Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[MarkOttawa]

Wiping out the Uyghurs--one way or another? Review of documentary on BBC:

China: A New World Order review – are we conniving with a genocidal dictatorship
This documentary dared to do what politicians the world over would not, asking tough questions of Xi Jinping’s hardline rule

he drink Mihrigul Tursun’s captors offered her was strangely cloudy. It resembled, she said, water after washing rice. After drinking it, the young mother recalled in China: A New World Order (BBC Two), her period stopped. “It didn’t come back until five months after I left prison. So my period stopped seven months in total. Now it’s back, but it’s abnormal.”

We never learned why Tursun was detained – along with an estimated one million other Uighurs of Xinjiang province, in what the authorities euphemistically call re-education centres – but we heard clearly her claims of being tortured. “They cut off my hair and electrocuted my head,” Tursun said. “I couldn’t stand it any more. I can only say please just kill me.”

Instead of murdering one Uighur mother, critics of Beijing contend, China is attempting something worse – eliminating a people. “There’s a widely held misunderstanding that genocide is the scale of extermination of human beings,” said the former UN human rights envoy Ben Emmerson QC. “That’s not so. The question is: is there an intention to, if you like, wipe off the face of the Earth a distinct group, a nation, a people?” This, Emmerson and Barack Obama’s former CIA director Leon Panetta claimed, is what is happening to the Islamic people of Xinjiang. “This is a calculated social policy designed to eliminate the separate cultural, religious and ethnic identity of the Uighurs,” said Emmerson. “That’s a genocidal policy.”

Independently verifying Tursun’s treatment is scarcely possible, but this documentary heard claims of similar treatment in the province. A teacher and Communist party member told how she had been sent to teach Chinese at a detention camp for 2,500 Uighurs. She claimed not only to have heard detainees being tortured, but also to have learned from a nurse that women were given injections that had the same effect as the drink Tursun took. “They stop your periods and seriously affect reproductive organs,” she said.

China, we learned, denies these charges and claims to be committed to protecting ethnic minority identities. What its critics call detention camps, Beijing describes as “vocational education and training centres” resembling “boarding schools”. We cut to official footage of drawing, dancing and in one room a class singing in English “If you’re happy and you know it, shout ‘Yes sir!’” Which, while not proof of genocidal policy, was grim enough viewing.
Sign up to hear about our weekend newspapers
Read more

But without doubt, since 2013 when Xi Jinping became president and there was an attack in Tiananmen Square in which Uighur terrorists killed five people and injured 38, Beijing has cracked down on what it perceives as an Islamist threat from the province. That crackdown has included using smartphones and street cameras to create a surveillance state for Uighurs.

Should Britain roll out the red carpet to a country charged with crimes against humanity, of undermining freedom of speech and democracy in Hong Kong, of crushing freedom movements in Beijing, of – it was suggested here – creating a cult of personality around Xi the likes of which have not been seen since Chairman Mao? “Better we engage with them so we can influence them,” said the former chancellor George Osborne.

But does the UK have any influence? Certainly not as much as we did in in the 19th century when, instead of trying to charm them into trade deals, we militarily subdued the Chinese to profitably drug them with opium. “Very few countries have any leverage at all,” said Jeremy Hunt, the former foreign secretary. The rest of the world shrinks from criticising China’s human rights violations because we’re awed by its economic power and how we benefit from it, argued Panetta.

This first of a three-part series did what politicians dare not do, namely to raise hard questions, not just of Beijing, but of us. Are we so in thrall to consumerism, to buying cheap goods made by cheap labour in China, so intimidated by Chinese military and economic might, that we connive with what may well amount to a criminal dictatorship? The Chinese refer to the 19th century, during which the British oppressed them with two opium wars, as the Century of Humiliation. Ours is becoming the Century of Moral Feebleness...
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/aug/29/china-a-new-world-order-review-are-we-conniving-with-a-genocidal-dictatorship

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good grief! Trudeau has name a top comprador as our next person in Beijing:

Dominic Barton named Canada’s new ambassador to China
...
Mr. Barton 56, has been a prominent Canadian in international economic affairs, with a long career at consultancy firm McKinsey & Company, where he served as global managing partner for nine years, ending in 2018. He was most recently listed as global managing partner emeritus at McKinsey, although his biography was no longer available on the company’s website Wednesday [Sept. 4]...

“For the Canadian government to have somebody of Dominic Barton’s stature as ambassador would be seen as a very great success, a real coup,” said John Manley, the former deputy prime minister who also previously served as the president of the Business Council of Canada.

“Dominic is one of those few international business leaders who was able to meet at the very highest level with Chinese leadership when he visited China as the head of McKinsey. He’s very well-known in China,” he said...

Mr. Barton is a Rhodes scholar who was born in Uganda, and has lived in Asia, Europe and North America. He recently moved to Hong Kong [RING-SIDE SEAT, eh?], although he has said he maintained a home in Vancouver...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-dominic-barton-named-canadas-new-ambassador-to-china/

Aaargh! A bio:

Dominic Barton is the global managing partner [now emeritius] of McKinsey & Company. In his 30 years with the firm, he has advised clients in a range of industries, including banking, consumer goods, high tech, and industrials. Prior to his current role, Dominic was based in Shanghai as McKinsey’s Asia chairman from 2004 to 2009. He led the Korea office from 2000 to 2004.

