Chindia Alert: You’ll be Living in their World Very Soon
aims to alert you to the threats and opportunities that China and India present. China and India require serious attention; case of ‘hidden dragon and crouching tiger’.
Without this attention, governments, businesses and, indeed, individuals may find themselves at a great disadvantage sooner rather than later.
The POSTs (front webpages) are mainly 'cuttings' from reliable sources, updated continuously.
The PAGEs (see Tabs, above) attempt to make the information more meaningful by putting some structure to the information we have researched and assembled since 2006.
BEIJING, May 31 (Xinhua) — The U.S. government has been slammed at home and abroad after announcing on Friday “terminating” its relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO).
U.S. health experts and lawmakers have expressed concern over the decision announced by President Donald Trump amid the COVID-19 outbreak.
Patrice Harris, president of the American Medical Association, described Trump’s move as a “senseless” action with “significant, harmful repercussions.”
“COVID-19 affects us all and does not respect borders; defeating it requires the entire world working together,” Harris was quoted by CNN as saying, urging Trump to reverse the course.
Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law and director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, described the move as “foolish and arrogant” in his Twitter account.
“Trump’s action is an enormous disruption and distraction during an unprecedented health crisis,” said Gostin, also the director of the WHO collaborating center on national and global health law. “The President has made us less safe.”
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said that “the United States cannot eliminate this virus on its own and to withdraw from the World Health Organization — the world’s leading public health body — is nothing short of reckless,” according to a CNN report.
Even within the Republican party, some Republicans also expressed their disagreement. Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander reportedly said he disagreed with Trump’s decision, because, without U.S. funding, clinical trials to develop a COVID-19 vaccine might be hampered.
In addition, the European Union (EU) has urged the United States to reconsider its termination of ties with the WHO, warning that Trump’s move would erode global efforts to curb the spread of the virus.
“The WHO needs to continue being able to lead the international response to pandemics, current and future. For this, the participation and support of all is required and very much needed. In the face of this global threat, now is the time for enhanced cooperation and common solutions. Actions that weaken international results must be avoided,” Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, and Josep Borrell, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said in the statement on Saturday.
“In this context, we urge the U.S. to reconsider its announced decision,” the statement said.
German Health Minister Jens Spahn tweeted that Trump’s move was “a disappointing backlash for International Health.”
“The EU must take a leading role and engage more financially,” Spahn said, noting that this would be one of Germany’s priorities when it becomes the bloc’s rotating presidency on July 1.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s spokesperson said earlier that Britain “has no plans to stop funding the WHO, which has an important role to play in leading the global health response.”
“Coronavirus is a global challenge and it is essential that countries work together to tackle this shared threat,” the spokesperson was quoted by The Guardian as saying.
Irish Minister for Health Simon Harris on Friday described Trump’s move as an “awful decision.”
“A global pandemic requires the world working together … We should unite in our fight against it (COVID-19) & not fight each other,” Harris tweeted.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova told TASS news agency that Washington “dealt a blow” to the international framework for cooperation in healthcare at the moment when the world needed to join forces.
Tense relations with the US and the question of whether armed confrontation can be avoided will loom large when China’s political elites meet
Structural shifts in balance of power have brought the countries closer to the brink, analyst says, with the South China Sea the most likely flashpoint
Illustration: Brian Wang
This is the fifth in a nine-part series examining the issues Chinese leaders face as they gather for their annual “two sessions” of the National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference this week. This story looks at the sharp decline of US-China ties, and where it may lead.
When thousands of China’s elites flock to Beijing for the delayed national legislative session starting on Friday they will face a renewed debate about relations with the US. Specifically, can armed conflict between the two economic superpowers be avoided?
The question is not new, but it has taken on a new urgency as the acrimony escalates between Washington and Beijing amid the Covid-19 pandemic, exposing growing cracks in the current global order.
Harvard professor Graham Allison raised the question in a 2017 book, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap? The reference being to the Greek historian of 2,500 years ago and the conundrum named after him on the likelihood of armed conflict when a rising power challenges a ruling power.
President Xi Jinping has shown personal interest in the Thucydides trap concept, which Allison first posed in a 2012 newspaper article, referencing it on at least three occasions, including the eve of the swearing-in ceremony of US President Donald Trump three years ago.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2017, Xi said the Thucydides trap “can be avoided … as long as we maintain communication and treat each other with sincerity”.
Xi Jinping referenced the Thucydides trap concept on the eve of Donald Trump’s swearing-in ceremony. Photos: AFP
But since then, the devastating Covid-19 pandemic has driven the deeply fraught US-China relations to the brink of an all-out confrontation as a result of strategic distrust and misperception, said Wang Jisi, president of Peking University’s Institute of International and Strategic Studies.
“China and the US are shifting from an all-around competition to a full-scale confrontation, with little room for compromise and manoeuvring,” Wang said in a speech in late March. “We cannot rule out the possibility that the two powers may fall into the Thucydides trap.”
That seems to sum up the tone of recent communications from the US side. Trump has vowed to “take whatever actions that are necessary” to seek reparations and hold China accountable for the Covid-19 disease that was first identified in the city of Wuhan at the end of last year. His top aides, especially Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Mark Esper, have been particularly blunt.
