China shifts into propaganda overdrive in pandemic era but world is beginning to see through it

Swearing by democracy? Or the Party?

My article China shifts into propaganda overdrive in pandemic era but world is beginning to see through it appeared in Firstpost.

Here is the link...

After China was not invited for Biden's 'Summit for Democracy', Beijing issued a 'White Paper' stating that it had a 'democracy that works'
China shifts into propaganda overdrive in pandemic era but world is beginning to see through it

Can we today take Chinese propaganda seriously? I don't think so. Take the issue of democracy.

On 9-10 December 2021, US President Joe Biden organised a 'Summit for Democracy’, bringing together leaders from governments, civil society, and the private sector in a "shared effort to set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal and to tackle the greatest threats faced by democracies".

Communist China was not invited, but Beijing immediately issued a White Paper stating that it had a democracy that works: "Democracy is a common value of humanity and an ideal that has always been cherished by the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese people," it says in the preamble.

Is it believable? It would mean that Mao and the successive leaders of the Middle Kingdom in the 20th and the present century have been great 'democrats' (of course, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution or the Tiananmen events are forgotten).

In a serious tone, the White Paper adds: "Since its founding in 1921, the Party has taken well-being for the Chinese people and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as its abiding goals, and has made continuous efforts to ensure the people’s status as masters of the country. Over the past hundred years, the Party has led the people in realizing people’s democracy in China. The Chinese people now truly hold in their hands their own future and that of society and the country."

The argument developed by the authors of the White Paper is that the Chinese 'people' are the masters of modern China and the Party line represents the essence of People's Democracy.

Unfortunately for the 'people', China has become the most 'monitored' state in the world (with North Korea), with facial recognition reigning over the Communist state and instantaneous censuring of any news or information contrary to the Party line; but Beijing continues to pretend that it is a democratic model for the world.

"Since the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, with a deeper understanding of China's path to democracy and the political system, the Party has developed whole-process people’s democracy as a key concept and striven to translate it and relevant democratic values into effective institutions and concrete actions," argues the White Paper.

This does not explain why no Tibetan, Uyghur or Mongol has been able to make it as Secretary of the Communist Party in their respective regions; or why the Standing Committees of the regional parties are packed with Han cadres; nor why not a single minority member sits in the Politburo or why the People's Liberation Army has hardly any non-Hans at the senior operational level (without speaking of the Central Military Commission where minorities are banned).

This can probably be called 'democracy with Chinese characteristics'.

Another example, look at the fate of Peng Peng Shuai, the tennis player who disappeared in early November 2021, after writing in a Weibo post that Zhang Gaoli, former member of Standing Committee of the Politburo and and Vice-Premier, coerced her into sex. The story was immediately censored by the Chinese government. Peng dropped out from public view, before resurfacing two weeks later in state media photos and videos only. Later, she apparently denied having accused anyone of sexually assaulting her, but this incident does show China, the self-proclaimed world's greatest democracy, cannot be a role model for other states (including the US and India) as far as the place women have in the society is concerned.

China is a 'democracy' that does not like democratic symbols. In Hong Kong, where elections were recently held, after the pro-democracy leaders were put under house arrest, symbols of democracy have been systematically removed.

According to Hong Kong Free Press: "Two more Hong Kong universities have torn down monuments commemorating the Tiananmen Massacre from their campuses in the early hours. The removals came one day after the University of Hong Kong (HKU) tore down the Pillar of Shame, another Tiananmen Massacre tribute." The government used the pretext of safety issues and legal concerns.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) removed the Tiananmen Lady Liberty statue in the middle of the night. The Hong Kong paper says, "A mobile crane was spotted at the scene, and workers were seen washing the floor where the statue used to stand with a high pressure washer."

There is more. A new invention of the Chinese ‘democracy’ is the emotion recognition software which "reinforces privacy rules to tackle abuse" argues The Global Times' propaganda.

On 3 March, the tabloid and mouthpiece of the Communist Party explained: "Tired and depressed after a long day's work, a man sits down and asks his smart stereo to play a song. The stereo immediately recognises his emotional state and plays him a cheerful tune. In the beautiful melody, the man is slowly rejuvenated, and his mood gradually improves."

This is great, but… worrying.

The Global Times mentions another use: "At a busy highway checkpoint, artificial intelligence (AI) pre-warning systems silently observe drivers and passengers in vehicles passing through. Seconds later, security officers stop a car with passengers looking strangely nervous and discover drugs in the car."

The tabloid admits that this incident, reminiscent of science fiction, is on the increase in daily life. "In China, emotion recognition technology is fast developing in this data and AI era boom, [it] has been widely used in various fields including health, anti-terrorism, and urban security," it says.

The White Paper speaks of a ‘Democracy That Works’. "With complete institutions and extensive participation, whole-process people’s democracy has evolved from an idea into a system and mechanism of governance that has taken root in the soil of Chinese society and become part of people’s lives. The light of democracy has illuminated China’s entire territory, allowing its people to enjoy extensive and tangible democratic rights."

Who will believe this? For decades, China has been a land of dichotomy with the government saying something and doing something else.

The White Paper says that the Chinese Constitution stipulates that all power in the People’s Republic of China belongs to the people and “China’s political power is not linked in any way with personal status, wealth, or social relations, but is equally enjoyed by all the people”. In reality, a person’s status is entirely linked to his/her complete allegiance to the Party.

Remember what happened to Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese writer, literary critic and human rights activist who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010? Liu was arrested numerous times and described as China's most famous political prisoner for fighting for democracy. As he was dying of liver cancer, he was granted medical parole in June 2017; he left this world on 13 July 2017. He just wanted a bit of democracy in his country; he paid with his life.

Examples could be multiplied.

Having lived 47 years in chaotic, but truly democratic Bharat, every day I appreciate this not-always efficient, but ‘incredible India’.

There is no doubt that the present regime in China is fast losing its credibility and perhaps for the first time after the COVID-19 virus spread its tentacles over the planet, the world has started realising this; no amount of propaganda can cover it any more

Xi Jinping's many problems: Hong Kong to Xinjiang

My article Xi Jinping's many problems: Hong Kong to Xinjiang appeared in Mail Today/DailyO.


Here is the link...

Beijing faced a 'tsunami' in favour of the pro-democracy movement and then its atrocities on Uyghur Muslims were exposed to the world.

Since his visit to Mamallapuram, Chinese President Xi Jinping has been facing a rough sea at home. The 4th plenary session of the 19th Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee was held in Beijing from October 28 to 31. The members discussed the work report presented by Xi and adopted it "to uphold and improve the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics".
The complicated situation of increasing risk challenges at home and abroad," was mentioned in the communiqué. The gathering "upheld the principle of 'one country, two systems', maintaining lasting prosperity and stability in Hong Kong and Macao, and promoting the peaceful reunification of China." Today, it looks like a distant dream.

Hong Kong polls
Beijing did not expect a 'tsunami' in favour of the pro-democracy movement which won 392 out of 452 seats in the Hong Kong local elections. Anti-Beijing candidates took control of 17 out of 18 district councils. "Xinhua waited until Monday afternoon to release a two-paragraph news report on the polls, stating only that the elections took place and 18 districts produced results," The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported.
Meanwhile, the People's Daily just spoke of the history of US intervention in foreign elections.
In the weeks preceding the elections, the Global Times repeatedly claimed that a 'silent majority' in Hong Kong was condemning the protests. What complicates Xi's life further is that their victory could give pro-democracy candidates a larger say in the selection process for the next chief executive as they control of 117 seats on the 1,200-member selection committee. "This shift in the balance of power will mean that Beijing will be more reliant on the major property developers and their business associates — at a time when Beijing has been trying to wean itself away from [them]," SCMP said. So, the 'tycoons' may decide who will be the Communist leader of the semi-autonomous region. That is not the only problem of Mr Xi.