He is the chair of the Canadian Minister of Finance’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth and the chair of the Seoul International Business Advisory Council. He is also a trustee of the Brookings Institution, a member of the Singapore Economic Development Board’s International Advisory Council, and a member of the boards of Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York City and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

Dominic has authored more than 80 articles on the role of business in society, leadership, financial services, Asia, history, and the issues and opportunities facing markets worldwide. He is a coauthor, with Roberto Newell and Greg Wilson, of Dangerous Markets: Managing in Financial Crises (Wiley & Sons, 2002) and of China Vignettes: An Inside Look at China (Talisman, 2007)...
https://www.fcltglobal.org/about/staff/staff-bio/dominic-barton

Mark
Ottawa

 

[brihard]

Good grief! Trudeau has name a top comprador as our next person in Beijing:

Aaargh! A bio:
Mark
Ottawa

Sounds like a pretty qualified choice, I don’t see any obvious fault with him in the role.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Eminently qualified from the Chicoms point of view, and that of our Canadian compradors (https://www.britannica.com/topic/comprador)--see what his company, McKinsey, has been up to:

How McKinsey Has Helped Raise the Stature of Authoritarian Governments

Dec. 15, 2018

This year’s McKinsey & Company retreat in China was one to remember.

Hundreds of the company’s consultants frolicked in the desert, riding camels over sand dunes and mingling in tents linked by red carpets. Meetings took place in a cavernous banquet hall that resembled a sultan’s ornate court, with a sign overhead to capture the mood.

“I can’t keep calm, I work at McKinsey & Company,” it said.

Especially remarkable was the location: Kashgar, the ancient Silk Road city in China’s far west that is experiencing a major humanitarian crisis.

About four miles from where the McKinsey consultants discussed their work, which includes advising some of China’s most important state-owned companies, a sprawling internment camp had sprung up to hold thousands of ethnic Uighurs — part of a vast archipelago of indoctrination camps where the Chinese government has locked up as many as one million people.

One week before the McKinsey event, a United Nations committee had denounced the mass detentions and urged China to stop.
Sign up for The Interpreter

Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.

But the political backdrop did not appear to bother the McKinsey consultants, who posted pictures on Instagram chronicling their Disney-like adventures. In fact, McKinsey’s involvement with the Chinese government goes much deeper than its odd choice to showcase its presence in the country.

For a quarter-century, the company has joined many American corporations in helping stoke China’s transition from an economic laggard to the world’s second-largest economy. But as China’s growth presents a muscular challenge to American dominance, Washington has become increasingly critical of some of Beijing’s signature policies, including the ones McKinsey has helped advance.
Editors’ Picks
Where Does Affirmative Action Leave Asian-Americans?
How a Trump Tax Break to Help Poor Communities Became a Windfall for the Rich
Organoids Are Not Brains. How Are They Making Brain Waves?

One of McKinsey’s state-owned clients has even helped build China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea, a major point of military tension with the United States.

It turns out that McKinsey’s role in China is just one example of its extensive — and sometimes contentious — work around the world, according to an investigation by The New York Times that included interviews with 40 current and former McKinsey employees, as well as dozens of their clients.

At a time when democracies and their basic values are increasingly under attack, the iconic American company has helped raise the stature of authoritarian and corrupt governments across the globe, sometimes in ways that counter American interests.

Its clients have included Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy, Turkey under the autocratic leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and corruption-plagued governments in countries like South Africa.

In Ukraine, McKinsey and Paul Manafort — President Trump’s campaign chairman, later convicted of financial fraud — were paid by the same oligarch to help burnish the image of a disgraced presidential candidate, Viktor F. Yanukovych, recasting him as a reformer.

Once in office, Mr. Yanukovych rebuffed the West, sided with Russia and fled the country, accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. The events set off years of chaos in Ukraine and an international standoff with the Kremlin.

Inside Russia itself, McKinsey has worked with Kremlin-linked companies that have been placed under sanctions by Western governments — companies that the firm helped build up over the years and, in some cases, continues to advise...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/world/asia/mckinsey-china-russia.html

Sweet.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

One does not imagine the CCP is much less active in Canada, esp. greater Vancouver and Toronto areas:

Chinese influence pervades Australian politics
Parliamentarian Gladys Liu’s exposed

A legislator in Australia’s ruling coalition has admitted she had links with a communist group used by Beijing to advance its interests overseas. The potentially explosive revelation comes amid increasing scrutiny of political activities by ethnic Chinese in the country.

Gladys Liu, Australia’s first China-born member of parliament, confirmed on September 11 that she had an honorary role in the Guangdong provincial chapter of the China Overseas Exchange Association (COEA) from 2003-2015.

Then run by the Communist Party’s powerful State Council, the COEA is now part of the United Front Work Department, a shadowy state agency tasked with spreading Chinese influence abroad.

“I have resigned from many organizations and I am in the process of auditing any organizations who may have added me as a member without my knowledge or consent,” Liu said. “I do not wish my name to be used in any of these associations and I ask them to stop using my name.”

Liu did not refer to documents showing she had also belonged to the Shandong chapter of the COEA in 2010, but insisted she was “a proud Australian … and any suggestion contrary to this is deeply offensive.”

She has also denied reports that she has links with Ji Jianmin, president of Huaxing Arts Troupe, a cultural organization that is overseen by the State Council.

Ji has been identified as a junket operator who brings high-profile gamblers to the Crown Casino in Melbourne: one of those he brought to Australia recently was Ming Chai, a cousin of China’s leader Xi Jinping.

Interviewed about her political beliefs on Sky News, Liu declined three times to describe China’s actions in the South China Sea as illegal, saying only that she backed the Australian government’s position on the issue.

Canberra does not take sides in the dispute but accepted a ruling by an arbitral tribunal at The Hague handed down in July 2016 that China’s wide-ranging claims to the sea in its nine-dash line map were not consistent with international law.