During the Munich Security Conference in February, Esper described China as a rising threat to the world order and urged countries to side with the US in preparing for “high intensity conflict against China”.
The prospects for bilateral ties are deeply worrying and we are just one step away from a new cold warZhu Feng, Nanjing University
Mainland authorities are usually reluctant to play up sensitive diplomatic topics during the annual gatherings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, known as the “two sessions”.
Domestic concerns, especially the socio-economic upheaval wrought by the pandemic, will no doubt dominate the week-long meetings as the country faces the deepest economic contraction in decades, mass unemployment, and a possible manufacturing exodus from China.
However, the sharp decline in relations with the US in recent months and its possible consequences are expected to loom large in the minds of over 5,000 participants at the two sessions, according to Gu Su, a political scientist at Nanjing University.
“Considering the boiling tensions with the US over Covid-19 and the resulting scrutiny of China’s global ambitions – which have dealt a heavy blow to the economy, especially at local levels, and left the country increasingly isolated – it may be hard to suppress such discussions,” Gu said.
Given the widespread public interest in these contentious topics, Xi and other top leaders may need to weigh in personally and set the tone for the national debate, especially on the future of China and US relations, he said.
But it would be unrealistic to expect major policy decisions on diplomacy, as “the two sessions are not usually known for substantial foreign policy deliberations”, said Zhu Feng, an international affairs expert at Nanjing University.
Paramilitary police officers patrol in Tiananmen Square near the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, where China’s political elites are about to meet for the “two sessions”. Photo: Reuters
‘Worst-case scenarios’
The deterioration of US-China ties has clearly alarmed Xi and his top aides. On April 8, the Chinese leader issued an unusually stark warning that “we must get ready for the worst-case scenarios” in light of unprecedented external adversity and challenges, according to Xinhua.
While the state news agency did not elaborate on what Xi meant by worst-case scenarios, a recent study by a Chinese government-backed think tank offered some hints.
The China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), affiliated with the Ministry of State Security, said Beijing may need to prepare for armed confrontation with Washington amid the worst anti-China backlash since the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989, according to Reuters, which cited an internal report.
The report warned that China’s overseas investments, especially the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, could fall victim to rising anti-Chinese sentiments, while the US may accelerate efforts to counter Beijing’s expanding clout by increasing financial and military support for regional allies.
While the think tank declined to confirm the Reuters story, many international relations analysts shared similar bleak assessments of US-China relations.
“We are already in an all-around confrontation with the US, which sees both sides at odds on almost every front – from trade and tech tensions, military, ideological and geopolitical rivalry, to political and legal battles over the coronavirus,” Zhu said. “The prospects for bilateral ties are deeply worrying and we are just one step away from a new cold war.”
With much of the world still in the grip of the Covid-19 pandemic, Beijing’s critics and opponents, led by the US, have upped the ante in the blame-shifting game as they line up to pursue an international investigation into the origins of the deadly virus.
The coronavirus has also derailed most of China’s diplomatic agenda for the first half of the year, with Xi’s planned state visits to Japan and South Korea postponed.
Meanwhile, China’s relations with the European Union have become more tense, though Beijing managed to dodge a bullet at this week’s World Health Assembly, which adopted a mildly worded resolution drafted by the EU to carry out an independent inquiry into different countries’ response to the outbreak at “an appropriate time”.
But a growing number of European countries have pushed back against China’s diplomatic assertiveness and followed Washington’s lead to press Beijing for greater transparency over the coronavirus.
Shelley Rigger, a political science professor at Davidson College in North Carolina, said the CICIR report, if confirmed, offered a clear-eyed assessment of the situation and did not have the usual triumphalist tone present in many papers on international relations from China.
“That’s a good thing. Everyone needs to be realistic, and not indulge in wishful thinking or overconfidence,” she said.
The ‘two sessions’ explained: China’s most important political meetings of the year
Seth Jaffe, assistant professor of political science and international affairs at John Cabot University in Rome and an expert on Greek history, said the Chinese think tank report was “profoundly concerning”.
“The acrimonious narratives surrounding Covid-19 are currently reshaping the attitudes of leaders and populations alike, which is leading to harder-line strategic postures, as evidenced by the hawkish CICIR report,” he said. “In this way, the virus blame game is stirring up nationalistic pride and grievance, narrowing the space for political leaders to manoeuvre, and creating zero-sum dynamics that invite future conflict – a vicious cycle.”
According to Jaffe, the author of Thucydides on the Outbreak of War: Character and Contest, although the temperaments of Trump and Xi would matter enormously in any actual crisis, it was the structural shifts in the balance of power in recent years that had brought the two sides closer to the brink.
The most likely collision scenario, he said, would be in the South China Sea.
“I still worry most about military close encounters associated with American freedom of navigation operations, which could rapidly escalate in unintended but dangerous directions, for example, in the direction of a serious naval conflict.”
Guided-missile destroyer the USS Barry sails in the South China Sea last month. Photo: AFP
He said an international incident would put Trump and Xi on a reputational collision course, with each leader facing pressure to stand up to the other and not back down, given the mistrust and heated rhetoric.