Spy gone rogue
Wang Liqiang, who spied for China for many years, recently defected to Australia. He wrote a 12-page Chinese-language confession on some disturbing aspects of Beijing's political interference. The Age in Australia cited a few: "efforts to manipulate Taiwan's elections, infiltration of student organisations in Hong Kong, and even the kidnapping of political dissidents. [Wang gave] names of organisations and key figures in Chinese military intelligence." Wang, probably one of the first operatives from China to blow his cover, is now seeking protection in Australia.
To make things worse, on November 16, The New York Times published excerpts of 403 pages of internal classified documents on China's crackdown on Xinjiang. It is an unprecedented insider's view on the clampdown and, particularly, the internment camps, where more than one million Muslims are kept.
"As the government presented its efforts in Xinjiang to the public as benevolent and unexceptional, [Beijing] discussed and organised a ruthless and extraordinary campaign in these internal communications. Senior party leaders are recorded ordering drastic and urgent action against extremist violence, including the mass detentions, and discussing the consequences with cool detachment," the NYT reported.
"The documents show China's plans for sweeping extrajudicial detentions and internment camps in Xinjiang are all signed by one man: Zhu Hailun," the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists noted. Zhu came to Xinjiang in 1975 as part of a party initiative to send educated urban youth to live in the countryside to further China's Maoist revolution. But they should not forget Chen Quanguo, the party boss in Xinjiang. At the end of August 2016, Chen was sent from his post in Tibet to 'pacify' the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). The party believed that Zhang Chunxian, Chen's predecessor in Xinjiang, could not deliver the goods. For Chen, it was a reward for his 'Tibet recipe' as he was soon promoted to the all-powerful politburo. In five years, he managed to 'stabilise' Tibet. What was the recipe? First, utter ruthlessness. Second, Chen transformed the plateau into a vast Disneyland: Chinese tourists descended on Tibet in waves to experience the 'Paradise on Earth' with its blue sky, pristine lakes and rivers, luxuriant forests and deep canyons.

Uyghur secret out
Chen used powerful slogans such as 'Social management', 'Comprehensive Rectification', 'Preventive Control', 'Eliminate-Unseen-Threats', 'Nets-in-the-Sky-Traps-on-the-Ground' or 'Copper-Ramparts-Iron-Walls'. The latter translates into "an impenetrable public security defense network consisting of citizen patrols, border security posts, police check posts, surveillance systems... and other mechanisms." This was the recipe to control the Tibetan plateau.
In Xinjiang, Chen added the infamous internment camps. I almost forgot to mention one more headache of Xi's: US President Donald J. Trump, who is threatening him with a trade war. Also, as I concluded this article, the news came that Yonten, a 24 year-old Tibetan man from Ngawa in Eastern Tibet, immolated himself protesting the Chinese rule in Tibet. He is the 156th to do so.
India is indeed a 'cool' country in comparison.

China’s weak spot

My article China’s weak spot appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

The nation is mighty but also fragile because it has not been able to take the masses and the world along. Xi’s dream of a new era will remain if people are not granted some freedoms

China is a mighty country. We have seen it on October 1 on Tiananmen Square.
On the occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), President Xi Jinping was on the same wavelength as his predecessor Mao Zedong 70 years ago, when he announced the foundation of the PRC; the morale of the parade was ‘power comes from the barrel of the gun’: “No force can ever undermine China's status, or stop the Chinese people and nation from marching forward,” said President Xi Jinping from the rostrum of Tiananmen Square.
Xi reminded that those who watched the function that “seventy years ago, Comrade Mao Zedong solemnly declared to the world that the PRC was founded and the Chinese people had stood up. This great event completely reversed China's miserable fate born from poverty and weakness and being bullied and humiliated."
The Chinese State media was ecstatic as “China had reaffirmed its commitment to global peace and development”, and added: “we will continue to work with people from all countries to push for jointly building a community with a shared future for humanity.”
Many doubted as they watched in awe the DF-17 hypersonic ballistic missile (a hypersonic glide vehicle that can deliver both nuclear and conventional payloads) or the new-generation road-mobile DF-41, which made their debut in an official parade.
Some 15,000 troops from 59 units, 47 belonging to the ground forces and a dozen airborne squadrons, participated in the display. Xi inspected 580 new weapon systems, almost all of them were ‘made in China’, proving that Beijing’s military industry is truly becoming self-sufficient. It is a lesson that India has hopefully noted a few days before the visit of the Chinese President in Mahabalipuram.
However a backlash to China’s might has started to manifest.
A few days before the parade in Beijing, a telling incident took place in France; it showed that it is not only China’s neighbours and the United States which have difficulties to accept China’s so-called peaceful rise.
It looked innocuous but at the start of French Ligue One’s football match between Olympique Lyonnais (OL) and Nantes, an entire wing of the Gerland stadium in Lyon displayed a tifo, a gigantic graphic display organized by thousands (or tifosis).
A Tibetan flag? Why? Simply because China is the club’s second shareholder and the OL management had decided to rescheduled the match to 13:30 hrs …for a broadcast in China (matches usually take place at 17:30 or 21:00 hrs). China is simply mighty.
The supporters, known as the ‘Bad Gones’ (‘Gones’ is the OL supporters’ nickname) wrote on their Facebook page: “At the kick-off, we deployed a tifo representing the Tibetan flag accompanied by a Free Tibet banner. Beyond the crypto-politic aspect of this tifo, our objective was to remind everyone that the spectators and supporters are also actors of the match and respect is due to them, as much as to a few hundred thousand viewers at the other end of the planet.” The message to Beijing continued: “these Tibetan flags can piss off the League and its new shareholders which are under the control of the Chinese State, but we will be delighted to renew the experience…”
It is perhaps a sign of what the Financial Review calls a dangerous decade ahead ‘as China's rise falters’: “Economists, defence planners and security strategists have begun testing the consensus around China's inevitable rise and have come up with some surprising predictions.”
ANI said it in different words: “China exhibits Cold War mentality with huge military parade”, adding: “China regularly likes to point the finger at the US for harbouring a ‘Cold War mentality’, but nothing speaks of militaristic ambitions and martial glory as a large military parade. And no military spectacle comes close to the size of the event held in Tiananmen Square on October 1.”
It is not only the Gaulish tribes which are revolting against the Chinese hegemonic mindset, in Hong Kong, lakhs of young people refused to slip under the yoke of Beijing. The former British colony has witnessed defiant protesters for several weeks; interestingly, the Hong Kongers took their campaign against Beijing to their Stadium, booing the Chinese national anthem before the city's soccer team lost to Iran in its first home qualifier for the 2022 World Cup.
The EU recently issued a statement: “The escalation of violence and continuing unrest in Hong Kong, including the use of live ammunition, resulting in critical injuries to at least one person, are deeply troubling. The European Union maintains its position that restraint, de-escalation and dialogue are the only way forward,” it further observed: “Fundamental freedoms, including the right of assembly of Hong Kongers must continue to be upheld and the possibility to hold peaceful demonstrations must be ensured. These rights must be exercised peacefully.”
It is clear that the World will not accept another Tiananmen massacre.
Though the regime in Beijing praised “Foreign officials and experts [who] applauded a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping, as Beijing reaffirmed its commitment to world peace and development,” one can’t forget that Communism killed millions of its own citizens during the past 70 years.
A French book (‘The Black Book of Communism’) calculated that more than 94 million were killed by the different Communist governments around the world since 1917. The statistics of victims include deaths through executions, man-made hunger, famine, war, deportations and forced labour. In China alone, 65 millions died, while the Soviet Union accounted for 20 millions in Cambodia and North Korea for 2 million each. The list is long.
In the meantime, the propaganda machine of the Communist regime in Beijing works full steam. Beijing published a White Paper entitled ‘Seeking Happiness for People: 70 Years of Progress on Human Rights in China’.
One of the chapters is on the “Splendid History of China’s Human Rights Protection.”
The restive population of the Western Muslim province of Xinjiang or the Tibetans, whose religious freedom has been ruthlessly stifled, will tell you another story.
All this should be kept in mind when President Xi Jinping arrives in South India to ‘informally’ meet Prime Minister Modi; China is mighty and innovative, but China is fragile, simply because it is unable to take the masses and the world along. Xi’s Dream of a new era will remain a dream, as long as the Middle Kingdom does not allow a minimum freedom to its own people.