“Our relationship with China is one of mutual benefit and underpinned by our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. China is not a democracy and is run under an authoritarian system, Liu said in an apparent attempt to tamp down the controversy. “We have always been and will continue to be clear-eyed about our political differences, but do so based on mutual respect, as two sovereign nations.”

Prime Minister Scott Morrison [Liberal, actually conservative] said that Liu, who represents a Melbourne seat with a large Chinese population, is a “fit and proper” legislator.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/article/chinese-influence-pervades-australian-politics/

Post from 2016 on Ontario (link at start no longer works but does if copy and paste in "Search" box at upper right):

How Convenient: “Ontario minister Michael Chan defends China’s human-rights record”
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/mark-collins-how-convenient-ontario-minister-michael-chan-defends-chinas-human-rights-record/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

USAF (and other US services) look like they're on an increasingly sticky wicket faced with China:

The high cost of survival in an air war with China

To gain the upper hand in air combat, it is often better to focus on the ground. That was the opinion of one early air power theorist; as General Giulio Douhet of the Italian army noted in 1921: "It is easier and more effective to destroy the enemy's aerial power by destroying his nests and eggs on the ground than to hunt his flying birds in the air." And for the better part of the past century, Douhet's maxim has shaped US Air Force (USAF) strategy, as its commanders have sought to make their air bases fortified and resilient against attack.

That philosophy prevailed until threats to US air bases all but disappeared with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Over the past three decades, the service has focused its efforts on seeking efficiencies through consolidating operations to fewer, larger airfields.

But the era of efficiencies might now be over. As China buys and builds new long-range fighters, bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles – as well as far-sighted satellites and surveillance aircraft – the USA is revisiting the idea of the vulnerable air base. A string of US and Allied facilities in the Western Pacific, including areas as far from any homeland as Andersen AFB in Guam are now viewed as exposed to potential attack from Beijing.

According to an August 2019 report by United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney [https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/averting-crisis-american-strategy-military-spending-and-collective-defence-in-the-indo-pacific], in Australia: "This growing arsenal of accurate long-range missiles poses a major threat to almost all American, allied and partner bases, airstrips, ports and military installations in the Western Pacific.

"As these facilities could be rendered useless by precision strikes in the opening hours of a conflict, the [Chinese] missile threat challenges America's ability to freely operate its forces from forward locations throughout the region.”

In response, the USAF is considering a new strategy known as distributed operations, a concept that calls for the service to operate from a greater number of more spread out air bases, of sizes small and large, so as to increase the number of targets an adversary would need to attack. In other words, the USAF has decided not to put all of its eggs in one basket.

F-22 Raptors fly over Wake Island

BETTER ODDS

The distributed operations concept increases the odds of aircraft surviving or avoiding being attacked, according to a USAF-commissioned study by the RAND Corporation, which was released to the public in July 2019 [https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2959.html].

"It's tough to defend, to defeat a… precision cruise missile with a big warhead," says RAND Corporation senior political scientist Alan Vick, one of the study's co-authors. "But then, it's very costly for them to have a weapon of that size and quality against every aircraft (and) location."

Distributed operations are also costly for the USA, however. As the report observes, more bases means more resources: anti-aircraft weapons, ammunition depots, communications equipment, fuel storage, aircraft hangars, maintenance personnel, soldiers to defend the airfield perimeter and headquarters staff. It could also mean a decentralised command and control structure, which could be complex and reliant on communications that are vulnerable to cyberattack.

To make such a strategy work, the USAF could use a mixture of three types of air bases: a stay-and-fight base, a drop-in facility and a fighter forward arming and refuelling point (FARP), says the RAND Corporation. The mixture of bases would have different strengths and weaknesses for various missions, given the available geography and resources the service has access to during a conflict.

A stay-and-fight base would likely be the furthest from combat zones and the most heavily fortified with active and passive defences. Active defences might include Patriot missiles for air defence and a THAAD high-altitude anti-ballistic missile defence system. Passive defence could include camouflage and concrete aircraft hangars, as well as dispersal of aircraft, fuel, and payloads across the airfield.

Drop-in and FARP facilities would have fewer defences. The former would only have enough strength to recover from an attack to evacuate aircraft. The latter would only be used for a few hours, enough time for a fighter to receive quick maintenance, fuel and ammunition, before an adversary would detect their location and launch an attack – effectively forcing the enemy to play whack-a-mole [read on]...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/the-high-cost-of-survival-in-an-air-war-with-china-460409/

Plus posts from 2016:

USAF “Officers Give New Details for F-35 in War With China”
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/mark-collins-usaf-officers-give-new-details-for-f-35-in-war-with-china/

RAND on War Between the Dragon and the Eagle
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/mark-collins-rand-on-war-between-the-dragon-and-the-eagle/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Long post on Intapundit today, as Michael Yon continues to report from Hong Kong. One thing of note is how China has quietly backed down on some tariffs, since the importation of food is a major concern of the government:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/342055/

”There is a tiny, tiny notice in the news today that China has backed off on its tariffs on US soy and pork.

Ya don’t say…

First of all, soy and pork are protein, which is a chronic problem in all national food chains, but more so in China. Between their traditional plant based diet and the cultural prestige of eating pork (the middle class literally measures its affluence by how many nights a week they eat pork and the lower classes and villages use pork as a celebratory meal), China’s protein consumption is very narrowly restricted to soy and pork (fish is common, but not nearly as available as soy and pork).

Second, by lifting the tariffs, China has just admitted it cannot produce enough protein for national consumption, both as a staple or as a preferred meat. Imagine a US shortage of wheat and chicken, with no real access to corn or beef, and a couple dozen urban areas of 20 millions or more with just a third arable land as now. That’s China.

