Who are the Uighurs and why is China being accused of genocide?

 Fri, March 26, 2021, 2:53 AM

Uighur family pictured outside their home

China is facing mounting criticism from around the world over its treatment of the mostly Muslim Uighur population in the north-western region of Xinjiang.

Human rights groups believe China has detained more than a million Uighurs over the past few years in what the state defines as "re-education camps".

There is evidence of Uighurs being used as forced labour and of women being forcibly sterilised.

The US is among several countries to have accused China of committing genocide and crimes against humanity through its repression of the of the Uighurs.

China denies such allegations, saying it has been combatting separatism and Islamist militancy in the region.

Who are the Uighurs?

There are about 12 million Uighurs, mostly Muslim, living in north-western China in the region of Xinjiang, officially known as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

The Uighurs speak their own language, similar to Turkish, and see themselves as culturally and ethnically close to Central Asian nations.

They make up less than half of the Xinjiang population.

Recent decades saw a mass migration of Han Chinese (China's ethnic majority) to Xinjiang, and the Uighurs feel their culture and livelihoods are under threat.

Map of China shows density of Uighur population in Xinjiang region

Where is Xinjiang?

Xinjiang lies in the north-west of China and is the country's biggest region.

Like Tibet, it is autonomous, meaning - in theory - it has some powers of self-governance. But in practice, both face major restrictions by the central government.

It is a mostly desert region, producing about a fifth of the world's cotton.

Uighur women picking cotton

It is also rich in oil and natural gas and because of its proximity to Central Asia and Europe is seen by Beijing as an important trade link.

In the early 20th Century, the Uighurs briefly declared independence, but the region was brought under the complete control of China's new Communist government in 1949.

What are the allegations against China?

Several countries, including the US, Canada and the Netherlands, have accused China of committing genocide - defined by international convention as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

It follows reports that, as well as interning Uighurs in camps, China has been forcibly mass sterilising Uighur women to suppress the population and separating Uighur children from their families.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said China is committing "genocide and crimes against humanity".

UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has said the treatment of Uighurs amounts to "appalling violations of the most basic human rights".

A UN human rights committee in 2018 said it had credible reports the Chinese were holding up to a million people in "counter-extremism centres" in Xinjiang.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute found evidence in 2020 of more than 380 of these "re-education camps" in Xinjiang, an increase of 40% on previous estimates.

Earlier, leaked documents known as the China Cables made clear that the camps were intended to be run as high security prisons, with strict discipline and punishments.

People who have managed to escape the camps have reported physical, mental and sexual torture - women have spoken of mass rape and sexual abuse.

In December 2020 research seen by the BBC showed up to half a million people were being forced to pick cotton. There is evidence new factories have been built within the grounds of the re-education camps.

• China's 'tainted' cotton

• Uighur camp detainees allege systematic rape

• China 'using birth control' to suppress Uighurs

• UK accuses China of 'gross' human rights abuses

Click here to see the BBC interactive

What was the build-up to the crackdown?

Anti-Han and separatist sentiment rose in Xinjiang from the 1990s, flaring into violence on occasion. In 2009 some 200 people died in clashes in Xinjiang, which the Chinese blamed on Uighurs who want their own state. But in recent years a massive security crackdown has crushed dissent.

Xinjiang is now covered by a pervasive network of surveillance, including police, checkpoints, and cameras that scan everything from number plates to individual faces. According to Human Rights Watch, police are also using a mobile app to monitor peoples' behaviour, such as how much electricity they are using and how often they use their front door.

Since 2017 when President Xi Jinping issued an order saying all religions in China should be Chinese in orientation, there have been further crackdowns. Campaigners say China is trying to eradicate Uighur culture.

What does China say?

China has said reports it has detained Uighurs are completely untrue.

It says the crackdown is necessary to prevent terrorism and root out Islamist extremism and the camps are an effective tool for re-educating inmates in its fight against terrorism.

It insists that Uighur militants are waging a violent campaign for an independent state by plotting bombings, sabotage and civic unrest, but it is accused of exaggerating the threat in order to justify repression of the Uighurs.

China has dismissed claims it is trying to reduce the Uighur population through mass sterilisations as "baseless", and says allegations of forced labour are "completely fabricated".

Coverage of China's hidden camps

Turning the tables on China

Editor's comment: it is about time. Europe has been lagging in its dealing with China. When UK, US are sanctioning China over HK, Europe is still talking with China on trade deals. Stand together is the only way to deal with tyranny.

 

Last week’s crisis between China on the one hand, and the EU, US and their allies on the other, has helped crystallize a number of issues previously obscured by uncertainty.

This uncertainty stemmed from the EU’s decision to initial an investment treaty with China just before the new year. This raised two major questions. Was it, as many European critics have argued, a diplomatic error by the EU to give China a diplomatic victory just as the incoming team of US President-elect Joe Biden hinted that they would rather Europeans are waiting for her to take office to forge a common approach to Beijing?

And, secondly, did he pull the rug under any pretense of European “strategic autonomy” vis-à-vis China? The signing of the deal just days after Beijing’s dictatorial crackdown on dissidents in Hong Kong certainly suggested a certain European callousness in the pursuit of commercial interests. Beyond that, it has been legitimately argued that if the deal is implemented it would increase the cost for European economies to challenge Beijing on social and human rights grounds, such as its oppression in Hong Kong. and the forced labor of Uyghur citizens in Xinjiang.

