looking at virtual worlds next.
– Questions, concerns and hot tips can be sent to matt.haldane@scmp.com

BOOKS

The Trap

An Alstom exec's experience compared with that of Meng Wanzhou

Arnaud Bertrand
 

In 2013 Frederic Pierucci was arrested out of the blue during a trip to the US, accused of having violated US extraterritorial laws on a contract Alstom made in Indonesia ten years previously. He was first asked to become an FBI informant against his company and when he refused he was thrown into prison.

He was then used by the US as an economic hostage, and released only when a deal had been reached whereby American company GE would purchase large divisions of Alstom. In fact, in an obvious sign that his prison stay and the purchase of Alstom by GE were related, Pierucci was released the same week as the purchase.

His story is eerily similar to what happened to Meng Wanzhou. So much so that Pierucci's book "The American Trap" is famously popular inside Huawei: It has been read by Ren Zhengfei, the company founder, and the book has been widely distributed among employees of the company.

Obviously, Pierucci's unfortunate experience helped many Huawei employees understand what the Americans' real intentions were.

Many people in China know about the story of Frédéric Pierucci, a top executive at leading French company Alstom. In 2013 Pierucci was arrested out of the blue during a trip to the US, accused of having violated US extraterritorial laws on a contract Alstom made in Indonesia ten years previously.

He was first asked to become an FBI informant against his company and when he refused he was thrown into prison.

He was then used by the US as an economic hostage, and released only when a deal had been reached whereby American company GE would purchase large divisions of Alstom. In fact, in an obvious sign that his prison stay and the purchase of Alstom by GE were related, Pierucci was released the same week as the purchase.

His story is eerily similar to what happened to Meng Wanzhou. So much so that Pierucci's book "The American Trap" is famously popular inside Huawei: It has been read by Ren Zhengfei, the company founder, and the book has been widely distributed among employees of the company.

Obviously, Pierucci's unfortunate experience helped many Huawei employees understand what the Americans' real intentions were.

There is of course one glaring difference between the both cases, a difference that pains me deeply as a French patriot.

When China and Huawei fought tooth and nail to get Meng back and ultimately succeeded, Pierucci was all but abandoned to his unfortunate fate. Bewilderingly, Alstom even went as far as firing Pierucci while he was detained in the US.

As Pierucci writes in the book, he was left rotting in a US prison and fired because he wasn't at work anymore, as if he had any choice in the matter. His dismissal also meant he didn't benefit from their judicial assistance anymore and had to pay extortionate legal fees from his own pocket.

One can only presume why Alstom acted that way.

Meng Wanzhou waves to a cheering crowd as she steps out of a charter plane at Shenzhen Bao'an International Airport in Shenzhen, south China's Guangdong Province, on September 25.

My supposition is that they were terrified of the big bad American bully. Inside Alstom what the US did to one of their executives must have had a chilling effect. The other executives were probably thinking "I might be next" so they did all they could to isolate themselves from Pierucci and appease the US.

In this case, the US intimidation tactics worked.

As a French patriot I can only be deeply troubled by what is happening to my country and also deeply admire what China has done for Meng.

Looking back, I am certain Frédéric Pierucci would have much preferred to be a Chinese citizen during his ordeal!

Meng's case exposed the US's tactics of holding economic hostages and demonstrated that it is possible to fight back and win. The US attempted to intimidate Huawei into submission like it did with Alstom, though this time around they only succeeded in strengthening the resolve of the Chinese people and the government. Read  "The American Trap"

Why oh Why?


Imperial Twilight: Nobody’s War

Reviewed by  Branko Milanovic

 
Stephen Platt, Professor of Chinese history at the University of Massachusetts, has in 
“Imperial Twilight” written an excellent book on the origins of the first Opium War, and perhaps even more importantly, at this time of US-China tensions, he has shown how wars may occur not just because the two sides do not agree, not even because of miscalculations and misperceptions, but even when key decision-makers whose behavior led to war….agree on the main points.

Platt, as one of the commentators wrote, has an eye of a novelist, and the book often reads like a combination of history and historical novel. A number of picturesque characters that have populated China trade in the early 19thcentury add to that impression. This is not the most important part of the book though. It makes the book readable and fun—but the quality of writing improves as we go further away from these personal episodes and closer to the War. Perhaps it was Platt’s editor who tried to make the book more attractive to the general public by insisting on introducing human stories in the beginning (the stories that indeed are interesting, but from historical point add very little), and preferred a straightforward narrative that seems ideal for an audiobook. But that straight narrative in the beginning mutes Platt, the historian, whose voice becomes strong only in the latter part of the book when he discusses historical contingencies, provides different versions of the same events, passes judgment on the main characters, and even engages in some counterfactuals. All elements the we expect from a first-rate historian are then there.

