Page 35 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2527282930313233343536373839 LastLast
Results 851 to 875 of 958

Thread: Eurasia Topics

  1. #851
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,918
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    The ameristani feeble response, some hours later:
    Response to what?

    A "stern warning"?


  2. #852
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,918
    The old chinkies are spitting their dummy again.

    "China always abides by the law"

    Fucking hell they are funny.



    (Bloomberg) -- China-Australia relations looked bad enough when they were sparring over wine, beef and Huawei Technologies Co.’s 5G technology. Now the detention of a high-profile television journalist risks leading to a dangerous new phase.
    Australia said it hasn’t been told why Chinese-born Cheng Lei, an Australian citizen who worked for eight years as an anchor at a government-run English-language news channel, was taken in two weeks ago. China also hasn’t revealed details about the case: Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Tuesday she had no information while also poking Australia.
    “We value China-Australia relations, but development of bilateral ties needs both sides to work together,” Hua said. “China always abides by law. We’ll not behave like some other country -- under pressure of its ally -- to conduct illegal activities under the guise of law.”
    Australian TV Anchor’s Detention Shows Country’s China Problem May Worsen - BNN Bloomberg

  3. #853
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    Australia's China stance under fire

    By KARL WILSON in Sydney | CHINA DAILY | Updated: 2020-09-02 07:59

    "Australia's current attitude toward China has been described by local analysts as "frightening" and smacking of Cold War hysteria.

    Their comments came on the heels of an Australian government announcement that it will conduct an inquiry into foreign interference in Australian universities.
    T
    he government had stated it will introduce legislation that gives it the sole responsibility to oversee all agreements between the states, territories, local councils, and universities with foreign entities.

    Any agreement it deems as acting against the national interest will be terminated, including existing agreements.
    The plan for the universities inquiry is seen as another thinly disguised move against China in what is perceived as Beijing's attempts to exert undue influence in Australian politics and to recruit academics-allegations that have been strenuously rejected by China.

    Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton announced on Aug 30 that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, or PJCIS, will conduct the inquiry.

    The irony is that the inquiry will be headed by PJCIS Chairman Andrew Hastie, a former Special Air Service officer. This hardly makes it an unbiased exercise, according to analysts.

    The government has exclusive responsibility for conducting Australia's foreign affairs while entities like the states and universities have been free to enter into their own arrangements in areas from trade and economic cooperation to cultural collaboration and university research partnerships.

    This has been a loose arrangement that has been governed by various protocols and known to the federal government. But now the federal government wants to oversee all arrangements with foreign entities and give it the power to terminate agreements if these are not deemed in the national interest.

    Professor Jane Golley, director of the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University in Canberra, said: "The relationship seems to have deteriorated to such a low point that both governments are questioning whether they can trust each other."
    She said the proposed legislation will not only target state, territory, and local governments, but also the university sector, which is already tightly regulated in the way it conducts its business and research arrangements with foreign entities.

    "I would not be a bit surprised if the Confucius Institutes are also in the firing line."

    The primary role of the Confucius Institutes is to teach Chinese language and culture. At a time when Australia needs to develop a deeper understanding of China, right-wing ideologues are pushing to have the institutes closed as they see them as acting against the national interest by spreading propaganda.

    But no one has yet to produce any evidence to confirm these allegations. There are 13 Confucius Institutes in Australia. At least 13 Australian universities have joint research projects with China that could be terminated once the legislation is passed.

    In 2018, the state government of Victoria signed a memorandum of understanding with China's National Development and Reform Commission to work together on the Belt and Road Initiative. At that time, no one in Canberra raised any concerns. But now Canberra says it will tear up the memorandum.

    Commercial agreement

    As one academic, who did not want to be named, said: "Since when has building a road created a security threat against the national interest?"

    James Laurenceson, director of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, said he doubted if the federal government can do anything about it as it is a commercial agreement. He said it was the same for the Port of Darwin's 99-year lease with Chinese company Landbridge.

    "It is a private-sector commercial deal. The new legislation does not cover the private sector," Laurenceson said.

    Hans Hendrischke, professor of Chinese Business and Management at the University of Sydney Business School, said: "From our perspective, the university has been in touch with Canberra on a constant basis regarding our foreign contacts, especially with China."
    Hendrischke noted that the University of Sydney has an agreement with the Confucius Institute, and the institute is run as a joint venture. "So, whatever they do is supervised by a board that is public. Everything it does is above board," he said.

    Research by The Australia Institute, a think tank, argues that the tension between Canberra and Beijing is largely due to "our" ignorance of China.

    In Australia, there are only 20 academics and think tanks with expertise on China, and no specialist schools for training policymakers.

    Although no one knows how many people are employed in the federal government to provide advice on China, our "stupid" approach reveals how little we understand it, said Allan Behm, head of the International and Security Affairs Program at The Australia Institute, in an interview with the New Daily website recently.

    "Our politicians don't understand what they're dealing with. They don't have enough factual knowledge. They don't understand its history or culture." Behm said."

    Australia's China stance under fire - World - Chinadaily.com.cn
    A tray full of GOLD is not worth a moment in time.

  4. #854
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    PBOC tells lenders to get ready for life after Libor

    By Chen Jia | China Daily | Updated: 2020-09-02 09:02


    "China will help commercial lenders to shift from the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), which is facing global criticism, to a self-designed interest rate system, according to the People's Bank of China, the central bank.

    Libor is the most widely used benchmark that emerged in the late 1960s to support the burgeoning syndicated loan market. It is formed by collecting interbank offered rate quotes from a panel of banks, which reflects the pricing level at which banks could borrow funds from each other.


    The PBOC prefers to use depositary financial institutions' repo rates, called "DR", as the key reference to price financial contracts, which can better reflect the real liquidity situation in the banking system, said a white paper published by the central bank on Monday.


    The move reiterated the PBOC's efforts to be a key participant in the global benchmark reform. The shift will allow commercial lenders in the country to shift away from the discredited Libor and improve the efficiency of the domestic monetary policy, said analysts.


    So far Libor is still the key reference rate for 15 Chinese banks' financial contracts including loans, securities and derivatives by the second quarter of the year. The benchmark is used to price products worth $900 billion, which will expire after the year 2021, according to data from the PBOC.

    Scandals related to Libor rose after the 2008 global financial crisis, as some banks manipulated the rate to misrepresent their creditworthiness by understating the borrowing costs. Regulators from the United Kingdom and the United States have confirmed that the benchmark will be abandoned by the end of 2021.
    Global financial regulators are more keen on the use of the so-called risk-free rates, or RFRs, to provide robust and credible overnight reference rates, which are well suited for many purposes and market needs, especially for the cash and derivatives markets.

    Preparations for the replacement of Libor with risk-free reference rates have progressed despite the novel coronavirus epidemic, and meeting the end-2021 deadline is still possible, said Fitch Ratings, a global ratings agency.

    Major banks across the world have reached a consensus on replacing Libor with other benchmarks, and the key period for the shift will be next year, though several technical details are yet to be ironed out, said Ming Ming, a senior analyst with CITIC Securities.

    Chinese banks, which have foreign currency-denominated businesses based on the Libor reference, have to face the same problems as other international banks in revising the old contracts and hedging risks.

    A research report from PwC, a global consultancy, indicated that commercial lenders need to re-evaluate the liquidity and credit risks based on the new benchmark, which will be a big change.
    "The PBOC has constituted a high-level working group, developed a road map and a timetable to shift the benchmark, along with plans for the design of new references and revision of the old financial contracts," said the white paper.

    The central bank has guided commercial lenders to try and issue financial products based on the risk-free rates. It will encourage the issue of floating interest rate bonds based on the DR reference and urge more international organizations to use DR as the renminbi-denominated financial products' benchmark, it said."