“The danger, then, is an unforeseen spark, which could set off a frightening movement up the escalation ladder,” he added.
Zhao Tong, a senior fellow at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Centre for Global Policy in Beijing, also expressed concern that military incidents and conflicts with the US had become “less unimaginable given how quickly mutual animosity is building”.
Nationalist sentiment
In recent months, many senior Chinese diplomats have risen to Xi’s hardline, nationalist call and displayed their “fighting spirit”, often at the expense of the country’s global image.
“In future crises, if People’s Liberation Army officers, like some Chinese diplomats, calculate that it is in their personal interests to act extra tough, even if they know their aggression could cause war and cost China dearly, they might still feel incentivised to do so,” Zhao said.
To make things worse, according to Zhang Tuosheng, a security analyst from the China Foundation for International and Strategic Studies, Beijing and Washington had yet to set up an operational crisis management mechanism.
The Chinese leadership surely understands the massive costs of military action against TaiwanShelley Rigger, Davidson College
“One of the major lessons is that we’ve paid scant attention to the establishment of a series of mechanisms that have proven necessary during the Cold War era in preventing tensions spiralling out of control in the event of emergencies or a real crisis,” he said.
Beijing made clear its resentment over the warming ties between Washington and Taipei ahead of and during Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s inauguration on Wednesday, but a military confrontation over the self-ruled island in the near term was not likely, according to Rigger.
“The Chinese leadership surely understands the massive costs – in blood, treasure and reputation – of military action against Taiwan. They are way too smart to count on the US not intervening,” she said.
Rigger noted several retired PLA officers, including
, had unusually toned down their hawkish stance on seeking reunification with Taiwan by force.
“That is a frustrating message for many Chinese to hear, but war is very costly and very unpredictable – something the US has learned through painful experience,” she said.
While experts called for efforts to lower tensions in the lead-up to the US presidential election in November, most said that would largely hinge on Trump.
“Anything is possible with Trump,” Rigger said. “If he thinks better relations with China will help him win re-election, he will do whatever it takes to turn the relationship around. I’d be really surprised if the Chinese leadership didn’t respond positively to such an opportunity.”
But Zhu said it would be naive to pin hopes on Trump, who was desperate to play the China card in his re-election campaign.
“Beijing should be particularly cautious on Taiwan and the South China Sea disputes and should not engage in rhetorical tit-for-tat with Washington,” he said. “We need to look beyond the Trump presidency and prioritise the steady development of bilateral relations over the need to outcompete Trump.”
China’s leadership has made it clear to its people that the world will become more dangerous and they must be prepared for hard times
Beijing’s relatively small stimulus response to Covid-19 suggests it wants to save its economic policy ammunition for a bigger battle
China opted not to set a GDP target for 2020. Photo: Xinhua
Beijing’s decision not to set an annual GDP target for 2020 – for the first time since 2002 – is a sign it is putting stability ahead of growth as part of its preparations for an escalating conflict with the United States.
Economic development has always been the central theme for Beijing since it established diplomatic relations with the US in 1979. But this year it has given priority to job creation and tackling poverty. The coronavirus outbreak might appear to have been the reason for the shift, but the underlying factor is the tension with the US.
Covid-19 offered a preview of what a decoupling of China and US might look like: aircraft grounded, cargo flows disrupted, value chains broken, goodwill and cooperation lost, blame games started.
Both countries have suffered heavy human and economic losses from the coronavirus, yet that did not inspire them to work together. Instead, hostility and rivalry has thrived, and neither wants to blink first.
The Chinese leadership has made it clear to its people that the world will become more dangerous and they must be prepared for hard times. As such, the government is saving its economic policy ammunition.
While the stimulus plans introduced in the US, Germany, Japan and France exceed 10 per cent of their national GDP and interest rates have been cut to the bone, Beijing stopped at just 1 trillion yuan (US$140 billion) worth of special treasury bonds and 1.6 trillion yuan of additional local government bonds. In total, about 2.6 per cent of GDP.
Interest rates in China – 2.7 per cent on 10-year bonds – are some of the highest among major economies.
China’s 6.6 per cent defence spending boost lowest in three decades
23 May 2020
China’s budget fiscal deficit has increased to 3.6 per cent of GDP for 2020, but the larger deficit is mainly from tax and fee cuts instead of increased fiscal expenses, except for an increased military spending.
Beijing is calling on provincial and local authorities to tighten their belts, which is unusual for a government that has huge assets and can increase spending at any time through quantitative easing.
So why is the government, which is known for intervening in the economy, being so restrained?
It is bracing itself for a perceived period of turbulence and hardship as its relationship with the US turns sour. It is putting jobs and social stability on top of its agenda, instead of growth.
Beijing is refraining from excessive spending, eliminating sources of potential instability, making appeals to the most vulnerable social groups, and saving its power for a bigger test.
Against that backdrop, the National People’s Congress passed the national security legislation on Hong Kong. Beijing knew the bill would anger the US, but did it anyway.