So, what’s the problem with China’s agricultural industry? Basically, they simply do not have enough land to grow the volume of soy they need; and, their pork production is highly diffused and is ravaged by a massive and seemingly uncontrollable swine flu epidemic. In fact, it is estimated that up to 60% of China’s pigs are infected with the flu.

As well:

While this seems to have little to do with defense or military matters, I would suggest it is a huge red shift event offering insights into both the underlying economic and organizational civilian support system of the Red Army and suggestive of a wider indigenous structural and organizational condition of the military and government writ large.

I believe we can draw significant conclusions from closely studying China’s responses to this food supply crisis and extrapolating our observations to the military to understand what they do under stressful conditions, what resources they deploy, and how they organize their response. Not to mention, how the civilian population responds to the military’s demands.

“Stipulated: The food supply chain is in fact a national security issue and it is a function of the military’s most basic needs. A lot can be learned by studying this issue.”

Lots of interesting things to watch lately

 

[MarkOttawa]

Seems this may have been linked as some not satisfied with government's public response:

Exclusive: Australia concluded China was behind hack on parliament, political parties – sources   

Australian intelligence determined China was responsible for a cyber-attack on its national parliament and three largest political parties before the general election in May, five people with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.

Australia’s cyber intelligence agency - the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) - concluded in March that China’s Ministry of State Security was responsible for the attack, the five people with direct knowledge of the findings of the investigation told Reuters.

The five sources declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue. Reuters has not reviewed the classified report.

The report, which also included input from the Department of Foreign Affairs, recommended keeping the findings secret in order to avoid disrupting trade relations with Beijing, two of the people said. The Australian government has not disclosed who it believes was behind the attack or any details of the report ]emphasis added].

In response to questions posed by Reuters, Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s office declined to comment on the attack, the report’s findings or whether Australia had privately raised the hack with China. The ASD also declined to comment.

China’s Foreign Ministry denied involvement in any sort of hacking attacks and said the internet was full of theories that were hard to trace.

“When investigating and determining the nature of online incidents there must be full proof of the facts, otherwise it’s just creating rumors and smearing others, pinning labels on people indiscriminately. We would like to stress that China is also a victim of internet attacks,” the Ministry said in a statement sent to Reuters.

“China hopes that Australia can meet China halfway, and do more to benefit mutual trust and cooperation between the two countries.”

China is Australia’s largest trading partner, dominating the purchase of Australian iron ore, coal and agricultural goods, buying more than one-third of the country’s total exports and sending more than a million tourists and students there each year.

Australian authorities felt there was a “very real prospect of damaging the economy” if it were to publicly accuse China over the attack, one of the people said.

UNHINDERED ACCESS

Australia in February revealed hackers had breached the network of the Australian national parliament. Morrison said at the time that the attack was “sophisticated” and probably carried out by a foreign government. He did not name any government suspected of being involved [emphasis added].  

When the hack was discovered, Australian lawmakers and their staff were told by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate to urgently change their passwords, according to a parliamentary statement at the time.

The ASD investigation quickly established that the hackers had also accessed the networks of the ruling Liberal party, its coalition partner the rural-based Nationals, and the opposition Labor party, two of the sources said.

The Labor Party did not respond to a request for comment. One person close to the party said it was informed of the findings, without providing details.

The timing of the attack, three months ahead of Australia’s election, and coming after the cyber-attack on the U.S. Democratic Party ahead of the 2016 U.S. election, had raised concerns of election interference, but there was no indication that information gathered by the hackers was used in any way, one of the sources said.

Morrison and his Liberal-National coalition defied polls to narrowly win the May election, a result Morrison described as a “miracle”...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-china-cyber-exclusive/exclusive-australia-concluded-china-was-behind-hack-on-parliament-political-parties-sources-idUSKBN1W00VF

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

I cannot recall when, if ever, Canada has arrested anyone for spying for China:

Ex-U.S. intelligence officer gets 10 years in Chinese espionage case

A former U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency officer who admitted he betrayed his country for financial gain was sentenced on Tuesday to 10 years in federal prison for attempted espionage on behalf of China, the U.S. Justice Department said.

Ron Rockwell Hansen, 60, of Syracuse, Utah, pleaded guilty in March to trying to pass classified U.S. national defense information to China, and admitted to receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars as an agent for the Beijing government.

FBI agents arrested Hansen in June 2018 as he was on his way to the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to board a flight to China, the Justice Department said.

As part of his guilty plea, Hansen acknowledged soliciting U.S. national security information that he knew China would find valuable from a fellow Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) case officer, and agreeing to sell that information to the Chinese.

The documents he received from the DIA officer related to U.S. military readiness. Hansen also admitted to having advised the DIA case officer how to record and transmit the documents without detection, and how to hide and launder any funds received as payment for those secrets.

Unbeknownst to Hansen, the case officer reported his conduct to the DIA and acted as an FBI informant in the case.

Hansen, who is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and Russian, was hired by the DIA as a civilian case officer in 2006 following his retirement from the U.S. Army as a warrant officer with an intelligence background, according to court records.

Chinese intelligence agents recruited him in 2014, he admitted.

Hansen, who was sentenced by a federal judge in Salt Lake City, is one of three former American intelligence officers convicted in recent months on charges of espionage on behalf of China [emphasis added].

One of them, Kevin Patrick Mallory, a former CIA agent, was sentenced in May to 20 years in prison for conspiracy to transmit U.S. defense secrets to China. Another, former CIA officer Jerry Chun Shing Lee, pleaded guilty to charges of spying for China and is awaiting sentencing.