    PBOC tells lenders to get ready for life after Libor - Chinadaily.com.cn

  5. #855
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    ‘We are not a vassal state’: Philippines’s Duterte won’t stop infrastructure projects with US-sanctioned Chinese firms

    1 Sep, 2020 23:25

    "The Philippines will not be cowed by a US blacklist on Chinese companies and will continue doing business with the sanctioned firms, a spokesman for President Rodrigo Duterte said, insisting Manila will not bow to a foreign power.


    Duterte won’t halt ongoing projects with Chinese businesses despite the American blacklist, spokesman Harry Roque told reporters on Tuesday, arguing infrastructure is a national priority and that the Philippines won’t subordinate its own interests to those of Washington.

    “The president declared last night that the Americans can blacklist Chinese companies in their territories in America and maybe in their military bases under their jurisdiction,” Roque said. “But what the president said was clear: He will not follow the directives of Americans because we are a free and independent nation and we need those investments from China.”

    We are not a vassal state of any foreign power and we will pursue our national interest.


    Last week, the Donald Trump administration penalized 24 Chinese state enterprises accused of helping to “militarize” outposts in disputed waters in the South China Sea. A number of small atolls and island chains in the region, such as the Spratly and the Paracel Islands, are contested by a flurry of competing claims, including from China, Vietnam, Malaysia and even the Philippines.

    Despite the territorial dispute, Duterte is eager to move ahead on an ambitious $180 billion infrastructure project launched in 2017 – dubbed “Build, Build, Build” – a 6-year endeavor that has run into delays and budget obstacles in recent months, forcing some revision of the plan. Chinese firms figure heavily into the project, however, including a major overhaul of the Sangley international airport.

    “So [the Sangley project] and all other projects, regardless of which Chinese contractor is involved, will continue because the national interest is to ensure the flagship projects under Build, Build, Build will be finished,” Roque said.

    Washington has steadily ramped up a rhetorical and policy offensive against Beijing over the last year, sanctioning a number of Chinese firms, shuttering a consulate in Houston, Texas and carrying out a constant stream of military maneuvers in the South and East China Seas. Last week, Beijing lodged a formal complaint after an American spy plane flew into a restricted zone during a live-fire naval exercise in the Bohai Sea, some 50 miles off of China’s coast, which Chinese officials warned could have resulted in a catastrophic accident. Similar run-ins have occurred throughout the year, as the US continues its “show of force” missions around the Pacific, which it claims are meant to send a message to Beijing and protect “freedom of navigation” in the region."


    ‘We are not a vassal state’: Philippines’s Duterte won’t stop infrastructure projects with US-sanctioned Chinese firms — RT World News

  6. #856
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,918
    ^^^ Chinky whinging
    ^^ People aren't that stupid
    ^ Yeah we already know Duterte is on the chinky payroll

  7. #857
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    Russia blasts US’ Indo-Pacific strategy


    Posted on September 12, 2020 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR


    "The meeting between the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Moscow on September 11 took place at a particularly delicate juncture in regional politics. Russia is carefully ploughing a neutral line in the India-China standoff while also drawing closer to China to push back at US pressure.

    The US policies are prompting Russia and China to further enhance their “comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era.” Summing up his meeting with Wang, Lavrov said the talks were held in “an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust and were very substantial.” He added, “We discussed the key international problems and reaffirmed the closeness of our views on effective solutions to them…We agreed to carry on our close collaboration.”

    Significantly, the most striking part of Lavrov’s remarks pertained to the Asia-Pacific region. Lavrov frontally attacked the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy: “We (Russia and China) noted the destructive character of Washington’s actions that undermine global strategic stability. They are fuelling tensions in various parts of the world, including along the Russian and Chinese borders. Of course, we are worried about this and object to these attempts to escalate artificial tensions. In this context, we stated that the so-called “Indo-Pacific strategy” as it was planned by the initiators, only leads to the separation of the region’s states, and is therefore fraught with serious consequences for peace, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region.

    “We spoke in favour of the ASEAN-centric regional security architecture with a view to promoting the unifying agenda, and the preservation of the consensus style of work and consensus-based decision-making in these mechanisms, as it has always been done in the framework of ASEAN and the associated entities. We are seeing attempts to split the ranks of ASEAN members with the same aims: to abandon consensus-based methods of work and fuel confrontation in this region that is common for all of us.”

    The Chinese state media highlighted Lavrov’s remarks. Wang said in response that China-Russia relations have become “key forces of stability in a turbulent world.” He stressed that the China-Russia alliance has shown “strong resilience” against the backdrop of the “profound changes unseen in a century” in world politics.

    The Lavrov-Wang meeting took place in the backdrop of the turmoil in Belarus, for which Russia has blamed the US. On the eve of the meeting in Moscow, a senior Russian lawmaker openly alleged that the US has a master plan to create political tensions within Russia, where regional elections are due to take place on Sept 13. Social media and the Internet, once again, are playing a major role in orchestrating the protests in Belarus.

    Interestingly, during the meeting with Lavrov, Wang also called for “further Russia-China cooperation in the area of international information security, against the backdrop that some countries are politicising information technology and cyber security and containing other countries under the pretext of safeguarding its own national security.”

    Lavrov’s remarks on Indo-Pacific strategy coincided with the 53rd Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and related meetings (including the 10th East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers’ Meeting) in Hanoi on Sept 8-11. The ASEAN faces growing pressure from the US to join hands with it against China, but has refused to take sides. The joint communique adopted at the meeting in Hanoi reflects this stance.

    Last week, Reuters quoted Indonesia’s foreign minister Retno Marsudi as saying that ASEAN must remain steadfastly neutral and united. “ASEAN, Indonesia, wants to show to all that we are ready to be a partner,” said Retno. “We don’t want to get trapped by this rivalry.” Indonesia’s stance becomes important at a time when the US is attempting to split the ASEAN consensus on neutrality by playing on the interests of individual member countries.

    The US is pinning hopes that some ASEAN countries may be in a quandary about how to balance ties to get the best out of both of the big players, while some others may feel tempted to use the US-China rivalry as an opportunity to extract leverage for economic or military advantage. Retno alluded to it when she told Reuters, “(ASEAN has) a good culture, but we have to nurture it. We can’t take it for granted that these values will live forever.”

    Significantly, Vietnam and Indonesia, two influential ASEAN countries, are also Russia’s major partners. Lavrov’s remarks, therefore, can be seen as signifying a new level of commitment in Russia’s engagement with the Asia-Pacific, while also reinforcing the partnership with China, and going beyond a mere reflexive response to events (principally, the current crisis in Russia’s relations with the West.)

    It is interesting that Moscow is unequivocal in subscribing to the description “Asia-Pacific region” and has no truck with the concept of “Indo-Pacific”, which Lavrov derisively regarded as a politically loaded term. Arguably, Indo-Pacific would be somewhat misleading also in the context of Russian policy. Russia is far more interested in the Asia-Pacific than it is in the Indian Ocean or the Indian subcontinent — considering its engagement with not only China but also with Japan, the two Koreas, the US (as a Pacific power) and with the security of the Far East.

    Of course, India figures in the larger geopolitical context, but in the Russian perception, India remains a supernumerary member of the Asia-Pacific community. Where Russia has a difference of opinion with India is in its perception of the American security presence in Asia-Pacific as of an extra-regional power who is intrusive and increasingly destabilising.

    Fundamentally, Russia approaches the Asia-Pacific from a global perspective whereas India’s vision narrows down to concerns over rising China. From the Russian perspective, Asia-Pacific is a theatre central to the world order in the 21st century where intense geopolitical struggles are erupting, where a battle of ideas, norms and institutions is already under way. Being a resurgent global power, Russia is obliged to position itself at the centre stage in the region.