Don’t rock the boat

In November 1949, the Tibetan Cabinet in Lhasa wrote to the American Secretary of State, requesting the US’ support for Tibet’s admission to the UN: “As Tibet being an independent state, we have no dangers from other foreign countries but in view of the spread of communism and their successes in China, there is now an imminent danger of Communist aggression towards Tibet.”
Lhasa was advised by the Americans not to ‘rock the boat’.
Later, an officer of the Ministry of External Affairs told Loy Henderson, the US Ambassador to India: “[India] feels that making issue of Tibetan question at present might precipitate Communist decision invade pursuant their declared intention liberating country.”
Around the same time, a cable from Henderson to Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State stated, “during the conversation, Mr. Graves [of the UK High Commission in Delhi] showed me a Hansard report [verbatim report of proceedings of the British Houses] of December 14, 1949,” to which was attached a 1943 memorandum mentioning the British position with respect to Tibet; the memorandum stated the Tibet was a ‘de facto independent’ country.
However the British too did not want to ‘rock the boat’.
This came back to mind, when the controversy erupted regarding the cancellation of a ‘tourist visa’ for Dolkun Isa, Executive Chairman of the Munich-based World Uyghur Congress. Isa was to attend a ‘conference’ at Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh.
The media immediately took up the issue: why was the visa suddenly revoked without reason? Soon the Modi Sarkar was accused of behaving like its predecessors.
Most observers saw a retaliation against China’s decision to put a hold India’s request to add Masood Azhar, head of the Pakistani-based group Jaish-e-Mohammad, to the UN’s blacklist.
On the Isa issue, China was quick to respond: the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the Uyghur leader was under a ‘red-corner’ Interpol notice and should be arrested as he was a terrorist.
The restive province of Xinjiang is an extremely sensitive issue for China, as Beijing believes that Islamist militants and Uyghur dissidents are colluding to establish an independent state, Eastern Turkestan.
Though the Ministry of External Affairs was apparently not aware of the Conference and the visa given to Isa, most observers first thought that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was finally decided to ‘rock the boat’.
It may not be that simple.
First, could Isa have attended the ‘conference’ on a tourist visa (or e-visa)?
Whoever has organized this type of event in India, knows that foreign participants need a ‘conference visa’ which is not easy to obtain.
Further, the Dharamsala ‘conference’ was bound to be controversial; it was organized by the US-based Citizen Power for China, a group led by Yang Jianli, one of the protagonists of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests (incidentally Yang was present in Dharamsala).
Granting Isa an electronic visa made it easier to cancel the permission to visit Dharamsala at short notice. The MEA could show its ignorance of the event.
Cancelling the visa while still holding the meet, even in camera, indicates that the Indian Government was keen to convey the message to Beijing, ‘don’t play with fire concerning terrorism’, and at the same time, allowed Delhi a strategic retreat.
Delhi wanted to ‘rock the boat’ to a certain extent only. It is why visas granted to other Chinese dissidents like Lu Jinghua and Ray Wong were also cancelled.
Lu, also a participant in Tiananmen protests, figures on a Chinese list of ‘major criminals’. She learnt of the withdrawal of her visa only after reaching JFK to enplane for India on April 25. The visa for Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Ray was also reportedly withdrawn around the same time.
Delhi later said that Lu’s visa was withdrawn because her documents were ‘ineligible’ and there was an ‘inconsistency’ about the purpose of her visit. Obviously, she was not going to Himachal for ‘tourism’.
According to the Chinese website of Radio Free Asia, several other activists were banned from the meet, in particular five individuals associated with the World Uyghur Congress.
Hong Kong activist Alex Chow, who co-organized the pro-democracy Umbrella Movement in 2014, told Quartz that he too was denied a visa.
But it is not the point; the important point is that the gathering took place.
One may well ask: has Delhi become an adept of Sun Tzu’s Art of War?
The Chinese Master in one of the 13 chapters of the book, writes about ‘Variations and Adaptability’, emphasizing on flexibility during a conflict.
Mao himself explained: “People may ask if there is contradiction to abandon a territory gained by heroic battle. This is to put the wrong question. Does one eat to no purpose simply because he relieves himself later?”
Delhi needed to use flexibility after the high profile visits of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval to China (and before President Prabab Mukherjee’s trip to Beijing later this month).
To cancel a ‘tourist visa’ was abandoning a bit of territory, but the main ‘battle’ was won; the ‘conference’ was held, though informally and amidst media blackout.
And before that, 60 participants were granted a two-hour audience with the Dalai Lama to discuss …China and democracy.
Edward Leung Tin-kei of Hong Kong Indigenous was one of them.
Hong Kong radical activist described the encounter with the Tibetan leader as a ‘rare opportunity’: “I’ve never thought I could meet Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader. This doesn’t happen every day,” Leung told The South China Morning Post.
Chow Hang-tung, working for an Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China was another Hongkonger attending the closed-door meet. “It was very inspiring”, Chow said.
Ursula Gauthier, the French correspondent of L’Obs, who was recently expelled from China for questioning China’s interpretation of ‘terrorism’ and Anastasia Lin, Miss World Canada, were also present.
In the meantime, Beijing is nervous about the democratization of the Tibetan society. The Global Times commented on the recent Tibetan elections for a Prime Minister and Deputies: “Although the [Tibetans] resorted to ‘democratization’ after fleeing, this did not mean they would give up their original characteristics. …After all, feudal serfdom under theocracy has long been abandoned by Western countries.”
Who takes this Cold War language seriously today?
Participating in the 5th Moscow Conference on International Security, China’s Defense Minister Chang Wanquan also lectured on terrorism: “a comprehensive approach should be taken through political, diplomatic, economic and cultural means in order to eliminate the root of terror.”
General Chang obviously forgot ‘democratic means’ in his list.
Though the perception in India was that the Modi Sarkar had retreated, it may not be the case. Beijing has got the message loud and clear: India can do it again and the next time, with proper ‘conference visas’.
Beijing knows this.

Intolerance is rising in Jinping's China

My article Intolerance is rising in Jinping's China appeared in The Mail Today.

Here is the Link...

While India endlessly debates ‘intolerance’ and the ‘lack of freedom to think’, China is following its own path - tolerance with Chinese characteristics.
Of course, none of those who speak of India’s ‘lost freedom’ dare to challenge China. But they should.
On February 25, Xinhua announced that members of the Communist Party of China have been asked to ‘absorb’ the views of President Xi Jinping by learning from an article written long ago by Mao Zedong.

Ideas
All are requested to study and implement the ideas put forward in The Work Method of Party Committees, published in March 1949, during the historic Second Plenary Session of the CPC Central Committee - hardly six months before the party took over the Middle Kingdom.
A Guardian article, ‘Love the party, protect the party: How Xi Jinping is bringing China’s media to heel’, asserted: “The Communist party is in a ‘no holds barred’ battle to wrestle absolute control of all media to project a better image of China.”
Quoting an editorial in The China Daily, the British publication affirmed: “It is necessary for the media to restore people’s trust in the Party… The nation’s media outlets are essential to political stability.”
Read ‘stability of the Party’.
Last week, when President Xi Jinping paid a highly-publicised visit to China’s top media organisations, journalists had to pledge ‘absolute loyalty’ to Xi.
A few days ago when Ren Zhiqiang, a property tycoon, one of the richest men in China, and a long-time ‘outstanding party member’, dared to question President Xi’s ‘absolute loyalty to the Party’, Ren’s micro-blogging accounts were swiftly blocked.
A Party official announced that Ren would be ‘dealt with seriously’ for his critical postings.
“As a party member, any remark that does not accord with the party’s lines, principles and policies, whether it’s on the Internet or other media platforms, is not allowed under party discipline,” the official stated.
Ren has (or had) 26 million followers. What is worse is that the Party diktats are spreading to Hong Kong, jeopardising the model of governance.
In 1997, at the time of the territory’s transfer of sovereignty from the British Crown to the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region governed by a principle known as ‘One Country, Two Systems’, a genial brainchild of China’s Paramount Leader, Deng Xiaoping, who thought that the recipe could later be applied to Taiwan, the ‘rebel island’.