Hong Kong is known as China’s gateway to the international capital market and the largest offshore yuan market, but Beijing is ready to trade losses on the financial and economic front for potential gain on a fortified national security fence.
All this points to the suggestion that Beijing is preparing for the possibility of decoupling from the US, even if it doesn’t necessarily want to.
The threat of a new Cold War is clouding the world. The theme of life for one or two generations of people on both sides of the Pacific may shift from growth and prosperity to struggle and confrontation.
China and the US have yet to collide totally, but that moment is drawing near.
China is facing mounting criticism over a planned security law for Hong Kong which would make it a crime to undermine Beijing’s authority in the territory.
The UK and US said at a private session of the UN Security Council that the law would curtail the city’s freedoms.
China, which blocked a formal meeting, warned them to “stop interfering”.
Hong Kong’s autonomy is guaranteed by the 1997 agreement under which it was returned to China from the UK.
It enjoys some freedoms – of the press and association – unseen in mainland China.
But there are fears the proposed law – which has sparked a wave of anti-mainland protests – could end Hong Kong’s unique status.
There are 350,000 BNO passport holders in Hong Kong who currently have the right to visit the UK for up to six months without a visa.
On Friday, the UK Home Office confirmed the new rights could be given to up to three million people with BNO status – as long as they applied for and were granted a passport.
China says all BNO passport holders are Chinese nationals, and if the UK changes this practice, it would violate international law.
Australia, Canada and the EU have also criticised the security law and its implications for Hong Kong.
Taiwan’s parliament has backed a plan to offer sanctuary to people who want to flee Hong Kong, but China – which considers Taiwan to be part of its own territory – has warned the island not to get involved.
On Friday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian urged other countries to stop interfering in the matter.
“We will take necessary measures to resolutely counter the wrong acts of external forces interfering in Hong Kong affairs”, he said.
What might the US do?
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Congress that Hong Kong no longer merited special treatment under US law, potentially paving the way for it to be stripped of trading privileges such as lower tariffs than mainland China.
He is expected to make an announcement later on Friday.
The EU has warned that imposing sanctions would not solve the crisis.
“Our relationship with China is based on mutual respect and trust… but this decision calls this into question and I think that we have to raise the issue in our continued dialogue with China”, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell said after talks with foreign ministers on Friday.
Media caption Police arrested dozens of people in Causeway Bay on Wednesday
Hong Kong’s justice secretary Teresa Cheng told the BBC’s Chinese service that any threat of sanctions was unacceptable.
“Are the sanctions being imposed with a view to coerce another state to change their policy…? Any such sanctions are not going to benefit anyone”.
China’s parliament has backed the security legislation, which would make it a crime to undermine Beijing’s authority in Hong Kong.
The resolution – which now passes to China’s senior leadership – could also see China installing its own security agencies in the region for the first time.
Full details about exactly what behaviour will be outlawed under the new security law are not yet clear. It is due to be enacted before September.
Image copyright AFPImage caption President Xi Jinping and other senior figures applauded when the security law was passed
However, it is expected to criminalise:
secession – breaking away from China
subversion – undermining the power or authority of the central government
terrorism – using violence or intimidation against people
activities by foreign forces that interfere in Hong Kong
Experts say they fear the law could see people punished for criticising Beijing – as happens in mainland China. For example, Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo was jailed for 11 years for subversion after he co-authored a document calling for political reform.
China’s foreign ministry in Hong Kong described US criticism of the new draft law as “utterly imperious, unreasonable and shameless”.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Within a week of reopening, India has seen a sharp spike in cases
India is roaring – rather than inching – back to life amid a record spike in Covid-19 infections. The BBC’s Aparna Alluri finds out why.
On Saturday, India’s government announced plans to end a national lockdown that began on 25 March.
This was expected – the roads, and even the skies, have been busy for the last 10 days since restrictions started to ease for the first time in two months. Many businesses and workplaces are already open, construction has re-started, markets are crowded and parks are filling up. Soon, hotels, restaurants, malls, places of worship, schools and colleges will also reopen.
But the pandemic continues to rage. When India went into lockdown, it had reported 519 confirmed cases and 10 deaths. Now, its case tally has crossed 173,000, with 4,971 deaths. It added nearly 8,000 new cases on Saturday alone – the latest in a slew of record single-day spikes.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Fast food chains like McDonald’s have begun reopening outlets in parts of India.
So, why the rush to reopen?
The lockdown is simply unaffordable
“It’s certainly time to lift the lockdown,” says Gautam Menon, a professor and researcher on models of infectious diseases.
“Beyond a point, it’s hard to sustain a lockdown that has gone on for so long – economically, socially and psychologically.”
From day one, India’s lockdown came at a huge cost, especially since so many of its people live on a daily wage or close to it. It put food supply chains at risk, cost millions their livelihood, and throttled every kind of business – from car manufacturers to high-end fashion to the corner shop selling tobacco. As the economy sputtered and unemployment rose, India’s growth forecast tumbled to a 30-year-low.
Raghuram Rajan, an economist and former central bank governor, said at the end of April that the country needed to open up quickly, and any further lockdowns would be “devastating”.