    Indeed, Beijing is well aware of the shift in the ASEAN regional attitudes towards Russia in the recent years. Unlike in the Soviet era, no ASEAN country (Philippines included) tends to identify Russia as a threat or a malign actor anymore. On the other hand, Russia’s relations with nearly all ASEAN states are comfortable. Thus, a more active Russian involvement in Asia-Pacific affairs works well for China.

    Simply put, it suits Moscow and Beijing to make common cause in the Asia-Pacific when their respective relations with the US are so difficult, and when both have come under heavy US pressure. It won’t come as a surprise to see a surge in Russian diplomatic efforts in the period ahead to expand relations across the ASEAN region."

    https://indianpunchline.com/russia-b...ific-strategy/

  8. #858
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi.

    11 September 202015:00

    "Ladies and gentlemen, Today’s talks with my colleague and friend, member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, were held in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust and were very substantial.

    We noted with satisfaction that Russia and China continued cooperating closely and constructively in all spheres amid the COVID-19 pandemic, strengthening our ties of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction.We discussed the key international problems and reaffirmed the closeness of our views on effective solutions to them. We have been consistently advocating the development of a fairer and more democratic polycentric international order based on respect for the norms of international law.

    We expressed satisfaction with the level of our foreign policy interaction, including at the UN, which marks its 75th anniversary this year. Russia and China stand for strengthening the UN’s central role in global affairs. We agreed to carry on our close collaboration, including in the interests of implementing President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to convene a summit meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to discuss the entire range of international security and stability issues.

    We stated our positive assessment of yesterday’s meeting of the SCO Foreign Ministers Council, including when it comes to preparing the next SCO summit, which is scheduled for November, as President Putin said. We agreed to work together with the other SCO member states to build up the organisation’s potential and its international prestige and influence. The results of our meeting yesterday were put forth in the statement of the SCO Foreign Ministers Council.Another multilateral event, the meeting of the RIC (Russia-India-China) foreign ministers, took place yesterday. A joint statement on its results was also issued.

    We agreed to expand cooperation at other multilateral venues, not only in the UN, but also in the G20, BRICS and the RIC and Russia-Mongolia-China formats. We noted the destructive character of Washington’s actions that undermine global strategic stability. They are fueling tensions in various parts of the world, including along the Russian and Chinese borders. Of course, we are worried about this and object to these attempts to escalate artificial tensions.

    In this context, we stated that the so-called “Indo-Pacific strategy” as it was planned by the initiators, only leads to the separation of the region’s states, and is therefore fraught with serious consequences for peace, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region. We spoke in favour of the ASEAN-centric regional security architecture with a view to promoting the unifying agenda, and the preservation of the consensus style of work and consensus-based decision-making in these mechanisms, as it has always been done in the framework of ASEAN and the associated entities. We are seeing attempts to split the ranks of ASEAN members with the same aims: to abandon consensus-based methods of work and fuel confrontation in this region that is common for all of us.

    Today, we discussed the situation regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. Of course, as an overwhelming majority of UN Security Council members, Russia and China do not accept the US attempts to dismantle the international agreement approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which is vital for the entire world. We find unacceptable the US unlawful unilateral actions regarding the situation around Iran’s nuclear programme. The United States withdrew from this agreement in gross violation of the UN Security Council consensus-based resolution, thereby losing any legal, judicial, political or moral rights to try and prevent all other states from implementing this major decision.

    We also reviewed key issues on our bilateral agenda. We agreed to continue cooperating in countering the coronavirus pandemic. We have made tangible success toward this goal but this work must be brought to fruition. Following the meeting, together with Mr Wang Yi, we adopted a detailed joint statement, including an appeal to the international community to pool efforts in the face of global and regional challenges and threats.I am sincerely grateful to my colleague and friend for the close cooperation.

    Question (translated from Chinese): You recently proposed a global information security initiative. What are its main goals? How was it received?

    Sergey Lavrov (speaks after Wang Yi): We discussed this Chinese initiative today as is reflected in the joint statement. In our response to this initiative we stressed that it is in line with the discussions held at the UN in recent years about the need to draft rules for responsible behaviour in international cyberspace in terms of ensuring the member states’ security and sovereignty.Russia and China co-authored the relevant initiatives that have been adopted at the UN General Assembly for several years now. There’s a corresponding working group on this subject, in which all UN member states are represented. Its work is based on the draft rules for responsible behaviour in cyberspace. This document was put together and distributed at the UN by the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).China’s initiative provides the specifics of the critical aspects of our common work. I think it will stimulate discussion on the identification of effective mechanisms for protecting online data.

    Question: Will Russia push for the transfer of data on the Navalny case to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)?

    Sergey Lavrov: It is imperative that we obtain information from our German colleagues. Something is happening to them. As you may be aware, on August 27, on the basis of a pre-investigation check, which immediately began in our country, Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office sent a request for legal assistance from the relevant German authorities in the case of the suspected poisoning of Mr Navalny. Later, we found out that this request was not forwarded and got stuck in the German Foreign Ministry. Only a week later, (around September 3) was this request finally sent to the justice authorities. An official representative of Berlin publicly announced this, saying that “now these requests are being reviewed by the justice authorities, which are independent in our country. We cannot tell you anything. They will do so themselves when they are ready.”Then, it was announced that Germany had sent an official letter to the OPCW and would push this organisation’s Secretariat to take action. We have read this letter. It says that, according to German experts, it was poisoning, and the so-called Novichok agent was used. There were no other exchanges between Berlin and the OPCW.

    We are interested in receiving, if not directly, then through the OPCW, information that Germany is for some reason so painstakingly concealing.Our permanent representative to the OPCW has addressed the heads of the organisation’s secretariat several times. Each time, including last night, he was told that this organisation had not received any other facts to support the allegations of poisoning. This makes us wonder. Just yesterday in New York, a German representative to the UN was asked about the data and why Germany is refusing to provide them to the general public, including Russia, demanding that Russia must conduct an investigation. He said that these data are no longer the subject of bilateral Germany-Russia relations, and that they are already the subject of multilateral proceedings. The Germans cannot specify what kind of proceedings they are talking about.

    I hope this ludicrous behaviour will stop, and Germany, if only for the sake of its reputation as a punctual nation, will honour its obligations under the treaty with the Russian Federation.An investigation is demanded of us, but all those who accompanied Mr Navalny on that trip are also relocating to Germany. This is all very unpleasant and gives rise to serious thoughts. So, it is in the interest of our German colleagues to preserve their reputation and provide all the necessary information that would in any way shed some light on their absolutely unfounded accusations.

    Question: US officials often claim that China and Russia are meddling in their elections. How would you comment on these accusations?

    Sergey Lavrov: Russia, China and some other countries, including Iran and North Korea, are being accused of meddling in US internal affairs, including [presidential] elections. The voting will be held in early November, and voting by mail started a while ago and will continue for another couple of months. But commentators are already asking politicians which country – Russia, China, or Iran – is the biggest meddler. As estimated by the Americans, the PRC is winning the competition.

    It is only natural that we are hurt by being relegated to second place, because we are used to being number one all the time.

    But, joking aside, we have repeatedly offered our US colleagues various options whereby to sort out these absolutely unfounded accusations. We suggested restarting the mechanism of consultations on cyber security, because there were frequent accusations that hackers from Russia were hacking Democratic and Republican networks, were hacking websites, and in some way were influencing voter moods. We also suggested that Russia and the United States make an official bilateral political statement to the effect that we pledge not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs. This has dragged on for several years. The Americans keep shying away from the work on any of these suggestions and continue to demand that we “stop unlawful actions,” by which they mean interference in internal affairs.