Limits
With Beijing’s growing ‘intolerance’, the scheme has now shown its limits. The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1997 had provided Hong Kong with ‘a high degree of autonomy in all areas except defence and foreign affairs’, while the territory’s political and judicial systems continued to function independently from those of the Mainland. The guarantees for Hong Kongers’ individual rights and freedoms were enshrined in the Hong Kong Basic Law, the territory's ‘constitution’.
Last week, when President Xi Jinping paid a highly-publicised visit to China's top media organisations, journalists had to pledge 'absolute loyalty' to Xi. (Pictured: President Xi Jinping, centre, arrives for the opening session of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference on 3 March.)
Recently, strange events have happened, putting all this into question. When in December, Lee Bo, a bookshop owner and publisher in Hong Kong, went missing, his wife filed a police complaint saying that he had ‘disappeared’.
Soon after, alarm bells started ringing louder: four of Lee’s colleagues - Gui Minhai, Cheung Ji-ping, Lui Bo and Lam Wingkei - were also untraceable. Lee Bo was the owner of Mighty Current, a publishing house which specialises in books banned on the Mainland, often revealing secrets about the Party’s apparatchiks.

Censured
Lee’s crime is that he may have been working on a ‘private life’ of Xi. Tricky business these days, certainly not appreciated in Beijing, which has tightened its grip on the internet and literary freedom in the recent months.
Political and gossip books on the Chinese leadership have been a lucrative business for Hong Kong booksellers as Mainland visitors are avid readers of ‘censured’ literature, unavailable at home.
With the Hong Kongers particularly attached to their special status, the issue has quickly taken a political turn.
The CPC’s mouthpiece, The Global Times, articulated Beijing’s position: the booksellers were exercising an ‘evil influence in China through their political publications’.
The South China Morning Post announced last week that Hong Kong police had finally been allowed to meet the missing booksellers, six weeks had passed since they had first requested Beijing.
In the meantime, Lee Bo reappeared on Hong Kong’s Phoenix TV and admitted he had sneaked into the Mainland “to assist in an investigation involving his publishing associate Gui Minhai,” co-owner of Mighty Current and also missing.
Appearing calm and smiling, Lee said he would return to Hong Kong once his help was no longer needed. He declined to say more.
Beijing has always believed in the saying, “Kill a few chickens to scare the monkeys.”
In terms of tolerance India is eons ahead of China, with an opinionated press, scores of anti-government news channels, and an extra-vigilant judiciary.
This is not the case in China, though that can’t be said in as many words to the mighty dragon. Beijing, after all, is far too influential.

Curious tale of missing Hong Kong publishers

My article Curious tale of missing Hong Kong publishers appeared today in the Edit Page of The Pioneer

Here is the link...

Hongkongers' rights and freedoms were enshrined in the basic law, but it is unfortunate that Beijing believes that ‘one country’ is paramount. The disappearance of the publisher raises questions about freedom of expression

Hong Kong ( ‘Fragrant Harbour’) was to be a model of governance, it may not be. In 1997, the territory’s transfer of sovereignty from the British Crown to the People’s Republic of China marked the end of 156 years of ‘imperialism’ for the Communist leadership, while for the British, it signalled the disappearance of the last remnants of their Empire.
Hong Kong became China’s Special Administrative Region, governed by a principle known as ‘One Country, Two Systems’, a genial brainchild of China’s paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, who thought that the recipe could later be applied to Taiwan, the ‘rebel island’. But recently, the scheme has again shown its limits.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1997 had provided Hong Kong with ‘a high degree of autonomy in all areas except defence and foreign affairs’, while the territory’s political and judicial systems could continue to function independently from those of the mainland.
The guarantees for Hongkongers’ individual rights and freedoms were enshrined in the Hong Kong basic law, the territory’s ‘Constitution’. Today, the entire system is in jeopardy due to some strange events. What has happened?
When in late December, Mr Lee Bo, a bookshop owner and publisher in Hong Kong went missing, his wife filed a police complaint saying that he had “disappeared”. Soon after, alarm bells started ringing louder: Four of Mr Lee’s colleagues — Mr Gui Minhai, Mr Cheung Ji-ping, Mr Lui Bo and Mr Lam Wing-kei — were also untraceable.
Mr Lee Bo was last seen in the Chai Wan warehouse of his Mighty Current publishing house which specializes in books banned on the mainland, often revealing the latest secrets about the Party’s apparatchiks.
According to some rumors, Mr Lee Bo who had specialised on books about the Chinese President, was working on a ‘private life’ of Mr Xi Jinping? Tricky business; one can understand that it was not really appreciated in Beijing, which in the recent months has greatly tightened its grip on Internet and literary freedom in general.
Mr Teng Biao, a fellow at Harvard Law School and formerly an academic at the Chinese University told The South China Morning Post: “China is very worried that the freedom of expression and of publication in Hong Kong would affect mainland politics.”
Political and gossip books on the Chinese leadership have been a lucrative business for Hong Kong booksellers as mainland visitors are avid readers of ‘censured’ literature, unavailable at home.
Mr Lee Bo could have been abducted to intimidate other publishers distributing ‘messages unfavourable to China’s ruling regime’, says the Hong Kong newspaper. Beijing has always believed in the saying, “Kill a few chickens to scare the monkeys”.
What exactly happened to Mr Lee Bo is not known, but in a note to his wife, he said that he was in China mainland assisting some ‘investigations’, since then, his wife has withdrawn her case. The issue has taken a serious political turn as Hongkongers are particularly attached to their special status and freedom of expression.
Remember the ‘Occupy Central’ movement in September 2014, when tens of thousands of Hongkongers took to the streets in the former British colony to pressure Beijing to keep its promises. In 2004 already, Beijing had warned that it would have to ‘approve’ of any changes to Hong Kong’s election laws. Ten years later, the pro-democracy activists fought to make the second part of Deng’s scheme, ‘One Country, Two Systems’ as important as the first. Beijing unfortunately believes that ‘one country’ is paramount.
To come back to Mr Lee Bo’s case, Reuters comes to the same conclusion: “While the facts surrounding Mr Lee Bo’s case are still unclear, there is significant public disquiet over the circumstances of his disappearance with speculation that he was abducted to the mainland by security officials or triads. Much more than just the ‘whodunnit’ questions, it is the implications of Mr Lee Bo’s disappearance with regard to the One Country, Two Systems model.”
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying joined the fray and warned: “It is unacceptable for mainland law enforcement officers to carry out duties in Hong Kong, because it does not comply with the basic law.” The basic law clearly guarantees not only a high level of autonomy, but also freedom of speech, rule of law and judicial independence. To further complicate the situation, Mr Lee Bo is a British passport holder.
UK Foreign Minister Philip Hammond suggested that Beijing would be guilty of an “egregious breach of the principle … if speculation that Chinese security forces had abducted Lee in the former colony was confirmed”. Mr Hammond added: “It would not be acceptable for somebody to be spirited out of Hong Kong in order to face charges in a different jurisdiction. …It is an essential part of the settlement in Hong Kong that it has its own judicial system and it is solely responsible for trying offences that occur in Hong Kong.”
During the same Press conference, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi did not answer directly a question on whether the ‘missing persons’ were under Chinese detention, but he asserted that, even if Mr Lee Bo held a British passport, he was ‘first and foremost a Chinese citizen’.
In a recent editorial, The Global Times articulated Beijing’s position: The booksellers were exercising an ‘evil influence in China through their political publications’. The tabloid went further; it argued that it was reasonable for Chinese law enforcement agencies to “circumvent the law when they seek cooperation from an individual for investigation.” Quite frightening!
The Global Times suggested it was legal for the Chinese authorities to probe Causeway Bay Books, as it publishes and sells political books targeting mainland readers and “creates special interference to the maintenance of order in the mainland”.
The same editorial said it was fine to use means to “get around local laws …and make one comply with their investigations without breaching systemic bottom lines”.
What ‘breaching bottom lines’ means is not clear, but Beijing probably feels that the basic law is ‘first and foremost a Chinese law’.
On January 10, tens of thousands demonstrators gathered outside Government headquarters in Hong Kong, where the pro-democracy protests were held in 2014; they shouted slogans such, ‘Release Hong Kong Booksellers Now!’ or ‘Today’s Lee Bo is you and me tomorrow’.  But will Beijing listen?
Today, while the younger generation in Hong Kong is certainly not ready to become another of China’s ‘minorities’, the question is also vital for the future of ‘greater China’. While Taiwan will certainly watch carefully the unfolding of the situation in Hong Kong, in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, the populations also aspiring to ‘another system’ too will follow the Hong Kong events closely.