The book covers British, and more broadly international, trade with China from the end of the 18th century to the first Opium war (1839-42). It deals with the so-called “Canton period” where all foreign trade with China was localized in one small place, a depot (”factory”) outside the city-gates of Canton, an area the size of several football fields. The trade in opium makes a rather late appearance in the book, but it was going on throughout the entire period, in smaller quantities at first. The East India company was originally ambivalent about it, not because of moral scruples but because it tried, in order to preserve the valuable legal China trade in cotton and tea (on which it had a monopoly) to rather scrupulously observe Chinese laws, including the ban on opium trade, and the ban on missionary activity.  But in time, independent traders, not mindful of either of these two concerns, became significant opium providers, and then the lure of profit made Company join in, in a rather big way.

The starting point of the war (which  happened after the Company was stripped of its monopoly power) had much to do with two individuals who were both.…against the war.  British superintendent of trade George Elliot, only the second such person appointed by the British government, replaced William  Napier, a belligerent and arrogant individual who tried his best “to teach China a lesson.” But there was no support for the war Napier wanted; neither among the British public, nor British government. Palmerston, who would later prosecute the war with gusto, was against it. Earl Grey, the Prime Minister who appointed Napier, told him that “persuasion and conciliations should be the means employed—rather than anything approaching the tone of hostile and menacing language” (p. 286). Thus Elliot, an abolitionist with the previous career in the West Indies, foreswore to change the policies of his predecessors, to fully observe Chinese sovereignty, and to fight against the scourge of opium which he likened to the scourge of slavery.

The Chinese side, which after many vacillations between the idea of full legalization of opium to the energetic ban on its use, including capital punishment for the most stubborn users, decided to go with the latter option. Lin Zexu, the governor-general of Hubei and Hunan who distinguished himself by reducing opium consumption in his provinces as well as his personal incorruptibility,  was appointed imperial commissioner in Canton with the brief of “obliterating opium trade”.  What united Elliot and Lin was their loathing of opium traders, their appreciation of the aboveboard legitimate trade, and their agreement that China’s laws should be respected. But then things went awry.

 

How did then the two countries get into a war?

Lin, in order to send a message that he is serious, decided, as it was done several times before, to temporarily shut down all trade in and out of Canton and to establish an effective blockade of the “factory” area until opium trade cease and accumulated opium is surrendered to the Chinese authorities. Although the blockade was implemented half-heartedly (the food and drinks being brought in by the Chinese Hong  merchants who were the dealers on the Chinese side), it continued without a clear end date. Lin’s objective was that the blockade force British traders to deliver opium which would be then publicly destroyed. He succeeded beyond expectations.  Elliot, who, as we have seen, loathed opium trading asked that all opium, including that which was not near Canton, be brought to one place, and delivered to the Chinese. It led to the delivery of 20,000 chests of opium (1,000 tons), an enormous quantity, for which Elliot, on his own, issued to British traders, IOUs for the full market value. To understand the enormity of that quantity, it is worth noting that it was equal to total annual exports of opium from India to China, and with the market value of ₤2 million which was one-tenth of the entire compensation paid by the British parliament to slave owners (when the slavery was abolished).  The quantity of collected opium surprised Lin (who, according to the Hong merchants, expected  at most 4,000 chests) but did not lead him immediately to lift the blockade. In the end, the blockade lasted six weeks and ended in May 1839. Elliot who panicked first when he “over-delivered” opium, was now enraged at the continuation of the blockade and panicked again, and in one of his fits asked for British naval support from India, effectively calling for war.

            From that point onward, the forces of war take over: there was always a small bellicose faction in London that now found additional reasons to advocate for war. Palmerston was shocked by the idea that, after government had to raise huge funds to pay slave-owners, it now had to pay opium traders too. The slide into war continued despite the preponderance of the public opinion which was against it. The war was voted by the House of Commons by the slimmest of the margins (with 9 votes of majority out of more than 500 MPs). It was declared eleven months after the blockade of foreign merchants in Canton had ended

            Like in similar circumstances elsewhere, neither the casus belli, nor the objective of the war were clear. The less clear the reasons, the more of them were piled up: some thought the war was fought for British honor, others referred  to the Chinese demands that the British envoys kow-tow  to the Emperor (the demand more than 40 years old by the time the war was declared); yet, others thought it was the war for civilizations, Chinese being “barbarians”; another faction however saw the war as the revenge for Chinese calling the British “barbarians”; some (perhaps more clearly than others) saw it as the war on behalf of opium traders, which –to add to irony—were generally reviled in Britain. For some, it was fought so that China, rather than Britain, pay the indemnity to traders so rashly promised by George Elliot.

            Nobody’s war then lumbered on for almost three years, its objectives unclear, involving mostly unprovoked attacks on Chinese civilians by British ships. Terrorizing civilians (which had nothing to do with the war, nor with Canton, nor with opium) was a means a sending a message to the Emperor that he was no longer in control, and had to acquiesce to British demands—which lengthened as the war went on. Eventually, the Chinese capitulated, but as some people at the time warned, the war made China realize that if wanted to remain independent it had to possess an equally string military deterrent. It took a “century of humiliation” to come to that, but eventually it did. 