    But at the same time, the US sees nothing shameful in promoting its interests, both overtly and covertly, by patently illegitimate methods. In 2014, for example, the United States passed a Ukraine Freedom Support Act, under which the US Department of State is bound to spend $200 million per year to bankroll Ukrainian NGOs and its own engagement with Ukrainian civil society.

    If this is not interference in internal affairs, then I do not know what is. When the Americans were accusing us of something and withholding the facts, we time and again brought up this information that does not even need to be proved because it is in a US law. They replied in the typical American fashion, saying that they were an “exceptional nation.”

    They said “Yes, we are providing this support, but it is poles apart from what you are doing, because Russia, China and other authoritarian regimes like yours are undermining the foundations of democracy in countries where you attempt to interfere. The United States, on the contrary, is bringing democracy and prosperity, which is why these are totally different things”.


    I am not joking.

    It is a quote from official statements by members of the US administration. It seems to me, therefore, that journalists have enough material for analysis and can find out who does what and who is who. Ask about laws of this sort in the United States. I am confident that there are numerous open facts related to China and showing how the Americans are attempting to influence its internal affairs.To reiterate: we are open to an honest discussion. But for it to be honest, they should formulate their grievances in a way that makes it clear what specifically they are talking about.

    Question: President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko will visit Moscow soon. What do you think about Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and do you think an attempt to stage a colour revolution was made in Belarus?

    Sergey Lavrov: As for Ms Tikhanovskaya, she openly says everything about herself. She calls for resistance and urges international organisations to impose sanctions on her homeland. In general, everything she declares in public speaks about her, her plans and ideas. She is subject to fairly visible metamorphoses. She is probably influenced by her stay in the capital of Lithuania, which does not conceal its ambitions as regards Belarus and its future, either.

    Question: What do you think about yesterday’s talks between China and India?

    Sergey Lavrov: When greeting our Chinese friends today, we noted the very productive work in the SCO and RIC formats yesterday. We are very pleased that Moscow hosted an intensive and important meeting of the Chinese and Indian foreign ministers, following which they made a statement aimed at normalising relations and deescalating tensions on the border. This decision, the statement and the meeting were very useful. Let me repeat that we are pleased that this meeting took place on Russian territory.

    Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Moscow, September 11, 2020 - News - The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
    Last edited by OhOh; 13-09-2020 at 05:07 AM.

  9. #859
    Hansum Man! panama hat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 05:31 PM
    Location
    Way, Way South of the border now - thank God!
    Posts
    24,414
    So, Russia and China are crying over other countries' actions while lauding theirs.

    Ya gotta laugh . . . at Klondyke and OhOh as well, of course

  10. #860
    Thailand Expat lom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Location
    Trapped in an old mans body
    Posts
    9,778
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    "The meeting between the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Moscow on September 11 took place at a particularly delicate juncture in regional politics. Russia is carefully ploughing a neutral line in the India-China standoff while also drawing closer to China to push back at US pressure.

    The US policies are prompting Russia and China to further enhance their “comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era.”
    Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours

  11. #861
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,918
    Quote Originally Posted by lom View Post
    Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours
    Given that they've been doing that for decades, this is a pile of HooHoo horseshit.

  12. #862
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    United Nations will not support Washington's unilateral move to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran, says organization's chief


    "
    The UN will not support a US push to restore sanctions against Tehran without the approval of its Security Council, where an overwhelming majority of member states oppose Washington's efforts in spite of threats.

    UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres wrote in a letter quoted by the Associated Press that “there would appear to be uncertainty” regarding US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's Saturday announcement of restoration of "virtually all" UN sanctions against Iran.

    Washington claims that it triggered the "snap-back" mechanism in the Security Council resolution concerning the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran, US, Russia, China, France, UK and Germany. However, considering that Washington unilaterally withdrew from the deal under the Trump administration in 2018, an overwhelming majority of Security Council member states consider the restoration triggered by the US as illegal and are likely to ignore it.

    Guterres noted in the letter that “the Security Council has taken no action subsequent to the receipt of the letter of the US secretary of state, neither have any of its members or its president.”

    It is not for the secretary-general to proceed as if no such uncertainty exists.

    UN chief added that the organization will not take any action “pending clarification by the Security Council” on whether or not sanctions should be reimposed.


    Earlier, Pompeo threatened to any nation that refuses to cooperate with the US regarding the restoration of Iran sanctions with "consequences."


    However, even Washington's own NATO allies the UK, France and Germany have strongly opposed the move in a letter to the UN Security Council cited by AFP, saying that "any decision or action taken with a view to re-installing [the sanctions] would be incapable of legal effect."

    Reacting to Pompeo's announcement, Russia's Deputy Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy tweeted that "it’s very painful to see how a great country humiliates itself like this."

    It’s very painful to see how a great country humiliates itself like this, opposes in its obstinate delirium other members of UN Security Council. We all clearly said in August that US claims to trigger #snapback are illegitimate. Is Washington deaf? #Iranhttps://twitter.com/secpompeo/status/1307471023856590850

    — Dmitry Polyanskiy (@Dpol_un) September 20, 2020

    Tensions between Iran and the US reignited after the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal – also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. The agreement was aimed at halting Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief
    ."

    https://www.rt.com/news/501239-unite...ctions-refuse/

  13. #863
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    Taiwan’s armed forces have ‘right to counter attack,’ military warns after China’s large-scale drills


    "Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said on Monday that the island’s armed forces have a right to defend themselves and counter attack, citing “harassment and threats” in a warning to Beijing.

    The military said that multiple Chinese aircraft flew across the mid-line of the Taiwan Strait and into the island’s air defense identification zone on Friday and Saturday. In response, Taiwan had to scramble jets to intercept, according to the military in Taipei.

    The ministry said it had “clearly defined” procedures for the island’s first response amid the “high frequency of harassment and threats from the enemy’s warships and aircraft this year.”

    Taiwan has the right to “self-defense and to counter attack,” the military said. It added, however, that the army would follow the guidelines of “no escalation of conflict and no triggering incidents.” The island would not provoke but is also “not afraid of the enemy,” the statement said.


    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told reporters in Beijing on Monday that “Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory,” adding that “the so-called mid-line of the strait does not exist.”

    Tensions have sharply spiked in recent months between Taipei and Beijing, and the Chinese drills took place last week after Beijing expressed anger at the visits of senior US officials to Taipei. In August, Health Secretary Alex Azar visited Taiwan. Another visit, by Keith Krach, undersecretary for economic affairs, came last week.

    The official China Daily newspaper said in an editorial on Monday that the US was trying to use Taiwan to contain China. “The US administration should not be blinkered in its desperation to contain the peaceful rise of China and indulge in the US addiction to its hegemony,” it said.

    Last week, US Republican Senator Rick Scott introduced a bill “to deter the use of force by China” against Taiwan. The proposed Taiwan Invasion Prevention Act seeks to establish “limited authorization for the [US] president to use military force for the specific purpose of securing and protecting Taiwan against armed attack,” a statement posted on Scott’s website said on Thursday. The bill would allow the US to reinforce its longstanding policy on Taiwan by strengthening the island’s ability to resist China’s actions."

    Taiwan’s armed forces have ‘right to counter attack,’ military warns after China’s large-scale drills — RT World News

  14. #864
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    China's Mars probe continues trip to red planet


    By Zhao Lei | chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2020-09-21 13:48

    Attachment 57771
    Mars probe makes first mid-course correction. [Photo/Xinhua]

    "China's Tianwen 1 Mars probe carried out its second mid-course correction maneuver on Sunday night, according to the China National Space Administration.

    The robotic spacecraft ran its four 120-Newton thrusters for 20 seconds around 11 pm after receiving control signals from its ground controllers, the administration said in a statement on Monday morning.