On the other hand, the more optimistic stance (which I spoke about) highlighted how the EU was equipping itself, both in the investment agreement and unilaterally, with legal tools to lobby. on China. Much depends on the incentives of the EU’s internal and external political economy to use them.

If the last few days are anything to say, Europe and the West are healthier than the pessimists would like.

The imposition of sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for the persecution of Uyghurs has been coordinated between the EU and the United States, with the participation of the United Kingdom and Canada. (The EU, however, could usefully join US sanctions for abuses in Hong Kong as well.) And this coordinated stance doesn’t sound like lightning in the pan. The Biden administration has done everything it can to mend barriers with Europe after the Trump years, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken arriving in Brussels this week to re-establish a US-EU dialogue on relations with China.

This proves that the December investment deal did not torpedo a close transatlantic relationship with China. The unity of interest between Europe and the United States runs much deeper than that.

For now, at least. But what happens next? The hope of optimists has always been that the EU would find the political courage to keep China to high standards, whether by deciding to ratify the investment agreement, using the legal tools it provides, or more generally by taking autonomous measures to promote its values ​​against a power which it recognizes not only as an economic competitor and a potential partner on issues such as climate change, but as a “systemic rival”. With the new sanctions, the EU has just done it. The question is whether this will continue.

Ironically, Beijing’s own reactions make the answer more likely to be “yes”. By launching counter-sanctions against MEPs, academics and analysts, Chinese authorities have made it politically impossible for the EU to ratify the investment deal unless it backs down. If this is how Beijing deals with what they see as a loss of face, they simply put themselves in a situation where you have to lose face twice to get back to where they were.

Behaviors such as the childish habit of having official spokespersons mocking Western leaders, or the tirade uttered by Blinken’s Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, at last week’s meeting between the two, also make any reconciliation more difficult.

For now, EU countries have allayed suspicions that European business opportunities will always trump European values ​​in their dealings with China. Europe has a limit, although much of it depends on how far that limit is set. But it’s yet another clear sign that the bloc is ready to subordinate traditional trade policy to strategic imperatives. The pursuit or maintenance of integration with China will not come at any cost.

Much more depends on what China will do. Getting through all the great geopolitical challenges ahead is the central question of whether Beijing is ready to see some economic decoupling between itself and the West as a price to pay for resisting Western pressure.

The answer was obviously “yes” in its relations with small partners. Beijing’s intimidation of Australia, or the freezing of Norway after dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize, illustrates China’s staunch desire to cut economic ties with critics. But it doesn’t cost an economy of its size anything. It’s a different issue against the US or the EU, let alone the two together. After all, Beijing made a trade deal with Donald Trump when he was president. And its attempt to divide EU member states through the 16 + 1 initiative shows that it fears EU unity against it.

It is true that the Chinese leadership aims to develop its economy towards a more self-sufficient model. The overall trade intensity of its economy is not as strong as it was a decade ago, although it is still stronger than that of the United States. A central element of President Xi Jinping’s dual circulation strategy is to strengthen the capacity of the national economy to thrive. But the key word remains “double”. As the recent signing of the Comprehensive Regional Economic Partnership Trade Agreement shows, Beijing’s economic strategy is not isolationist. Dual circulation should not be seen as a decoupling of the domestic economy from the global economy, but rather as an attempt to tie international economic activity to China’s domestic economic engines rather than the other way around, like this has been the case so far.

Any serious decoupling would undermine this strategy. It would even be a brake on deeper integration, especially in the new and growing areas of connected technology and digital services. But these are precisely the areas where the West can prevent such deep integration with China as we have seen in conventional trade, depending on Chinese behavior. Are they ready to do it? My hunch is yes: unlike China, they have the experience of being less globalized but still rich. As Beijing is well aware, China is still not a rich country. It needs the West more than the West needs.

(转) 中美真正的差距在哪里？“平视”之后，会发生什么？

 中美“2+2”会谈被中国舆论塑造成一场同世界最强国家的“平视”外交，雪耻了120年来中国所受西方的压迫与侮辱，两位最高外交官的“硬气”表现可能会被作为中国外交的“高光”时刻而写进外交史。美国沉沦，中国崛起：这就是今后国际政治的主旋律？

外交虽然有一套基本的礼仪和规范，讲究技巧，但根本上还是取决于国家实力，这一点并不因为人类早已进入现代文明，21世纪都已过去1/5而有改变，只要世界以民族国家为基本单元，未来很长时期估计也是如此。这当然不是说外交一定是弱肉强食。虽然不少战略家认为当今人类仍是丛林世界，奉行丛林法则，但即便如此，公然违背人类基本伦理和文明常识的弱肉强食是不允许的，这点应该还有共识。

不过，既然外交本质上取决国家实力，当然谁最有势力，谁就主导地区或全球秩序，掌控规则。某种意义上，一个仁慈的霸权比没有霸权、世界的无规则无秩序更有利于人类的整体利益和多数国家的利益。而迄今为止的人类历史，虽然有很多争霸上演，但只有美国才是真正的全球霸权，相对而言，也是仁慈的霸权。美国主导下的国际秩序，让人类繁荣了半个多世纪，其中中国是最大的受益者。

随着中国等新兴国家的崛起，美国的霸权近年有所衰落，尽管这存在争议，然而可能也是事实。中国被认为最有能力挑战美国的霸权，国务卿布林肯前不久公开表示，中国是唯一有实力对美国塑造"规则、价值和关系"全球体系能力构成严重挑战的国家，将中国列为本世纪美国最大的"地缘政治考验"。也许布林肯对中国的力量有高估，但无疑没有第二个国家能够对美国进行全方位的挑战。