"These cases show the breadth of the Chinese government's espionage efforts and the threat they pose to our national security," Assistant Attorney General John Demurs said in a statement. (Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; editing by Jonathan Oatis)
http://news.trust.org/item/20190924222024-aiftk/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Blackadder1916]

I cannot recall when, if ever, Canada has arrested anyone for spying for China:

The problem does not seem to be arresting Chinese spies but being able to successfully prosecute them.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/case-of-hamilton-man-allegedly-spying-for-china-tangled-in-secrecy-1.5193658

Case of Hamilton man allegedly spying for China, tangled in secrecy
It has been more than five years since Qing Quentin Huang was arrested in Burlington, Ont.

The Canadian Press · Posted: Jun 28, 2019

The case of a Canadian man accused of trying to spy for China is once again tied up in mysterious closed-door proceedings over confidential information.

It has been more than five years since Qing Quentin Huang was arrested in Burlington, Ont., following an RCMP-led investigation called Project Seascape.

Huang, an employee of Lloyd's Register, a subcontractor to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., was charged under the Security of Information Act with attempting to communicate secrets to a foreign power.

. . . .

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2018/05/17/man-accused-of-spying-for-china-can-remain-in-canada-immigration-board-rules.html

Man accused of spying for China can remain in Canada, immigration board rules
Nicholas Keung Immigration Reporter Thu., May 17, 2018

A Chinese immigrant accused of being a spy can remain in Canada after the federal government lost an appeal to strip him of his permanent resident status.

In upholding a lower tribunal’s decision, the Immigration Appeal Division concluded that Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and his officials have failed to establish Yang Wang was a member of the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) or Taiwan’s Military Intelligence Bureau (MIB) to render him “inadmissible” to Canada.

While the 40-year-old Toronto man had admitted to providing information for both intelligence agencies, the appeal tribunal said the information — including details about the activities of Falun Gong, a spiritual practice banned in China — was obtained through “open source research” and personal knowledge.

. . . .

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start and end of major article:

Fifth Column Fears: The Chinese Influence Campaign in the United States
The growing reach of PRC influence operations present a special challenge for Asian-Americans.

We were halfway through the lavish Chinese welcome banquet — the honey walnut prawns had just arrived — when the obligatory toasting for the USAF delegation began. I sighed regretfully but shot to my feet when I noticed the figure coming toward me, maotai glass in hand, was none other than our host and the head of the Chinese delegation, a high-ranking general in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force.

He was already a bit unsteady, but he ordered his aide to bring over another glass, and to invite someone else to my table — a friend of mine, a fellow Asian-American officer. He then waved his aide aside to pour the three glasses of maotai himself. A signal honor, and rather puzzling as neither my friend nor myself were more than middling rank.

The toast started out in standard fashion. “To your health.” Drink. “To your families.” Drink. Then came the twist. “And to remembering that blood is thicker than water. Chinese blood runs through you. You understand us, and know that no matter what flag you wear on your shoulders, you are Chinese first and foremost.”

I lifted the glass to my lips but did not drink. That particular line was, and is, a common phrase in Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda specifically aimed at the Chinese diaspora. While that dinner was a number of years ago, the propaganda has not changed. In fact, Chinese influence operations in the United States have dramatically intensified and increased in sophistication over the last few years. This poses an unique and significant threat to Asian-Americans...

The U.S. government should invest more heavily in academia and begin outreach to academic organizations to increase understanding of CCP influence operations. PRC threats to U.S. university funding should be met with homegrown U.S. financial and informational support, to include diversification of the international student demographics and to publicly support Chinese students/researchers whom face PRC opprobrium/internet doxing for speaking their minds. Similarly, attempts by U.S. universities to self-censor for PRC financial gain – as North Carolina State University did in 2009 when they cancelled the Dalai Lama’s visit after the local Confucius Institute objected — should be met with very public U.S. Congressional questioning. Finally, the U.S. government should lend counterintelligence and Department of Justice support for countries, such as Australia and New Zealand [CANADA?], which face an even greater PRC influence threat against their polities. Just as China seeks to use Australia and New Zealand as a test case for influence operations, the United States can bolster its allies and simultaneously gain experience in working against PRC influence operations at home.

In the end, the final toast given by the Chinese general wasn’t completely untrue — “you understand us.” Asian-Americans, particularly those of the first or 1.5 generation, generally do have a bit more cultural/linguistic fluency when it comes to understanding and dealing with the CCP. One of the subtle satisfactions of working in the U.S. national security apparatus as an Asian-American is seeing the increasing diversity of the military, particularly over the last decade. This satisfaction is not simply representational, but also professional as well: One of the standard lines that the Chinese military likes to use during a disagreement is “you do not understand China!” — a line that has significantly less power when thrown into the faces of the Asian-American military officers or defense experts sitting on the other side of the table. If PRC influence operations are to be countered, then that understanding must be shared across all sectors of U.S. society.

Eric Chan is a China/Korea strategist for the U.S. Air Force’s Checkmate office. Mr. Chan was previously the China, Korea, Philippines, and Vietnam Country Director at the U.S. Air Force’s International Affairs office, responsible for Foreign Military Sales to US allies and for engagement with the Chinese Air Force.