    By Monday morning, Tianwen 1 had travelled 160 million kilometers in an Earth-Mars transfer trajectory toward the red planet, and was nearly 19 million km away from the Earth.

    The administration added the spacecraft was in good condition.

    China launched Tianwen 1, the country's first independent Mars mission, on July 23 at the Wenchang Space Launch
    Center in Hainan province, opening the nation's planetary exploration program.


    On July 27, the probe sent back a picture of Earth and the moon, which was taken by its optical navigation sensor when it was about 1.2 million km away from Earth at the time. The picture is the first image from the spacecraft that has been made public.


    It made its first mid-course correction on Aug 2 when it was about 3 million km away from the Earth.

    If everything goes according to schedule, the 5-metric ton Tianwen 1, which consists of an orbiter and landing capsule, will travel more than 470 million km before getting captured by Mars' gravitational field in February.

    The mission's ultimate goal is to soft-land a rover around May 2021 on the southern part of Mars' Utopia Planitia — a large plain within Utopia, the largest recognized impact basin on Mars and in the solar system — to make scientific surveys."

    China's Mars probe continues trip to red planet - Chinadaily.com.cn

  15. #865
    Hansum Man! panama hat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 05:31 PM
    Location
    Way, Way South of the border now - thank God!
    Posts
    24,414
    How China is Violating Human Rights Treaties and its own Constitution in Xinjiang

    The global community is finally starting to describe China’s “Strike Hard” campaign against Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang accurately, normalizing usage of terms including “ . While recent condemnation by liberal democracies is much-needed progress, a crisis of this magnitude will require a whole-of-community response, along with continual legal and policy enforcement, to hold the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) accountable for the full scope of atrocities it’s committing in Xinjiang.
    New research has revealed that Uighur labor is being trafficked in supply chains relied on by major multinationals brands, driving more global attention to Xinjiang. And as Lisa Reinsberg recently wrote in Just Security, China’s official policies to dilute and reduce the Uighur population appear to violate international human rights law.
    But these policies also violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), all of which China has ratified. And unsurprisingly, the campaign appears to violate China’s constitution, despite its oft-ambiguous wording. Studying the full spectrum of violations of international and Chinese constitutional law committed by the CCP in its treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang could help inform diplomatic strategy and inspire popular support.
    Diluting and Dissolving Uighur Culture
    China has made a concerted effort to dilute and dissolve all traces of Uighur culture through suppression of religious freedoms and forced assimilation. Prisoners have described being forced to renounce their ideologies and pledge allegiance to the CCP through tactics akin to brainwashing. Even outside of the camps, Muslims are prevented from: performing traditional religious burial rites, marriage ceremonies, and circumcisions; giving their children Muslim names; growing long beards; wearing head and face coverings; fasting during Ramadan; and making pilgrimages to Mecca. China has even gone as far as to force Muslims to eat pork and drink alcohol, and launched a campaign against halal food, making it more difficult to find in Xinjiang.
    Rights to religious, cultural, and social self-determination are protected as fundamental freedoms by several treaties China is party to, including Articles 1, 2, and 15 of the ICESCR; Articles 2 and 5 of the ICERD; and Articles 18-20 of the UDHR. China’s constitution also (rather ambiguously) provides for religious freedoms: Article 36 expressly states that “no state organ, public organization, or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion.” But the same section cautions that the state only protects “normal” religious activities that do not “disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens, or interfere with the educational system of the state.”
    Violations of Family Life
    Lisa Reinsberg has more than adequately covered China’s forced sterilization of Uighur women. But China is also engaging in a handful of other brazen disruptions of family life in Xinjiang.
    Over the last several years, Beijing launched the “Pair Up and Become Family” program, deploying CCP members called “cadres” to regularly stay with Muslim families, infiltrating their intimate home lives. The program aims to coerce Uighurs to assimilate to the Han majority. Cadres report any divergences from the Party’s “prescribed lifestyle,” including religious practices like praying and wearing traditional Muslim clothing. Visits sometimes last longer than five days, and the families’ movements are scrutinized and monitored the whole time. Cadres even sometimes sleep in the same bed as their Uighur hosts, and often, women and children are the only ones in the home after male relatives are detained at state-run camps.
    The systematic separation of families is also evident, with children either being placed in orphanages when their parents are detained in camps or sent elsewhere in China for state-mandated education. The “Xinjiang Classrooms” policy “takes thousands of Uighur children away from their families and immerses them in Han Chinese institutions, far from their native language and cultural environment,” according to testimony by Mihrigul Tursun, a Uighur woman who defected from China. Even educating children at home is considered “extremist” under regulations put in place for Xinjiang in 2017.
    Family is considered a sacred institution under human rights law and is protected under several landmark treaties. The Pair Up and Become Family and Xinjiang Classrooms programs breach Articles 12, 16, and 26 of the UDHR, which protects the family from state interference as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society” and grants parents the right to choose how they educate their children. Article 10 of the ICESCR provides similar protections, and Article 2 of the Genocide Convention lists “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” as a potential means of committing genocide.
    Extreme Physical and Mental Abuse
    Conditions at the camps are opaque because of the intense continued monitoring of Uighurs’ communication and movement. But there are widespread credible reports of extreme physical and mental abuse that meet the definition of torture under international human rights law, including the CAT, which mandates that even in exceptional circumstances, states must take measures to prevent “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” for purposes of obtaining a confession, intimidation or coercion, discrimination, or punishment.
    Former Uighur detainees describe crowded cells; brainwashing that drove some to suicide; waterboarding; torture during interrogations; food deprivation as punishment; beatings; being shackled to chairs for long periods of time; sleep deprivation; being forcibly drugged; being shocked in an electric chair; and other forms of extreme physical and mental abuse.
    There are also reports of widespread rape and sexual humiliation committed against Uighur detainees. According to Washington Post reporting, “many [Uighur women interviewed] said they were subjected to sexual humiliation, incidents that included being filmed in the shower and having their intimate parts rubbed with chile paste.” A Kazakh national who was forced to work in a camp said every evening, guards would take “the pretty girls with them” and return them to their cells in the morning. The same woman witnessed gang rapes, including an incident other detainees were forced to watch.
    In 2018 testimony before the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Tursun described her experience of being tortured in an electric chair. She also recalls being given two drugs: one that caused a loss of consciousness and reduced cognition, and another that caused mixed side effects for different women, including loss of menstruation, extreme bleeding, and even death. Tursun witnessed nine deaths in her cell of 68 people during three months of incarceration.
    In addition to the CAT, these abuses also appear to violate Article 2 of the Genocide Convention by “causing serious bodily or mental harm” to targeted Uighur victims. The abuses also violate Article 5 of the ICERD and the UDHR, which both guarantee protection from torture and punishment regardless of race, sex, religion, or other status.
    Destruction of Cultural Heritage Sites
    Satellite research shows that Chinese officials have destroyed mosques, sacred burial grounds, and other religious, cultural, and historical sites, claiming that buildings were poorly constructed and unsafe. Many of these sites have been replaced by bars and restaurants that cater to the tastes of Han tourists.
    Similar crimes have been successfully prosecuted in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including the destruction of protected religious and historic sites in Timbuktu (albeit as a war crime). China’s constitution protects “places of scenic and historical interest, valuable cultural monuments and relics, and other important items of China’s historical and cultural heritage” — a provision that only seems to apply to Han Chinese culture.
    Forced Labor
    Evidence of mass forced labor among the Uighur population has sparked recent policy action, including U.S. Global Magnitsky Act sanctions against the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a Chinese paramilitary group that controls parts of Xinjiang’s economy and operates some of the camps there. An Australian Strategic Policy Institute report conservatively estimated that between 2017 and 2019, more than 80,000 Uighurs were transferred under the Xinjiang Aid program to factories elsewhere in China, tainting major global supply chains with trafficked labor.
    At the factories, Uighurs remain under close surveillance. They live in segregated dormitories and continue with their ideological “reeducation” outside of working hours. Workers have reported being exploited for overtime hours, making less than their Han coworkers, being subjected to predatory bosses, and other abusive labor practices. The threat of being sent back to the concentration camps constantly hangs over them.
    China is not party to any treaties against forced labor promulgated through the International Labour Organization. However, Article 23 of the UDHR guarantees basic protections against forced labor, and Article 4 of China’s constitution pledges to protect minorities.
    Summary Detention Without Due Process
    China is also summarily and indefinitely detaining individuals without due process, a flagrant violation of basic human rights. In many cases, relatives are unable to communicate with detainees and may not be aware of where they are for years. According to lawyers interviewed by human rights groups, detainees in Xinjiang are not allowed to plead “not guilty” to terrorism charges. In some cases, verdicts are prepared prior to trial, or sentences are decided beforehand by Party officials.
    Articles 9-11 of the UDHR, which China has ratified, guarantee basic due process rights. And China’s constitution states that “no citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people’s procuratorate or by decision of a people’s court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ.” While China may argue that its 2016 Counterterrorism Law permits mass arrests of its citizens for simply practicing their religion, this argument would be null if it can be proven that the law itself violates international treaties China has ratified, along with its own constitution.
    Rights to Freedom of Movement
    Uighurs’ rights to freedom of movement, especially attempts to leave China, are officially sanctioned under China’s counterterrorism policies. This blatantly violates Article 5 of the ICERD, which lists freedom of movement — and the right to leave and return to the country — as enforceable civil rights. Article 13 of the UDHR provides the same guarantees.
    Options for a Global Response
    As Connor O’Steen outlined in an earlier Just Security article, an effective international response to China’s brutal campaign against Uighurs will require a combination of unilateral and multilateral measures. And to truly yield change, state-led actions must be underwritten by a comprehensive effort involving civil society, academia, and journalists, among others.
    Sanctions
    Unilateral legal, economic, and policy tools can be blunt. While economic sanctions carry weight, they can prove somewhat fruitless in addressing the root cause of any issue on their own. Sanctions often have loopholes — as the EU has demonstrated with financial workarounds for U.S. restrictions on Iran — and will result in irreversible damage to Xinjiang’s economy if applied over a long period of time. Sanctioning nations should be cautious that their efforts don’t do more harm than good to the very population they intend to help.
    The United States will also face difficulty as it tries to keep pace with China’s evasive supply chain practices. Many companies, in response to U.S. policy and guidance, will consider supply chain touchpoints in Xinjiang entirely off-limits. But there’s a risk that the pervasiveness of Uighur forced labor in other parts of China will be inescapable as the CCP perpetually reshuffles detainees to other industries, factories, and provinces, tainting supply chains faster than government entity lists can be updated.
    Liberal democracies should cast a wider net to target elite CCP officials outside of Xinjiang — especially those directly responsible for the Strike Hard campaign — with visa, financial, and asset-related “smart sanctions.” When sanctions target those at the highest echelons of power, they can accelerate political movement, act as incentive for behavioral change, and be leveraged in later negotiations. U.S. Global Magnitsky sanctions on two Turkish government officials in 2018 led to the release of Pastor Andrew Brunson from prison, making a strong case that sanctions can be effective as part of a broader diplomatic campaign. EU countries and other liberal democracies should not wait to implement their own Global Magnitsky sanctions against complicit CCP officials, and they, along with the United States, must show they are serious about holding companies and officials accountable for violations using a range of sanctions with robust, public enforcement.
    Diplomatic and Societal Efforts
    To fortify these sanctions regimes, governments, multilateral organizations, and NGOs must meticulously track and document violations of international law being committed in Xinjiang. A free and independent media also plays an incredibly important role in uncovering and analyzing information, as well as keeping the issue at the forefront of the public consciousness. These institutions, along with academic and civil society organizations advocating for accountability in Xinjiang, should be fully supported.
    Finally, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) should revoke China’s privileges to host the 2022 Winter Olympics. It would be an irreversible embarrassment for the global community to allow a country perpetuating and denying an ongoing genocide to simultaneously reap the economic and reputational benefits of the most coveted sporting event in the world. The IOC, an organization plagued by corruption, is not likely to do this unprompted — but it may be forced to act if liberal democracies threaten an Olympic boycott.
    Considering the full spectrum of violations of international law could present new ways to harness a more coordinated diplomatic response by swaying other states — such as the 37 that signed a letter last year in support of China’s policies in Xinjiang — toward condemnation. But messaging from government leaders engaging in this effort must be consistent and refrain from undercutting such a coordinated diplomatic response, as Trump allegedly did in conversations with Chinese President Xi Jinping on more than one occasion.
    International Legal Action
    Although China is not party to the Rome Statute and holds veto power in the U.N. Security Council, there may be a path to legal action through the ICC. But the application of international law is complicated by China’s unwavering protectionism of its sovereignty, along with its geopolitical, diplomatic, and economic ties with countries that may not be able to break from its grasp, being entangled in China’s “Belt and Road” predatory lending strategy.
    Further, even if the formidable obstacles to ICC action were overcome, international criminal law is difficult to enforce. Because the ICC does not have its own enforcement body, it relies on global cooperation for support in arresting and transferring individuals, obtaining evidence, and enforcing orders. Some countries may be unwilling to arrest and extradite Chinese officials for fear of repercussions, prioritizing economic security and Chinese foreign direct investment over human rights concerns.