中美"2+2"阿拉斯加会谈就在这个背景下举行的。从双方的开场白看，虽然美国把中国定位于挑战者，然而显然也没有把中国看作"对等"的谈判对象，还带有某种教训的味道，被中国外交官认为"居高临下"冒犯了中国尊严，招致反击。中国外交官这种在美国土地上怒怼美国的行为，美国以前可能确实从未遇到过，中国官方因而有理由宣称它"平视"了美国。

问题在于"平视"之后，中国试图在事关主权、发展和安全利益上为美国划红线立规，后者是否遵守，在未来的中美竞争中，如果美国挑战中国的规矩，中国是否有实力去捍卫。

尽管官方如今宣称中国可以"平视"美国，然而，只要不过于自大，稍微谦虚一点，中国的决策层及其智囊团理应清楚两国还是存在很大差距的，总体国力不在同一等级，只不过中国把希望寄托在未来若干年，认为以目前的发展速度，至少中国在经济上在8-10年可以赶上美国，而只要中国经济总量超美，其他方面的超越都好办。

经济实力主宰一切？

经济是基础。虽然钱不是万能的，但没有钱万万不能，这话用在国家上也贴切。目前中国的GDP相当于美国的七成，这在过去的挑战者里，无论苏联还是日本都没到这个程度。就此而言，中国确实比之前的挑战者对美国的冲击大。也正如此，不少严肃的经济学家认为中国经济超美只是时间问题，而且这一时间不会太远。当然认为中国经济永远赶不上美国的学者亦有。

不过，假如中国经济在未来10年赶上美国，中美的差距是否就被抹平了，中国就能主导世界？

当然不是。尽管经济壮大，中国有更多财力用于教育、科研、军事和产业更新等，但要和美国并驾齐驱不那么容易。

美国的强大，普遍的看法是因有美元和美军。美元事实上的世界货币地位不但使得美国能够在金融上号令天下，它还有一个独特的功能，即借助美元，美国的"长臂管辖"和对世界其他国家的制裁成为可能。美军更是维护世界秩序的支柱。中国经济超美固然能够冲击美元地位，但人民币在未来10年替代美元或者只是和美元一起成为世界主要货币，基本不大可能。中国经济超美也使得国防预算赶上或超过美国，同时科技的提升也有助于中国军队武器装备的改善，然而解放军在未来10年要成为一支像美军一样的全球军队仍然难度很大。当然在东亚，解放军也许能抗衡美军。

"朋友圈"的力量

中美最大的差距其实在盟友体系和高科技及其供应链上。中国在非西方特别是威权和独裁国家能够找到很多响应者，某种程度上，已然是它们的领头羊，但现实世界毕竟是由美国和其西方盟友主导。

最近，欧盟英加就中国的新疆问题对中国发起了制裁，这是它们在八九之后首次制裁中国，显然，这是西方内部协调行动，要在人权和民主问题统一立场，对抗中国。尽管中国外交部发言人在问到此事时表面上显得满不在乎，和杨洁篪反驳布林肯一样，认为"这几个国家的声音不代表国际舆论，他们的立场不代表国际社会的立场，他们更没有权利、没有资格代表国际社会"，说"中国的朋友圈实际越来越大"。但若真的不在乎，就不必制裁欧盟，召见欧盟和英加驻华大使抗议。也可把中国的反制和外交部发言人的表态理解成正是中国对西方的"平视"，可这样的"平视"并未能吓退它们在新疆问题上后退。

未来10年，全球体系及其主导力量不太可能改变由美国及其盟友主导的事实。中国在一些问题上会得到非西方国家的呼应，然而，要它们全心全意协助中国对抗西方，除了少数几个国家，基本做不到，毕竟大多数非西方国家，即使一些威权国家，也不愿公开得罪美西方。而在拜登领导下，美国和盟友的关系将恢复到传统状态，它们已经意识到中国对西方自由民主体制的威胁，因此在涉及民主和人权的问题上同中国对抗的立场与意愿更坚定。就算中国的力量在未来继续增长，但以一对多，谁得胜谁吃亏，从常识言是不能辨别的。

美国的盟友体系也将在科技及供应链上表现出来。在中美的科技竞争中，虽然中国近10多年来投入力度很大，科技进展神速，特别在AI、5G、大数据等高技领域接近或者超过美国，然而，在总体科技实力尤其多数关键技术方面，中美差距明显。芯片制造就是其中最突出的例子。美国下达芯片禁令后，几个主要生产厂商对中国芯片一断供，就使得中国技术最先进的企业--华为的手机生产线不得不停下来，陷于困顿。像这样卡脖子的技术还有很多。

没有自由，何来创新

中国虽然已经开始了关键技术的攻关部署，十四五和2035远景目标规划瞄准人工智能、量子信息、集成电路、生命健康、脑科学、生物育种、空天科技、深地深海等前沿领域，实施一批国家重大科技项目，以及基础研究十年行动方案，布局一批基础学科研究中心，但是，在解决卡脖子的科技攻关上，中国的软肋不在硬件，而在软件，即思想和制度。尽管中国在远景目标规划中也强调鼓励自由探索，强化应用研究带动，然而，习近平对思想的垄断和政治化只会更加扼杀创新需要的宽松的科学氛围和自由探索的科学精神。

不仅如此，美国在科技上可以和盟友建立一套排斥中国的供应链体系。美国现在正着手和日韩台荷等组建半导体产业联盟。日前，25家西方的全球领军企业又呼吁G7成立科技治理机构，这说明这些企业也意识到美中对抗带来的风险从而尽可能减少和中国的科技联系，借助国家力量组成一个西方的科技体系。未来10年，中国用所谓的新举国体制去推动实施雄心勃勃的前沿科技计划，也许在应用科技方面会大幅追上美国，但原创和核心科技的突破始终会是一大难关，因为它们和思想自由息息相关。很可能，世界将形成美中两套科学和技术体系和标准。

关键科技的竞争既关乎科技和教育，也关乎经济、军事和人的生活与福祉，关乎国家的竞争力。谁在科技上胜出，谁将获得科技话语权进而获得主导国际秩序的权力。假如中国能够做到技术自主并且在关键技术上不受制美国和西方，无疑将增加中国对抗美国和西方的底气，后者对中共的胡作非为将无能为力。然而，从上面的论述看，除非奇迹发生，否则中国的科技在未来十年难以赶上美国，充其量只是和美国缩小应用差距。

从大历史的尺度看，虽然未来充满不确定性，中国也许在某个阶段能够逼近美国，但要全面超美，几乎不可能。因为美国有着中国没有的盟友体系和科技优势。这两者尤其是后者是中美真正的差距所在。中国如果觉得自己有实力有自信，从现在开始的这整个过程自然可以一直"平视"美国和西方，但代价很可能是中国的自我孤立和被孤立。

法媒：新冠病毒是石正丽改造的病毒？

 新冠疫情爆发一年之后，最初被认为是阴谋论的病毒来自实验室泄露的可能性越来越受到科学界的关注，尽管北京当局极力否认。当然，中国政府无法承担造成全球两百万人死亡这一重大的责任。法国电视二台“特派记者”调查节目用几个月的时间找到了一系列的证据证明病毒来源的可疑性，大胆地提出了到目前为止在法国媒体依然半遮半掩的问题。例如：为何不能排除病毒是人为改造的可能性？他们在中国，印度，美国等国进行实地报道，并且采访了多位国际知名的病毒学专家，甚至派遣团队前往云南蝙蝠洞附近观察，获得了珍贵的第一手资料。

S蛋白似乎为人体特设 学者无人可解

法国国家科研中心的病毒学家Etienne Decroly是最早对新冠病毒自然来源版本提出质疑的法国科学家，他不仅认为病毒可能来自实验室泄露，还通过对病毒传染人类的途径的研究认为病毒或来自实验室改造。他认为新冠病毒的S蛋白上存在一个（Furin）蛋白酶的酶切位点，这一特点是其他新冠病毒所没有的，也正是它使病毒具有高度的传染性，导致了一场全球性的大流行病。

一年多来，全世界多个国家的病毒学专家都发现S蛋白这种特异功能，但是没有任何人能够解释为何它特别容易进入人体。澳大利亚病毒学家在研究新冠疫苗时意外发现，人类感染新冠病毒的可能性远远高于别的生物种类，他们感觉该病毒似乎是专门为人类而制造。

新冠病毒是GOF的产物？

法国电视二台的报道指出，武汉病毒实验室的石正丽与美国病毒学家Ralph Baric 合作多年，从事增进病毒基因功能（GOF）方面的研究，研究内容是改变病毒的基因以增加其传染性，新冠病毒是否是石正丽研制的人工合成病毒从实验室泄露？2016年石正丽同美国病毒学家合作进行病毒改造，将萨斯病毒与冠状病毒相结合总共改造了八个可以感染人类的冠状病毒。

提出上述质疑的并不仅仅是Etienne Decroly一人，澳大利亚著名病毒学家，林德斯大学（Flinders University）的Nikolai Petrovsky教授也是其中之一，他在接受法国媒体采访时表示：“当你把所有的现象汇总起来，你就不得不提出这一疑问，当然，我很希望能够排除这种可能性，但是，你越是进行深入的研究，就越是发现排除这种可能性是不负责任的，因为你不可能排除这种可能性。”

国际诸多病毒学专家都对病毒基因增功能研究（GOF）的危险性提出警告，法国巴士德学院的病毒学家 Simon Wain-Hobson早在2015年广岛原子弹爆炸六十周年纪念日时就提出警告，病毒基因增功能研究很可能在未来造成同样的灾难性的后果。他在疫情爆发之后不久接受法广采访时表示，虽然没有任何证据，但是，他不能排除这种可能性。法国国家科研中心的另一位科学家Bruno Canard也就GOF研究担心的表示：“尽管出发点的善意的，但是，这实在太危险了，因为倘若你成功的制造了一个可以感染人类的病毒，不能排除病毒在不知不觉中从实验室泄露，通过科研人员感染他们的家属，及朋友，一场大流行病就这样爆发了……类似的研究，到自然中去寻找病毒，对它基因进行改动，以便搞清楚它的功能，这就如同用打火机来寻找煤气管道的泄露口一样。”

RaTG13：一个充满谜团的病毒

根据法国电视二台的调查，在新冠疫情爆发之后两个月，2020年2月，石正丽在美国著名的“自然”杂志上发表文章，声称发现与新冠病毒基因96 %相同的一个名叫RaTG13的冠状病毒，但是，她的国际同行们想知道的是，她是何时发现这个病毒的？为何没有在疫情爆发初期就公布此一病毒？石正丽在自然杂志上发表文章时并没有明确病毒发现的时间与地点，也没有提供相关的数据。武汉病毒实验室拥有自己的数据库，但是，令人费解的是这一数据库在疫情爆发之后三个月被关闭，外界无法接触实验室的相关数据。有中国网民截获了数据库的相关网页，内容显示，实验室收集了数千个新冠病毒，病毒的来源有许多来自云南。

国际病毒学界认为石正丽没有在第一时间对外公布可以为研究新冠病毒提供宝贵资料的RaTG13病毒的行为是令人难以理解的。法国病毒学家Bruno Canard表示：“新冠病毒已经在全世界造成两百万人死亡，导致严重的经济与社会后果，中国方面能够做到的最起码的就是向外界公开信息，把实验室的数据对外公开。”

2013年云南蝙蝠洞感染事件

由于英国BBC和美国美联社记者在去云南蝙蝠洞采访时都遭到警方监督，在抵达目的地之后又被当地身穿便衣的人驱赶，最终未能达到采访目的。法国电视台因而采取了独特的对策，派遣一位能够说当地地方方言的中国人和一位摄影师假扮成一对去云南旅游的情人前往当地考察。当地农民向他们介绍，前往蝙蝠洞的公路已经遭到封锁，当局在蝙蝠洞口四周装置了视频监督摄像仪，多位试图接近蝙蝠洞的人已经被当局带走。由于风险太大，法国电视台因此决定停止在当地的调查，但是，人们不禁要问：中国当就究竟为何如临大敌？莫非石正丽从此地采集的冠状病毒标本确实与新冠疫情有关？

石正丽为何排除云南村民死亡与冠状病毒有关？

2013年，云南通关三名村民因清理一个充满蝙蝠的废弃的铜矿旧址尔感染疾病死亡，另有多人受感染患重病，今天这些人的身上被测出带有冠状病毒的抗体，当时，中国著名传染病专家钟南山作出的诊断是他们感染了一种冠状病毒。印度一位知名的病毒学专家在网上找到了一位中国病毒博士的博士论人，论文对云南感染病人的感染过程以及病症作出了详细的介绍。医生认为当初云南病人的肺部透视与今天新冠病人的肺部透视十分类似。不过，令人费解的是，石正丽日前在谈到云南感染病例时却强调这些村民是受到蝙蝠洞中的毒蘑菇的感染，而只字不提冠状病毒。

石正丽曾经就读于法国蒙彼利埃第二大学并且在法国获得博士学位。但她拒绝接受任何法国媒体的采访。

法国电视二台“特派记者”调查视频链接（有关新冠病毒的内容从38分开始）：

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-magazine/france-2/envoye-special/envoye-special-du-jeudi-11-mars-2021_4302957.html

中共控制下的人大代表制度，民主吗？怎么运作的？

 中国第十三届人大第四次会议本周将在北京召开。这些以中共党政军高级干部和中共党员为主的人大代表，能否真正代表普通老百姓的利益受到质疑。观察人士称，监督与被监督者的合二而一预示着人大会议只能是个花瓶摆设。

 

官方所说的“民主选举”

每年一度的中国政协和人大会议分别于3月4日和5日在北京召开。目前中国全国35个单位多达3000名人大代表正陆续抵达北京。

根据中国政府的说法，全国人民代表大会是中国最高国家权力机关。五级人大代表均由民主选举产生。其中，乡镇级和县级两级人大代表通过选民直接投票选举的办法产生。中国《选举法》对县乡级人大代表候选人的产生做出如下规定：“由选民直接选举的人民代表大会代表候选人，由各选区选民和各政党、各人民团体提名推荐。”

另外，全国人大代表、省级（包括省、自治区、直辖市）人大代表、设区的市和自治州人大代表采用间接选举的办法产生，具体做法是分别由下一级人民代表大会开会选举产生上一级人大代表。

中国人大官网声言，采取直接选举和间接选举相结合的方式选举各级人大代表，同中国现实的经济与社会发展条件相适应，是中国目前国情决定的，有利于国家的稳定。

 

专家：选举被中共操控

观察人士指出，所谓的民主选举实则剥夺了公民的选举权，无法真正反映人民的民意。中国江苏的观察人士昝爱宗说，中国当局自称，县乡两级人大代表是由选民直选产生，但事实上，选民投票选举的人大代表候选人的提名，完全掌握在中共当局各级领导手中。

他说：“比如县乡级人大代表的候选人，基本上也都是上级政府事先安排好的。选民只能选举当局圈定的候选人中的人，独立候选人能当选人大代表的可能性微乎其微。”

美国纽约城市大学亨特学院兼职讲座教授、北京大学法学博士滕彪在接受美国之音采访时进一步指出，中国人大代表选举的设计，在实践中完全被中共操控，不允许自由、开放地选举。

他说：“中国不允许反对党存在，公民想以独立候选人参选，就会被认为是捣乱，甚至会被认为是敌对分子。有些人因此会被判刑。整个选举过程中，都是中共党组织在操控。不管哪一级选举，表面上都有投票，但背后都是党在操控，从候选人的产生到最后结果的宣布等，完全是一个假的选举。”

观察人士称，中国各级选举部门领导“圈定”和“安排”人大代表候选人的做法，无论是县乡级直接选举，还是地市、省级和全国人大代表的间接选举，完全是走形式，走过场，政府摆出一副民主程序的架子，实则是在用独裁专制强加于民意。而以领导意志决定的人大代表候选人，他们只能执行领导的意志而不是选民的意愿。

 

代表参政议政体现党的意志

中国当局每年都对人大会议上人大代表所谓的参政议政情况进行通报。今年2月3日，中国人大常委会办公厅在一次情况通报会上说，2020年，全国人大常委会共审议法律草案、决定草案51件，通过了其中的33件，包括制定法律9件、修改法律12件，作出有关法律问题和重大问题的决定12件。

1月20日，人大常委会副秘书长信春鹰说，十三届全国人大三次会议期间，代表向大会提出建议9180件，建议数量创历史新高，体现了广大代表参与管理国家事务的责任担当。

美国纽约城市大学亨特学院兼职讲座教授、北京大学法学博士滕彪说，人大会议是中国最高的权力机关，在会上审议、通过一些与经济发展、国计民生相关等的法律、法规也是必须和应该做的事情，但是人大代表在会议期间拿出的提案是在遵循党的意志，改变不了人大会议只不过是个橡皮图章的性质。

他说：“虽然这些人大代表有时也提出一些反映民生议题的提案，甚至也有一些跟民生有关的法律被通过，但这些都是党中央高层的意识，也是党的政策决定的，并不能说明人大代表是反映民意的。中共首要的目标是保持政治稳定，保持对权力的垄断，所以他们也需要在一些问题上做出让步，考虑民众的需要。所以，即使那些有一定进步色彩的法律的出台，也完全无法改变中共专制的性质，也完全改变不了，也改变不了人大花瓶摆设的性质。”

 

“裁判员”和“运动员”合二为一

与西方民主国家的国会或议会议员不能由政府官员担任的设计完全不同的是，中国各级人大代表很大一部分是由政府各级部门主要官员组成。

以新华社报道的十三届人大代表资格审查报告为例，在2980名确认资格有效的人大代表中，党政领导干部1011名，占代表总数近34%，而中共党员多达2097名，占代表总数70%以上。

江苏的观察人士昝爱宗举例说，中国各个省市自治区党政主要领导以及地级市市长等基本上都是“当然”的全国人大代表。他说，政府官员担任人大代表，将“裁判员”和“运动员”的角色合二为一，不仅在法律法规、政策方针的制定上“利己”，而且剥夺了人大代表本应监督政府官员的职能。

昝爱宗说：“议员（人大代表）是‘裁判员’，政府官员是‘运动员’。政府官员又是议员，就等于又是运动员和裁判员，怎么能发挥监督作用呢？他们制定的法律，也变得有利于他们自己了。这个游戏规则很不好，应该禁止政府官员当人大代表，因为政府官员是人大的监督对象呀，他们怎么能够当人大代表呢？”

普通民众的心声

美国之音采访的一些普通民众对这种所谓由民主选举产生的各级人大代表不认同、不相信，并称他们不能代表老百姓的利益。

辽宁的姜先生认为，多数人大代表是上边领导指定的。他说：“谁指定他，他就代表谁的利益。他们去北京开会，就是完成任务。上边有什么任务，他们就努力去完成吧。”

上海的朱女士说，各级人大代表服务的对象，不是普通百姓，而是他们自己以及当权者。选民想要见人大代表，根本找不到。她表示，这些代表在人大会议上，就是做做样子的，而且言行不一。

她说：“你们说了，你们不做。你们定的法律，不去遵守，却叫我们老百姓遵守。你们自己定的法，自己都不遵守，为什么不追责呀！”

深圳的郭先生说，他对中共政权，没有信心，没有指望。他说：“中共虽然说是为人民服务的，但人民只是他们利用的一个工具。人民只是给他们抬轿的。所谓党领导，党本身就是个皇帝，皇帝说了算。”

 

选举制度亟需改革

曾经以独立候选人参选，并成功当选的湖北潜江市前人大代表的姚立法在接受美国之音采访时表示，中国目前的选举制度不公开、透明，没有竞争性，在这种情况下选出的缺乏民意基础的代表，很难说他们能代表民意。因此，要对现行的选举制度进行改革。

他说：“首先，我们选举法律条款规定的不详细，过于原则，执行过程很不好把握。正因为法律条文语焉不详，不具有可操作性，往往被人利用，为达到个人或集团的目的，想怎么做，就怎么做了。”

他说，第二个问题，也是非常关键及核心的问题，即中国选举法中有很多“应该”怎样做的规定，却没有“如果不这样，怎么办？”的条文，而且选举法中也没有司法救济条款。例如一旦某人参加选举的资格被剥夺或侵犯，当事人无法起诉侵犯其权益的组织。

1998年11月26日，当时在湖北潜江市教育局勤工俭学办公室工作的姚立法毛遂自荐，以独立候选人身份参选，并且以1706张有效选票，当选潜江县级市人大代表。但是，这样的例子在中国毕竟是凤毛麟角。

分析人士指出，人大代表的产生以及参政议政都与中国的政治制度密不可分，只要中国一党专政的体制不改变，那么中国人大也就摆脱不了“橡皮图章”的状态。

Biden brings no relief to tensions between US and China

 MATTHEW LEE

Tue, March 2, 2021, 9:06 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden took office promising to move quickly to restore and repair America’s relations with the rest of the world, but one major nation has yet to see any U.S. effort to improve ties: China.

From Iran to Russia, Europe to Latin America, Biden has sought to cool tensions that rose during President Donald Trump’s four years in office. Yet, there have been no overtures to China.

Although the Biden administration has halted the ferocious rhetorical attacks and near daily announcements of new sanctions on China that had become commonplace under Trump, it has yet to back down on any of Trump's actions against Beijing.

This persistent state of low-intensity hostility has profound implications. China and the United States are the world’s two largest economies and the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Their power struggle complicates global efforts to deal with climate change and recover from the devastating impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Biden's tough stance has its roots in the competition for global power, but it's also a result of the 2020 presidential election campaign in which Trump and his allies repeatedly sought to portray him as soft on China, particularly during the pandemic that originated there. There's also little appetite from lawmakers in either party to ease pressure on China.

Thus in their first month in office, Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have reaffirmed many of the Trump administration’s most significant steps targeting China, including a determination that its crackdown on Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in western Xinjiang region constitutes a “genocide” and a flat-out rejection of nearly all of China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea.

Nor has the new administration signaled any let-up in Trump's tariffs, restrictions on Chinese diplomats, journalists and academics in the U.S. or criticism of Chinese policies toward Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong. It's also critical of Beijing's attempts to further its increasing global influence through telecommunications technology, social media and educational and cultural exchanges.

Biden's nominee to head the CIA, William Burns, was explicit about his concerns over many of these issues at his confirmation hearing Wednesday. And, the newly confirmed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, made a point of highlighting her unease with the state of affairs and pledged to combat Chinese attempts to exert undue pressure on other countries at the U.N.

The backdrop is clear: The United States is convinced that it and China are engaged in a duel for global dominance. And neither is prepared to back down.

China has sounded at times hopeful that Biden will reverse what foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said were Trump administration actions that “caused immeasurable damage to the relationship between the two countries.”

Those remarks followed a speech in which China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, demanded that Biden’s administration lift restrictions on trade and people-to-people contacts and cease what Beijing considers unwarranted interference in the areas of Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet.

Wang urged the U.S. to “stop smearing” the reputation of China’s ruling Communist Party. “We hope that the U.S. policy makers will keep pace with the times, see clearly the trend of the world, abandon biases, give up unwarranted suspicions and move to bring the China policy back to reason to ensure a healthy, steady development of China-U.S. relations,” he said.

But the anti-China rhetoric hasn't eased. Top Biden administration officials have vowed to use American power to contain what many Democrats and Republicans see as growing Chinese threats to U.S. interests and values in the Asia-Pacific and beyond.

They have all repeatedly referred to China as a strategic rival or foe, not a partner or potential friend, and have also evinced their belief that America must “outcompete” China.

“Outcompeting China will be key to our national security in the decades ahead,” Burns said at his confirmation hearing. “China is a formidable authoritarian adversary, methodically strengthening its capabilities to steal intellectual property, repress its own people, bully its neighbors, expand its global reach, and build influence in American society.”

“It is hard for me to see a more significant threat or challenge for the United States as far out as I can see into the 21st century than that one. It is the biggest geopolitical test that we face,” he said.

At least some Asia hands in the United States see Biden as moving slowly toward potential reengagement with China in part because he wants to shore up his domestic position and make clear the U.S. is not a victim of Chinese predation.

“They are restraining themselves from the normal syndrome of a new administration running into problem-solving with China,” said Danny Russel, who was assistant secretary of state for Asia during the Obama administration and is now vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute.

Russel said Biden is "sending out messages that have the effect of showing he’s not soft on China, that he’s not a patsy for China, that he isn’t so desperate for a breakthrough on climate change that he’s going to trade away our national security interests.”

Chinese academics see little difference in Biden’s approach.

“Continuity takes precedent over adjustment and change,” said Zhu Feng, professor of international relations at elite Nanjing University.

Biden will have to deal with a China that is far more powerful and influential than under past U.S. administrations, said Yu Wanli, a professor of international relations at Beijing Language and Culture University.

“There has been huge deviation between what they believe China is and what China really is,” Yu said. “Their China polices are based on illusions, which must result in some bad consequences. It takes time for them to come back to reality.”

Apart from its support for Taiwan, the U.S. views China’s policies in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and elsewhere as matters of human rights, whereas China sees them as questions of sovereignty, Yu said. “Frictions will still exist, and the pattern will still be the same.”

Churchill’s Prophetic Warning: ‘An Iron Curtain Has Descended’

 Joseph Loconte

Wed, March 3, 2021, 3:30 AM

No speech from a foreign visitor ever created a greater uproar than that delivered by Winston Churchill at an obscure Midwestern college just months after the end of the Second World War. As it turned out, no speech proved more prophetic about the deadliest assault on human freedom in the history of world civilization.

Many expected Churchill’s talk at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo., on March 5, 1946 — modestly titled “The Sinews of Peace” — to reflect on the defeat of fascism by the three great wartime allies, the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. Instead, it was a message of foreboding. A new crisis moment for Europe, and for the world, had arrived: a struggle between communism and the democratic West. “A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory,” Churchill warned. “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.”

Left-leaning historians blame Churchill’s address as the catalyst for the Cold War. Eleanor Roosevelt, carrying on the political legacy of her dead husband, was aghast, fearing that Churchill’s message would compromise the peacekeeping mission of the newly created United Nations. The liberal press denounced the talk as “poisonous” and Churchill as a “warmonger.”

A truly noxious speech, however, had been delivered by Joseph Stalin just a few weeks earlier to Communist Party apparatchiks in Moscow. Largely forgotten today, it did about as much to expose the unbridgeable divide between East and West as Churchill’s peroration.

“It would be wrong to think that the Second World War broke out accidentally,” Stalin began. “As a matter of fact, the war broke out as the inevitable result of the development of world economic and political forces on the basis of present-day monopolistic capitalism.” Thus, Stalin repeated Marx’s assault on capitalism for distributing resources unequally. He parroted Lenin’s claim that greedy capitalist states inevitably went to war with one another. Peace was possible, he suggested, but only after communism had triumphed around the globe. The message was clear: The historic contest between socialism and democratic capitalism was at a high-water mark.

Stalin’s address was a tissue of lies and omissions. He portrayed the Soviet Union as the fierce opponent of fascist rule in Europe. In fact, Stalin made a secret pact with Hitler’s Germany to divide up the continent among themselves. The agreement allowed the Soviet Union to invade and occupy eastern Poland in 1939 as Hitler invaded from the west, triggering the Second World War. For 22 months, in fact, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies; Germany sold weapons to the USSR and the USSR sold grain and oil to Germany.

Stalin also assured his audience that the policy of collectivized agriculture was “an exceedingly progressive method” to modernize the Soviet economy. In reality, the forced collectivization of private farms, begun in 1928, created a human catastrophe. Many peasants fought to hold onto their plots of land: five million were deported and never heard from again. The government seized their grain, and the result was a man-made famine. By 1934, upwards of 13 million Soviet citizens died unnatural deaths — from mass murder and starvation — because of Stalin’s communist vision.

Ironically, Stalin spoke the truth when he boasted that “no skeptic now dares to express doubt concerning the viability of the Soviet social system.” At least 700,000 “skeptics” — anyone even mildly critical of Marshal Stalin — were murdered during the “Great Purge” of 1936–38. The secret police, show trials, assassinations, torture, prison camps, ethnic cleansing: Virtually no tool of terror was left untried to silence dissent.

All these facts informed Churchill’s assessment of the Soviet Union. But the most alarming truth about Stalin’s Russia was its forcible absorption of Eastern Europe into the communist fold. For months, Churchill had watched with growing apprehension as Stalin violated the agreements he made with the Allies at their 1945 Yalta Conference, promising free and democratic elections in Eastern Europe. Communist fifth columns were now at work, wholly obedient to Moscow.

“The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to preeminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control,” Churchill said. “Whatever conclusion may be drawn from these facts — and facts they are — this is certainly not the Liberated Europe we fought to build up.”

Every description Churchill offered of Soviet designs over Europe proved entirely accurate. His judgment of communism as “a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization” was being validated in every state that fell under its malign influence.

Indeed, America’s most important diplomat in Moscow had reached the same conclusions at almost precisely the same moment. George F. Kennan’s “Long Telegram,” arguing for a policy of “firm containment” against the Soviet Union, arrived at the State Department just days before Churchill arrived in Fulton. “It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Soviet regime,” Kennan wrote. “It must continue to expect that Soviet policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist and capitalist worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and weakening of all rival influence and rival power.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s delusional portrait of Stalin as “Uncle Joe,” a cheerful partner in building a global democratic community, was dead in the water. Nevertheless, it is difficult, from our historical distance, to grasp the feeling of dread that Churchill’s words must have caused in a war-weary population. He clearly sensed the enormous task he was asking his American audience to embrace: to engage its economic, military, and moral resources to check Soviet ambitions in Europe and beyond. “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war,” he said. “What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.”

The United States, he suggested, must not make the mistake it made after the First World War, when it abandoned the League of Nations and left Europe to its fate. It must help ensure that the United Nations will become an effective force for peace and security, “and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel.” Most importantly, though, Churchill called for a “special relationship” between America and Great Britain: the sharing of military intelligence, mutual-defense agreements, and strategic cooperation to support and promote democracy.

Their common democratic ideals, he explained, were the basis for a unique partnership to thwart the despotic aims of Soviet communism:

We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence. . . . Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind.

Critics denounced this language as rank chauvinism and cultural imperialism. Legendary columnist Walter Lippmann called the speech an “almost catastrophic blunder.” In an interview with Pravda, dutifully transcribed in the New York Times, Stalin compared Churchill to Hitler: “Mr. Churchill, too, has begun the task of unleashing war with a racial theory, stating that only nations that speak the English language are . . . called upon to rule the destinies of the whole world.”

Any frank assessment of how the Cold War ended, however, would admit the decisive role played by the United States and the United Kingdom, over the course of four decades, in resisting Soviet aggression. The Berlin airlift, the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the defense of Western Europe, the support for the democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe that brought down the Soviet empire — in each case the “special relationship” between America and Great Britain tipped the scales toward freedom.

In a remarkable moment of candor, Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over the dissolution of the Soviet Union, endorsed the central message of Churchill’s speech in his farewell address on Christmas Day, 1991. The Cold War, “the totalitarian system,” “the mad militarization” that “crippled our economy, public attitudes and morals” — it all had come to an end, and there was no turning back. “I consider it vitally important to preserve the democratic achievements which have been attained in the last few years,” he said. “We have paid with all our history and tragic experience for these democratic achievements, and they are not to be abandoned, whatever the circumstances, and whatever the pretexts.”

Seventy-five years ago, Churchill dared to imagine such an outcome. But it depended upon these two great democratic allies, Great Britain and the United States, sharing a “faith in each other’s purpose, hope in each other’s future, and charity towards each other’s shortcomings.” And, with history as a guide, such an outcome would not arrive without a supreme effort of national will. “If all British moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association,” he said, “the highroads of the future will be clear, not only for us but for all, not only for our time, but for a century to come.”

Joseph Loconte is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation and is working on a book about Winston Churchill at the 1945 Yalta Conference. Nile Gardiner is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.