The opinion is shared by global consultant Mckinsey, whose report from earlier this month said India’s economy must be “managed alongside persistent infection risks”.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption As restrictions ease, Indians are slowly getting used to the new normal
“The original purpose of the lockdowns was to delay the spike so we can put health services and systems in place, so we are able handle the spike [when it comes],” says Dr N Devadasan, a public health expert. “That objective, to a large extent, has been met.”
In the last two months, India has turned stadia, schools and even train coaches into quarantine centres, added and expanded Covid-19 wards in hospitals, and ramped up testing as well as production of protective gear. While grave challenges remain and shortages persist, the consensus seems to be that the government has bought as much time as possible.
“We have used the lockdown period to prepare ourselves… Now is the time to revive the economy,” Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said last week.
The silver lining
For weeks, India’s relatively low Covid-19 numbers baffled experts everywhere. Despite the dense population, disease burden and underfunded public hospitals, there was no deluge of infections or fatalities. Low testing rates explain the former, but not the latter.
In fact, India made global headlines not for its caseload but for its botched handling of the lockdown – millions of informal workers, largely migrants, were left jobless overnight. Scared and unsure, many tried to return home, often desperate enough to walk, cycle or hitchhike across hundreds of kilometres.
Perhaps the choice – between a virus that didn’t appear to be wreaking havoc yet, and a lockdown that certainly was – seemed obvious to the government.
But that is changing quickly as cases shoot up. “I suspect we will keep finding more and more cases, but they will mostly be asymptomatic or will have mild symptoms,” Dr Devadasan says.
The hope – which is also encouraging the government to reopen – is that most of India’s undetected infections are not severe enough to require hospitalisation. And so far, except in Mumbai city, there has been no dearth of hospital beds.
The government, for instance, has been touting India’s mortality rate as a silver lining – at nearly 3%, it’s among the lowest in the world.
But some are unconvinced by that. Dr Jacob John, a prominent virologist, says India has never had, and still doesn’t have, a robust system for recording deaths – in his view, the government is certainly missing Covid-19 deaths because they have no way of knowing of every fatality.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Indians are venturing out again but it’s unclear how many of them are asymptomatic.
And, he says, “what we must aim for is flattening the mortality curve, not necessarily the epidemic curve”.
Dr John, like several other experts, also predicts a peak in July or August, and believes the country is reopening so quickly because the “government realised the futility of such leaky lockdowns”.
A shift in strategy
So is the government gearing up for another lockdown when the peak comes?
While Dr Menon believes the lockdown was well-timed, he says it was too focused on cases coming from abroad.
“There was a hope that by controlling that, we could prevent epidemic spread, but how effective was our screening [at airports]?”
Now, he adds, is the time for “localised lockdowns”.
Media caption Coronavirus: Death and despair for migrants on Indian roads
The federal government has left it to states to decide where, how and to what extent to lift the lockdown as the virus’ progression varies wildly across India.
Maharashtra alone accounts for more than a third of India’s active cases. Add Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Delhi, and that makes up 67% of the national total.
But other states – such as Bihar – are already seeing a sharp uptick as migrant workers return home.
“Initially, most of your cases were in the cities,” Dr Devadasan says. “But we kept the migrant workers in cities and didn’t allow them to go home. Now, we are sending them back. We have facilitated transporting the virus from urban areas to rural areas.”
While the government has said how many infections have been avoided – up to 300,000 – and lives saved – up to 71,000 – by the lockdown, there is no indication of what lies ahead.
There is only advice: The day the government began to ease restrictions, Mr Kejriwal tweeted, urging people to “follow discipline and control the coronavirus disease” as it was their “responsibility”.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Social distancing will prove to be India’s biggest post-lockdown challenge
Because the alternative – of curfews and constant policing – is unsustainable.
“My worry is more the circumstances of people – it’s not as though they have an option to practise social distancing,” Dr Menon says.
And they don’t – not in joint family homes or one-room hovels packed together in slums, not in crowded markets or busy streets where jostling is second nature, or in temples, mosques, weddings or religious processions where more is always merrier.
The overwhelming message is that the virus is here to stay, and we have to learn to live with it – and the only way to do that, it appears, is to let people live with it.
BEIJING (Reuters) – China announced on Sunday two new confirmed cases of coronavirus and four new asymptomatic cases, including one person without symptoms of COVID-19 on a chartered flight from Germany.
The two confirmed cases in Shandong province on Saturday compared with four cases the day before, data from the country’s health authority showed.
The National Health Commission (NHC) confirmed three new asymptomatic cases on Saturday.
On Sunday, the Chinese city of Tianjin confirmed one asymptomatic person, a passenger arriving from Frankfurt on a chartered Lufthansa flight, LH342, to Tianjin. This case was discovered between midnight and 6 a.m. local time on Sunday, the city’s daily statements show.
These charter flights are part of an accelerated entry procedure offered by Beijing as China and Germany seek to reignite their economies after months of lockdown. The flight to Tianjin carried about 200 passengers, mostly German business executives.
Lufthansa has another charter flight scheduled for Shanghai on Wednesday.
A 34-year-old German engineer tested positive for the coronavirus after arriving in Tianjin but he does not have any symptoms, the Tianjin government said on its official social media platform Weibo.