    The pandemic and resulting global economic downturn will undoubtedly reshape how Belt and Road countries and major powers engage with China, whose “mask diplomacy” seems to be failing it. Liberal democracies are showing less tolerance and have recently taken swift action to denounce China’s national security law in Hong Kong, cyberespionage and cyberattacks, and moves by tech companies. The world must now decide how far it will allow China to go in its human rights atrocities without facing global repercussions.
    https://www.justsecurity.org/72074/h...n-in-xinjiang/

  16. #866
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,918
    Another critic of Mr. Shithole bites the dust.

    I'm sure he had a fair trial.



    The former chairman of a state-owned real estate company who publicly criticised President Xi Jinping's handling of the coronavirus pandemic was sentenced to 18 years in prison on Tuesday on corruption charges, a court announced.

    Ren Zhiqiang, who became known for speaking up about censorship and other sensitive topics, disappeared from public view in March after publishing an essay online that accused Mr Xi of mishandling the outbreak that began in December in the central city of Wuhan.

    Mr Xi, party leader since 2012, has suppressed criticism, tightened censorship and cracked down on unofficial organisations. Dozens of journalists, labour and human rights activists and others have been imprisoned.


    Mr Ren, 69, was convicted of corruption, bribery, embezzlement of public funds and abuse of power, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court announced on its social media account. It cited Mr Ren as saying he wouldn't appeal.


    The former chairman and deputy party secretary of Huayuan Group was expelled from the ruling party in July.

    In a commentary that circulated on social media, Mr Ren criticised a Feb. 23 video conference with 170,000 officials held early in the pandemic at which Mr Xi announced orders for responding to the disease.

    Mr Ren didn't mention Mr Xi's name but said, "standing there was not an emperor showing off his new clothes but a clown who had stripped off his clothes and insisted on being an emperor".


    Mr Ren criticised propaganda that portrayed Mr Xi and other leaders as rescuing China from the disease without mentioning where it began and possible mistakes including
    suppressing information at the start of the outbreak.