Buddhist China and Tibetan Lamas: win-win equation? Not sure!

As often mentioned on this blog, China is fast becoming Buddhist …with Chinese characteristics.
The China Daily, which has the widest circulation for English-speaking newspaper in China, yesterday published an article entitled, ‘A monk for all seasons’.
It is consecrated to Shyalpa Tenzin Rinpoche.
The Chinese newspaper describes the lama: “He goes to the gym, makes use of business lingo. ‘It's a win-win-win-win situation’, he says, adding, with childlike exuberance, two more ‘win’s to the regular catch phrase. Shyalpa Tenzin Rinpoche is, evidently, a monk for all seasons,” concludes The China Daily.
All season includes a Chinese season.
And his visit to Hong Kong is a great win for Beijing!
Let us look at the facts.
Right now the Rinpoche is ‘trying to promote Buddhist philosophy through the appreciation of fine art’ in the former British colony.
He displaying some 100 Thangka paintings from Nepal at L'hotel Nina. According to the Chinese newspapers, Shyalpa has invited many ‘friends’ to experience how proximity to these sacred paintings could be ‘transformative’; as the lama adds: “great art brings those who experience it closer to their own sacred selves.”
That’s sounding cool!
The mainland newspaper asserts: “you might catch him running up a narrow, single-track road on his way to the Peak, if you are really lucky. It's probably easier to find him addressing a class in some of the world's finest schools, Harvard, Yale and Wesleyan. He is like a high-profile academic, invited to lecture in universities across continents and probably busier than the CEO of a multinational company. He is the founder of several centers focused on humanitarian activity.”
The question however remains: why is Communist China so interested in this lama?
The Rinpoche is indeed eloquent about Buddhist tenets: "You have to seize the moment spontaneously, without hoping for the consequences, like the bee digs inside a flower without caring that the petals will close at the end of the day, suffocating it to death. Real enjoyment is about accepting who you are, knowing your own abilities and doing what comes naturally."
The catalog of the exhibition, The Art of Thangka: A Himalayan Spiritual Legacy deals “with the intricacies of the thangka tradition and the various schools of Buddhist philosophy using these paintings.”
The Rinpoche affirms that the power of the Thangka is that: "it can arouse a spiritual quality in us. It brings on the realization that we are greater than what we think we are. Thangka can inspire hope in people. It radiates with hope."
What are the win-wins?
For Shyalpa, the exhibition is a great win as a fund-raiser.
He says that the money generated from the sales of these ‘gorgeous’ images will go to the Shyalpa Ladrang Trust Fund to support monks and nuns in Nepal.
The secret of China’s love for the Rinpoche can be found in another article in the same China Daily which gives more personal information on Shyalpa: “[After] he was recognized as a holy child, he trained to become a Buddhist monk since he was four, ultimately receiving guidance from his guru, Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche.”
Shyalpa’s website site also gives details: “His Eminence Shyalpa Tenzin Rinpoche was born in the foothills of the Himalaya Mountains where he was recognized as a holy child and began training as a Lama at the age of four. Rinpoche attended the Buddhist University in Sarnath, Varanasi, and later received transmissions and empowerments from many of the greatest Nyingma and Kargyu masters of our time. Rinpoche is a lineage holder of the Great Perfection (Dzogchen) tradition — his primary root teacher is His Holiness Chatral Rinpoche."
The Communist newspaper says that the mention of his guru’s name brings a twinkle to Shyalpa's eyes: "He is 104 - a strong, vibrant personality, living a full life."
Then comes the reason why Beijing is interested by the Lama: the alumni of Sarnath discreetly sides with China against the protesting students in Hong Kong.
The China Daily writes: “[A] ray of optimism extends to young people who engage in rash and mindless acts, as Hong Kong has seen in recent times,” adding:”It's important to abide by the rules and regulation of the land, respect your culture and civilization.”
In other words, abide with the rules dictated by Beijing, respect the Party, and don’t engage in mindless protests!
It is really a win-win situation; Beijing receives the support of an influential lama and the lama get a lot of good publicity for his exhibition.
To ‘convert’ a few lamas to its cause, seems the best way for China to become a world leader in Buddhist affairs.

Postscript

Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche

There is a postscript to the win-win story; it is about ‘Karmic win’.
A few years ago, the now 104-year old Chatral Rinpoche, who lives as a hermit in Nepal, published a ‘Declaration’; he informed all his disciples:

1. If you are a serious Buddhist student and Zogpachenpo's practitioner [Dzogchen], one should spend your life in retreat with minimum comfort and giving up all luxuries attachment.
2. Do not waste your time in touring all foreign countries including Taiwan which is fruitless.
3. Do not tempt for begging donations under different excuse such as construction of a big monastery, Stupa, Zangdogpelri [special offering of copper coloured mountain], Bumtsog [extensive offerings puja] or big offerings or setting-up of a new Buddhist center etc.
4. Do not sell out Zogpachenpo under different pretext for your own personal benefit.
5. Always be humble and do not try to expose yourself in front of others even you may have little knowledge in Buddhism.
6. Do not cheat others in the name of Zogpachenpo by giving initiations or teachings which you have never received and not done practice by yourself from a legitimate high Lama or Guru.
7. Finally, I myself never have any slightest desire to visit any foreign country nor I have any specific reason.

The old wise man adds: “In the past, I have experienced several occasions that despite of my unwillingness and objection, re-incarnate Lama, yogis, khenpos [abbots] and monks those who have come to see me are taking photographs with me by force under different pretext. Due to electronic supremacy people are coming with different types of electronic equipments so as to record my voice or photograph me which are not easy to detect by a people of my age. Hence, I notify all the Buddhist followers all over the world do not repeat do not believe on the person who is possessing such photographs or making tall claim that he or she is my student in the past or present.”
To follow the old Rinpoche would certainly provide a great karmic win; without mentioning Beijing, however, all his disciples may not be ready to understand this basic truth.

Who wants to unify under the central leadership?

Yesterday, The South China Morning Post reported that a directive had been issued by the Party “for higher education entities to unify under the central leadership”.
The Hong Kong daily affirms that the Communist Party is tightening “its grip on Chinese universities by reaffirming the party secretary’s leading role in them.”
The ‘directive’ was released by the General Office of the Communist Party of China.
It says that after the fourth Plenum of the 18th CPC Central Committee (to be held next week) “all departments at universities across the country shall conscientiously make implementations that adhere to the party’s leading core position”.
You can understand why the students in Hong Kong are increasingly nervous about the 'One Country' scheme, in which the 'Two Systems' will go to the trap.
In the meantime, Zhang Xiaoming, director of Beijing’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong stated that the ‘Occupy Central’ movement is “a serious social and political event in that it violates the ‘one country’ principle, challenges the central authority, ignores the Basic Law, and is an illegal activity in flagrant violation of the existing laws of Hong Kong.”
He does not even speak anymore of 'Two Systems'.
Very surprising is the silence of the Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala, which has kept completely quiet.
Perhaps they have also become believers of ‘One Country’!
It would be sad!
Zhang Xiaoming, as usual, described the ‘Occupy Central’ movement as an attempt by the West to trigger a new ‘color revolution’ and “to pressure the Central Government and the HKSAR Government, and to require the NPC Standing Committee to rescind the decision that has been in force and the Chief Executive and SAR government officials to step down.”
But it is simpler than that: the Hong Kong students are just fighting for their freedom of speech, of thought, for their future.
Last month, in an editorial in the Party Journal, Qiushi (‘Seeking Truth’), it was announced that Peking University had directed its students and professors to “fight against speech and actions that criticise the Communist Party”.
It is what might happen to the students in Hong Kong in a few years from now, as ‘One Country’ will always prevail on ‘One System’.
The directive mentioned above directed Chinese universities “to establish a unified leadership under the party committee, cooperate and coordinate with the party and seriously carry out the essence of democratic centralism within the party.”
It is what the Hong Kong students do not want to happen in 5 or 10 years time.