The asymptomatic patient has been transferred to a local hospital to be placed under medical observation, the Tianjin government said, adding that the whole process was a “closed loop”, meaning posing no great risk to the Chinese public.
The closing meeting of the third session of the 13th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) is held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, May 27, 2020. (Xinhua/Pang Xinglei)
Embassy in France removes ‘false image’ on Twitter in latest online controversy amid accusations of spreading disinformation
After months of aggressive anti-US posts by Chinese diplomats Beijing is cracking down on ‘smear campaigns’ at home
Beijing’s ‘Wolf Warrior’ diplomacy has coincided with a rise of nationalist content on Chinese social media. Photo: Reuters
Beijing is battling allegations that it is running a disinformation campaign on social media, as robust posts by its diplomats in Western countries promoting nationalist sentiment have escalated into a spat between China and other countries, especially the United States.
In the latest in a series of online controversies, the Chinese embassy in France claimed its official Twitter account had been hacked after it featured a cartoon depicting the US as Death, knocking on a door marked Hong Kong after leaving a trail of blood outside doors marked Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Venezuela. The inclusion in the image of a Star of David on the scythe also prompted accusations of anti-Semitism.
Top China diplomats call for ‘Wolf Warrior’ army in foreign relations
25 May 2020
“Someone posted a false image on our official Twitter account by posting a cartoon entitled ‘Who is Next?’. The embassy would like to condemn it and always abides by the principles of truthfulness, objectivity and rationality of information,” it said on Monday.
The rise of China’s aggressive “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy has been regarded by analysts as primarily aimed at building support for the government at home but the latest incident is seen as an attempt by Beijing to take back control of the nationalist narrative it has unleashed.
Florian Schneider, director of the Leiden Asia Centre in the Netherlands, said the removal of the embassy’s tweet reflected a constant concern in Beijing about the range of people – including ordinary citizens – who were involved in spreading nationalistic material online.
“The state insists that its nationalism is ‘rational’, meaning it is meant to inspire domestic unity through patriotism but without impacting national interests or endangering social stability,” he said.
“This makes nationalism a mixed blessing for the authorities … if nationalist stories demonise the US or Japan or some other potential enemy, then any Chinese leader dealing diplomatically with those perceived enemies ends up looking weak.
“Trying to guide nationalist sentiment in ways that further the leadership’s interests is a difficult balancing act and I suspect this is partly the reason why the authorities are currently trying to clamp down on unauthorised, nationalist conspiracy theories.”
Too soon: Chinese advisers tell ‘Wolf Warrior’ diplomats to tone it down
The report came after months of social media posts – including by Chinese diplomats – defending China against accusations it had mishandled the coronavirus pandemic and attacking the US and other perceived enemies.
In March, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian promoted a conspiracy theory on Twitter suggesting the virus had originated in the US and was brought to China by the US Army. His comments were later downplayed, with China’s ambassador to the US Cui Tiankai saying questions about the origin of the virus should be answered by scientists.
Schneider said this showed that the state-backed nationalistic propaganda online was at risk of backfiring diplomatically.
“The authorities have to constantly worry that they might lose control of the nationalist narrative they unleashed, especially considering how many people produce content on the internet, how fast ideas spread, and how strongly commercial rationales drive misinformation online,” he said.
Last month, a series of widely shared social media articles about people in different countries “yearning to be part of China” resulted in a diplomatic backlash against Beijing. Kazakhstan’s foreign ministry summoned the Chinese ambassador in April to lodge a formal protest against the article.
Following the incident, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the country’s internet regulator which manages the “firewall” and censors material online, announced a two-month long “internet cleansing” to clear privately owned accounts which engage in “smear campaigns”.
The article had at least 100,000 readers, with 753 people donating money to support the account. According to Xigua Data, a firm that monitors traffic on Chinese social media, the account garnered more than 1.7 million page views for 17 articles in April.
According to a statement from WeChat, the account was closed for fabricating facts, stoking xenophobia and misleading the public.
A journalism professor at the University of Hong Kong said this case differed from the Chinese embassy’s tweet, despite both featuring anti-US sentiment.
Masato Kajimoto, who leads research on news literacy and the misinformation ecosystem, said the closure of the WeChat account seemed to be more about Chinese authorities feeling the need to regulate producers of media content whose motivations were often financial rather than political.
“I would think the government doesn’t like some random misinformation going wild and popular, which affects the overall storylines they would like to push, disseminate and control,” he said.
One way for China to respond to the situation was to fact-check social media and to position itself as a protector facts and defender of the integrity of public information, he said.
“In the age of social media, both fake news and fact-checking are being weaponised by people who try to influence or manipulate the narrative in one way or another,” Kajimoto said.
“Not only China but also many other authoritarian states in Asia are now fact-checking social media. Governments in Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and other countries all do that.
“Such initiatives benefit them because they can decide what is true and what is not.”
Chinese groups calling for more ‘fighting spirit’ are getting the upper hand on those who favour calm and cooperation, government adviser says
From Hong Kong to Covid-19, trade to the South China Sea, Beijing and Washington are clashing on a growing number of fronts and in an increasingly aggressive way
Efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation between the US and China are failing, observers say. Photo: AFP
Moderates who favour dialogue and cooperation as a way to resolve China’s disputes with the United States are losing ground to hardline groups bent on taking the fight to Washington, according to political insiders and observers.
“There are two camps in China,” said a former state official who now serves as a government adviser and asked not to be named.
“One is stressing the combat spirit, the other is trying to relieve tensions. And the former has the upper hand.”
Relations between China and the US are under intense pressure. After Beijing moved to introduce a national security law for Hong Kong, US President Donald Trump said on Friday that Washington would begin eliminating the special policy exemptions it grants the city, as it no longer considers it autonomous from mainland China.
Beijing’s decision to enact a national security law for Hong Kong was met with anger from the US and other Western countries. Photo: Sam Tsang
The two nations have also clashed over trade, Xinjiang, Taiwan and the South China Sea, with the US passing several acts denouncing Beijing and sanctioning Chinese officials.
China has also experienced turbulence in its relations with other countries, including Australia and members of the European Union, mostly related to the Covid-19 pandemic
and Beijing’s efforts to position itself as a leader in the fight against the disease with its policy of “mask diplomacy”.
After Canberra appealed for an independent investigation to be carried out to determine the origins of the coronavirus, Beijing responded by imposing tariffs on imports of Australian barley, showing it is prepared to do more than just trade insults and accusations with its adversaries.
Pang Zhongying, a professor of international relations at Ocean University of China in Qingdao, said there was a worrying trend in China’s relations with other nations.
“We need political and diplomatic means to resolve the challenges we are facing, but … diplomatic methods have become undiplomatic,” he said.
“There are some who believe that problems can be solved through tough gestures, but this will never work. Without diplomacy, problems become confrontations.”
said during his annual press conference on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress last weekend that China and the United States must work together to prevent a new Cold War.
His words were echoed by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who said during a press conference after the closure of the legislative session on Thursday that the many challenges facing the China-US relations could only be resolved through cooperation.
However, the government adviser said there was often quite a chasm between what China’s leaders said and what happened in reality.
“Even though we say we do not want a Cold War, what is happening at the working level seems to be different.” he said. “The implementation of policies is not properly coordinated and often chaotic.”
Tensions between China and the US have been in a poor state since the start of a trade war almost two years ago. After multiple rounds of negotiations, the sides in January signed a phase one deal, but the positivity that created was short-lived.
In February, Beijing expelled three reporters from The Wall Street Journal over an article it deemed racist, while Washington has ramped up its military activity in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, and threatened to revoke the visas of Chinese students studying science and technology in the US over concerns they might be engaged in espionage.
Beijing has also used its state media and army of “Wolf Warrior” diplomats to promote its narrative, though many Chinese scholars and foreign policy advisers have said the latter’s nationalistic fervour has done more harm than good and appealed to Beijing to adopt a more conciliatory tone.
However, Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of Chinese tabloid Global Times, said China had no option but to stare down the US, which regarded the world’s most populous nation as its main rival.
“Being contained by the US is too high a price for China to pay,” he said. “I think the best thing people can do is forget the old days of China-US ties”.
Jin Canrong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing, wrote in a recent newspaper article that Beijing’s actions – notably enacting a national security law for Hong Kong – showed it was uncompromising and ready to stand its ground against the US.
Wu Xinbo, dean of international studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, agreed, saying relations between the two countries were likely to worsen in the run-up to the US presidential election in November and that Beijing should be prepared for a fight.
But Adam Ni, director of China Policy Centre, a think tank in Canberra, said the issue was not that the moderate camp had been sidelined, but rather Beijing’s perception of the US had changed.
“Beijing has woken up to the idea that America’s tough policy on China will continue and it is expecting an escalation of the tensions,” he said.
“The centre of gravity in terms of Beijing’s perception of the US has shifted, in the same way the US perception of China has shifted towards a more negative image”.
Beijing was simply responding in kind to the hardline, assertive manner of the US, he said.
Image copyright PRESS INFORMATION BUREAUImage caption The area has become a hotspot in part because of a road India has built
The armies of the world’s two most populous nations are locked in a tense face-off high in the Himalayas, which has the potential to escalate as they seek to further their strategic goals.
Officials quoted by the Indian media say thousands of Chinese troops have forced their way into the Galwan valley in Ladakh, in the disputed Kashmir region.
Indian leaders and military strategists have clearly been left stunned.
The reports say that in early May, Chinese forces put up tents, dug trenches and moved heavy equipment several kilometres inside what had been regarded by India as its territory. The move came after India built a road several hundred kilometres long connecting to a high-altitude forward air base which it reactivated in 2008.
The message from China appears clear to observers in Delhi – this is not a routine incursion.
“The situation is serious. The Chinese have come into territory which they themselves accepted as part of India. It has completely changed the status quo,” says Ajai Shukla, an Indian military expert who served as a colonel in the army.
China takes a different view, saying it’s India which has changed facts on the ground.
Reports in the Indian media said soldiers from the two sides clashed on at least two occasions in Ladakh. Stand-offs are reported in at least three locations: the Galwan valley; Hot Springs; and Pangong lake to the south.
India and China share a border more than 3,440km (2,100 miles) long and have overlapping territorial claims. Their border patrols often bump into each other, resulting in occasional scuffles but both sides insist no bullet has been fired in four decades.
Their armies – two of the world’s largest – come face to face at many points. The poorly demarcated Line of Actual Control (LAC) separates the two sides. Rivers, lakes and snowcaps mean the line separating soldiers can shift and they often come close to confrontation.
The current military tension is not limited to Ladakh. Soldiers from the two sides are also eyeball-to-eyeball in Naku La, on the border between China and the north-eastern Indian state of Sikkim. Earlier this month they reportedly came to blows.
And there’s a row over a new map put out by Nepal, too, which accuses India of encroaching on its territory by building a road connecting with China.
Why are tensions rising now?
There are several reasons – but competing strategic goals lie at the root, and both sides blame each other.
“The traditionally peaceful Galwan River has now become a hotspot because it is where the LAC is closest to the new road India has built along the Shyok River to Daulet Beg Oldi (DBO) – the most remote and vulnerable area along the LAC in Ladakh,” Mr Shukla says.
India’s decision to ramp up infrastructure seems to have infuriated Beijing.
Image copyright AFPImage caption There have been protests in Nepal against Indi’s new road link
“According to the Chinese military, India is the one which has forced its way into the Galwan valley. So, India is changing the status quo along the LAC – that has angered the Chinese,” says Dr Long Xingchun, president of the Chengdu Institute of World Affairs (CIWA), a think tank.
Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia programme at the Wilson Center, another think tank, says this face-off is not routine. He adds China’s “massive deployment of soldiers is a show of strength”.
The road could boost Delhi’s capability to move men and material rapidly in case of a conflict.
Differences have been growing in the past year over other areas of policy too.
The new federally-administered Ladakh included Aksai Chin, an area India claims but China controls.
Senior leaders of India’s Hindu-nationalist BJP government have also been talking about recapturing Pakistan-administered Kashmir. A strategic road, the Karakoram highway, passes through this area that connects China with its long-term ally Pakistan. Beijing has invested about $60bn (£48bn) in Pakistan’s infrastructure – the so-called China Pakistan Economic corridor (CPEC) – as part of its Belt and Road Initiative and the highway is key to transporting goods to and from the southern Pakistani port of Gwadar. The port gives China a foothold in the Arabian Sea.
In addition, China was unhappy when India initially banned all exports of medical and protective equipment to shore up its stocks soon after the coronavirus pandemic started earlier this year.
How dangerous could this get?
“We routinely see both armies crossing the LAC – it’s fairly common and such incidents are resolved at the local military level. But this time, the build-up is the largest we have ever seen,” says former Indian diplomat P Stobdan, an expert in Ladakh and India-China affairs.
“The stand-off is happening at some strategic areas that are important for India. If Pangong lake is taken, Ladakh can’t be defended. If the Chinese military is allowed to settle in the strategic valley of Shyok, then the Nubra valley and even Siachen can be reached.”
In what seems to be an intelligence failure, India seems to have been caught off guard again. According to Indian media accounts, the country’s soldiers were outnumbered and surrounded when China swiftly diverted men and machines from a military exercise to the border region.
This triggered alarm in Delhi – and India has limited room for manoeuvre. It can either seek to persuade Beijing to withdraw its troops through dialogue or try to remove them by force. Neither is an easy option.
“China is the world’s second-largest military power. Technologically it’s superior to India. Infrastructure on the other side is very advanced. Financially, China can divert its resources to achieve its military goals, whereas the Indian economy has been struggling in recent years, and the coronavirus crisis has worsened the situation,” says Ajai Shukla.
What next?
History holds difficult lessons for India. It suffered a humiliating defeat during the 1962 border conflict with China. India says China occupies 38,000km of its territory. Several rounds of talks in the last three decades have failed to resolve the boundary issues.
China already controls the Aksai Chin area further east of Ladakh and this region, claimed by India, is strategically important for Beijing as it connect its Xinjiang province with western Tibet.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption India and China have a long history of border disputes
In 2017 India and China were engaged in a similar stand-off lasting more than two months in Doklam plateau, a tri-junction between India, China and Bhutan.
This time, too, talks are seen as the only way forward – both countries have so much to lose in a military conflict.
“China has no intention to escalate tensions and I think India also doesn’t want a conflict. But the situation depends on both sides. The Indian government should not be guided by the nationalistic media comments,” says Dr Long Xingchun of the CIWA in Chengdu. “Both countries have the ability to solve the dispute through high-level talks.”
Chinese media have given hardly any coverage to the border issue, which is being interpreted as a possible signal that a route to talks will be sought.
Pratyush Rao, associate director for South Asia at Control Risks consultancy, says both sides have “a clear interest in prioritising their economic recovery” and avoiding military escalation.
“It is important to recognise that both sides have a creditable record of maintaining relative peace and stability along their disputed border.”
CHINDIA ALERT: You'll be living in their world, very soon 