The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions of the U.S. Air Force, the Department of Defense, or SecuriFense.
https://thediplomat.com/2019/09/fifth-column-fears-the-chinese-influence-campaign-in-the-united-states/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Petard]

Considering climate change is emerging now as one of the central election points, I'd say it's worthwhile looking at China's part in this, and maybe how its propagation actually works in favour of what is likely China's "grand strategy"

Except for a small portion in Australia, China has possession of just about all the sources of rare earth elements, which are believed to be key in energy storage and technological advancement, technology that is the supposed hope out of this climate change crisis. China has bought up every possible source of this resource around the world, more specifically throughout Africa and South America, where often they are able to leverage host countries through debt traps, ensuring solid control of their natural resources. The massive "belt and road" project are sure signs, too, of the trade routes it intends to use to bring those resources to market. Now, it looks like it's even going after one of the few sources in the Western world, and it's in our backyard

Trump's recent gaffe over buying Greenland, I think, was merely his old man brain flummoxing something very important about a geopolitical brief he no doubt got on the matter.  I believe this  summary by the Caspian report is a fair estimate of the situation, and why Trump might of said, jokingly or otherwise, that Greenland is for sale; it certainly looks like China might've already beat him to it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv9qHzwsvfM

While the Belt and Road project no doubt will service the demand for the natural sources it's pulling from Africa and South America, China has a problem in getting a relatively secure route to bring the resources it's mining in Greenland. But it certainly seems to have a friend in the Liberal Party of Canada, many of them in fact. Recently, even Gen (ret'd) Leslie espoused in China's favour on access through the Northwest passage.
www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-agreeing-on-the-arctic-why-canada-sides-with-china-over-the-us-on/

Add to it, too, the conflicting message the Liberal old guard is sending behind the scenes, in regards to the Meng Wanzhou extradition hearings
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/whose-side-is-jean-chretien-on/

And other leveraging, including over 5G
www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/chinas-offensive-on-canada-in-plain-sight/

This situation might look like a win-win, I suppose, to some proponents of fighting climate change through an upheaval of fossil fuel reliance with technological breakthroughs.  That it's China positioning itself to do this, by dominating the world's resources needed to effect this change, doesn't seem to be all that important to Canadians.  To some, the end does justify the means, or maybe nobody is really looking, so long as the investment dollars keep coming. I believe too many are ignoring this situation, especially warnings such as this one at the end of this article
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/china-silk-road-yellowknife-1.4782123

If major investments are made in Canada's North by companies where China holds a significant interest, "it is a point of leverage" that China could potentially use to influence domestic policy, according to Lajeunesse...

Schumann said courting Chinese investment means balancing security concerns with a desire to bring money into the territory.
"You've got to remember, these guys have all the money," he said.
"We've got to pay attention to what they're doing — but it's got to line up with, not just what the Northwest Territories, but what Canada wants." 

Too bad nobody wants to talk seriously about foreign policy in Canada, not even during an election

 

[FJAG]

Highlights from the Chinese 70th Anniversary Military parade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmp51YN-7wc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aObyRQN4fRQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofimgaO7Qck

Is it just my imagination or is every Chinese soldier exactly the same height (except for officers who all seem to be five inches shorter than the ORs). On top of that no one needs corrective lenses or a remedial fitness program.

Boy! Is Trump ever going to be jealous when he sees this parade.

:cheers:

 

[tomahawk6]

One of the missiles seems to have a MIRV capability and could hit US targets in 30 minutes or so. In my book the PRC might have moved to the top of the threat list.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Terry Glavin's super-sharp literary shiv plunged in deep:

Liberals still kowtowing to China's thugs –– just with a bit more subtlety than usual
Just as nauseating is the surfeit of federal, provincial and municipal politicians who remain deeply integrated and indebted to Beijing's influence-pedlars and corporate lobbyists in Canada.

It was because Justin Trudeau decided to skip the federal leaders’ Munk Debate on Foreign Policy scheduled for this past Tuesday night [Oct. 1] at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto that the event was called off and quite a few embarrassing questions were avoided. Not least among those questions is this one: In the epic global struggle underway at the moment between totalitarianism and the rest of us, whose side is Canada really on, anyway?

In Hong Kong on Tuesday, police fired 900 rubber bullets, 190 bean bag rounds and roughly 1,400 tear gas canisters at tens of thousands of protesters who somehow managed to find their way to rallies to protest the Chinese Communist Party’s 70th birthday party, despite the city being practically on lockdown with dozens of malls and 11 Metro stations closed. It was the most violent day of civil unrest since the United Kingdom gave Beijing the keys to the city in 1997. The youngest of the 269 Hongkongers arrested was 12. The oldest was 71.

In Beijing, 15,000 troops marched in line with intercontinental ballistic missiles and hypersonic drones from China’s new-warfare airborne armada in Tiananmen Square, filing past a massive parade stand where the megalomaniac Xi Jinping stood waving, dressed in a grey Mao suit. In Hong Kong, among the 74 people aged from 11 to 75 who were hospitalized Tuesday was 18-year-old high school student Tsang Chi-kin, now recovering with a collapsed lung after being shot by police in the chest at point-blank range.

It is bad enough that the Trudeau government’s policy has been to pretend none of this is even happening, and to persist in the catastrophic objective of ever-deeper economic integration with China that has dominated Liberal foreign policy and trade policy for a quarter of a century.

This remains the case despite Beijing’s hostage-taking of the diplomat-on-leave Michael Kovrig and entrepreneur Michael Spavor, and despite Beijing’s crippling embargo on a variety of Canadian agricultural exports, and despite Beijing’s militarization of its ambitious global “belt and road” initiative, the purpose of which Xi Jinping is helpfully explicit about. The point of it all is to disassemble the “rules based international order” that Liberals recite by rote as the wellspring of Canadian prosperity and security since the Second World War.

Just as nauseating is the surfeit of federal, provincial and municipal politicians who remain deeply integrated with and indebted to Beijing’s influence-pedlars and corporate lobbyists in Canada. It is also by rote that they recite the nauseating, predictably self-aggrandizing excuses their make for themselves. It’s always about the need for “dialogue,” and other such point-missing gibberish.

Harjit Sajjan, defence minister in the last government [still is the gov't, he's still the minister], was a guest of honour at a Sept. 22 reception and ceremony in Vancouver celebrating the 70th anniversary of the bloody and tyrannical rule of the Chinese Communist Party. PST

Canadians long ago wised up to this, and so lately the Liberals kowtowing to Beijing prefer to do so quietly, hoping the rest of us won’t notice. Such was the case when it was revealed last weekend that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan had been a guest of honour at a Sept. 22 reception and ceremony in Vancouver celebrating the 70th anniversary of the bloody and tyrannical rule of the Chinese Communist Party.

In Sajjan’s case, the excuse on offer was that he was attending in his capacity as the Liberal candidate in Vancouver South, and you know, diversity and all that, and besides, he didn’t stay for dinner, and after all, he did say something about how Beijing “needed to address the consular cases” of Kovrig and Spavor. As if these were merely consular cases. As if these excuses absolve Sajjan of the indecency of serving as a photo-opportunity propaganda mannequin for the butchers of Beijing [emphasis added].

In Ottawa on Tuesday, a group of pro-democracy Hongkonger-Canadians were followed and harassed by pro-Beijing thugs as they left their small rally on Parliament Hill. They say they were stalked as their made their way along Wellington Street, blocked from entering O’Connor Street and surrounded until police arrived to escort them into the ByWard Market area. The group Ottawans Stand With HK say they have reported several death threats to Ottawa Police and the RCMP.

Across the country, in Richmond, B.C., the RCMP were called after a group of high school students who put up a “Lennon Wall” at the Aberdeen Skytrain station supporting Hong Kong’s democracy movement were harassed by a group of Beijing supporters who ripped down their display. In Vancouver, at the University of British Columbia, a similar demonstration supporting the Hong Kong protests was attacked by pro-Beijing activists.

All this might have made for some useful context to a real-world crisis with its front lines in the streets of Hong Kong and deep implications for Canadian security and the Canadian economy, had the federal leaders’ foreign-policy debate gone ahead Tuesday night. Instead, the parties exchanged their usual, boring, fact-deficient goads and challenges.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer announced that he’d cut foreign aid by 25 per cent, redirecting the savings to tax cuts and to sub-Saharan countries in genuine need. But he strayed into fantasy in his claim that more than $2 billion of Canada’s $6 billion foreign-aid outlay goes to “middle and upper-income countries,” some of which are anti-democratic pariahs. Scheer’s announcement could have been grounded in a useful critique of the way the Trudeau government handles its foreign-aid files in police states. But it wasn’t, and it came off instead like a sop to the rednecks and foreign-aid begrudgers who have bolted the Conservative Party for Maxime Bernier’s People Party of Canada.

The Liberals, meanwhile, lathered it on well enough all by themselves. Like this, in an Oct. 1 Liberal Party press release: “Scheer supported capitulation on NAFTA, and now he wants to renegotiate the deal, threatening to plunge Canada’s economy into crippling trade uncertainty.”

That’s something that can be said of Jagmeet Singh’s New Democratic Party, which claims an intention to reopen the United States-Canada-Mexico free trade pact the three countries negotiated to replace NAFTA, following one of U.S. Donald Trump’s tantrums. But it’s not something that can be truthfully said of Scheer’s Conservatives.

Scheer insists, of course, that it was Trudeau who “capitulated” on NAFTA, but on the main Liberal allegation, here’s Scheer, two weeks ago, during a conversation with reporters on the Conservative campaign plane during an overnight flight to Vancouver: “We will proceed with the deal as Justin Trudeau signed it. We will inherit his failure, and we will do everything we can in my term as prime minister to fix the mess he has come back with.”

On foreign policy, the NDP has little to say of any use to anyone. As for the Greens, it’s all climate change, all the time, and fair enough.

The one good thing about the cancellation of the federal leaders’ Munk Debate on foreign policy is that Canadians were spared the embarrassment of watching their federal party leaders make excuses for themselves while the existential struggle for the future of democracy in the world is being fought street by street, mall by mall and plaza by plaza, in the streets of Hong Kong.
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/glavin-liberals-still-kowtowing-to-chinas-thugs-just-with-a-bit-more-subtlety-than-usual

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile foreign policy and China effectively absent from our election--note China has Swedish hostage and Sweden is actually showing leadership vs PRC (also Russian angle, Arctic/Belt and Road, Huawei at end):

Sweden cautions European Union on Beijing-Moscow ties and ‘challenges’ posed by China

  *Scandinavian country urges the European Union to adopt a ‘common and clear’ stance to deal with China’s growing geopolitical ambitions in Europe
    *Paper comes with Sweden’s relations with China at the lowest ebb among all EU member nations

Sweden has unveiled a China strategy paper detailing Stockholm’s concerns about Beijing-Moscow ties and urging the European Union to adopt a “common and clear” position to “manage the challenges” posed by China’s growing geopolitical ambitions in Europe.

Released on Wednesday, a day after Chinese President Xi Jinping declared on the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic that “no force” could obstruct China’s advances, the paper comes as Sweden’s relations with China are at the lowest ebb among all EU member nations.

Former Hong Kong bookseller Gui Minhai, a Swedish national born in China, has spent much of the past four years in detention for publishing politically sensitive materials.

In addition, the proliferation of Chinese investments across Europe is forcing Sweden – a traditional advocate of free trade – to move towards considering a national investment-screening mechanism.

Sweden’s strategy paper “calls for cooperation between the EU and the US in meeting security-related challenges stemming from China’s global rise”, said Bjorn Jerden, Asia programme head at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs.

China’s growing bond with the major power in Sweden’s backyard – Russia – also is stoking concern among Stockholm politicians, according to the document.

“China’s relationship with Russia is developing, even if linked with uncertainty,” said the paper, which the Swedish foreign ministry published after gathering input from the country’s major parliamentary party leaders.

“The relationship is bound together by a common interest in changing the international system for the benefit of both countries.”

The paper also drew attention to Sweden’s concerns over China’s effort to gain “greater influence over the Arctic”. Last year, China moved to extend its massive infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative, to the far north by developing shipping lanes that global warming has opened up in the polar region.

Dubbing the proposed new routes the “Polar Silk Road”, China said it would encourage enterprises to build infrastructure and conduct commercial trial voyages along Arctic shipping routes.

While stressing that Sweden will fall into line with the EU on an overall China strategy, the paper indirectly castigates the bloc for failing to come up with a comprehensive plan for handling the world’s second-largest economy...

Sweden concedes in the paper that bilateral relations with China are in poor shape, even though it was the first Western country to recognise the communist power nearly seven decades ago.

“Sweden’s relations with China are adversely affected by a number of bilateral problems,” it said.

“One of these is the case of the imprisoned Swedish citizen Gui Minhai, where Chinese authorities, despite demands from the Swedish government, refuse to fulfil the obligations China has under international consular agreements, and refuse to comply with Swedish demands for Gui’s release [emphasis added, do we make "demands"?].”

While calling for “more powerful cooperation” within the EU on handling China’s digital development, the paper did not mention Chinese telecoms giant Huawei Technologies by name even when it referred to EU countries’ concerns over 5G development.

A diplomatic source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said some Swedish parliamentary party leaders were hesitant to mention Huawei during the consultative stage for the foreign ministry’s paper.

Huawei has been portrayed as a cybersecurity threat by the EU, which is conducting a risk assessment based on member states’ concerns about the company’s dominance and omnipresence in next-generation 5G mobile development across Europe.

Swedish telecoms supplier Ericsson also is a major player in the 5G infrastructure market, although Huawei leads the field globally in technological advancement.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3031341/sweden-cautions-eu-beijing-moscow-ties-and-need-manage

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

One of the missiles seems to have a MIRV capability and could hit US targets in 30 minutes or so. In my book the PRC might have moved to the top of the threat list.

Displacing who, in your opinion?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Yet another example of the Dragon spreading its wings abroad as its talons grasp for Weltmacht (https://archive.org/details/FischerFritzGermanysAimsInTheFirstWorldWar/page/n4):

China’s surveillance tech is spreading globally, raising concerns about Beijing’s influence

    *China has created a vast surveillance apparatus at home consisting of millions of cameras equipped with facial recognition technology.
    *Now, some of the country’s largest firms have signed deals around the world to sell their tech abroad.
    *Experts raised concerns about data being siphoned back to China, authoritarian regimes using the tech to increase their power and ultimately the Chinese Communist Party having more influence abroad.

China’s push to export its surveillance technology via some of its biggest companies, including to liberal democracies, has raised concerns because of the risk of data being siphoned back to Beijing and the growing influence of the Communist Party, experts told CNBC.

The world’s second-largest economy has built a vast surveillance state comprised of millions of cameras powered by facial recognition software. The devices, perched on lamp posts and outside buildings and streets, are able to recognize individuals.

Some of China’s most valuable technology firms have been involved in such projects across the country. But this technology is now being exported as the nation’s technology firms expand their global footprint.

Chinese tech companies — particularly Huawei, Hikvision, Dahua, and ZTE — supply artificial intelligence surveillance technology in 63 countries, according to a September report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank. Of those nations, 36 have signed onto China’s massive infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative, the report said, adding that Huawei supplies technology to the highest number of countries.

Some of these so-called “smart city” projects, which include surveillance technologies, are underway in Western countries, particularly in Europe, including Germany, Spain and France, according to analysis by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) [emphasis added].

Experts warned of a number of risks including potential access to data by the Chinese government.

“I think that sometimes there is an assumption that ‘oh well when we roll out this technology we aren’t going to use it in a negative way, we are using it to provide services or we are using it in a way that is seen as acceptable, socially acceptable in our society,’” Samantha Hoffman, a fellow at ASPI’s Cyber Centre, told CNBC’s “Beyond the Valley” podcast.

“But actually (we) can’t be sure of that because the difference isn’t necessarily how the technology is being deployed, but who has access to the data it’s collecting,” she said. “If it’s a Chinese company like Huawei, and that … data goes back to China and can be used by the party in whatever way that it chooses.”..

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/china-is-exporting-surveillance-tech-like-facial-recognition-globally.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Now this--where's Canada:

US puts visa restrictions on Chinese officials over abuses of Muslims in Xinjiang

    *The U.S. puts visa restrictions on Chinese officials in response to abuses of Muslims in the Xinjiang region.
    *It follows a move from the Trump administration to blacklist 28 entities and companies.
    *It adds to tensions between the U.S. and China only two days before high-stakes trade talks are set to resume in Washington...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/us-puts-visa-restrictions-on-chinese-officials-over-abuses-of-muslims-in-xinjiang.html?__source=newsletter|breakingnewshttps://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/us-puts-visa-restrictions-on-chinese-officials-over-abuses-of-muslims-in-xinjiang.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Delink the Communist party from China in our language is the thrust of this article and prevent it's tentacles from reaching to far into Western society.

oops forgot link https://quillette.com/2019/07/22/when-the-lion-wakes-the-global-threat-of-the-chinese-communist-party/?fbclid=IwAR0kyx14m-g80D5_SJcVCTtKdN8ALwN8YKV06mGPbZThT2VWdvBC5EOkypU