Makings of a serious mass movement

My article (Edit Page) entitled Makings of a serious mass movement appeared yesterday in The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

Pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong believe that, in ‘One Country, Two Systems', the second part of the promise is more important than the first. Beijing’s emphasis on the first has left them disturbed

On October 1, the People’s Republic of China’s founding day, Zhang Xiaoming, director of Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong, told the media with a smile, “The sun rises as usual”. This was an indirect comment on the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong. Is it only wishful thinking from Beijing?
Three days later, Xinhua published an article accusing the Western media of carrying biased articles on the recent protests in Hong Kong and “promoting democracy”. The Chinese news agency writes that the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong is one example of the West’s partiality. The article blasted the US “for providing media and financial support” to the protest movement; it further warned that, as the “color” revolutions in Egypt, Thailand, Libya, and Ukraine, all assisted by the West, ended up in domestic chaos and social turmoil, a “Hong Kong Spring” would inevitably lead to a similar situation.
Nobody can deny that the change of regimes in the above examples brought instability to their respective countries, but there is another side to the coin.  First, contrary to what Beijing believes, democracy does not belong to the West or the United States; it is a universal value practised the world over (though not in China as yet). India practised it since times immemorial. Was not Suddhodana, the Buddha’s father the ‘elected’ raja of the Sakyas? The small republics of northern India were ruled in a ‘democratic’ way, long before the US existed, so why always associate democracy with the West.
Then, the Indian experience shows that democracy can deliver a strong and decisive leader who, with the backing of the masses, can lead the nation. Beijing should have noticed this when Mr Xi Jinping visited India!
Recently again, President Xi Jinping dismissed the notions of ‘Western-style’ political reform for China and affirmed the importance of one-party rule for China.
One can however seriously ask: Can the scheme, ‘One Country, Two Systems’, work? Can there be ‘Two Chinas’? One communist and the other democratic? This question is crucial not only for China’s future, but for Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia too, aspiring to ‘another system’, if not a separate country.
Let us look at the recent ‘pro-democracy’ incidents in Hong Kong. During the ongoing Occupy Central movement, tens of thousands of Hong Kongers have taken to the streets in the former British colony to pressure Beijing to keep its promises.
The latest news is that Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has appointed his deputy Carrie Lam to lead a team of senior officials to meet with student leaders. Though the pro-Beijing leadership affirms that the students’ protests are dwindling, talks are on for ‘reforms’.
What will happen if the police uses riot gear, teargas or rubber bullets tomorrow or in the future? The police will not be different here than in Tibet or Xinjiang. Can it use another ‘system’? It probably cannot, and the younger generation in Hong Kong is certainly not ready to become another of China’s ‘minorities’.
When, after years of negotiations, the UK returned Hong Kong to China, the colony was promised “a high degree of autonomy” for the next 50 years (similarly, the Dalai Lama today asks for a “genuine autonomy” for Tibet).
The former British colony came under ‘One Country, Two Systems’, which supposedly guarantees freedom of speech, of assembly and of religion and a free press. All this is enshrined in the Basic Law, which governs Hong Kong since 1997. But in 2004, Beijing warned that it would have to “approve” of any change to Hong Kong’s election laws.
Today, the pro-democracy activists believe that, in ‘One Country, Two Systems’, the second part of the promise is more important than the first. This is not the case with Beijing.
When Mr Leung announced that the nominating committee will be modelled on the existing election committee, loyal to Beijing, which selected him in 2012, former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten said that Beijing was not keeping its commitments “by hiding behind flexible legal language”.
On August 31, the National People’s Congress had asserted that only after approving candidates, would it allow direct elections in 2017. This brought the differences between the different parties to the fore; candidates for Chief Executive must gain the support of a majority of a ‘nominating committee’ (packed with Beijing supporters); further, only two or three candidates can contest. Beijing’s blessing is, thus, necessary.
The young demonstrators sing another song, “Give us real universal suffrage”. Interestingly, one observes a change of pattern in the protest movement. The New York Times reported the case of a 17-year old student, Joshua Wong, who has been at the forefront of a student movement for democracy in Hong Kong: “He was born less than nine months before this former British colony’s handover to China in 1997, and raised here at a time when the party has tried mightily to win over the people and shape them into patriotic Chinese citizens. His prominence in the protest movement also embodies a shift in politics. [It] has confounded the local government and infuriated its communist supervisors in the mainland.”
This is what worries Beijing: Another generation is ready to take over the struggle. Further, could there be another Tiananmen in the making despite the tight censure of Hong Kong news in the mainland?
There is no doubt that if the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ model fails, it will have serious repercussions for other parts of China (particularly in Tibet and Xinjiang). And in Taiwan too, which has recently been offered a similar scheme (though Taipei immediately declined).
In April 1989, the Communist Party’s mouthpiece, The People’s Daily, published a front-page editorial denouncing the students on the Square, using the word “chaos”, a notion violently objected to by the students. The same newspaper says now that Hong Kong would “fall into chaos if the protests were not dealt with according to law”.
Beijing’s language may not help in the long run, especially when it says: “[The protesters] should not be so blatant in undermining the rule of law, stability, and order.” The fact that Beijing is not ready to stick to its promises could have other consequences. Several years back, during an interview with the Dalai Lama, I asked the Tibetan leader: “If, tomorrow, you sign an agreement with the Chinese, do you think that they will respect this agreement more than they did the 17-Point Agreement with Tibet in 1951?”
The Dalai Lama had said that he was quite certain that “international pressure” could force China to keep its promises. This does not seem to be the case today.

One Country, Two Systems

My article One Country, Two Systems appeared in today's Opinion Page of The Statesman.

Here is the link...