    "People did not see any criticism at the conference. It didn't investigate and disclose the truth," Mr Ren wrote, according to a copy published by China Digital Times, a website in California. "No one reviewed or took responsibility. But they are trying to cover up the truth with all kinds of great achievements."


    Mr Ren had an early military career and his parents were both former high officials in the Communist party. Some called him a princeling, a term for offspring of the founders of the communist government, a group that includes Mr Xi.


    He appeared to have crossed a political line by criticising Mr Xi's personal leadership.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...iled-18-years/

  17. #867
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s video statement on behalf of the CSTO member states at the UN General Assembly high-level meeting to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the UN, Moscow, September 21, 2020


    "Mr Chairman, Your Excellencies,

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I have the honour to speak on behalf of Collective Security Treaty member states: the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Russian Federation.


    Today, we are marking what is truly a momentous occasion. The foundations of our shared global home, the United Nations, were laid 75 years ago. Looking back, we admire the determination demonstrated by the founding fathers of the universal organisation to build a democratic system of international relations. They came together in a shared aspiration to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war, reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, establish conditions for a world order of justice and promote social progress.

    Years later, some are inclined to take this landmark achievement for granted. However, it has to be remembered that every step in this direction was a real feat, and Victory over Nazism was the most important of them all. The free nations came together in the face of a horrible tragedy, laying the foundation for putting into practice the ideals that once seemed to be a utopia.

    Against this backdrop, attempts to revise history and denigrate the role played by the nations that made a decisive contribution to Victory over fascism are totally absurd. The memory of those who fell during this dark period is sacred. All of us have to be mindful of the lessons of history, honour the exploits of the liberator soldiers and ensure the preservation of monuments erected in their glory.

    Unfortunately, the Cold War that started soon after the UN was established prevented it from fully unleashing its creative potential. New hope was born only 44 years later, with the fall of the Berlin wall as a symbol of the geopolitical confrontation between two irreconcilable systems. This was not just about preventing military confrontation, but also overcoming mistrust, inequality and reigning in neo-colonial aspirations, as well as promoting constructive cooperation for the sake of building a shared future.

    It is unfortunate that today military conflicts continue unabated in various regions, supplemented by a number of challenging threats the world is facing today: international terrorism, drug trafficking, cybercrime, and climate change. This year, another major challenge was added to this list: the coronavirus pandemic that sparked grave socioeconomic and other crises. In this context, the Russian Federation believes that the UN Secretary-General’s call for a global ceasefire in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic to be extremely timely, and the CSTO member states unanimously supported it.

    With every year, responding to these and many other global issues is becoming increasingly challenging, especially as the international community is becoming increasingly fragmented. We believe that this is largely attributable to the fact that some countries are not willing to account for the legitimate interests of other states. They are seeking to impose concepts and standards like the “rules-based world order,” while attempting to meddle in the domestic affairs of other states, using unilateral sanctions in violation of the UN Security Council prerogatives, and exhibiting intolerance and hatred.

    However, history runs its course. New economic growth centres are affirming themselves on the international stage, the demand for settling armed conflicts by exclusively peaceful means is growing, and connectivity is on the rise. The world is tired of dividing lines, of separating states into friends and foes, and demands stepping up all-encompassing and inclusive mutual assistance and cooperation. In other words, the goals articulated 75 years ago at the founding of the United Nations are becoming increasingly relevant.

    This makes it even more important to reaffirm our commitment to the UN Charter and the universally recognised norms of international law, emphasise that there is no alternative to genuine multipolarity and step up collective efforts to find solutions to global issues with the UN playing its central coordinating role.


    Mr Chairman,

    This anniversary provides us with an occasion to outline the contours of the organisation’s future operations.

    In today’s world, the UN must remain an effective structure carrying out coordinated work strictly in keeping with its Charter. We cannot allow the mandates of the main bodies within the UN system to be diluted or have their responsibilities overlap, since this would only set us back from achieving our goals. In its day-to-day operations, the UN should take into consideration the experience of regional organisations like the CSTO.

    Peacekeeping operations account for a lion’s share of UN’s achievements. Today, there are high hopes for these operations like never before since they are expected to resolve urgent problems and bring about lasting solutions.

    Settling conflicts exclusively by peaceful, political and diplomatic means within the framework of internationally recognised negotiating formats and based on international norms must remain among the main objectives for the international community.

    Expanding cooperation in fighting terrorism and its links with organised crime remains an absolute priority. Ensuring international cyber security is becoming increasingly important with the development of information and communications technology that are used to further terrorist, criminal and military ends.

    We need to stave off attempts to weaken arms controls, disarmament and non-proliferation frameworks for the sake of global stability. Special attention must be given to fending off transnational threats, including the deployment of foreign terrorist fighters to conflict zones, chemical and biological terrorism, as well as ensuring that outer space is used for peaceful purposes.

    The organisation must remain focused on facilitating development, which is an indispensable condition for strengthening peace. It is essential that the decolonisation process, which is complicated by the determination of the former colonial powers to maintain their influence in a new environment, is brought to an end.

    Mr Chairman,

    To conclude, I would like to emphasise that the future of the organisation is in the hands of its member states. Just like in 1945, we need to cast aside our differences and come together for the sake of delivering on common objectives based on equitable dialogue and the mutual respect for one another’s interests. The UN offers all the necessary conditions to this effect.

    Thank you for your attention."

    Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s video statement on behalf of the CSTO member states at the UN General Assembly high-level meeting to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the UN, Moscow, September 21, 2020 - News - The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

  18. #868
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    20,621
    Remarks by H.E. Xi Jinping President of the People’s Republic of China At the High-level Meeting to Commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations

    Source: Global Times Published: 2020/9/22 023

    "Mr. President,

    Colleagues,

    Seventy-five years ago, the people of the world, with strenuous struggle and tremendous sacrifice, won the great victory in the World Anti-Fascist War. It was indeed a victory for justice and a victory for the people.

    Through the first half of the last century, mankind had suffered the scourge of two devastating wars that brought untold sufferings to the world. It was against such a backdrop that the United Nations (UN) came into being. Over the ensuing 75 years, this Organization has traveled an extraordinary journey. A new chapter has thus opened for peace and development in the world.

    The 75 years since the founding of the UN has seen dramatic progress in human society. We have experienced significant and across-the-board progress in science and technology and in industrial revolution. We are now embracing a new round of even more extensive and substantial scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation. Globally, social productivity has been unprecedentedly unleashed and boosted. Mankind has never been so powerfully capable to overcome the difficulties we face and change the world we live in.

    The 75 years since the founding of the UN has witnessed profound changes in the international situation. A great many developing countries have gained national liberation and independence. Over a billion people have walked out of poverty. And a population of several billion have embarked on a path toward modernization. These achievements have considerably strengthened the force for peace and development in the world and transformed the international landscape in a most far-reaching way.

    The 75 years since the founding of the UN has been a period of rapid development of multilateralism. Problems facing the world are big and many, and global challenges are on the increase. They should and can only be resolved through dialogue and cooperation. International affairs ought to be addressed through consultation among us all. The understanding that we are all in the same boat is now a popular consensus in the global community.

    After the storm comes the rainbow. The UN has stood one test after another and emerged with renewed vigor and vitality. The UN embodies the aspiration of the over seven billion people for a better life, and the UN Charter remains an important guarantee for world peace and development.

    Mr. President,

    Major changes unseen in a century are taking place in our world. The sudden attack of COVID-19 is a grave test for the entire world. Mankind has entered a new era of interconnectedness, with countries sharing intertwined interests and their future closely linked together. Global threats and global challenges require strong, global responses.

    In the face of new realities and challenges, we must do some serious thinking: What kind of UN is needed for the world? How should the Organization play its role in the post-COVID era? Let me share some of my thoughts with you.

