Es kommt nicht oft vor, dass ein Politiker den Mut hat, sich öffentlich an die Brust zu schlagen für Fehler, die er im Amt gemacht hat. Doch genau das tat der tschechische Präsident Miloš Zeman an diesem Dienstag, 18. Mai, in Prag, als er seinen serbischen Amtskollegen Aleksandar Vučić empfing.
Aufstand albanischer Rebellen im Kosovo
1999 sah sich das damalige Jugoslawien – bestehend aus Serbien und Montenegro – mit einem Aufstand albanischer Rebellen in seiner historischen Südprovinz Kosovo konfrontiert – wo die Albaner im späten 19. Jahrhundert zur Mehrheit wurden –, während sich die westlichen Länder meist auf die Seite der Albaner stellten, deren einseitige Unabhängigkeitserklärung sie unterstützten. Um den serbischen Widerstand gegen die Anordnungen der Vereinigten Staaten und der Europäischen Union zu brechen, fasste die NATO den Beschluss, jugoslawische Städte zu bombardieren, ein Beschluss, an dem die Tschechische Republik, die dem atlantischen Bündnis im März 1999 gerade beigetreten war, de facto gezwungen wurde, sich zu beteiligen, während Miloš Zeman Ministerpräsident war. Etwa 500 serbische Zivilisten wurden bei den Bombardements getötet.
„Ich möchte mich für die Luftangriffe entschuldigen“
„Ich möchte diese Gelegenheit nutzen, um mich für die Bombardierung des ehemaligen Jugoslawiens zu entschuldigen […]
Ich möchte mich für die Luftangriffe auf das ehemalige Jugoslawien entschuldigen. Ich bitte das serbische Volk um Vergebung. Das hat mich von Anfang an nicht in Ruhe gelassen. Die Entscheidung über die Luftkampagne wurde nur wenige Wochen nach unserem NATO-Beitritt getroffen. Wir waren das letzte Land, das grünes Licht gegeben hat“,
sagte Miloš Zeman gegenüber Aleksandar Vučić am Dienstag in Prag, und erklärte, er habe damals „verzweifelt“, aber vergeblich versucht, sich dem NATO-Beschluss zu widersetzen. Er und seine Regierung hätten sich letztlich den Anweisungen des Westens gebeugt, was Zeman als „Mangel an Mut“ bezeichnete. „Mit dieser Bitte um Vergebung löse ich ein langjähriges Trauma auf, denn Reue ist befreiend. Ich habe es gesagt und meine Seele gerettet“.
Tschechen Brudervolk der Serben
Der serbische Präsident Vučić würdigte die Geste von Miloš Zeman und antwortete:
„Von diesem Tag an wird das serbische Volk die Tschechen nicht nur als eine befreundete Nation, sondern auch als ein Brudervolk betrachten. Das serbische Volk wird Zemans Worte nicht vergessen, wir werden ihm ewig dankbar sein, denn das, was er über die Bombardements gesagt hat, ist von keinem anderen Verantwortlichen [für die Angriffe auf Jugoslawien 1999] gesagt worden“.
Im Provinzmuseum von Hunan befindet sich ein seltener und kostbarer nationaler Schatz: das Susha Danyi, ein Kleid aus alter Seide. Laut diesem Museum ist das Susha Danyi so dünn wie die Flügel einer Zikade, leicht wie Rauch, wundervoll gewebt, es ist der älteste, am besten erhaltene, raffinierteste und leichteste Kleiderschatz der Welt.
Von 1972 bis 1974 entdeckten Archäologen drei Gräber der westlichen Han-Dynastie in Mawangdui, am östlichen Stadtrand von Changsha, der Hauptstadt der Provinz Hunan. Die Ausgrabung tausender erlesener kostbarer Artefakte und gut erhaltener weiblicher Leichen aus der Han-Dynastie wurde zu einem der wichtigsten archäologischen Funde des 20. Jahrhunderts in China und auf der ganzen Welt.
素纱单衣 Susha Danyi
Das Susha Danyi wurde im Grab Nr. 1 von Mawangdui entdeckt, das die Grabstätte von Xin Zhui ist. Historischen Aufzeichnungen zufolge war Xin Zhui die Frau von Li Cang, dem feudalen Premierminister von Changsha während der westlichen Han-Dynastie. Sie war etwa 50 Jahre alt, als sie vor über 2.200 Jahren starb.
Laut Duan Xiaoming, Direktor des Provinzmuseums von Hunan, ist die Form des Susha Danyi relativ schlicht: es sind zwei Kleider, das eine hat eine gerade Seite und das andere eine geschwungene Seite. Beide haben das Merkmal „youren“ (die Stofflasche) auf der rechten Seite. „Das Kleid mit der geraden Seite wiegt 49 Gramm und die Länge beträgt 128 cm. Das mit der geschwungenen Seite wiegt 48 Gramm und seine Länge beträgt 160 cm“, erklärt Duan Xiaoming.
Das Susha Danyi gilt als der Höhepunkt der Textiltechnologie der westlichen Han-Dynastie. Es ist gleichzeitig das älteste, dünnste und leichteste Kleidungsstück, das bis heute erhalten geblieben ist. 2002 wurde das Susha Danyi als eines der ersten nationalen Kulturrelikte von der Ausstellung im Ausland ausgeschlossen.
Dünn und leicht wie Rauch, ist das Susha Danyi wirklich das Wunder der alten Seidenindustrie. Aber 2019 wurde in China eine Kopie angefertigt… In zweijähriger Arbeit haben das Hunan-Museum und das Nanjing Brocade Research Institute gemeinsam eine Kopie des „Susha Danyi (素纱单衣 einfaches ungefüttertes Mullkleid)“ angefertigt. Es wiegt nur 49 Gramm, genauso viel wie das Original. Dies ist die erste offiziell autorisierte Kopie dieses Schatzes nach dessen Ausgrabung vor über 40 Jahren.
A campaign against supposed forced labor in Xinjiang has forced Uyghur workers out of their jobs while extracting a handsome payout from a US apparel company to Uyghur exile groups lobbying against China.
By MAX BLUMENTHAL, The editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.
Aself-described “worker rights organization” in Washington, DC called the Worker Rights Consortium has helped direct a “Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region” that has successfully pressured US apparel companies to leave the Xinjiang region of China. Claiming to represent “over 100 civil society organisations and labour unions from around the world,” the coalition appears bound together by a shared hostility to China’s communist-led government.
Besides the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), coalition steering committee members include the AFL-CIO labor federation, Uyghur exile organizations based in Washington DC, and Hong Kong-based separatist activists. Behind the scenes, the coalition has received assistance from the widely cited Xinjiang researcher Adrian Zenz, of the right-wing Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
The coalition’s initiative scored its first success when it forced a college sportswear company called Badger Sportswear to abandon its factory in Xinjiang. University campuses across the US began to boycott Badger products in December 2018 as the allegations of “forced labor” first reached national media.
Within weeks, Badger formally cut ties with the Hetian Taida factory in Xinjiang, which was accused by the WRC-led coalition of employing Uyghur detainees. While the Chinese government slammed Badger’s decision as “pathetic” and “based on wrong information,” its opponents in Washington took a victory lap.
Instead of remediating the Uyghur workers that suddenly found themselves jobless, however, WRC compelled Badger to pay $300,000 to Uyghur exile organizations lobbying for a more hostile US policy towards China.
According to WRC documents, those organizations were selected by Human Rights Watch, a billionaire-backed advocacy group that is openly committed to undermining China’s government. In internal memos, WRC leadership acknowledged that the payout did not represent proper remediation “from a worker rights perspective.”
Since the US government initiated its policy of “great power competition” against China in 2018, it has focused intensely on the resource-rich, strategically located Western autonomous region of Xinjiang, the site of China’s alleged mistreatment of its Uyghur Muslim population.
The charge of forced labor has caused the most material damage, with numerous US clothing companies pledging to boycott factories in the Xinjiang and reject cotton sourced from the area.
Each allegation Washington has leveled against Beijing has relied almost entirely on an echo chamber of sources funded and coordinated by the US government. This same US-backed network not only supplied the WRC with the basis for its campaign against Badger Sport; it formed the backbone of the supposedly grassroots coalition against “forced labor.”
In the words of one of the NED’s founders, the organization was created by the US government to “do today [what] was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” That has meant quietly funding civil society and media outlets to destabilize states where the US seeks regime change.
WRC director Scott Nova would not respond to questions about whether or not its Xinjiang “forced labor” campaign was underwritten by a NED-backed organization.
Whoever sponsored the WRC’s advocacy, its outcome raises questions about the moral concerns that US human rights NGOs have expressed for Uyghur workers inside China. Rather than directly assisting the supposed victims of Chinese government abuses, self-proclaimed human rights groups appear to be eliminating their jobs in droves on the basis of dubious allegations – and at least in one case, shaking down their former employers for a lucrative payout.
Constructing a crisis and cashing in
The Worker Rights Consortium’s campaign to pressure businesses to disinvest from Xinjiang began in December 2018, just as the US State Department started formally accusing China of subjecting Uyghur Muslims in the region to forced labor and mass internment. Its initiative appeared to have been coordinated with an interlocking network of advocacy groups, corporate media outlets, and US government interests dedicated to containing China.
A December 17 AP article alleging that the Hetian Taida Apparel factory in Xinjiang was the site of forced labor provided the impetus for the WRC campaign. The AP homed in on Badger Sport, a North Carolina-based clothing manufacturer that produced sportswear out of the factory. One day later, in what appeared to be a coordinated action, WRC Executive Director Scott Nova fired off a lengthy press release calling for Badger Sport to leave Xinjiang.
As with most US mainstream media reports alleging Chinese government abuses in Xinjiang, the AP relied entirely on partisan sources outside the country. To paint Hetian Taida as a de facto slave camp, the AP turned to testimony by Uyghur exiles in Kazakhstan and Google Earth analysis of the factory by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by the US State Department, the Australian Ministry of Defense, and several arms manufacturers.
Articles alleging forced labor in Xinjiang by the New York Times and the Financial Times appeared the same week as the AP’s report, and also relied largely on analysis by ASPI, as well testimony gathered in Kazakhstan by an exile organization called Atajurt.
Among the Uyghurs interviewed by the AP about allegations of forced labor in Xinjiang was Rushan Abbas, whom it identified simply as “a Uighur in Washington, D.C.” In fact, Abbas was the director of the Campaign For Uyghurs, a major separatist organization funded by the US government which lobbies aggressively for sanctions on China.
A former translator at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Abbas has boasted in her bio of “extensive experience working with US government agencies, including Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of State, and various US intelligence agencies.”
In June 2019, the WRC issued a 37-page paper accusing Badger of profiting from supposedly forced labor in the Hetian Taida factory in Xinjiang. The document was comprised largely of claims by a tightly coordinated network of US-backed Uyghur activists, US state media outlets, US-funded think tank pundits, and Human Rights Watch – the same virulently anti-China elements that shape Western media’s coverage of Xinjiang.
WRC’s key sources included the following:
Adrian Zenz, the far-right Christian fundamentalist fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation who has declared that he was “led by God” to antagonize China’s government. Despite Zenz’s extensive and well-documented record of statistical manipulation and retractions, and lack of scholarly credentials on China, the WRC described him as “a leading scholar on the government’s repression of ethnic Muslim minorities.” As we will see later, Zenz joined WRC’s campaign in a formal capacity.
“Credible reports by Radio Free Asia,” the US government-sponsored news service that the New York Times once deemed, “A Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the CIA.” While the WRC’s report described Radio Free Asia as “credible,” it branded China Central Television (CCTV) as “government propaganda.”
The US government, whose accusations against China the WRC cited repeatedly and without a shred of skepticism. This same government may have funded the WRC’s campaign on Xinjiang, and finances many of its key coalition partners through the National Endowment for Democracy.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), the US State Department- and arms industry-funded think tank notorious for satellite analysis that has labeled government buildings,primary schools, and senior high schools in Xinjiang as “concentration camps.” Among the ASPI researchers cited by WRC was Vicky Xu, an anti-China activist and attempted comedian who has reportedly declared, “I’m in a real war with China.” An investigation by Michael West Media found that a substantial sum of ASPI’s donations came from corporations that rely on prison labor.
The Uyghur American Association (UAA), a US-government funded exile lobbying organization based in Washington DC. As The Grayzone has reported, UAA leadership organized a car caravan in April 2021 that interrupted and heckled a demonstration against anti-Asian racism, maintain close relations with anti-Muslim legislators like Rep. Ted Yoho, and host a right-wing militia-style gun club.
Human Rights Watch, the billionaire-funded international lobbying outfit that ultimately identified Uyghur exile groups that receive payouts from Badger Sportswear.
The WRC’s accusation of forced labor hinged on the connection between the Hetian Taida factory and the adjacent Hotan Vocational Education and Training Center, claiming that workers in the former facility were “detainees” in the latter.
The Chinese government has insisted that vocational training centers like the one at Hotan are an integral part of the nationwide campaign to eradicate extreme poverty. When the Chinese state-backed Global Times visited Hetian Taida’s satellite handcrafts facility in Hotan, workers told the paper they were there voluntarily.
Hetian Taida’s own data showed that some 30% of its workers at the facility had been previously registered as extremely poor, and were now earning wages that allowed them a measure of independence.
In lieu of any damning video testimony from workers employed at Taida, the WRC spun positive comments by a female worker to state-backed China Central Television as proof of “a brutal regime of extra-judicial detention.” The worker had declared, “The Communist Party and the government discovered me and saved me.”
Similarly, the WRC attempted to reinforce its accusation of forced labor with a photo of Badger executive Ginny Gasswint inside the Hetian Taida complex in January 2018, surrounded by female workers.
“I am surprised the Hotan people are friendly, beautiful, enthusiastic and hardworking. I believe our cooperation will become larger,” Gasswint proclaimed, according to the WRC paper. Oddly, the WRC framed Gasswint’s positive impressions of the workforce she met at the factory, and the apparently cheerful photo they took together, as clear evidence of abuse.
A photo from WRC’s report on Hetian Taida, showing Badger executive Ginny Gasswint (center) inside the factory
The WRC bluntly dismissed Badger’s own assessment of the situation at Hetian Taida, which rejected the allegations of “forced labor.” (A Badger spokesperson responded to an interview request by The Grayzone with a boilerplate statement affirming the company’s “respect for international labor and human rights standards.”)
It also discounted the certification that Taida received following an on-site inspection by Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production, an international auditing body established by American Apparel to “certify socially responsible factories in the sewn-products sector.”
When Wu Hongbo, the owner of Hetian Taida, complained to Badger Sport that he had been misquoted by AP and did not “have a factory inside the HVETC that used ‘trainees’ provided by the camp,” the WRC batted away his claim on the grounds that AP’s reporters “have won a series of awards for their work on Hetian Taida.”
Finally, the WRC admitted that it “did not attempt to interview workers as part of its inquiry.” It justified its failure to independently confirm any of the allegations by outside, US government-funded sources by claiming “the climate of fear and repression in Xinjiang made it very unlikely that workers could testify freely…”
In the end, the coordinated media and lobbying campaign forced Badger to end its contract with Hetian Taida, leaving its workforce unemployed. Instead of offering the workers any help, the WRC demanded that Badger “contribute $300,000 to an organization or organizations, providing assistance to or combatting the abuses against the Uyghur population of Xinjiang province, identified by independent human rights experts.”
The WRC conceded in a summary of its report that its campaign had not benefited Uyghur workers in any meaningful way, and may have even harmed them.
“It is important to understand that full remediation, from a worker rights perspective, is not achievable in this case. As explained in our report, any attempt to aid and support the affected workers runs the risk of subjecting them to retaliation by the Chinese authorities,” the NGO claimed without evidence. “The best available substitute is for Badger to contribute to organizations working broadly to aid victims of the repression in Xinjiang.”
Those organizations appeared to have been some of the same advocacy groups that provided WRC with the sourcing for its “forced labor” report, and which are dedicated to advancing US government’s hostility towards China.
Under Human Rights Watch’s watch, Uyghur exiles profit from “forced labor” shakedown
Asked by The Grayzone which “independent human rights organizations” received the payout by Badger, WRC director of strategic research Penelope Kyritsis claimed, “When forced labor is uncovered, the typical remedy is to pay workers back wages. But the prevailing circumstances made it such that contacting workers in a place that’s as surveilled as that region would just put them in a lot more risk. So the Badger money went to Uyghur groups in the diaspora.”
When pressed to identify those groups, Kyritsis fumbled for an answer. “Um, there was one group in Kazakhstan,” she said, but claimed she could not recall its name.
In an emailed response to questions from The Grayzone, WRC director Scott Nova refused to name the Uyghur exile groups that received the lucrative payout from Badger. “We are not disclosing the names of these organizations because doing so could jeopardize the security of the refugees they assist,” he claimed.
Minutes from an October 25, 2019 WRC board meeting published on the WRC’s website show Kyritsis and WRC executive director Scott Nova giving Human Rights Watch the responsibility for identifying Uyghur exile groups to receive the Badger money.
The selection of Human Rights Watch (HRW) as an arbiter highlighted the ulterior, belligerent agenda of the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region. Far from an independent organization, HRW has historically functioned as force multiplier for US imperial goals, advancing regime change against politically independent and socialist states behind the guise of moral concern.
Human Rights Watch was founded in 1978 as Helsinki Watch, a US outfit dedicated to undermining the governments of socialist Eastern Bloc countries with an unrelenting stream of abuse allegations. With offices across the West, including in New York City’s Empire State Building, HRW has grown thanks to a $100 million cash injection from George Soros, an anti-communist hedge fund billionaire who has deemed China a “mortal danger” to humanity.
For the past 27 years, HRW has been led by Kenneth Roth, an obsessive antagonist of China’s government and cheerleader for regime change operations against virtually any state that defies Washington. As Ben Norton reported for The Grayzone, Roth has posted a meme comparing Beijing to Nazi Germany and spread a fake video that he claimed depicted Chinese “killer robots,” but which turned out to show a special effects training. Roth has also repeatedly speculated that Covid-19 was brewed in a Chinese laboratory.
Under Roth’s watch, HRW justified the NATO military intervention in Libya, after neglecting to oppose the US invasion of Iraq. It has also refused to call for an end to the US-Saudi assault on Yemen that has produced the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
HRW has campaigned ceaselessly for toppling leftist governments across Latin America, celebrating US sanctions on Nicaragua, advancing Washington’s economic strangulation of Venezuela, and endorsing the far-right military coup in 2019 that removed Bolivia’s democratically elected Indigenous president, Evo Morales.
While Bolivia’s military massacred unarmed Indigenous protesters, Roth celebrated the right-wing takeover as an “uprising” in a tweet featuring an image of Morales shooting himself in the face with a tank cannon.
After HRW documented the abusive labor practices of a Saudi billionaire, the tycoon arranged a $470,000 grant to the group, essentially buying its silence. The hush money was kept secret until an insider leaked it to the media, forcing Roth to take credit for arranging the payment.
Though HRW appears to have selected Uyghur exile groups to receive the $300,000 extracted from Badger Sportswear, an HRW spokesperson told The Grayzone that their organization received none of the money.
Teaming up with far-right researcher “led by god” against China, hiring Uyghur exile activist
The Worker Rights Consortium brands itself as a progressive organization that defends Global South laborers against corporate exploiters. Its director, Scott Nova, has appeared at Netroots Nation, the annual gathering of left-liberal online influencers, and worked with anti-sweatshop activists on campuses across the country.
When the WRC launched the Xinjiang “forced labor” campaign, however, its director forged an alliance with a right-wing extremist who has stated that he was “led by God” against China’s government.
On March 9, 2020, Nova co-authored a letter with Adrian Zenz that addressed international labor monitoring bodies, demanding they cancel all future audits inside Xinjiang. The two insisted to potential auditors that “worker interviews, which are essential to the methodology of any credible auditor or certification body, cannot generate reliable information about labor conditions.”
As seen at Hetian Taida, where Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production certified the factory following an in-person visit, any testimony by independent observers to Xinjiang threatened to disrupt the campaign of demonization waged from Washington by the WRC.
By pushing outside auditors to pledge to avoid factories in the region, WRC seemed determined to eliminate any threats to the official US narrative about Chinese “forced labor,” while ensuring that the hyper-partisan, US government-funded organizations it relied on for its own report enjoyed a monopoly over the debate.
The WRC’s jointly authored letter referred to Zenz as an “Independent Researcher and Expert o[n] China’s Minority Policies,” omitting mention of his fellowship at the right-wing Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and overlooking serious issues relating to his credibility.
From Scott Nova and Adrian Zenz’s March 9, 2020 letter to potential auditors of Xinjiang factories
As The Grayzone has documented in extensive detail, Zenz is a Christian extremist whose first published book, “Worthy to Escape: Why all believers will not be raptured before the Tribulation,” urged Christian believers to punish unruly children with “scriptural spanking,” denounced homosexuality as “one of the four empires of the beast,” and argued that Jews who refuse to convert to evangelical Christianity during the End Times would either be “wipe[d] out” or “refined” in a “fiery furnace.”
Like his employer, Zenz has exhibited a penchant for manipulating statistics to further his ideological agenda. He based his widely cited estimate of 1 million Uyghur Muslims in “internment camps” on a single, highly dubious study published by a Uyghur separatist outlet in Turkey.
After The Grayzone exposed glaring falsehoods and outlandish claims in Zenz’s paper alleging “forced sterilization” of Uyghurs, the supposed expert quietly corrected his absurd claim that Uyghur women have been forced to undergo anywhere from 4 to 8 IUD surgeries per day, while tweaking the language of other blatant falsehoods to make them seem more plausible. (Zenz appears to have fabricated the date of his retraction as well.)
The WRC’s de facto partnership with right-wing anti-Chinese elements extended beyond Adrian Zenz. In August 2020, the WRC published ads seeking a coordinator for its “project to combat forced labor” in Xinjiang, promising a $70,000 salary plus benefits for a year-long term.
To fill the job, the non-profit hired Jewher Ilham, a former “Uyghur human rights fellow” at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and therefore, an ex-colleague of Zenz.
Ilham’s bio page at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. WRC’s Scott Nova told The Grayzone she has asked the group to delete it.
Jewher Ilham is the daughter of Ilham Tohti, a former academic sentenced by China to life in prison for allegedly promoting separatism and advocating violent militancy. His imprisonment has made him a cause celebre among Western human rights organizations, helping to earn his daughter a meeting with President Donald Trump in July 2019.
The WRC’s Nova insisted that Ilham is no longer associated with Victims of Communism, and therefore “that association is disingenuous.” However, he did not respond to direct questions about his open partnership with Zenz, who remains a fellow at the notoriously Sinophobic organization.
“Your bad faith is readily apparent and we see no value in answering your questions,” Nova remarked to The Grayzone.
A grassroots labor coalition, brought to you by the US government
A month before advertising the job eventually taken by Ilham, the WRC announced the formation of the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region. Most of the organizations on the coalition’s steering committee were anti-China lobbying outfits funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy, or directly by the US Department of State. Key members included:
The World Uyghur Congress (WUC): The WUC is the major umbrella organization of the Uyghur separatist movement seeking an independent, NATO-oriented ethno-state in the Xinjiang region of China. As Ajit Singh reported for The Grayzone, the NED has provided the WUC with millions of dollars in funding, including over $1,284,000 since 2016. The WUC lobbies Western politicians to isolate and “increase the pressure on China,”ratchet up economic sanctions, curb ties with China, and pull Western companies out of Xinjiang. As Singh reported, the WUC enjoys historic ties to the far-right Gray Wolves movement in Turkey and was founded by a right-wing ideologue who called for “the dismemberment of the Chinese empire.”
The Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP): The UHRP is a World Uyghur Congress subsidiary that is almost entirely sponsored by the US government, with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) serving as its principal source of funding. The NED granted the UHRP a whopping $1,244,698 between 2016 and ’19. As The Grayzone has reported, the NED was founded under the watch of the Reagan administration’s CIA to fund and train opposition media outlets and NGO groups to undermine governments that Washington opposed. Louisa Coan Greve, the former vice president of the NED, today serves as UHRP’s director of global advocacy.
Clean Clothes Campaign/Johnson Yeung: Listed by the WRC as the media contact for the Clean Clothes Campaign, Johnson Yeung is a Hong Kong separatist activist whose career has been nurtured by the National Endowment for Democracy. Yeung’s Civil Human Rights Front played a leading role in the protests and riots that consumed Hong Kong throughout 2019; it was disbanded following a Chinese government investigation into its alleged US financing. For its part, the Clean Clothes Campaign has been funded largely by the Dutch Foreign Ministry, as well as an unnamed “US-based philanthropic fund.”
International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF): Claiming to “hold global corporations accountable for labor rights violations,” the ILRF is sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Rights and Labor. The coordinator of the ILRF’s China program, Kevin Lin, has been on the international committee of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Anti-Slavery International: A celebrity-oriented NGO that claims to consist of “small and powerful changemakers delivering freedom now,” Anti-Slavery International is funded by the US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; the UK Home Office, the European Commission, and wealthy foundations.
On September 17, select members of the “Coalition to End Forced Labor” testified before Congress, providing a campaign funded and guided by the US government with the patina of grassroots activism.
Besides the WRC’s Scott Nova, Congress heard from Rushan Abbas, the former Gitmo translator and Pentagon contractor who heads the US government-funded Campaign for Uyghurs. “It horrifies me to see China continue to be allowed to become a power able to strong-arm the world,” Abbas proclaimed.
The AFL-CIO’s international director, Cathy Feingold, also addressed Congress on behalf of the coalition. With little record of labor organizing to speak of, Feingold is the ex-foreign policy director for the Ford Foundation, a billionaire-backed non-profit that assisted CIA destabilization operations in Indonesia and Chile during the Cold War. She went on to lead the Dominican Republic and Haiti offices of the Solidarity Center.
The ironically named Solidarity Center operates out of the AFL’s offices in Washington, but is funded heavily by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). In fact, the NED’s longtime director, Carl Gershman, is the former research director for the AFL-CIO. And the AFL sits on the steering committee of the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region.
Sociologist Kim Scipes has researched the history of international operations by the AFL-CIO spanning almost a century, demonstrating how the union federation has helped the US government subvert socialist revolutions around the world while assisting right-wing dictatorships.
In his book “The AFL-CIO’s Secret War Against Developing Country Workers,” Scipes documented the AFL-CIO’s role in backing opposition unions working for regime change in states including Jacobo Arbenz’s Guatemala, Salvador Allende’s Chile, Sandinista-controlled Nicaragua, and Venezuela since its socialist Bolivarian Revolution.
“I believe their understanding is that the US should run the world,” Scipes said of the AFL-CIO’s leadership.
Given the labor federation’s history, he commented, “I don’t think they’re doing [the forced labor campaign] out of any concern for Uyghurs. From everything I know, I’d say that the AFL-CIO is operating to consciously hurt China, and you can see it line up with the entire US foreign policy apparatus.”
The Solidarity Center was the outcome of the AFL-CIO’s consolidation of its foreign operations into a central node in 1997. Though it has attempted to soften the image the AFL earned for destabilizing socialist governments during the Cold War, academic Tim Gill obtained Solidarity Center documents from 2006 to 2014 that show the center flush with NED money and “coordinat[ing] concerted resistance actions” against the worker’s councils established by Venezuela’s socialist government.
A PhD thesis by George Nelson Bass exploring the Solidarity Center’s post-Cold War work concluded that it “indicates continuity with past AFL-CIO foreign policy practices whereby the Solidarity Center follows the lead of the U.S. state.”
The funding the Solidarity Center has received from the regime-change arm of the US government, together with its record of “contributions” to the Worker Rights Consortium, raises questions about its role in the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region. Asked whether the Solidarity Center financed the WRC’s work on the campaign, Penelope Kyritsis claimed, “I don’t know what the different groups in the coalition’s funding sources are.”
According to Scipes, the lack of transparency around the forced labor coalition is consistent with AFL-related campaigns over the years. “They’re not being open and honest. They’re not telling anybody out outside of a closed circle. It’s carried out behind the backs of the members,” he maintained, noting that he is a union member himself. “And yet they’re acting as though they’re acting in our name.”
Marketed as a grassroots initiative, the WRC and its partners in the “Coalition Against Forced Uyghur Labor” appear to be answering primarily to the US government. Inside Xinjiang, they have not only rejected any communication with the Uyghur workers whose jobs they have eliminated, they have refused to remediate them.
While providing a new Cold War with progressive cover, these supposed human rights advocates are rewarding themselves with the lost wages of those they claim to be defending.
Um bessere Fahrerlebnisse in China anzupassen, setzt Mercedes-Benz das Huawei HMS in der neuen S-Klasse ein, das heißt, dort wird die S-Klasse nur mit den Huawei Mobile Services ausgeliefert.
Die S-Klasse soll die neuen Modelle S400L, S450L und S500L umfassen. Die Preise beginnen mit 899.000 YUAN (chinesiche Währung, umgerechnet auf circa 112.475 EUR) für S400L Business, und springen bis zu 1.818.800 YUAN (circa 227.350 EUR) für S500L 4MATIC. Der zentrale Steuerbildschirm des Fahrzeugs verwendet einen massiven 12,8-Zoll-OLED-2K-Bildschirm mit einer Auflösung von 1888 × 1728 Pixel. Das fahrzeuginterne HMS an Bord enthält auch einen Sprachassistenten, und alle Software können per OTA-Push online aktualisiert werden.
Vor einigen Wochen hat BYD-CEO Zhao Changjiang auch bekannt gegeben, dass Huawei Hicar (HMS) auf dem BYD Han eingesetzt wird. BYD wird der zweite Autohersteller, der die Cloud-Lösung von Huawei einsetzt. Wir erwarten, dass bald weitere Marken an Bord kommen.
BYD Han-EV mit 600 Km Reichweite
In Europa setzt Mercedes-Benz bisher auf Android OS. Vielleicht öffnet es einen Einstieg für Huawei Hicar in den europäischen Fahrzeugen.
On 21 April, The famous French conservative magazine Valeurs Actuelles published an open letter entitled “for a return of the honor of our rulers”, written by 20 veterans. The positions of most of them were from brigadier general to lieutenant general level, covering navy, land force, air force, and even French Foreign Legion.
France is one of several European countries struggling with the increasing terrorism, police violence, racial discrimination, anti-Semitism, Islamic separatism, and terrorism for decades of years, which gets worse during the COVID-19 epidemic. These influential veterans believe that “The hour is serious, France is in peril.”
Subsequently, these veterans pointed out that most of the social chaos in France are firstly due to separatism in the name of anti-racialism, and secondly due to the rising integration among politics, society, and religion promoted by Islamic extremists, and the two causes have very tight connections. Without immediate, necessary and determined measures, they believe that France will no longer be the French Republic.
“Who would have predicted ten years ago that a teacher would one day be beheaded when he left college?” questioned by the veterans, and they criticized the over-tolerance and inaction from the current French government since “those who run our country find the courage to eradicate these dangers. To do this, it is often enough to apply existing laws without weakness. Remember that, like us, a large majority of our fellow citizens are overwhelmed by your dawdling and guilty silences.” And they commented that “if nothing is done, laxity will continue to spread inexorably in society, ultimately causing an explosion and the intervention of our active comrades in a perilous mission of protecting our civilizational values and safeguarding our compatriots on the national territory.”
Their warning is not nonsense, although French soldiers have a long tradition of non-interference in political affairs, and even have the nickname “La Grande Muette”. But just over 60 years ago, the French army once launched the famous “May 1958 crisis,” which directly led to the collapse of the Fourth Republic.
In 1958, French governance in Algeria began to loosen. At that time, the French army stationed in Algeria suspected that the government would abandon them, so they began to prepare for a political replacement and threatened to launch a civil war.
To avoid the outbreak of a full-scale civil war, the French government finally compromised with the soldiers and handed over the power of the government to General de Gaulle, who was trusted by the army. France has since entered the period of the Fifth Republic, under the consistent monitoring from the military force.
However, after that, de Gaulle not only failed to contain Algeria’s crisis but also accelerated the process of Algeria’s independence, making Algeria finally declared its independence in 1962, which disappointed soldiers who wished to strengthen the national influence and cultural integration, therefore they even formed an assassination team and launched at least four assassinations against the de Gaulle.
Because of the above period of history, the publication of this letter causes an uproar in French society since in reality, the French government not only doesn’t contain well the development of separatism and Islamic extremism but also always gives the late response and ineffective solution after the attacks, therefore, to the public, the soldiers may want to correct the direction of the country again like last time.
According to an investigation conducted by French media Le Parisien, besides the 20 veterans, there are other 100 senior military officers and more than a thousand other military personnels signed the open letter as well, and their names can be found on a military blog called Place d’Armes. Le Pen is the first politician to give a response to the letter, and with a positive attitude.According to an investigation conducted by French media Le Parisien, besides the 20 veterans, there are other 100 senior military officers and more than a thousand other military personnels signed the open letter as well, and their names can be found on a military blog called Place d’Armes. Le Pen is the first politician to give a response to the letter, and with a positive attitude.
The French Minister of the Armed Force, Florence Parly, condemning the actions of these veterans is an insult to all serving soldiers, inciting rebellion, or at least spreading a sense of division. And she claimed that If she finds serving soldiers on the signed list, sanctions will be imposed.
Pali also condemned Le Pen’s welcome to the open letter, emphasizing that the military does not exist for elections, but to defend the country. French Finance Secretary Agnès Pannier-Runacher said that the May 1958 crisis years ago was also promoted by extreme rightists like Le Pen and warned her not to act rashly.
At a press conference on 28 April, the French Prime Minister Castel strongly condemned this open letter as violating all republican principles and the honor and duty of military personnel. He also emphasized that this letter can only represent the views of their signatories, not the entire army.
Finally, the French Minister of the Interior Darmanin, also attended the press conference, mainly talking about anti-terrorism issues. He produced a draft anti-terrorism law, which provides a series of counter-terrorism measures, including monitoring certain prisoners who have been released from prison, or closing places of worship that are considered problematic. The new law aims to strengthen network surveillance to identify potential terrorists.
However, nearly a week after the publication of this open letter, as the president of the French Republic, Macron, who was regarded as the target of public criticism, did not give a comment at all, which also caused many people’s doubts and dissatisfaction.
With the increasing amounts of extreme Islamists in the country, the current French republic hardly maintains its core values as decades years before, and doesn’t want to accept the religious influence to the society and country, making the nation stuck in this dilemma – can’t go where it wants to go, and can’t leave where it wants to leave.
(Source: Valeurs Actuelles, New Statesman, Mark Armstrong Illustration, Le Parisien)
Beim Multilateralismus, wie wir ihn in China verstehen, geht es, durch Konsultation um einen Konsens zu erzielen und gemeinsame Angelegenheiten durch Zusammenarbeit zu steuern, um gemeinsame Vorteile und Win-Win-Ergebnisse zu erzielen. In diesem Sinne teilen China und Europa ein gemeinsames Interesse an der Wahrung des Multilateralismus.
傅莹 FU Ying
Wir sind beide der Ansicht, dass die Herausforderungen, denen sich die Menschheit gegenübersieht, durch internationale Zusammenarbeit angegangen werden sollten und dass Unterschiede durch Konsultationen in multilateralen Institutionen im Rahmen der Vereinten Nationen (UN) angegangen werden müssen. John Ruggie, ein bekannter Verfechter des Multilateralismus, sagte: “Die Definition des Begriffs (Multilateralismus) bedeutet Kooperation.” In den Beziehungen zwischen China und der EU ist die Zusammenarbeit nicht nur die Quelle fruchtbarer Erfolge, sondern auch die Grundlage für die künftige Zusammenarbeit.
In seiner Sonderansprache auf der Davos Agenda, einer virtuellen Veranstaltung mit dem Weltwirtschaftsforum, erläuterte der chinesische Präsident Xi Jinping die Haltung Chinas zur Wahrung des Multilateralismus. Er sagte, China sei weiterhin fest in seiner Position, die internationale Ordnung und das internationale System durch die Vereinten Nationen zu schützen und die Charta der Vereinten Nationen als grundlegende und allgemein anerkannte Normen für die Beziehungen zwischen Staaten einzuhalten.
China und die EU haben eine stark voneinander abhängige Struktur der Beziehungen aufgebaut. Chinas Handel mit Europa verzeichnete 2020 649,5 Milliarden USD und ist damit der größte Handelspartner der EU. Während der COVID-19-Pandemie lieferte China Railway Express (CRE) riesige Mengen an Antiviren-Lieferungen an europäische Staaten, was zu ihrem Kampf gegen die Pandemie beitrug. Wenn ich im Fernsehen die Ankunft von CRE-Zügen sehe, die verschiedene europäische Waren und Produkte transportieren, habe ich keinen Zweifel daran, dass beide Seiten trotz der geografischen Entfernung eng beieinander stehen und ein großes Potenzial für eine Zusammenarbeit teilen.
Im März dieses Jahres nahm ich am Seminar „Europäische Strategische Autonomie“ teil, das vom italienischen Institut für internationale Angelegenheiten (IAI) veranstaltet wurde. Ich hatte den Eindruck, dass Europa vor dem Hintergrund des sich wandelnden internationalen Umfelds mit den angespannten Beziehungen zwischen China und den USA durch den Druck des Großmachtwettbewerbs stressig wird. Das Konzept der „strategischen Autonomie Europas“ erlangte als Reaktion auf weltweite Veränderungen Aufmerksamkeit.
Das Seminar bot mir die Gelegenheit, den Wunsch der Europäer zu würdigen, die Beziehungen zu China weiter auszubauen und das Verständnis zu vertiefen. Ich erkannte auch, dass es Missverständnisse und Unterschiede zwischen uns gibt, was keine Überraschung ist, da wir aus verschiedenen Kulturen und Geschichten herausgewachsen sind. Es gibt uns einen größeren Grund, häufiger Gespräche zu führen, auch über verschiedene aufkommende Themen, um ein besseres gegenseitiges Verständnis aufzubauen. Ich denke, es wäre gefährlich für große Akteure auf der Welt, aufgrund von Missverständnissen über Angelegenheiten zu entscheiden, die sich gegenseitig betreffen.
Eine Lektion, die wir aus der COVID-19-Pandemie im Jahr 2020 lernen können, ist, dass kein Land allein globalen Herausforderungen begegnen kann. Aus historischer Sicht kann man den Mangel an Multilateralismus in diesem Kampf als die größte Enttäuschung ansehen. Große Länder, sogar internationale Institutionen, konnten im globalen Kampf gegen das Virus nicht genügend Kraft sammeln. Aus dieser Lektion zu lernen, sollte China und die EU nicht durch Unterschiede und Zwänge zu gemeinsamen Interessen beunruhigt werden und globale Herausforderungen gemeinsam bewältigen, indem sie den Multilateralismus unterstützen. China und die EU sollten die Kommunikation ausbauen, systematische Gespräche führen und auf ruhige Weise Ideen austauschen.
Rückblickend auf die Geschichte wurde der Multilateralismus geschmiedet, um den Krieg zu stoppen und freundschaftliche Beziehungen zu knüpfen. Es wurde für den Frieden geboren. Die frühere Form des Multilateralismus erschien lange bevor die modernen internationalen Beziehungen etabliert wurden. Die von Sparta im antiken Griechenland angeführte Peloponnesische Liga und die von Athen angeführte Delian-Liga waren zwei Beispiele, die in ihren Anfängen als multilaterale Diplomatie angesehen wurden. Ähnliche Erfahrungen können auch im alten China vor mehr als zweitausend Jahren gefunden werden, d.h. Ligen von Lords während der Frühlings- und Herbstperiode und der Warring States-Periode. Im 20. Jahrhundert zwangen die bitteren Lehren aus den beiden Weltkriegen die Menschen, einen multilateralen Mechanismus zu erforschen, der die zwischenstaatlichen Interessen koordinieren, Kriege beenden und einen dauerhaften Weltfrieden sicherstellen konnte. Die Gründung der Vereinten Nationen und das Bild der gewaltfreien Skulptur im UN-Hauptquartier haben laut und deutlich das gemeinsame Bestreben der internationalen Gemeinschaft zum Ausdruck gebracht, den Multilateralismus in der internationalen Regierungsführung aufrechtzuerhalten.
Seit den 1990er Jahren wird der Multilateralismus aufgrund des Trends der friedlichen Entwicklung in der Zeit nach dem Kalten Krieg umfassender und effektiver praktiziert. Die multilaterale Zusammenarbeit hat weltweit neue Energien gewonnen, und die multilaterale Konsultation und Zusammenarbeit ist zum Hauptkanal geworden, um im 21. Jahrhundert Mittel und Wege für eine globale Governance zu finden. Die Vereinten Nationen und ihre angeschlossenen Institutionen haben in diesem Prozess eine entscheidende Rolle gespielt. Neue Weltkriege wurden vermieden, viele regionale Konflikte gemildert und Milliarden von Menschen sind erfolgreich aus der Armut auferstanden. Die Charta der Vereinten Nationen ist zu einer wesentlichen Garantie für den Frieden und die Entwicklung der Welt geworden. Es kann argumentiert werden, dass der Multilateralismus als grundlegendes Paradigma zur Sicherung internationaler Ordnungen und Normen breite Anerkennung und Unterstützung gefunden hat.
Für viele Menschen in China ist der moderne Multilateralismus ein relativ neues Konzept, das wir uns Zeit genommen haben, um zu lernen, zu akzeptieren und dann festzuhalten. Da China in den 1980er und 1990er Jahren mit Reformen und Öffnungen schnell vorankam, wächst auch das Bewusstsein für das Konzept des Multilateralismus und der Kontakt zur Außenwelt. In Asien beispielsweise hat China, seit es Dialogpartner der Vereinigung Südostasiatischer Nationen (ASEAN) geworden ist, seine Reise zur Teilnahme an multilateraler Diplomatie und regionaler Zusammenarbeit angetreten. Meine Kollegen und ich besuchten Kanada und viele andere Länder, um das Konzept zu studieren und zu erfahren, wie Multilateralismus in verschiedenen Bereichen praktiziert wird.
In den letzten Jahren wurde China Mitglied vieler globaler multilateraler Institutionen. China trat 1986 dem Allgemeinen Zoll- und Handelsabkommen (GATT), dem Vorgänger der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO), und der Asiatischen Entwicklungsbank (ADB) bei und trat 1991 der asiatisch-pazifischen Wirtschaftskooperation (APEC) bei. China spielt nicht nur eine Rolle in der regionalen multilateralen Zusammenarbeit rund um das ASEAN Plus-Format, ergreift aber auch die Initiative, um neue multilaterale Mechanismen zu entwerfen und aufzubauen. Zum Beispiel organisierte und förderte China die Sechs-Parteien-Gespräche zu nordkoreanischen Nuklearfragen, veranstaltete Gipfeltreffen für BRICS und die Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) und initiierte die Zusammenarbeit zwischen China und mittel- und osteuropäischen Ländern (17+1). In Bezug auf die militärische Sicherheit nahm China aktiv an der Abrüstungskonferenz der Vereinten Nationen teil und unterzeichnete eine Reihe von Verträgen, darunter den Vertrag über das umfassende Verbot von Nuklearversuchen (CTBT). China schätzt multilaterale Institutionen im Rahmen der Vereinten Nationen, der WTO und der Gruppe der Zwanzig (G20) sehr und gelobt, das internationale System rund um die Vereinten Nationen zu schützen. Es ist heute ein unverzichtbarer Teilnehmer und Mitwirkender an vielen multilateralen Agenden zur globalen Entwicklung, einschließlich wirtschaftlicher Erholung, Klimawandel, öffentlicher Gesundheit und Terrorismusbekämpfung.
Mit Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts ist China in multilateralen Agenden proaktiver geworden, indem es beispielsweise die Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) und die Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) initiiert hat. Als die COVID-19-Pandemie die Welt erfasste, bemühte sich China nicht nur, das Virus zu Hause einzudämmen, sondern beteiligte sich auch an einer umfassenden bilateralen und multilateralen Zusammenarbeit. Insbesondere durch die Zusammenarbeit mit den Vereinten Nationen, der G20 und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) erleichterte China den Zugang zu Personal und Versorgungsgütern, trug zur Entlastung der von Armut betroffenen Länder bei, spendete Impfstoffe an UN-Friedenstruppen[1] und um Bekämpfung des Klimawandels, versprochen, bis 2030 einen Höchststand der Kohlenstoffemissionen zu erreichen und bis 2060 klimaneutral zu werden.[2] Innerhalb von nur vier Jahrzehnten hat das chinesische Volk nicht nur sein Verständnis des Multilateralismus erheblich verbessert, sondern auch einen qualitativen Sprung bei der Umsetzung des Konzepts in die Praxis erzielt. Man kann daher mit Recht sagen, dass China als großes Entwicklungsland und Nachzügler in internationalen Angelegenheiten bemerkenswerte Fortschritte erzielt hat.
Die Europäer schätzen den Multilateralismus, und die Gründung der EU wird in der Welt als erfolgreiches Produkt des Multilateralismus angesehen. Es ist heute das fruchtbarste und raffinierteste Beispiel für regionalen Multilateralismus in der Welt. Federica Mogherini, ehemalige Hohe Vertreterin der Europäischen Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, bemerkte: “Die Europäische Union ist genetisch so programmiert, dass sie den Multilateralismus unterstützt – Multilateralismus steckt in ihrer DNA.” Das Wort “Multilateralismus” endet mit “Ismus”, was auf der Grundlage sprachlicher Analysen oft eine Art “Glaube” bedeutet. Das Oxford Dictionary definiert “Multilateralismus” als “die Qualität, multilateral zu sein; das Prinzip oder die Praxis, Vereinbarungen oder Verträge auf multilateraler Basis zu schließen. “[3] Die Encyclopedia Britannica erklärt genauer, dass diese Prinzipien„ eine Unteilbarkeit der Interessen unter den Teilnehmern, eine Verpflichtung zur Verbreitung der Gegenseitigkeit und ein System der Streitbeilegung sind, das beabsichtigt ist eine bestimmte Verhaltensweise durchsetzen. “[4] Daher sollte Multilateralismus nicht für die Ziele oder die Maximierung des Interesses einer einzelnen Partei eingesetzt werden. Manchmal müssen die Parteien sogar Zugeständnisse machen, damit die eigenen Interessen letztendlich durch die Ausübung von Altruismus und die Wahrung von Mehrparteieninteressen erfüllt werden können. Ich denke, es ist nicht Europas Wunsch, den Multilateralismus als Instrument zu nutzen, um den Interessen einer einzigen Partei zu dienen. China auch nicht.
Multilateralismus wird heute allgemein als die richtige Richtung für den Fortschritt der Menschheit angesehen – das heißt, er bemüht sich, die Interessen und Anliegen aller Parteien durch Dialog und Konsultation auf der Grundlage der Grundsätze der Gleichheit, des gegenseitigen Nutzens und der Offenheit so weit wie möglich zu berücksichtigen. Gegen Exklusivität und Diskriminierung ermutigt der Multilateralismus globale und regionale multilaterale Rahmenbedingungen und Mechanismen, ihre Rolle bei der Förderung des Weltfriedens und der Entwicklung auf regelbasierte Weise zu spielen. Wenn große Länder dem Multilateralismus nachkommen, müssen sie sich zurückhalten, nur ihre eigenen Interessen zu suchen. Stattdessen sollten sie allgemeine Interessen und durchschnittliche Bedürfnisse berücksichtigen. Multilateralismus sollte, wenn er als Glaube betrachtet wird, nicht auf einem bestimmten politischen System beruhen, sondern auf allgemein gemeinsamen Werten wie Frieden, Entwicklung, Fairness, Gerechtigkeit, Demokratie und Freiheit, die eine glänzende Zukunft der Menschheit begründen.
Während die Spannungen zwischen China und den USA Auswirkungen auf die Welt haben und das politische Klima immer komplizierter wird, braucht Europa Raum für unabhängiges Denken. Es gibt keine Notwendigkeit oder keinen Grund für Peking oder Washington, die europäischen Länder aufzufordern, Partei zu ergreifen. Europa hat eine enge Partnerschaft sowohl mit China als auch mit den USA aufgebaut, was bedeutet, dass seine Interessen auf jeder Seite untergraben würden. Um die Integrität des globalen Systems aufrechtzuerhalten, hat Europa außerdem die Verantwortung, China und die USA zu überzeugen und ihnen zu helfen, sich mit ihren Unterschieden auseinanderzusetzen, anstatt Widersprüche zu erweitern und sogar die Welt zu spalten.
Ich stimme Charles Michel, dem Präsidenten des Europäischen Rates, eher zu, dass Multilateralismus der Schlüssel zur Bewältigung globaler Herausforderungen ist. Für China und Europa, beide wichtige Akteure auf internationaler Ebene, liegt der Schlüssel in einer offenen Zusammenarbeit. Wir sollten die zentrale Rolle der Vereinten Nationen in internationalen Angelegenheiten wahren und eine transparente, faire und vernünftige internationale Ordnung aufrechterhalten, in der sich alle Mitglieder der internationalen Gemeinschaft gleichberechtigt engagieren. China und die EU sollten in wichtigen Fragen der Zukunft aller zusammenarbeiten. Zum Wohle der globalen öffentlichen Gesundheit sollten wir beispielsweise bei der Einführung von Impfstoffen und der sicheren Erholung der Weltwirtschaft und des internationalen Austauschs zusammenarbeiten. Im September 2020 haben China und die EU das Abkommen über geografische Angaben zwischen der EU und China unterzeichnet, um eine umweltfreundliche und digitale Partnerschaft aufzubauen. All diese Bemühungen werden die tiefgreifende Entwicklung der Beziehungen zwischen China und der EU vorantreiben.
Im Jahr 2020 hat die Menschheit mehrere Krisen erlebt, die in der Geschichte selten sind. Als zwei Hauptkräfte, Märkte und Zivilisationen der Welt, wird unsere enge Zusammenarbeit ein Sieg des Multilateralismus sein und einen Beitrag zum Fortschritt der menschlichen Gesellschaft leisten.
Frau FU Ying ist Vorsitzende des Zentrums für internationale Sicherheit und Strategie (CISS) an der Tsinghua-Universität und ehemalige stellvertretende Außenministerin Chinas.
Anti-intellectualism is the opposition and suspicion of civilized and intellectual society. In essence, anti-intellectualism is the alienation product of the civilian class resisting elitism without scientific guidance, and finally going astray.
Anti-intellectualism is in the DNA of the USA
In terms of history, the United States is a young nation in the world. But when it comes to the history of anti-intellectualism, the United States has a very long development. From the 18th and 19th centuries in the early days of its establishment, anti-intellectualism was rooted in the souls of Americans, following the Puritans who met with misfortunes on the Mayflower. With the rise of Evangelicalism, the gap between religion and intellectual knowledge in the United States has continued to widen, and the competition between evangelical sects has made the United States anti-intellectual thoughts rise.
In 1828, Andrew Jackson relied on a radical populism and anti-intellectual sentiment to finally win the U.S. election and became the first civilian president of the United States, starting a semi-literate populism. However, Jackson himself was well educated and served in the legal system for the majority of his life, in other words, he benefited from intellectualism but encouraged Americans to be unintellectual.
After World War II, the influence of anti-intellectualism continued to expand in the US. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had a strong family religious background and did not like intellectuals, entered the White House and developed American anti-intellectualism. He defined an intellectual as “a man who takes more words than are necessary to tell more than he knows.” Ronald Regan also used to say that “complex problems may not have easy answers, but they do have simple answers. You don’t need book learning to find them; you just need the right beliefs.” McCarthyism equated academic interest with communism and socialism, and brought crude ideological prejudices into literature, art, and social life, and contributed to the prevalence of anti-intellectualism.
Richard Hofstadter, an American historian, public intellectual, and the DeWitt Clinton Professor of American History at Columbia University, in his classic 1963 book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, argued that anti-intellectualism is the American tradition with deep influence in every aspect: preferring religion than science, so Protestantism is noble but researchers are nerds; focusing on practicality in business, and promoting populism in politics. It sounds a lot like the experiences of Republican political success in contemporary America.
From the 1950s to the 1970s, the Beat Generation and Hippies became representatives of anti-intellectualism. After the Cold War, American public schools generally advocated happy education, which allowed basic education to flow to the surface and gave anti-intellectualism a breeding ground for barbaric growth – students are proud to be physically strong but are ashamed to be smart. At the beginning of the 21st century, the “Texas Cowboy” Jr. Bush, who drew a clear line between self-promotion and the elite, was re-elected for eight years, causing anti-intellectualism to spread further in the United States.
Last year, President Trump used the COVID-19 epidemic to smear China and twist all related medical research. He has politicized science issues and has launched attacks on science far more frequently than previous governments. Trump’s administration through the Paycheck Protection Program provided more than US$850,000 in loans to five anti-vaccine groups including the National Vaccine Information Center that has been widely criticized as a leading source of fear-mongering. In 2020, nearly 3/5 of Americans had stated that they will not get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Anti-intellectualism safeguards the American political chaos
It is the tradition of American politicians to consolidate the regime through anti-intellectualism, maintaining the social class as “the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.” It was difficult to see the original appearance of the world before, but even in the information age, most Trump supporters still only follow the right-wing media and reject different voices altogether. The different individual perspective causes selective access to information as well.
At present, the gap between the rich and the poor in American society is widening, and the social stratification is serious; isolationism and trade protectionism is prevalent, and the risk of economic recession has risen sharply; the hollowing out of industries, the lack of rising channels for young people, housing problems, and heavy education debts are fermenting social welfare problems. People need to vent their anger and hold their fanaticism, so partiality as anti-intellectualism advocates is just the “opium” that releases their emotions and gives them confidence.
Highlighting conspiracy theories in religion and history, and refusing to accept facts and scientific ideas are very inflammatory to the ordinary people. Sometimes it is insulting even if it is not harmful to truth and reality. And the low-cost, popular, and decentralized communication attributes of online social media make it a powerful accomplice in spreading anti-intellectual ideas and weakening the traditional and thoughtful analysis related to society and politics.
The prevalence of anti-intellectualism is not aimed at science itself, but scientific progress has brought about the development of productivity and social changes, challenged the social order, and shaken the monopoly privileges of vested interests, and given increasing anxiety to the public. Therefore, the American elite groups often comfort and even please the public to consolidate the leadership by openly supporting anti-intellectualism, criticizing scientific advancement, and refusing international cooperation. But If being anti-intellectual is the truth, then why did these politicians spend so much on their education?
Die Wiederholung der Plattitüde, dass Demokratie von Transparenz und Rechenschaftspflicht abhänge, mag überflüssig erscheinen, doch wie oft wurde in jüngster Vergangenheit die demokratische Ordnung von unseren politischen Spitzen verraten? Wie oft schon haben Medien ihre Kontrollfunktion aufgegeben? Wie oft haben sie nur die Rolle der Echokammer für die Mächtigen von Regierungen und transnationalen Konzernen gespielt?
40 Rechtsgruppen fordern die Freilassung von Julian Assange / Bild: https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/over-40-rights-groups-call-on-uk-to-free-julian-assange.html
Neben all den Skandalen und dem Verrat an Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit erleben wir die mediale Verfolgung unbequemer Journalisten durch Regierungen und ihre Vollstrecker. Das vielleicht skandalöseste und unmoralischste Beispiel multinational-korrumpierter Rechtsstaatlichkeit ist der „Rechtskrieg“, welcher gegen Julian Assange, den Gründer von Wikileaks, geführt wird. Im Jahr 2010 hat Assange Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit aufgedeckt, welche die Vereinigten Staaten und ihre NATO-Verbündeten in Afghanistan und im Irak begingen und in Erklärungsnotstand brachten.
In einer Welt von Rechtsstaatlichkeit, würden solche Kriegsverbrechen sofort untersucht und in entsprechenden Ländern zur Anklage gebracht haben. Aber nein – der Zorn der Regierungen und Medien trifft stattdessen denjenigen Journalisten, der es gewagt hatte, diese Verbrechen aufzudecken. Die Verfolgung von Assange stellt den konzertierten Angriff auf den Rechtsstaat durch die Vereinigten Staaten, Großbritannien, Schweden und den Nachzügler Ecuador dar. Die Instrumentalisierung der Justiz – nicht um der Gerechtigkeit willen, sondern um einen Menschen zu vernichten – zog immer weitere Kreise einer gemeinschaftlich-kriminellen Verschwörung nach sich: mit Verleumdungen, aufgebauschten Anschuldigungen, Ermittlungen ohne Delikt, mutwilligen Verzögerungen und Vertuschungen.
Im April 2021 veröffentlichte mein Kollege, Professor Nils Melzer, der UNO-Sonderberichterstatter für Folter, eine akribisch recherchierte und methodisch unangreifbare Dokumentation über diese schier unglaubliche Saga. Sein Buch „Der Fall Julian Assange“ (Details dazu siehe unten) kann bestens als das „J’accuse“ – unserer Zeit herhalten. Das Buch soll erinnern, wie die Behörden uns verrieten und wie vier Regierungen bei der Korrumpierung des Rechtsstaates kollaborierten. So wie Emile Zola im Jahr 1898 in Frankreich das Lügengeflecht rund um das skandalöse Gerichtsurteil gegen den französischen Oberst Alfred Dreyfuss aufdeckte, schockiert uns Nils Melzer 122 Jahre später mit dem Beweis, wie Länder, die sich angeblich der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und den Menschenrechten verpflichtet fühlen, mit Mainstream-Medien als ihre Komplizen das demokratische Ethos verraten. Melzer schreibt über „konkrete Beweise einer politischen Verfolgung, groben Willkür seitens des Justizapparats mit vorsätzlicher Folter und Misshandlung.“
Es ist ein enorm wichtiges Buch, weil es von uns verlangt, unsere „Komfortzone“ zu verlassen, um von unseren Regierungen Transparenz und Rechenschaftspflicht einzufordern. In der Tat ist es skandalös, dass keine der vier am Komplott beteiligten Regierungen mit Professor Melzer kooperierte, doch diese es vorzogen „politische Plattitüden“ abzusondern. Ich selbst erfuhr denselben Mangel an Kooperation von mächtigen Staaten, nachdem ich an diese Verbalnoten zu Menschenrechtsverletzungen sandte: Keiner der Staaten hat eine zufriedenstellende Antwort erlassen.
Melzer erinnert uns an Hans-Christian Andersens Fabel „Des Kaisers neue Kleider“. So halten alle am Assange-Komplott Beteiligten konsequent an ihrer Illusion der Legalität fest, doch wiederholen nur Unwahrheiten, bis ein Beobachter fragt: „Wo sind des Kaisers Kleider?“ Das ist der Punkt. Eine Justiz ohne Kleider verabsäumt sich der Gerechtigkeit zu verschreiben und nicht an der Verfolgung eines Journalisten zu beteiligen, mit allen Konsequenzen, die ein solches Verhalten für den Fortbestand der demokratischen Ordnung bedeutet.
Melzer überzeugt durch Fakten und zeigt, dass wir in einer Zeit der „Nach-Wahrheiten“ angekommen sind und es in unsere Verantwortung fällt, diese Situation jetzt zu bereinigen, bevor wir in einer Tyrannei aufwachen.
Professor Dr.iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas ist Professor für Völkerrecht an der Genfer Schule für Diplomatie und war in hohen Funktionen für die Vereinten Nationen im Sekretariat für Menschenrechte tätig.
The first opening: a forced, humiliated, and almost lost period
In modern history, China’s first opening up was a passive one. As a result of the First Opium War, China was forced to open to the outside world. But even after the defeat of the Second Opium War, many officials of the Qing Dynasty still held the belief that China was a Celestial Empire, superior to any other countries. Such perspective wasn’t changed until 1895, when the former follower Japan defeated China, then the elite of Chinese society felt the crisis of subjugation and realized the urgency to change. Once closed, there is a danger of backwardness; long-term closure will inevitably lead to backwardness. This is the lesson history has taught the Chinese.
In the Russo-Japanese War during 1904 and 1905, the Asians defeated the Europeans for the first time in modern history. The Qing Dynasty saw that learning from foreigners can strengthen the country’s force against invadation. Therefore, they started to learn from the West in industry, military, politics, education, and even the legal system. However, the Qing government’s efforts to learn from the West ultimately failed, and Sun Yat-sen, who overthrew the Qing Dynasty and created the Kuomintang, also failed to change China by learning from the West. So Mr. Sun Yat-sen turned to learn from the Soviet Union. Therefore, for a while, both the Kuomintang and the Communist Party were learning from the Soviet Union. However, the Communist Party has a deeper understanding of the Chinese revolution than the Kuomintang. The latter relies mainly on the elite, while the former unites the forces of the entire society. By 1949, the Communist Party established the New China, and in the 1950s, China’s first opening up was coming to an end.
The second opening: a brave, thoughtful and very successful trial
The first opening in China’s modern history was far from pleasant for the Chinese, but after a hundred years of resistance, the basic security problem has finally been solved. However, China also faced a profound poverty problem. From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, Deng Xiaoping opened the second opening for China.
The question to be explained here is why there was a period between the first opening and the second opening, or why China in the Mao Zedong era chose to move forward in a closed state.
At the beginning of the founding of New China, Mao Zedong proposed “putting the house in order before inviting guests”, mainly in view of the still relatively complicated and sinister struggle situation in the world at that time, especially between the two camps of the United States and the Soviet Union. Although the Communist Party quickly chose “leaning to one side” diplomatic strategy, it did not mean that China as a whole was closed to the outside world. In fact, before the deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s, China was open to the Soviet Union and even to the entire socialist camp. The transformation of Sino-Soviet relations were caused by many reasons. One of the most important reasons was that Mao Zedong insisted on independent development while maintaining the socialist camp, while the Soviet Union’s intention was to fully incorporate China into the strategic chain of its union. Facing unbridgeable differences, the Sino-Soviet diplomatic relations led to the most difficult period in the history of New China. China’s foreign exchanges, whether towards the socialist camp or towards the West, were basically interrupted.
Later, due to the strategic needs of the Cold War, the United States sent Kissinger to visit China secretly, releasing signals that it hoped to ease Sino-US relations and thereby balance the influence of the Soviet Union. Mao Zedong keenly seized this opportunity and took an important first step in opening up to the United States in the strategic triangle of the United States, China, and the Soviet Union.
Therefore, although there have always been some voices criticizing the foreign policy of the Chinese Communist Party in the world, people cannot deny that since the first day of its establishment, the Communist Party has always considered problems in the context of the entire international background and overall situation, which is different than the peasant movements in the closed state in China.
At the beginning of reform and opening up, Deng Xiaoping said that China was and will be at a poor socialism for a while, but poverty is not the essence of socialism, and socialism is also going to be prosperous. So he proposed to let some areas get rich first and take the path of common prosperity. The second opening has transformed China from a poor country into the world’s second largest economy. Per capita GDP has increased from less than US$300 in 1981 to US$10,000 at the end of 2020. In this process China has cultivated a middle class of 400 million.
Poverty is a phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of human society, and it is still a difficult problem worldwide. In the past 40 years, China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty. China measuring the progress of its society not only depends on how many rich people it produces, but more importantly, how many people get rid of poverty.
To sum up, the success of the second opening is inextricably linked to the capture of development opportunities by Chinese decision-makers. Since the 1980s, China has hardly given up any important development opportunities. Even the United States, which is still the most powerful nation in terms of overall strength, has not achieved this in the past few decades. Both China and the United States have benefited a lot from globalization, but China uses the power of globalization to build a developmental state, while the United States uses the convenience of globalization to develop a consumer society.
The third opening: a continuous, wider and deeper development in every aspect
China’s economic construction achievements in the past four decades have been achieved in the context of the gradual opening of global capital, technology, and markets. Although this opening is far from the most advanced form, and sometimes it is still very unfair to China in certain areas. But in general, worldwide opening up is indispensable to China’s development.
Even though China has accumulated a lot of capital and technology, and is sitting on the world’s largest market, once it really leaves an open world order, China’s development will also be difficult. Plus, pressure from the outside world, especially Western countries in the field of advanced technology, has decoupled from China severely.
In order to deal with this situation, China will not only continue to promote bilateral and multilateral opening up, but also need to consider unilateral opening up. At the same time, China has to protect its legitimate rights and effective participation in the formulation of international rules. Guiding the opening up of the world by rules is the focus of China’s work in the third opening up.
At the level of participating in the formulation of rules and guiding the opening up by rules, China has some favorable conditions and also faces some difficulties. Favorable conditions include China’s domestic single market, with consumption power of the 400 million middle class, and the divergence of interests among developed economies such as the United States, the European Union, Japan and South Korea.
Of course, there are also the difficulties China faces, such as the so-called liberal order dominated by the United States after World War II. The US is never ready to accept the rise of China, a fundamentally different country from the West in terms of values. The United States originally hoped that China’s economic growth would bring about a peaceful evolution of its regime, or even the color revolution. The United States frequently uses existing international rules to exert pressure on China in all aspects, such as ByteDance’s TikTok, Tencent’s WeChat, Huawei’s cellphone and technologies, and even Xinjiang cotton.
It can be predicted that China will be more proficient in gaining more initiative under the existing dispute resolution frameworks of international organizations such as the United Nations, WTO, and international courts, and China will try to optimize the performance of these institutions in an open, equal, rational, and professional manner and framework in the future.
(Sources: CGTN, Bloomberg, Pinterest, Institute of Public Policy of South China University of Technology)
Jörg Wuttke ist einer der erfahrensten China-Manager der deutschen Wirtschaft und langjähriger Präsident der EU-Handelskammer in Shanghai.
Wuttke spricht sich dafür aus, das Investitionsabkommen CAI zu retten, indem beide Seiten es einfach anwenden. Hier spricht ein Pragmatiker, der selbst viel Arbeit in die Vorbereitung des Vertrags gesteckt hat. Die Hoffnung lautet nun, die “Spirale nach unten, Sanktionen gegen Sanktionen” doch noch zu stoppen.
Wuttke erklärt das derzeit so „robuste“ Auftreten Chinas mit einem historischen Vergleich. Nach seiner langen Schwächephase ist das Land in einer ähnlichen Position wie Deutschland unter Kaiser Wilhelm II. Auch dort wurde „der Ton bestimmter und eigenwilliger“. Jetzt müsse der Westen umgekehrt den richtigen Ton gegenüber China unter Xi Jinping finden – schließlich hängt unser Wohlstand von funktionierenden Beziehungen ab.