Several years back, during an interview with the Dalai Lama, I questioned the Tibetan leader on the 17-Point Agreement signed in 1951 between the Lhasa government and Beijing. It seemed clear that whatever the Chinese then offered to the Tibetans was not implemented on the ground by Beijing. My question was therefore: “If tomorrow you [the Tibetans] signed an agreement with the Chinese, do you think that they will respect this agreement more than they did with the 17-Point Agreement?”
The Tibetan leader explained his views: “I think that there is more possibility today [that they will respect a new accord]; since the 17-Point Agreement was signed in 1951, the world has very much changed and China too has changed. Unless the clock is taken back, and China returns to what it was in 1950, I feel that there is more hope today.”
He added that he was quite certain that ‘international pressure’ could force China to keep its promises.
This statement is worth looking at in the perspective of the recent ‘pro-democracy’ incidents in Hong Kong. During the ongoing ‘Occupy Central’ movement, tens of thousands of Hongkongers have taken to the streets of the former British colony to exert pressure on Beijing to keep what they perceive were the Communist regime’s promises. The BBC rightly questioned: ‘Hong Kong protests: Did China go back on its promises?”
The latest news is that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying refused to step down following an ultimatum from students demanding his resignation. Leung however announced that he had appointed his deputy, Carrie Lam to lead a team of senior officials to meet with student leaders. Though some students reacted angrily to the chief executive’s speech, others called for calm and asked for time to negotiate. But what will happen if the police uses riot gear, teargas and rubber bullets? It is difficult to predict. How was this point reached?
In 1997, after years of negotiations, the UK returned Hong Kong to China; the colony was promised ‘a high degree of autonomy’ for the next 50 years. It sounded similar to the ‘genuine autonomy’ asked for by the Dalai Lama.  But in 2004 already, Beijing warned that it had to approve  changes to Hong Kong’s election laws. Today, for the protesters, it is not a question of change, but of interpretation of the Basic Law. For the pro-democracy activists, in the scheme ‘One Country, Two Systems’, the second part was more important than the first. This is not the case in Beijing, which believes ‘One Country’ is the paramount feature.
On 31 August, the National People’s Congress (NPC) asserted that only after approving candidates, it would allow direct elections in 2017. The ‘Occupy Central’ movement brought the differences between the different parties to the fore. Alan Hoo, chairman of the Basic Law Institute, a well-known pro-Beijing lawyer told the BBC News that China had not broken any promise: “I think that its position is grossly misunderstood. Firstly, it’s not a promise. It is a legal obligation, a constitutional obligation that they put in the Basic Law.”
Of course, Article 45 of the Basic Law specifically refers to ‘one person, one vote’. “The ultimate aim is the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee,” says Hoo.
However, according to the announcement of the NPC’s Standing Committee, candidates for chief executive must gain the support of a majority of a ‘nominating committee’ (packed with Beijing supporters); further, only two or three candidates can contest. In other words, Beijing’s blessing is necessary. The young demonstrators sing another song, “Give us real universal suffrage”.
CY Leung, the current chief executive, announced that the nominating committee will be modelled on the existing election committee, loyal to Beijing, which selected him in 2012. Former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten now accuses Beijing of not keeping its commitments “by hiding behind flexible legal language”.
For the Communist regime in Beijing, it is not only a question of semantics. If the model ‘One Country, Two Systems’ fails, it would have serious repercussions for other parts of the Middle Kingdom, in Tibet and Xinjiang of course, but also Taiwan which has recently been offered a similar scheme (though Taipei immediately declined). Interestingly, one observes a change of pattern in the protest movement. The New York Times reported the case of a 17-year-old student, Joshua Wong who has been at the forefront of a student movement for democracy in Hong Kong  ~ “Mr Wong is troubling confirmation for the authorities that the first generation in Hong Kong to grow up under Chinese rule is by many measures also the one most alienated from Beijing’s influence. He was born less than nine months before this former British colony’s handover to China in 1997, and raised here at a time when the party has tried mightily to win over the people and shape them into patriotic Chinese citizens. His prominence in the protest movement also embodies a shift in politics. [It] has confounded the local government and infuriated its Communist supervisors in the mainland.”
This is what worries Beijing: another generation will take over the struggle. Can there be another Tiananmen in the making?  In April 1989, the Communist Party’s mouthpiece, The People’s Daily, published a front-page editorial denouncing the students in the Square, using the word ‘chaos’, a notion violently objected to by the students. The same newspaper now says that Hong Kong would “fall into chaos if the protests were not dealt with according to law.”
Some argue that Hong Kong and Tiananmen cases are different. The former British colony comes under ‘One Country, Two Systems’, which supposedly guarantees freedom of speech, of assembly and of religion and a free press. All this is enshrined in the Basic Law, which governs Hong Kong since 1997.
The South China Morning Post,  however, recently reported that President Xi Jinping dismissed the notions of Western-style political reform for China and affirmed the importance of one-party rule in China.  Can there be Two Chinas? One Communist and one democratic?
Once again, the Tibet and Taiwan issues are closely related to this. On 1 October, the foundation day of the People’s Republic of China,  Zhang Xiaoming, director of the central government’s liaison office in Hong Kong, told the media with a smile: “The sun rises as usual.” How long will it remain a valid statement?
At the same time, Xinhua violently attacked the Hong Kong protesters: “In the name of true universal suffrage, they attempt to deceive the public. Through the illegal ‘Occupy Central’, they attempt to paralyse Hong Kong’s business districts in order to blackmail China’s central government and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. If they really want to express their requests, they should be peaceful, rational, and lawful. They should not be so blatant in undermining the rule of law, stability, and order.”
An editorial stated that the students were acting as a pawn of the Western anti-China forces. This is certainly not the best way to handle such a delicate issue.
In the meanwhile, the Dalai Lama has announced that unofficial discussions were on for pilgrimage to Wutai Shan, the sacred mountain in Shanxi province: “It’s not finalised, not yet, but the idea is there… informally, I expressed my desire,” he said.
Such  a  visit  would  of  course  entail  a  huge  security  risk  for  the  Tibetan  leader,  and  would  it  solve  the  problem of  ‘genuine autonomy’ for his people?  Probably not, but it is worth watching the unfolding of the Hong Kong saga to see what China really means by ‘one country, two systems’.

Chinese tourists in Tibet ...and elsewhere

The official figures of Chinese tourists who visited Lhasa are out.
Tourism authorities in Tibet announced that the Tibet Autonomous Region witnessed a record numbers of tourists in 2013: 12.91 million Chinese tourists visited the Land of Snows.
Wang Songping, an official of the Regional Tourism Bureau told Xinhua that the total number of tourists who visited the region increased by 22 % compared to the previous year.
Even the number of overseas tourists increased by 14.5 % to reach 223,000  in 2013. Wang did not say from where these 'foreign' tourists came from.
Tourism in Tibet is a great business for China. Tibet's revenues from tourism have increased by 30.6 % compared to 2012. It reached 2.72 billion U.S. dollars. That is a lot money. The Chinese authorities in Tibet seem to have found the solution to solve the 'Tibet issue' once and for all.
Mr. Wang attributed the big rise "to nationwide promotional efforts, improved transportation access and an increasing number of individual trips."
It is true that that Tibet looks good (in the promotions); certainly better than foggy Beijing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main attractions, according to Wang are Tibetan Buddhism heritage sites, such as the Potala Palace, the Jokhang Catherdral or the Tashilhunpo monastery in Shigatse.
The Chinese press agency quotes one Ablikim, a dried fruit vendor from the Xinjiang saying that he has done sightseeing in Lhasa while doing business. Two birds with one stone: Ablikim explained that he walked along the [controversial] 'newly-renovated' Bakhor Street around the Jokhang Temple.
The article praises the reconstruction (without mentioning the destruction) of the heritage Bakhor area: "Vendors of various ethnic groups used to crowd the street, blocking the way to the temple. More than 3,000 stalls were relocated by November 2013 to the Bakhor Commercial Building, making the temple more accessible by tourists."
The Bakhor Commercial Building is a huge looking kitschy mall.

Interestingly, it seems than 330,000 Tibetans (11 % of the population of Lhasa), work in the tourism industry.
In a few years time, the majority of the Tibetan population will be either tourist guides, waiters or doorkeepers.
In the meantime, the regional tourism bureau expects to receive 15 million tourists in 2015.
The waves of Chinese tourists are not restricted to Tibet, Macau and Hong Kong are witnessing the same phenomena.
The South China Morning Post today writes; "A sense of frustration prevailed among Macau residents over the Lunar New Year as hundreds of thousands of mainland tourists swamped the city."
Can you believe it, according to the Hong Kong newspaper: "About 2.7 million people, mostly mainlanders and a smaller portion of Macanese, are expected to have crossed in and out of Macau at the main Gongbei Port checkpoint at Zhuhai by the end of the week-long holiday - more than five times the SAR's population of just over 550,000."
On Sunday alone, some 200,000 mainlanders crossed the border into Macau.
People; those who had tickets for the 11 am Hong Kong to Macau Turbojet ferry had to wait till 2 pm to cross over: "In Macau it was worse, with tickets sold at 11 am for ferries after 11 pm", says the report.
Every passing year, the situation is said to be getting worse.

The top killer weapon to attack the most stubborn provocateur

Today some news from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and PLAAF (PLA's Air Force).
Most interesting is a short 'denial' in The Global Times which says: "The MND [Ministry of National Defence] denies rumors of military restructuring."
Usually in China, an official denial means that there is some truth behind the rumors, but it is too early to say it..
An official statement published on the MND website affirms: "Online speculation about a military reorganization and system adjustments are just rumors".
It however admits: "The defense ministry is researching a military reform plan which should be in accordance with reform decisions made last month by the Communist Party of China's Central Committee."
The Global Times details the 'rumours': "Online speculation over the reforms claimed that a ground force headquarters will be added to the current air force, navy and the second artillery force (missile force)."
An Army headquarters makes sense.
The second rumour quoted by the Communist Party mouthpiece is even more interesting for India: "The military areas in Xinjiang Uyghur and Tibet autonomous regions will be merged into one force."
In case of a conflict with India, it would be logical. Instead of having to coordinate the Western Front (Lanzhou Military Area Command) with the Eastern Front (Chengdu Military Area Command), with all the complications and coordination issues implied, India would be facing one 'Tibet' Military Area Command (MAC). Though it has officially been denied, it also makes sense for the PLA to have a single MAC facing India.
Another rumor/speculation is that the PLA's garrison in Hong Kong would be withdrawn, and naval and air forces would be administered by other military bases. It would be a step further towards the integration of the former British colony in the Mainland. Also denied.
Xu Qiliang, one of the two vice chairmen of the Central Military Commission recently told The People's Daily that "The Chinese military will strengthen and enhance the navy, air force and the second artillery force in accordance with the challenges and threats the country is facing."
It is how the rumors started... 

Urgent need for standardization
In the meantime, The People's Liberation Army Daily published a report highlighting the urgent need for standardization in the Chinese armed forces.
It affirms that "standardization would multiply the troops' combat capabilities", admitting that the lack of coordinated standardization among the army, navy, and air forces could become the 'Achilles heel' of China's defence system.
This newly-found transparency is interesting.
The report gives concrete examples: "during a military exercise, sailors on the four ships were able to hear one another. However, they could not transmit combat data because their information system was not compatible with that of the recipients."

Another instance is cited: "A brigade in the Second Artillery responded to an emergency with more than 300 vehicles and equipment, but there were as many as 90 different brands and models. The communications battalion alone had 12 different models of generators. The brigade commander complained that if there were a war, they would need to have several truckloads of spare parts."
It is clear that the time for 'reforms' announced after the Third Plenum of the Central Committee has come.

Top Killer Weapon to Attack the Most Stubborn Provocateur  
Another piece of news, on December 10, 2013, Huanqiu, the Chinese edition of The Global Times, wrote about the security threats facing China.
It explains that "China has to deal with complicated security threats from outside and inside of China, as well as security threats that are intertwined both externally and internally."
Of course for Beijing, 'external security threats' are mainly due to what China calls 'evil return to Asia' of the United States. According to Huanqiu, the internal security threats are the consequences "of unbalanced economic development, pollution, the huge gap between the rich and the poor, social conflicts, and the splits in political consensus among the leadership."
The article sees a collusion between 'outside hostile forces' and inside forces  using modern information technology (i.e. the Internet); it believes that "China faces intertwined external and internal security threats, such as Western hostile forces' political, ideological and cultural infiltration", adding that the 'Western hostile forces' have also "selected and trained some public intellectuals, known as Big Vs (online celebrities or influential microbloggers) and young government and military officials to spread a lot of dangerous information on the Internet in order to confuse the Chinese people."
The article quotes the unrest in the Arabic countries as an example of what can happen 'if the Chinese government does not watch out'; it will be the chaos in the Middle Kingdom!
Several ways to solve the security problems are suggested:

1. Strengthen co-ordination under the leadership of the newly established National Security Council. 
2. Strengthen power building in national security research, the military, information, technology, finance, transportation, nuclear, and the biochemistry industries. 
3. Apply strategies wisely in order to isolate the small numbers of enemies and strengthen united front work. Increase scientific and technological innovation and have the courage to surpass others.

The article ended by a warning to the 'outside hostile forces': "China has the world's most powerful conventional ballistic missile, the top killer weapon, to attack the most stubborn provocateur."
Though the 'stubborn provocateur' is usually Beijing, whether in Depsang Plain or in the East China Sea!

From the other side of the border
A good news from the other side of the McMahon Line.
We thought that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had gone into hibernation before the 2014 General Legislative Elections, but it is apparently wrong.
PTI affirms that: "France's Dassault Aviation and Reliance Industries are planning to set up a facility to produce wings of Rafale combat aircraft selected by IAF for meeting its requirement of 126 fighter planes [Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft or MMRCA] .The two firms are planning to set up a Rs. 1,000-crore facility for producing the wings of the Rafale combat aircraft and it is most likely to come up in Bangalore."
If this is confirmed, it is good news for India's defence forces.
PTI further explains that Dassault Aviation would help Reliance to establish The news agency's source asserts that the MoD and other agencies concerned, have given a green light to Dassault and Reliance to go ahead with the project.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) would however remain the lead integrator for the 126 MMRCAs: "The differences over the issue have been resolved and Dassault and HAL have started readying their teams for implementing the project after it is signed."
It may not be the 'top killer weapon', but a serious deterrent, in case China is tempted by another 1962-adventure (from a single MAC or two). 

The Great Snooping Game

Was it a Great Master coup by President Xi?
A few weeks ago, US President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping of China decided to meet for a week-end at a luxurious desert estate known as Sunnylands in southern California.
The atmosphere of the first official encounter between the new Chinese President and his American counterpart was to be as ‘relaxed’ as possible: no stiff protocol, no long speeches, no ties, not even a formal agenda.
More than the North Korea or South and East China Seas dispute, Obama had in mind the Chinese hackers visiting the Pentagon’s and other US government Internet servers and taking away American military secrets. This was a major irritant for the United States and Obama was keen to corner Xi on the subject.
As he entered Sunnylands, Xi knew that the stakes were vastly different from the previous day.
Welcoming his counterpart, Obama reiterated the importance of the relationship which was “reflected with this somewhat unusual setting that we are hosting the President [Xi] in”. Obama spoke of sharing the “visions for our respective countries” and how a new model of cooperation between countries based on mutual interest and mutual respect could be forged (it sounds panchsheelian).
In his opening remarks Xi denied any wrong doing from China. But when he said that the cybersecurity issue needed to be resolved in a ‘pragmatic way’, as China was also a victim of cyber attacks; he was probably smiling to himself.
The Guardian had just reported that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants. The British newspaper quoted from a top secret document demonstrating that the NSA had been using a previously undisclosed programme called PRISM, allowing US officials to collect personal information including search history, content of emails, file transfers and live chats.
Suddenly, it was the pot calling the kettle black.
The Guardian had verified the authenticity of a 41-slide top secret PowerPoint presentation, which was not to be shown to foreign allies.
According to the new revelations, PRISM is able to directly collect information from the servers of most major US service providers.
Earlier in the week, The Guardian had already leaked of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.
The US companies’ denial is similar to Beijing rebuffing the fact that there are active hackers in China.
President Barack Obama had suddenly to staunchly defend his government’s surveillance over his countrymen's phone and internet activities. He called it a ‘modest encroachment on privacy’, necessary to defend the United States from outside attack. And he differentiated surveillance and espionage!
We shall never know if Xi told Obama: “please look in your backyard before pointing a finger at us”; but the fact remains that the Chinese President had won the battle. Obama could not lecture him anymore on the human rights and liberties, so dear to the American people.
Another serious question emerges from the revelations about PRISM: could the famous Chinese hackers be for something in the ‘timely’ disclosure?
Guess where Edward Snowden, already termed the ‘most consequential American whistleblower’ emerged day the after the Sunnylands Summit? In Hong Kong, the Special Administrative Region of China!
The 29-year-old working for a defence contractor under the CIA told The Guardian: “I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong."
Strangely, he was staying at an unnamed ‘plush hotel’ in the former British colony. Why did he choose Hong Kong? Because the city has: “a spirit of commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent,” he said.
Could Hong Kong be a good place for Snowden to get ‘protection’ from Beijing if needed be? The future will tell us.
In the meantime, the United States will continue to snoop on the rest or the world (as well as on its own citizens), while the Middle Kingdom will maintain its surveillance of each of its nationals and peep into the US servers whenever required for its ‘defence’.
President Xi Jinping can be happy, Barack Obama repeated his favorite formula for foreign politics (in internal politics, Xi speaks of a ‘Chinese Dream’): a "new model for major country relationships"
Xi said that both sides need a new path, "different from the inevitable confrontation and conflict between major powers in the past”.
Well, where is India in this scheme?
Did Dr. Manmohan Singh take up the issue of cybersecurity when Premier Li Keqiang visited Delhi? Will the ‘honest’ Defence Minister broach the topic during his forthcoming trip to Beijing?
Of course, not! China is a friend and a strategic partner; Beijing may bother us in Ladakh, but it would never do this in the cyberspace!
In any case, the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) is watching! Unfortunately, there is another side to it, the Indian agencies are also watching Indian citizens.
The International NGO Human Rights Watch said that the new Central Monitoring System (CMS) recently introduced by Delhi ‘was chilling, given its reckless and irresponsible use of the sedition and Internet laws” in India.
It seems that the system has the capacity to provide government agencies like the National Investigation Agency or the IB, centralised access to the country’s telecom network and monitor phone calls, text messages, and Internet messages bypassing service providers.
Earlier, when my website site was hacked, I could without hesitation point a finger at the Dark Visitors from China, now I will have a choice on who to blame.
India, however, remains far behind the US and China in the Great Snooping Game and as far as external threats are concerned, India needs to work harder, much harder.