    First, the UN must stand firm for justice. Mutual respect and equality among all countries, big or small, represents the progress of our times and is the foremost principle of the UN Charter. No country has the right to dominate global affairs, control the destiny of others, or keep advantages in development all to itself. Even less should one be allowed to do whatever it likes and be the hegemon, bully or boss of the world. Unilateralism is a dead end. All need to follow the approach of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits. All need to come together to uphold universal security, share the fruits of development, and jointly decide on the future of the world. It is imperative that the representation and voice of developing countries be increased so that the UN could be more balanced in reflecting the interests and wishes of the majority of countries in the world.

    Second, the UN must uphold the rule of law. The purposes and principles of the UN Charter are the fundamental guidelines for handling international relations. They constitute a cornerstone of stable international order and must be unswervingly kept and upheld. Relations among countries and coordination of their interests must only be based on rules and institutions; they must not be lorded over by those who wave a strong fist at others. Big countries should lead by example in advocating and upholding the international rule of law and in honoring their commitments. There must be no practice of exceptionalism or double standards. Nor should international law be distorted and used as a pretext to undermine other countries' legitimate rights and interests or world peace and stability.

    Third, the UN must promote cooperation. To promote cooperation among countries is a founding mission of the UN and an important purpose spelt out in the UN Charter. Cold War mentality, ideological lines or zero-sum game are no solution to a country's own problem, still less an answer to mankind's common challenges. What we need to do is to replace conflict with dialogue, coercion with consultation and zero-sum with win-win. We need to pursue the common interests of all as we each work to safeguard our own interests. We need to expand the converging interests of all and build a big global family of harmony and cooperation.

    Fourth, the UN must focus on real action. To put into practice the principle of multilateralism, we must act, not just talk. There must be a cure, not just a therapy. The UN should aim at problem solving and move toward tangible outcomes as it advances security, development and human rights in parallel. In particular, as the UN advances its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, priority should be given to addressing non-traditional security challenges such as public health; the issue of development should be highlighted in the global macro framework; and there should be a greater emphasis on the promotion and protection of the rights to subsistence and development.

    China was the first to sign on the Charter of the United Nations. It is a founding member of the UN and the only developing country that takes a permanent seat on the Security Council. China will continue to be a true follower of multilateralism. It will stay actively engaged in reforming and developing the global governance system. It will firmly uphold the UN-centered international system, firmly uphold the international order underpinned by international law, and firmly defend the UN's central role in international affairs.

    Mr. President,

    The world now stands at a new historical starting point. Let us renew our firm commitment to multilateralism, work to promote a community with a shared future for mankind, and rally behind the banner of the UN to pursue greater unity and progress.

    I thank you."

    Remarks by H.E. Xi Jinping President of the People’s Republic of China At the High-level Meeting to Commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations - Global Times

  19. #869
    Thailand Expat Latindancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:07 PM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13,111
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post

    First, the UN must stand firm for justice. Mutual respect and equality among all countries, big or small, represents the progress of our times and is the foremost principle of the UN Charter. No country has the right to dominate global affairs, control the destiny of others, or keep advantages in development all to itself. Even less should one be allowed to do whatever it likes and be the hegemon, bully or boss of the world. Unilateralism is a dead end. All need to follow the approach of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits. All need to come together to uphold universal security, share the fruits of development, and jointly decide on the future of the world. It is imperative that the representation and voice of developing countries be increased so that the UN could be more balanced in reflecting the interests and wishes of the majority of countries in the world.

    Second, the UN must uphold the rule of law. The purposes and principles of the UN Charter are the fundamental guidelines for handling international relations. They constitute a cornerstone of stable international order and must be unswervingly kept and upheld. Relations among countries and coordination of their interests must only be based on rules and institutions; they must not be lorded over by those who wave a strong fist at others. Big countries should lead by example in advocating and upholding the international rule of law and in honoring their commitments. There must be no practice of exceptionalism or double standards. Nor should international law be distorted and used as a pretext to undermine other countries' legitimate rights and interests or world peace and stability.

    Third, the UN must promote cooperation. To promote cooperation among countries is a founding mission of the UN and an important purpose spelt out in the UN Charter. Cold War mentality, ideological lines or zero-sum game are no solution to a country's own problem, still less an answer to mankind's common challenges. What we need to do is to replace conflict with dialogue, coercion with consultation and zero-sum with win-win. We need to pursue the common interests of all as we each work to safeguard our own interests. We need to expand the converging interests of all and build a big global family of harmony and cooperation.

    Fourth, the UN must focus on real action. To put into practice the principle of multilateralism, we must act, not just talk. There must be a cure, not just a therapy. The UN should aim at problem solving and move toward tangible outcomes as it advances security, development and human rights in parallel. In particular, as the UN advances its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, priority should be given to addressing non-traditional security challenges such as public health; the issue of development should be highlighted in the global macro framework; and there should be a greater emphasis on the promotion and protection of the rights to subsistence and development.
    What an utter and complete hypocrite My Shithole is. What about how China is treating Tibetans and Uyghurs ? What about people in China who criticize the regime ? And that's just for starters...

    He is speaking about principles in reference to international relations but these principles are not being followed in China itself. Start at home, dude.

  20. #870
    Hansum Man! panama hat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 05:31 PM
    Location
    Way, Way South of the border now - thank God!
    Posts
    24,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Latindancer View Post
    What an utter and complete hypocrite My Shithole is. What about how China is treating Tibetans and Uyghurs ? What about people in China who criticize the regime ? And that's just for starters...
    Same same but different . . . with China and Russia it's do as I say, not do what I do

  21. #871
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Posts
    7,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Latindancer View Post
    What an utter and complete hypocrite My Shithole is. What about how China is treating Tibetans and Uyghurs ? What about people in China who criticize the regime ? And that's just for starters...

    He is speaking about principles in reference to international relations but these principles are not being followed in China itself. Start at home, dude.
    What an utter nonsense you speak about? You contradict yourself: It's about international relations. That what the UN principles are for. Forbidding to interfere in inside problems.

    What they have inside it's up to their concern, same as inside problems of other countries, open your eyes what everywhere is now happening. Do you want to help them to solve it?


    What did he say wrong?

    First, the UN must stand firm for justice.





    Second, the UN must uphold the rule of law.





    Third, the UN must promote cooperation





    Fourth, the UN must focus on real action.


  22. #872
    Thailand Expat lom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Location
    Trapped in an old mans body
    Posts
    9,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Klondyke View Post
    That what the UN principles are for. Forbidding to interfere in inside problems.
    Where did you get that nonsense from?

  23. #873
    Hansum Man! panama hat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 05:31 PM
    Location
    Way, Way South of the border now - thank God!
    Posts
    24,414
    Quote Originally Posted by lom View Post
    Where did you get that nonsense from?
    Puled it out of his arse, like everything he writes.


    Klondyke, care to tell me again that doctors in Thailand don't wear white coats?

  24. #874
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,918
    Quote Originally Posted by panama hat View Post
    Puled it out of his arse, like everything he writes.


    Klondyke, care to tell me again that doctors in Thailand don't wear white coats?
    What he means is they didn't wear them in the nuthouse he was in.

  25. #875
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Posts
    7,750
    Quote Originally Posted by lom View Post
    Where did you get that nonsense from?
    Maybe there is such a stipulation in the UN Charter allowing to interfere in affairs of other states (changing the regimes)? That's why there have been so many wars after the UN establishing in 1945 (with its main purpose to avoid what happened before 1945...)


    Quote Originally Posted by panama hat View Post
    Klondyke, care to tell me again that doctors in Thailand don't wear white coats?
    Anything to the matter? Or just your favorite topic "whataboutism"?

Page 35 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2527282930313233343536373839 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •