Deporting Chinese journalists
As a former member of the Beijing-based Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China (FCCC), I believe that US President Donald Trump’s administration did the right thing in expelling 50 Chinese journalists.
While a member of the FCCC, I would often receive alerts that US or other foreign journalists were being detained or harassed by Chinese authorities. Bona fide press credentials issued by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs offered no solid protection against official intimidation.
To give officials plausible denial, many times thugs were hired by local officials or power brokers to impede reporting. It was not uncommon for such intimidation to result in journalists sustaining physical injury or their cameras and other equipment being damaged or broken beyond repair.
A tweet in early February from the FCCC tells it all: “Some telling stats from our 2019 report: 82% of reporters experienced interference or harassment or violence while reporting last year. 43% said digital/physical surveillance affected reporting. And 70% reported interviews canceled due to actions taken by Chinese authorities.”
In such situations, foreign reporters were advised to contact a Chinese foreign ministry telephone number. Sometimes contact was able to be made, often times it was not. Even if contact could be made, it was no sure guarantee of help.
The exact number is not known, but it is an open secret that China, like Russia, uses journalists posted abroad to collect intelligence detrimental to the security of the US.
Deporting 50 Chinese journalists is a big step in combating Chinese penetration of the US.
Bill Sharp
Visiting scholar in the Department of History, National Taiwan University
Beijing cannot be trusted
There are efforts to spin and politicize the deadly outbreak of COVID-19.
We Italians and Europeans are paying a heavy price because of our intense industrial and commercial contacts with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), particularly in Hubei Province.
Our technicians, managers and entrepreneurs were shuttling back and forth between China and Europe until mid-to-late January when the virus was already unleashed in the environs; COVID-19 was already causing numerous deaths and sickness in the Wuhan-Hankou metropolitan area of China.
The viral infection had already been noticed in mid-November by Wuhan’s local health professionals. The Chinese government was alerted in early December last year.
It took nearly seven weeks for the Chinese government to officially admit and take action after brutal suppression of the whistle-blowers and after hundreds of deaths — including that of an early whistle-blower doctor — and thousands became critically sick.
The communist government of China, which commands everything inside China with the great leader His Highest Excellency Mr Xi Jinping (習近平) at the core, was brutal in suppressing the early warning. It proved equally brutal in enforcing draconian measures (too late) to the common people.
Here in Italy and elsewhere in western Europe we are under draconian measures for now, but they are not brutal — they are collaborative and human.
Our governments are transparent and humble; unlike in mainland China, our government leaders do not dare demand or expect us to venerate them and express gratitude for their normal dutiful actions.
Only in communist China, North Korea and Islamic states are government leaders venerated despite their incompetence, lies and brutality.
C-hina O-riginated Vi-ral D-isease of 2019 = COVID-19.
COVID-19 = China Originated Viral Disease of 2019.
This is the fundamental truth, a concrete historical fact. No media spin can alter this truth. No nationalistic, patriotic chauvinism can remove it. No political profiteering can change it. No superpower rivalry or international gossip can add anything or subtract anything from this.
Let us try to be compassionate toward Chinese and let us NEVER trust the announcements and numbers (statistics) provided by the communist totalitarian state of the PRC.
Professor D. Raj Pant
Former visiting professor and cofounder of the Center for Sustainability at Nanhua University, Taiwan,
LIUC, Italy
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)