This silly war, fought  for the objectives that were either unacceptable to  openly acknowledge or difficult to formulate, is now the only 19th century event mentioned by Xi Jinping in his recent 100th CPC anniversary speech. It has acquired its place in history and nothing seems likely to dislodge it. The more time passes, the more important it becomes.  And it should have never happened.  Buy on Amazon...

PS. It is somewhat strange that Platt does not discuss the diplomatic implications of Britain deciding, after the East India Company lost the monopoly of trade and representation in Canton, to send an official representative to represent the traders. As Platt explains, the Canton system was for more than a century based on the rules where foreign traders deal with heir “equals”, Chinese traders. Only through the latter could they convey whatever requests or problems they had  to the Chinese (Cantonese) government. The Cantonese government therefore dealt only with its own citizens, not with foreigners. The appointment of an official British representative upends this system in two ways.  First,  the  British government representative understandably wants to interact with Chinese officials which is unacceptable to the latter. Elliott was never able to deliver his letters of introduction. Second., as long as British traders dealt with Chinese traders and the latter with the Canton government, the question of sovereignty could never arise. But now that the British have an official representative for  “the factory”, the position of the piece of land on which the factory is located, becomes less clear. The Chinese rightly saw it as a potential affront to their sovereignty. .

Why China..

 
The only book that explains all three elements of China's success: 
  1. Talent at the Top: Only the brightest, most idealistic people are are admitted to politics–a policy unchanged in 2200 years.
  2. Data in the Middle: policies are implemented, tracked, and optimized based on terabytes of data. The PRC is the world's largest consumer of public surveys.
  3. Democracy at the Bottom: ordinary people, all unpaid amateurs, assemble twice a year to check the stats and sign off on new legislation. Policies need a minimum of 66% support to become law. That's why 95% of Chinese say the country is on the right track.
The proof? There are more hungry children, more poor, homeless, drug addicted, and imprisoned people in America than in China.  

Why China Leads the World
investigates why the epidemic accelerated the change of global leadership from America to China and examines China’s bigger, steadier economy, its science leadership, stronger military, more powerful allies, and wider international support.

Crammed with charts, footnotes, and lengthy quotes, Why China Leads the World is a profoundly disturbing book that helps readers understand the tectonic shift and adapt to this new era–and even thrive in it.
***
The size of China's displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance. It is not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of the world. Lee Kuan Yew: The Future of US-China Relations. The Atlantic.  
***
The Coronavirus accelerated the pace of change of global leadership from America to China. There are now more hungry children, more poor, homeless, drug addicted, and imprisoned people in America than in China. 

Suddenly, China's larger, steadier economy, its leadership in science, its stronger military, more powerful allies, and wider international support have handed it a lead that widens every day.  Crammed with direct quotes from its movers and shakers, charts, and footnotes, Why China Leads the World tells a remarkable tale, explains a tectonic shift, and helps you adapt to this new era, and even thrive in it. 
 ***
If we could just be China for one day we could actually authorize the right decisions. Thomas L. Friedman. The New York Times  

300 pages, 27 charts and graphs. $9.99 on Amazon and in bookstores worldwide.

The ISC Report

The ISC (Needham) Report


The Report of the International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of Facts Concerning Bacteriological Warfare in Korea and China (the ISC report), published at the height of the Korean War, validated claims by North Korea and China that the US had launched bacteriological warfare (biological warfare, BW) attacks against both troops and civilian targets in those two countries over a period of several months in 1952.
   

The most vilified document of the 20th Century.

The report’s release in September, 1952, brought a withering international attack. It was roundly denounced by American and British politicians of the highest rank, ridiculed by four star generals, accused of fraud by celebrated pundits, misquoted by notable scientists, and scorned by a compliant Western press. Charges were made against the quality and truthfulness of its science. Its “unstated” political agenda was denounced. The ethics of interviewing captured US pilots was excoriated and its authors were publicly flayed as communist dupes. The report was red baited in the US halls of Congress and deemed unpatriotic to read, and therefore went unread and deliberately forgotten over the years, which has been the fate of Korean War history in general. In subsequent decades, volumes placed in American university library collections were quietly and permanently removed from circulation.
   
When the rare copy came up for auction, it was discretely purchased and disappeared from public view. This critical 67 year old truth commission document from the Korean War was slipping towards oblivion. For these very reasons, historians and truth seekers should exalt the wondrous rebirth of the ISC Report from near extinction with the publication of this new electronic edition. We welcome the sunshine that re-publication brings to a shadowy and suppressed chapter of American Cold War history. (from the introduction by Thomas Powell) 800 pages.  $9.99.

GET ALL THE WEEK'S NEWS
WITH 
YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TO
THE TOP CHINA NEWSLETTER

GET A FOUR WEEK TRIAL SUBSCRIPTION FREE!
Share Share
Tweet Tweet
Forward Forward
Copyright © 2021 Godfree Roberts, All rights reserved.


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.


Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp