Blackface skit in China's new year gala sparks racism accusations
Shanghai: Skits on China's widely-watched Lunar New Year gala on state television that featured Chinese actors made up to appear African have provoked accusations of blackface and racism online.
In one skit, actors joked about Chinese-built high-speed rail in Kenya.n another skit, actress Lou Naiming appeared on stage in colourful garb with her face and arms coloured brown, carrying a fruit basket on her head, and accompanied by someone costumed as a monkey.
A black woman playing her daughter declares that she wants to study in China but is worried her mother will not agree.Lou replies, "Why wouldn't I agree? A Chinese volunteer medical team saved my life when I was young. Now Chinese kids are building a railroad for us... I love Chinese people. I love China!"
The internet lit up with criticism after the show, which is believed to be one of the most widely-watched shows in the world, aired on the eve of Lunar New Year.
"The racial discrimination was so clear," wrote one microblogger, who goes by the name Chen Fei Tutu."Is this our nation propagating Chinese values? When white people discriminate against us, we are strongly dissatisfied, but now we are discriminating against Africans in such high profile. How shameful."China's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters seeking comment on the racism allegations.
On its Weibo microblog, online information platform Tutopia said, "Imagine if it was a white person in blackface saying in an exaggerated accent, 'I love America,' and not being blasted by the whole world."
Others declared the sketch, aired during the "CCTV Spring Festival Gala" that traditionally draws hundreds of millions of viewers, an embarrassment.
The more than four-hour-long programme of skits, music and dance has been a television staple since it was first broadcast in 1983. The highlight of this year's show was a reunion duet by two of China's most famous pop stars.
Public discussion of racial discrimination is unusual in China, which is dominated by the ethnic Han majority but is also home to dozens of minority groups as well as a growing influx of foreign residents, including Africans.
In 2016, a laundry detergent company in China apologised after running an advertisement in which a black man was stuffed headfirst into a washing machine only to emerge a moment later as a fair-skinned Asian man.
At the time, the Foreign Ministry called the sequence an isolated commercial that had prompted no diplomatic complaints, but added that China respected all countries, no matter their ethnicity or race, and was "good brothers" with African countries.
China has forged increasingly close ties with many African nations in its hunt to satisfy demand for commodities in its booming economy. Beijing has rejected accusations of neo-colonialism in Africa, saying its aid there has no strings attached and is widely welcomed.
Germany’s foreign minister has rejected China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative, warning that it is not in the interests of democracy or freedom, and that the West needs to offer an alternative.
In a blunt speech Sigmar Gabriel also accused China – alongside Russia - of “constantly trying to test and undermine the unity of the European Union”, seeking to influence individual states with “sticks and carrots”.He said China was using its $5 trillion One Belt, One Road (OBOR) infrastructure fund to promote a value system different from the West.
It was Gabriel’s last major speech as foreign minister – he will lose the role in the proposed new German coalition government despite being one of the country’s most popular political figures.He was at the Munich Security Conference, the pre-eminent annual gathering of defence and security policymakers, which was also attended by Chinese government officials.
Gabriel said China’s “increasing global leadership” was, alongside Russia’s claims to power and the resurgence of nationalism and protectionism, “leading to massive shifts in our world order with unpredictable consequences”.“The initiative for a new Silk Road is not - as some in Germany believe - a sentimental reminder of Marco Polo. Rather, it stands for the attempt to establish a comprehensive system for shaping the world in Chinese interest.“It is no longer just about the economy: China is developing a comprehensive system alternative to the Western one, which, unlike our model, is not based on freedom, democracy and individual human rights.”
Gabriel said he was not reproaching China – it was “currently the only country in the world with a truly global, geo-strategic idea”, and it had the right to develop such an idea.
However the West was to blame for not having a strategy of its own “to find a new global balance”.
“The liberal order which reformed our world after the devastation of two world wars is certainly not perfect,” he said. “But where the architecture of the liberal order crumbles, others will begin to move their pillars into the building. In the long term the entire building will change. I’m sure in the end neither Americans nor Europeans will feel comfortable in this building that is being rebuilt.”
Gabriel said the European Union should launch its own initiative to promote the development of infrastructure from Eastern Europe to Central Asia and also in Africa, with European money, and with European standards.
This would involve seeing Africa as an opportunity rather than a problem.
“China, for example, has been investing in Africa for years, without having to worry that even a single African refugee will reach China,” Gabriel said.
Gabriel’s sentiments were backed by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, who both spoke at the summit of growing challenges to Western liberalism.
Philippe said Europe "cannot leave the rules of the new Silk Road to China".
In September last year Junkcer announced in his annual ‘state of the union’ speech the EU would implement a “framework for investment screening” that would scrutinise any foreign state-owned company’s bid to buy a European harbour, part of its energy infrastructure or a defence technology firm.
Last month British Prime Minister Theresa May disappointed her hosts on a trip to Beijing by refusing to formally endorse OBOR.
OBOR has met resistance in many parts of the world – including Asia, where India is its chief opponent.
However, it also has enthusiastic supporters, such as Pakistan.
China promoted OBOR heavily at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, where Politburo member Liu He delivered a well-attended speech.
“One Belt, One Road is going to be the new WTO, like it or not,” said Joe Kaeser, chief executive of German industrial giant Siemens, according to the New York Times.
Hungary was the first EU member state to join OBOR. Last May Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Central European countries would be “ideal pillars” for OBOR.
“Our gene pool has always made us interested in the question of how to replace confrontation between East and West with cooperation,” he said.
He hailed China’s policy as a “new model of globalisation”.
And Greece has also embraced OBOR, with nearly half a billion euros invested into Piraeus, near Athens, making it the Mediterranean’s busiest port. Chinese state-owned shipping group Cosco now controls the entire waterfront through a majority stake.
Earlier this month former Slovenian president Danilo Turk said OBOR could help bridge the development divide between east and west within Europe.“It is no longer just about the economy: China is developing a comprehensive system alternative to the Western one, which, unlike our model, is not based on freedom, democracy and individual human rights.”
Gabriel said he was not reproaching China – it was “currently the only country in the world with a truly global, geo-strategic idea”, and it had the right to develop such an idea.
However the West was to blame for not having a strategy of its own “to find a new global balance”.
“The liberal order which reformed our world after the devastation of two world wars is certainly not perfect,” he said. “But where the architecture of the liberal order crumbles, others will begin to move their pillars into the building. In the long term the entire building will change. I’m sure in the end neither Americans nor Europeans will feel comfortable in this building that is being rebuilt.”
Gabriel said the European Union should launch its own initiative to promote the development of infrastructure from Eastern Europe to Central Asia and also in Africa, with European money, and with European standards.
This would involve seeing Africa as an opportunity rather than a problem.
“China, for example, has been investing in Africa for years, without having to worry that even a single African refugee will reach China,” Gabriel said.
Gabriel’s sentiments were backed by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, who both spoke at the summit of growing challenges to Western liberalism.
Philippe said Europe "cannot leave the rules of the new Silk Road to China".
In September last year Junkcer announced in his annual ‘state of the union’ speech the EU would implement a “framework for investment screening” that would scrutinise any foreign state-owned company’s bid to buy a European harbour, part of its energy infrastructure or a defence technology firm.
Last month British Prime Minister Theresa May disappointed her hosts on a trip to Beijing by refusing to formally endorse OBOR.
OBOR has met resistance in many parts of the world – including Asia, where India is its chief opponent.
However, it also has enthusiastic supporters, such as Pakistan.
China promoted OBOR heavily at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, where Politburo member Liu He delivered a well-attended speech.
“One Belt, One Road is going to be the new WTO, like it or not,” said Joe Kaeser, chief executive of German industrial giant Siemens, according to the New York Times.
Hungary was the first EU member state to join OBOR. Last May Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Central European countries would be “ideal pillars” for OBOR.
“Our gene pool has always made us interested in the question of how to replace confrontation between East and West with cooperation,” he said.
He hailed China’s policy as a “new model of globalisation”.
And Greece has also embraced OBOR, with nearly half a billion euros invested into Piraeus, near Athens, making it the Mediterranean’s busiest port. Chinese state-owned shipping group Cosco now controls the entire waterfront through a majority stake.
Earlier this month former Slovenian president Danilo Turk said OBOR could help bridge the development divide between east and west within Europe.“It is no longer just about the economy: China is developing a comprehensive system alternative to the Western one, which, unlike our model, is not based on freedom, democracy and individual human rights.”
Gabriel said he was not reproaching China – it was “currently the only country in the world with a truly global, geo-strategic idea”, and it had the right to develop such an idea.
However the West was to blame for not having a strategy of its own “to find a new global balance”.
“The liberal order which reformed our world after the devastation of two world wars is certainly not perfect,” he said. “But where the architecture of the liberal order crumbles, others will begin to move their pillars into the building. In the long term the entire building will change. I’m sure in the end neither Americans nor Europeans will feel comfortable in this building that is being rebuilt.”
Gabriel said the European Union should launch its own initiative to promote the development of infrastructure from Eastern Europe to Central Asia and also in Africa, with European money, and with European standards.
This would involve seeing Africa as an opportunity rather than a problem.
“China, for example, has been investing in Africa for years, without having to worry that even a single African refugee will reach China,” Gabriel said.
Gabriel’s sentiments were backed by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, who both spoke at the summit of growing challenges to Western liberalism.
Philippe said Europe "cannot leave the rules of the new Silk Road to China".
In September last year Junkcer announced in his annual ‘state of the union’ speech the EU would implement a “framework for investment screening” that would scrutinise any foreign state-owned company’s bid to buy a European harbour, part of its energy infrastructure or a defence technology firm.
Last month British Prime Minister Theresa May disappointed her hosts on a trip to Beijing by refusing to formally endorse OBOR.
OBOR has met resistance in many parts of the world – including Asia, where India is its chief opponent.
However, it also has enthusiastic supporters, such as Pakistan.
China promoted OBOR heavily at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, where Politburo member Liu He delivered a well-attended speech.
“One Belt, One Road is going to be the new WTO, like it or not,” said Joe Kaeser, chief executive of German industrial giant Siemens, according to the New York Times.
Hungary was the first EU member state to join OBOR. Last May Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Central European countries would be “ideal pillars” for OBOR.
“Our gene pool has always made us interested in the question of how to replace confrontation between East and West with cooperation,” he said.
He hailed China’s policy as a “new model of globalisation”.
And Greece has also embraced OBOR, with nearly half a billion euros invested into Piraeus, near Athens, making it the Mediterranean’s busiest port. Chinese state-owned shipping group Cosco now controls the entire waterfront through a majority stake.
Earlier this month former Slovenian president Danilo Turk said OBOR could help bridge the development divide between east and west within Europe.http://www.watoday.com.au/world/china-undermining-us-with-sticks-and-carrots-outgoing-german-minister-20180218-p4z0s6.html
Interesting stuff. Just reinforces my belief how we self-flagellate in this country about being racist. Suggest we are better than most.
is why i have come to detest the greens, as a party, they are so hipster, inward thinking, pc etc and dont tackle issues, of the world.
when i spot jungle wood furniture discarded in verge pick-ups, i envisage the orangutans swinging through the jungle, from these trees, cut down to make way for palm oil plantations. and the population of these apes has plummeted.
why dont the greens make them selves relevant and take on issues, such as this.
grow some balls greens instead of trying to be the moralistic police of australia.
Maybe China needs to legislate a Racial Discrimination Act like we have so they can claim that they aren't a racist country, yet still be full of racists. Perception is everything
I am with you here Isaac. What a backward repressive regime this is Beyond the pale, a bridge too far, this exceeds limits, even to extremes, it is an outrageous abuse of power
China has a saying, inspired by the famed strategist Sun Tzu, that the best outcome of any standoff is “winning without fighting”.
Experts say while Malcolm Turnbull is right that China does not pose a direct military threat to Australia, it does excel at the practice of making steady gains that remain calculatedly short of military confrontation or conflict.
he latest instance, some say, is China’s handling of the paradisiacal Indian Ocean nation the Maldives, into which Beijing has poured money as part of its “Belt and Road” infrastructure initiative. A Chinese naval task group has been in the Indian Ocean while Beijing’s ally, the Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen, wrestles with a political crisis, prompting speculation the Chinese are propping up Mr Yameen by warding off India from intervening.
Such drama unfolding in the Indian Ocean on Australia's maritime doorstep provides a glimpse into how China might marry its ostensible economic and infrastructure programs with its strategic aims, experts say.
“If it is basically what it seems to be, which is the use of a naval task force to intervene in the Maldives … it’s using military force to influence the outcome of political decisions in another country while warning another major power to stay away,” said Peter Dean, a professor at the University of Western Australia and senior fellow at the Perth USAsia Centre.
Professor Dean said countries such as the Maldives were being laden with debt through China’s Belt and Road initiative, which funds infrastructure development largely through concessional loans they are unlikely to pay back, leaving them vulnerable to coercion by Beijing.
This stood in contrast to a rules-based, liberal international order that creates a level playing field.
“It’s an illiberal system based on power and national interest which is very much not a level playing field,” he said.Professor Dean said what made the Maldives situation particularly troubling was that it was “easily replicated in the South Pacific”, where some island nations are also falling into infrastructure-borne debt to China. He pointed to remarks by Fiji’s former top diplomat Robin Nair to the ABC on Wednesday that “there is general concern that the Pacific is opening itself to the same dangers”.
Andrew Shearer, a former national security adviser to Tony Abbott and John Howard and now a senior expert at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said China’s whole strategy relied on “building up its power and influence in the region and getting its own way without having a military conflict”.
“The PM’s right in the sense that I read him which is that, certainly for now, China doesn’t pose a direct military threat to Australia. But, in some ways, what it presents is a much more subtle and sophisticated and difficult challenge to us, to the United States and to like-minded countries in the region,” he said.
The methods included economic coercion, cyber attacks, the use of its coastguard to support a “fishing militia”, some - though not all - of the Belt and Road initiative, and interference in the politics of other countries, including Australia.
“At the heart of the discussions between the leaders [Mr Turnbull and Mr Trump] will be a discussion about how do we maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific … and that’s a much broader discussion that just the military alliance,” Mr Shearer said.
Xi Jinping strengthened his hold on China. It's the leadership change that means the most today
By Stan GrantLeadership is the biggest story of the day: the man at the top and how he is going to change our lives.
There's a lot at stake: our jobs, our security, the future that awaits our children.
This is potentially a pivotal day, when a nation sets itself a new course. This is history in the making with a man who is determined to make history.
Yes, there is a big change in Canberra but Michael McCormack is no Xi Jinping: that's the leader we should be talking about.
Mr McCormack is the most powerful figure in the National Party, but China's leader is the most powerful person in the world.
That's what the Economist magazine called him last year, as Mr Xi strengthened his hold on the Communist Party.
The party's congress elevated him to the level of the founder of modern China, Mao Zedong.
Xi's China dream
Like Chairman Mao, Mr Xi has a doctrine, "Xi Jinping Thought for the New Era of Socialism with Chinese Special Characteristics". This is Mr Xi's China Dream.
A more powerful military; domestic security (code for winding back human rights, locking up dissidents and potential rivals); asserting Chinese sovereignty; and extending his country's economic reach: these are the hallmarks of the Xi era.At the centre of it all is the survival of the Communist Party: as The Economist wrote, Mr Xi is "putting the Communist back into Communist China".
Now he will have more time to achieve it: the party is moving to lift the two-term limit on the presidency, clearing the way for Mr Xi to be leader for life.
This is an extraordinary development: it not only cements Mr Xi's position it reveals how he has bent the party to his will.
China had wanted to bury the cult of personality with Chairman Mao: yes, his portrait hangs like an emperor over the gates of the Forbidden City; his photo sits on the mantelpiece of many homes and Chinese file daily past his preserved corpse; but this was the ghost of power now Mr Xi has given it new life.
Mr Xi has revived the spirit of the "great helmsman" as Chairman Mao was known.
He even wears the suit, as he did when he inspected Chinese troops in Hong Kong last year: a demonstration of personal power and a message to those seeking democracy in the Special Administrative Region: you belong to China and I am in charge.
The princeling destined to rule
One of Chairman Mao's earliest biographers, the American journalist Edgar Snow wrote that the revolutionary leader "believed in his own star and destiny to rule".
The same could be said of Xi Jinping: he is what's called a princeling — the son of Communist Party royalty. His father, Xi Zhongxun, was once Secretary General and a politburo member in the 1980s.
Mr Xi is part of a resurgence of strongman populist leaders across the world: he knows his people's soft spots.
Mr Xi is tapping into what China scholars Bates Gill and Linda Jakobson in their book China Matters call a "ferocious nationalism".They say under Mr Xi hardcore anti-western Chinese nationalists once relegated to the margins are now "mainstream voices in the public sphere".
Mr Xi despises weakness and he has a long memory.
History lies at the core of Mr Xi's nationalism: he reminds the Chinese of the "100 years of humiliation" by foreign powers stretching back to the Opium Wars.
He reminds his people of the cost of weakness: Mr Xi looks to the implosion of the Soviet Union whose leaders he believes were "not man enough" to defend communism.
A China Dream
Xi Jinping is not a Western-style leader. He does not aspire to Western liberal democracy. He is a product of his party and his country — the blood in his veins is indeed red.
His China Dream is not the American Dream. It is a rejection of the rights of the individual. Mr Xi asks the Chinese people to put their country above themselves. As Gill and Jakobson write, "to make personal sacrifices to better the nation".
It is a dream of a powerful military, as Foreign Affairs journal last year stressed of the 10 clauses of Xi Jinping thought the "first five focus on the military".
As it points out: "The world may look hopefully to Xi's speeches for signs of liberal internationalism, but Xi Jinping Thought is an unabashed program of national revival backed up by increasing military power."
The great Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who wrote The Art of War, said "know yourself and know your enemy".
Xi Jinping knows himself and his country, and he knows who his enemies potentially may be.
As we devote our time today to the comings and goings of Canberra, let's spend some time learning more about Xi Jinping, a leader who will have a much greater impact on the courses of our lives than Mr McCormack.
In 2008 Clive Hamilton was at Parliament House in Canberra when the Beijing Olympic torch relay passed through. He watched in bewilderment as a small pro-Tibet protest was overrun by thousands of angry Chinese students. Where did they come from? Why were they so aggressive? And what gave them the right to shut down others exercising their democratic right to protest? The authorities did nothing about it, and what he saw stayed with him.
In 2016 it was revealed that wealthy Chinese businessmen linked to the Chinese Communist Party had become the largest donors to both major political parties. Hamilton realised something big was happening, and decided to investigate the Chinese government’s influence in Australia. What he found shocked him.
From politics to culture, real estate to agriculture, universities to unions, and even in our primary schools, he uncovered compelling evidence of the Chinese Communist Party’s infiltration of Australia. Sophisticated influence operations target Australia’s elites, and parts of the large Chinese-Australian diaspora have been mobilised to buy access to politicians, limit academic freedom, intimidate critics, collect information for Chinese intelligence agencies, and protest in the streets against Australian government policy. It’s no exaggeration to say the Chinese Communist Party and Australian democracy are on a collision course. The CCP is determined to win, while Australia looks the other way.
Thoroughly researched and powerfully argued, Silent Invasionis a sobering examination of the mounting threats to democratic freedoms Australians have for too long taken for granted. Yes, China is important to our economic prosperity; but, Hamilton asks, how much is our sovereignty as a nation worth?
‘Anyone keen to understand how China draws other countries into its sphere of influence should start with Silent Invasion. This is an important book for the future of Australia. But tug on the threads of China’s influence networks in Australia and its global network of influence operations starts to unravel.’
–Professor John Fitzgerald, author of Big White Lie: Chinese Australians in White Australia
But by receiving the manuscript of Silent Invasion: How China Is Turning Australia into a Puppet State as an exhibit, the committee has retained a power to publish it.
Ross TerrillPolitical extravaganzas in China, like October’s 19th Communist Party Congress, aren’t policy turning points. They are theatre. Only one of the last dozen such performances heralded a new course: when Deng Xiaoping in 1982 subtly buried Mao’s leftism. Party congresses are opera with plumes and feathers. High notes in tonight’s arias hide low notes in yesterday’s skullduggery.
Walter Bagehot, in 19th century Britain, said government comprises a dignified part (monarchy, Lords) and an efficient part (parliament, inky wretches of the press). China relives this duality in the 21st century. Lately, Beijing has found a novel – not yet efficient – way to influence Australian policies by enticing Sam Dastyari, Bob Carr, and other notables willing to parrot China’s views.
In Beijing, locked-down for the ‘19th Da [Big One]’, as Chinese dubbed this Congress, state and society were apple and banana. In newspapers, TV, and slogans on fences, the state declared the ‘historic’ and ‘brilliant’ Big Da would anoint Xi Jinping and his ideas. Few listened.
The city works well, but politics is absent from daily life. Chit-chat is about traffic, prices, health (‘Don’t forget your mask, darling’) and unsafe baby food. The red hot state, inside the ill-named Great Hall of the People, leaves a bored populace cold. The official public philosophy of Marx-Lenin-Mao-Xi is a distant mountain, seldom visited, its message lost in a buzz of money-making below.Class determines politics, left-wing professors told me years ago. But decades of Mao’s rule from 1949 produced no middle class. Nor are class relations the key to China’s recent success. Rather, an undefined state-society link sees business groups and others in murky deals with government. This hybrid dish is recently spiced with Confucianism. Never mind that Mao said, ‘I hated Confucius from the age of eight.’ Xi doesn’t hate Confucius; he finds the sage morally useful.
Confucianism over millennia viewed society as one big family, with the emperor as father figure. Forget heaven and the after-life. Confucius declined even to discuss an ‘after-life’. The Chinese state often repressed transcendental religion, but not Confucian social-religion. Confucian norms favored community over the individual. Function outweighed intrinsic rights. Today as under the dynasties, authoritarianism reaches down as neo-Confucian social-religion gazes up.
Crucially, China’s economy flourishes without the West’s public-private division, and without the West’s civil society separate from the state.The former Harvard economist Alexander Gerschenkron said ‘late developing’ countries use state power to catch up with early capitalist modernizers. It’s true of China. Because Chinese tradition emphasised community and social responsibility, it suits the late-developing Deng-state. China has organisational resources, thanks to Mao’s unifying hand, and financial capacity, thanks to Deng’s open door, to match the USA and Japan.
Individuals, not taken seriously by the state unless they step out of line, are permitted to choose apolitical lives, opting to be capitalists, Christians, or jet-setters to New York and Paris. The state generally allows this. Marx’s idea of class is irrelevant. Xi and China’s billionaires share one continent-sized bed.
Citizens are members of society not primarily through government dealings (none vote), but as consumers at shops and businesses; employees (some in a joint venture with foreigners); families doing transactions with rural relatives; members of a church or cultural club.
The state allows initiatives from below on a trial basis. ‘Getting on the train before purchasing a ticket’ is the street slang for bold business activities which benefit from vague laws and seek a government rubber stamp later. This cheeky practice furthers economic growth, while reducing the danger to bureaucrats if growth disappoints.
Here, ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics,’ which Xi chose in October as his ruling motto, finds its meaning. ‘For a new era,’ Xi added to the motto – broaching a future, ominous for Washington and Canberra, when Chinese ways will be universal ways. But the set up breeds corruption. And its rationale triggers China’s cocky treatment of Australia recently.
The CCP acknowledges reduced trust between Party and people. This cries out for less state suspicion and eavesdropping. Society wants more room to breathe. The 1.4 billion Chinese people hold varying views of socialism – not just Xi’s view.
Confucian social religion should be part of Xi’s China Dream. The official state ideology surely has outlived its once-inspiring purpose.
Instead of elevating Xi to Mao-status in the party constitution, as the 19th did, Beijing should set out principles of socialism without giving the package an heroic or teleological label. It would draw on the social-religion of Confucianism, just as the US constitution and British common law draw on values of their societies.
Xi Jinping has tightened the party-state. ‘Wherever the Party goes, you must go,’ he declared to soldiers at the PLA’s 90th birthday celebration, and similarly urged ‘absolute loyalty’ on the media. He pushes foreign joint ventures, Disney in Shanghai among them, to allow Communist Party cells in their factories, and hold meetings (of Disney’s 300 CCP members) in factory rooms during work hours.
Before long, China may install a leader from a Buddhist family (as Mao was) or one who has lived years in the West (as Deng did). Possibly a Trump-like figure whose background is business, or even a female Christian. Any would signal a landmark for the autonomy of Chinese society and Confucianism’s role.
Without exception, China’s Communist leaders, from Mao to Xi, have all been lifelong politicos. Skullduggery, not opera, has been their trade. Yet China is the most money-minded major nation in today’s world!
Soon we’ll know whether Xi, inflated by the 19th Congress, will soar as a tyrant, or take the next ‘reform’ step beyond Deng-ism, matching economic freedom with political freedom. I am not optimistic, short term.
The day after Deng died in 1997 I wrote an oped in the New York Times which the editors shrewdly headed ‘The Last Communist’. The little chain-smoker indeed ditched Marxism. But he kept Leninism. So does Xi. Prosperity, Globalisation and Confucianism should give Beijing a chance to finish the dismantling. But jettisoning Leninism might rock Mao’s state. That risk must frighten Xi.
Australia has 'woken up' the world on China's influence: US officialAustralia's moves to contain covert Chinese interference have "woken up" the world, according to a senior official in the Pentagon.
"I think it's woken up people in a lot of countries to take a look at Chinese activity within their own borders," the top official for US defence policy in Asia, Randy Schriver, told Fairfax Media."I think Australia has done us a great service by publicising much of this activity and then taking action. I know Australia has taken steps to change its campaign finance laws, for instance."
He said that the US would be increasing scrutiny of Chinese influence programs on its university campuses, among other activities.orth Korea's Olympic participation may hint at improving relations with South Korea, but there are concerns Pyongyang is seeking to divide Washington from its ally in Seoul. Photo: AP
The US assistant secretary of defence for Asian and Pacific affairs also warned that the North Korean regime was continuing to improve its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.
Looking through the pageantry of the Winter Olympics that have brought North Korean and South Korean teams together and hinted at detente, he said:"Without getting into sensitive information I can say the trajectory is, they're improving and the threat is getting more serious."I think they've been making progress and that's what happens when you increase testing. Every time you test, it's a learning opportunity."US President Donald Trump authorised new commercial sanctions against North Korea on the weekend, increasing pressure on the regime to meet UN Security Council demands to halt its weapons programs.
He said that if the sanctions failed, a "phase two" would follow, and it could be "very, very unfortunate for the world".
Mr Schriver, asked whether there was a military option that did not risk consequences from North Korean retaliation and mass civilian casualties in South Korea and Japan, told Fairfax Media:
"Obviously we're going to give the President a full range of options but we're also going to be giving the President the risks associated with those options. There's no naivete about the dangers of going down that path."
North Korean officials have signalled willingness to open talks with South Korea, but there is no such offer to the US. Analysts suggest that Pyongyang is seeking to divide Washington from its ally in Seoul.
Mr Schriver said that China was doing more than it had in the past to help pressure Pyongyang into dropping its illicit weapons programs, but there was "still room for improvement".
He said: "The Chinese have ways to put pressure on this regime. Hopefully they'll join us in putting maximum pressure on."
Mr Schriver, nominated by President Trump last year, took his post last month. He is a former navy intelligence officer, served as a top Asia policy official in the State Department under Colin Powell, and worked as an attache in the US embassy in Beijing.
Harvard-educated, he most recently co-founded a consultancy, Armitage International, with Rich Armitage, a onetime deputy secretary of State and a well known advocate for the Australian alliance.
The Japanese media have described him as a "hardliner" on China policy and he has advocated a "rebalancing" of US relations to include more contact with Taiwan.
Chris Nelson, publisher of a specialist Asia policy newsletter in Washington, described Mr Schriver as a "protege" of Mr Armitage and "highly respected".
Singapore’s founding farther Lee Yuan Yew was Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 until 1990 - 31 years and continued to work in government for a further 21 years until 2011 a total of 52 years. What a wonderful contribution this man made to the current success of Singapore to day from the rat infested colony that Singapore found its self after British Colonial Rule. My point is that the President of China Xu Jinping will hopefully have many years of Presidency ahead of him and just like Singapore’s founding farther proved consistency of leadership is the key to prosperity for its people and Country and the ability “to exclude ones eye” that principle is what makes great leaders. The cleansing of Corruption within its government ranks clearly is paramount to good governance. Australia should clean up its own backyard, we should stop following America into wars of their making. I don’t recall China dropping bombs on Australia, but the Japanese did.
Tony Abbott’s office helped a billionaire labelled an “agent of a foreign country” to donate to the Liberal Party, even though Mr Abbott had earlier been warned by ASIO about the donor's links to the Chinese Communist Party.
In mid 2016, Mr Abbott’s office played a role in encouraging Australian-based Chinese property developer Huang Xiangmo to give thousands of dollars to at least one Liberal candidate in the lead up to the election.
The previous year, while Mr Abbott was prime minister, he had received specific warnings from ASIO about Mr Huang’s opaque connections to the Chinese Communist Party and how this may be linked to his donation activity.
Author vows book exposing Chinese influence will go ahead after publisher pulls outProminent Charles Sturt University author and ethicist Professor Clive Hamilton says his book exposing the Chinese Communist party’s activities in Australia will still be published, despite Allen & Unwin cancelling plans to print it at the 11th hour.
On Monday, Hamilton revealed legal advice that the Chinese government may sue for defamation had spooked Allen & Unwin. The book, called Silent Invasion, is a comprehensive analysis of the Chinese government’s methods of asserting influence in Australia – not only in media and politics, as had been previously reported, but in a range of others areas.Last week Allen & Unwin did express some legal concerns but despite that I thought they were resolved to publish it, so it was a complete shock,” Hamilton told Guardian Australia.
“The Chinese government’s campaign is far more extensive than ever previously understood. If you’re going to analyse how Beijing is influencing Australian society and politics you have to analyse that activity of individuals and name names, and that’s what I’ve done. It’s a factual book with 1,100 footnotes and it has been meticulously researched, but short of redacting 100 names from the book there’s always the possibility someone might launch a vexatious legal act against the publisher, in this case Allen & Unwin.”
Hamilton did not agree to heavy edits to the book to mitigate the potential for legal repercussion, which ultimately lead to the breakdown of the publishing deal. But he emphasised Allen & Unwin were not to blame and he held no ill-will towards the publishing giant.An email from the publisher to Hamilton read that the most serious of the legal threats “was the very high chance of a vexatious defamation action against Allen & Unwin, and possibly against you personally as well”.
Hamilton said when Allen & Unwin signed the contract “even I didn’t understand the frightening extent of communist influence in Australia until I was well into researching and writing it”.“I sat in my office many times throughout the process and said to myself, ‘oh my goodness – not there as well’. So the publisher was made very nervous when it read the manuscript and understood just how extensive and sinister this program of influence actually is. It’s way beyond what I expected and Allen & Unwin are not the bad guys here. The Communist party and its agents in Australia are.”
However, Hamilton was adamant the book would be published in its full form, although he did not say when or how. He described the ordeal as another example of censorship, and free speech being stifled at the hands of the Chinese government.
The Asio chief, Duncan Lewis, said in June following the airing of a Four Corners investigation into Chinese donations that he had become so worried about the influence of foreign donations that he organised meetings with the Coalition and Labor to warn them that some donors could compromise the major parties.
But the Chinese ambassador to Australia, Cheng Jingye, responded to that reportsaying it was an attempt to whip up a “China panic”.e labelled claims of Chinese interference a “groundless” attempt to reheat old allegations, akin to “cooking up the overnight cold rice”.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Passing Through wrote:
