Archive for ‘human rights’

Monday, July 6, 2020

CCTV News Anchor on “national security” legislation: “The Red Line must be inscribed in the Hearts”

Hai Xia, CCTV “Xinwen Lianbo” news anchor, July 5

Transcript

These two days our CCTV series “China emotionally touched”, with “Filled with Emotions like a Fragrant River”, led to passionate debates among netizens.

这两天央视播出的《感动中国》特别节目《情满香江》引发网友热议,

The film included a description of many motherland-loving, Hong Kong-loving people straightened their backs and defended Hong Kong‘s story.

片子里讲述了很多爱国爱港人士挺身而出守护香港的故事。

Among them, and that impressed us most deeply, there was a Hong Kong citizen at a plaza facing the “black violence” threat,

其中让我印象很深的是,有一位香港市民在商场里面对“黑暴”威胁,

responding by bringing his child and singing the national anthem aloud. His only a few year-old daughter said that someone who doesn‘t love his own country is useless.

他回应的方式是带着自己的孩子高唱国歌。他年仅几岁的女儿还说,一个人不爱自己的国家就没用了。

This little friend really must be praised. So young, she knows good from bad. Of course, this has to do with her father educating her,

真要为这位小朋友点赞,小小年纪就能明是非。这当然与父母的教育有关,

and we have also seen news today which says that Hong Kong‘s libraries have removed some “HK independence” books from the shelves which is beautifully done, but it is not enough.

今天也看到一个消息说,香港有图书馆已经将一些“港独”书籍下架,干得漂亮,但这还不够。

Many people know that some basic educational material in HK comes with “poison”, and this “poison” must be cleaned away to clean the source.

很多人都知道香港的一些教材、基础教育领域都带有“毒”,把这里的“毒”排排干净,才是真正的正本清源。

With HK security law in force, the law must genuinely take effect. Besides seriously applying the law, universal law knowledge must be taught well.

香港国安法已经落地生效,法律要真正发挥效用,除了严格执法之外,普法教育工作也一定要做好。

The red line is not only a legal red line, but must be inscribed in the hearts.

红线不仅是划在执法一线,也是划在心里。

The poison must vanish from the source, and only from there can the pernicious influence that brings calamity to HK be blocked at the roots.

源头消了毒,祸港的流毒也才能从根上堵住。

____________

Related

One country, our system, July 6, 2020
Unshrinking Police, July 3, 2020

____________

Friday, July 3, 2020

Coverage from Beijing: Hong Kong’s unshrinking Police, Purple Banners, and Jimmy Lai himself

The following is a translation of an article published by Beijing Daily online. Chang’anjie Zhishi (长安街知事), the paper mentioned in this article as the main newsgatherer, is another publication from the same publishing house as Beijing Daily. It’s name may be loosely translated as “Familiar with what’s going on on Chang’an Avenue“.

The term cross-border powers (境外势力), in addition to foreign powers (外国势力) most probably refers to Taiwan, a country not recognized by China as independent. Taiwan has in fact been offered (or threatened with) the “one-country, two-system” arrangement by China.

Links within blockquotes added during translation.

Main Link: The Police don’t shrink from tough measures!

On the second day of the Hong Kong National Security Law*), the police don’t shrink from tough measures! Chang’anjie Zhishi has noticed that up to today (July 1) at 3 p.m., two people suspected of violating Hong Kong’s national security laws have been arrested, one man and one woman, and in addition, more than thirty people have also been arrested.

香港国安法正式实施的第二天,警方毫不手软!长安街知事注意到,截至今日(1日)下午3时,已有2人涉嫌违反香港国安法被捕,分别为一男一女,此外还有30余人被捕。

All five photos as published by “Beijing Daily” online (click main link for bigger pictures)

In the afternoon shortly before 3 p.m., Hong Kong police discovered a woman displaying a “Hong Kong independence” slogan poster at Causeway Bay’s East Point Road. She was arrested under suspicion of violating Hong Kong’s national security law, and police seized the related items as evidence. The flags of the US and the UK were also fixed to the poster.

下午将近3时,香港警方于铜锣湾东角道发现一名女子正展示写有“港独”口号的标语。其涉嫌违反香港国安法被捕,警方检取了有关物品作证物。该标语上还粘着美国和英国的国旗。

Before that, at about 1:30 p.m., police stopped and checked a black-dressed man with suspicious behavior at Paterson Street, and found that he had a banner with the “Hong Kong independence” slogan with him. That man became the first suspect of violating Hong Kong’s national security law to be arrested.

此前约中午1时30分,警方于百德新街截查一名形迹可疑的黑衣男子,在其身上搜获一幅写有“港独”口号的旗帜。该男子成为首个涉嫌违反香港国安法的被捕人士。

The police have issued a reminder that Hong Kong national security law has gone into effect with clear regulations about four types of crimes: crimes of national splitting, crimes of subverting state power, crimes of terrorist activities, crimes of colluding with foreign or cross-border powers to endanger national security and corresponding criminal responsibilities. Police would firmly enforce the law, so as to protect Hong Kong citizens’ lives and properties as well as every kind of basic rights and liberties they enjoyed in accordance with the law.

警方提醒,香港国安法已经生效,明确规定分裂国家罪、颠覆国家政权罪、恐怖活动罪、勾结外国或者境外势力危害国家安全罪四类犯罪行为和相应的刑事责任,警方将会坚定执法,以保障香港市民的生命财产及依法享有的各项基本权利和自由。

Police also announced that starting from midday, there were assembled crowds in the area of Causeway Bay’s Paterson Street, East Point Road, and Great George Street, hooting, damaging social peace, and even rushing out onto the road, thus blocking traffic.

警方还通报,自中午起,铜锣湾百德新街、东角道及记利佐治街一带有人群集结叫嚣,破坏社会安宁,甚至一度冲出马路,阻塞交通。

Police have taken a rigorous and restrained approach, reminding people that mass assembly constituted a violation of the Public Order Ordinance and Hong Kong National Security Law, and by warning the crowd to disperse and immediately leave, but a share of them still refused to obey.

警方一直采取严谨而克制的态度,多次提醒群众集结行为已违反《公安条例》及香港国安法,并警告人群停止集结,立即离开,但部分人依然拒绝听从。

“Beijing Daily” caption: 警方举紫旗发出警告 (police holds up purple transparent to issue a warning)

Police thereupon took law enforcement action and arrested more than thirty people under suspicion of illegal assembly, violation of Hong Kong’s national security law, preventing police staff from carrying out their duties, carrying offensive weapons, etc. Police also dispatched specialized crowd management vehicles as well as the well-known water-cannon vehicles.

警方遂采取执法行动并拘捕逾30人,其涉嫌非法集结、违反香港国安法、阻碍警务人员执行职务及携带攻击性武器等。警方还出动了人群特别用途管理车辆,即我们熟知的水炮车。

Chang’anjie Zhishi noted that at around noon, the boss of Next Digital, Jimmy Lai himself, appeared at Paterson Street, together with Hong Kong Democratic Party‘s former chairman Albert Ho, Lee Wing-tat, Lam Cheuk-ting, and others. They set up a fundraising street stand.

长安街知事注意到,中午约12时,壹传媒老板黎智英现身百德新街,与香港民主党前主席何俊仁、李永达,议员林卓廷等人一同摆设站点筹款。

“Beijing Daily” caption: 右一为黎智英 图源:香港东网 (first from right: Li Zhiying / Jimmy Lai)

Jimmy Lai stayed there for about an hour and then left the street to go to Hong Kong Shangrila Hotel with Albert Ho and Lam Cheuk-ting, then returning to their homes.

黎智英在现场逗留了大约一小时就离开街头,前往香格里拉大酒店,何俊仁、李永达同行,后于下午约2时回到其住所。

____________

Note

*) There doesn’t appear to be an official English translation of the “national security law” yet, but the HKFP website offers an unofficial translation in English. Chinese ones can be found everywhere, there included.

____________

Related

“Terrorism breeding, iron fact,” June 3, 2020
“Pillar of Humiliation,”July 25, 2019
Pointing Fingers, Drawing Feet, May 11, 2019
Liu Xiaobo, 1955 – 2017, July 14, 2017
Szeto Wah, 1931 – 2011, Jan 2, 2011

____________

Updates / Related

Your stability, my passport, HKFP, July 4, 2020

____________

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Radio or the Internet? It’s both or neither

Why are “social media” so successful? Seems to me that the most obvious reason is that they give you a chance to speak out publicly, to make a difference in political ways. You can compliment the actress of your choice (ahem), you can shout at your region’s members of parliament, at top politicians, or at industrial managers.

(Those who appoint the managers won’t usually do Facebook or Twitter, though. They may not even bother to hire some ghostwriters.)

Then there may be a need to network. When all people relevant for your career are on Facebook or Twitter, you may have to be there, too. There may be a real need to follow them there, if you want to succeed in your job, or in “smashing the system”, or whatever your mission may be.

If both these motivations – making yourself heard and networking – are important, this could help to explain why “social media” haven’t helped to make our societies more democratic. What they have produced is a crude dialectics, though I’m not sure if there’s a never-ending synthesis, or if synthesis is completely out when sloganeering (with some more or less original variations of peoples’ credos) is the only thing that matters.

Bertolt Brecht doesn’t come across as an optimist. He usually saw the potential in new developments, including radio broadcasting – in 1932 and one year before the Nazis seized control of it. Brecht also knew – or learned – that newly-emerging media wouldn’t necessarily help the cause that he held dear.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a guy who is talking about the Internet, not radio,

writes a headphones guy in California.

Sounds logical, but it isn’t. Just as radio has become a mostly linear medium, so has the internet – at least on its commercial side, i. e. Twitter, Facebook, etc.. Yes, people can voice their opinions there. But I can’t see how they would shape things in a way different from the old days*). No matter if radio or internet, their democratic effectiveness depends on how they are organized, or how people organize themselves while using radio or the internet as their media.

____________

Note

*) Except for a more intense cultivation of enmity on the internet, maybe.

____________

Related

My first ten days on Twitter, Jan 30, 2020

____________

Thursday, June 4, 2020

June 4 Anniversary and Hong Kong: Broke Horses and Resisting Horses

I think there have been two moments when Chinese people of my age basically told me two things.

a) Yes, they had been among the 1989 protesters, be it in Beijing, be it in other places in China.

b) They had come to understand since how wrong they had been back in 1989, and what a calamity they had all been spared by the crackdown.

In both cases, I listened, nodded, and didn’t argue. I didn’t believe them a word. And I felt I was listening to another chapter from a universal story of human weakness, just as Pasternak’s Dr. Zhivago had, again, many decades earlier, and who had said that “it was like listening to a horse describing how it broke itself in.”

I didn’t argue because I felt that I hadn’t been in their place, that I still wasn’t in their place, and because I knew them beyond their (rather pathetic) political point of view. We were friends, or sort of friends. Hadn’t we known each other personally, and had it been an online encounter, we would probably have had a fierce debate.

Work style – CCTV evening news on July 24, 2013.

This comes to my mind when I read triumphant Chinese news articles about how many signatures had been collected by now, in support of the “security law for Hong Kong”. Obviously, I have no way of knowing if the numbers are real – and I don’t know how many bosses have “nudged” their staff to sign, or else.

People have to survive. There seems to be a rule: a majority of people will only be prepared to fight for their freedoms when they see a chance to succeed at it. That hope is waning in Hong Kong. It is, on the other hand, very much there in Taiwan. The rule that bleak situations break morals isn’t universal, as shown by exceptions. But it is often broad enough to work in favor of those who abuse their powers.

I can’t blame anyone. But I’m critical of a certain kind of “self-broke horse”. That’s the horse that denies the pressures and the threats, that argues that it recognized a necessity, acted accordingly, and that those horses that continue to resist the necessity would be obnoxious or dangerous. That’s a likely pattern of argument once the self-broke horse has “seen the light”, because every horse that remains noticeably free – or resisting – challenges, by its mere existence, not only the people in power, but also the broke horse itself.

A society could be more relaxed if broke horses could admit – even if only to themselves or in private – that they simply don’t want to live a – supposedly too difficult or painful – dissident’s life, or that they want to be happy, and that their happiness requires a certain monthly income, i. e. a favorable career. The problems begin to explode when they try to link their rather personal desires to “something greater”, and when freedom and conscience aren’t the “greater things” of choice, it will most probably be “the motherland”.

China’s rulers understood that, and they fostered such tensions. That’s why they pushed “patriotic education” in mainland China in the 1990s – to fill the void left behind by the crushed hopes of 1989, and to cater to nationalist feelings that had been there anyway – among many 1989 protestors, too.

Here in Germany, I have sometimes heard people vent anger about Wolf Biermann, an East German singer and songwriter who was stripped of his citizenship and exiled by the East German authorities in 1976, while he was on a pre-approved tour of  West Germany.

Biermann had been a vocal critic of East Berlin – a dissident. He hasn’t been much of a critic of Western flaws after 1976. In fact, he embraced all the good and bad things the West had to offer – imperialism included.

One should be aware of that. Biermann is no saint. But he has done more than most of us. He opposed a regime. That may not be enough for a lifetime – but it’s more than what most of us would be prepared to do.

So let’s be grateful for the courageous. Not to hate them for their integrity is a good first step into the right direction. To learn from them – within the realms of our abilities – should be a good second step.

____________

Updates / Related

365 days, Tsai Ing-wen, June 4, 2020
Sacrificed and gained, Sui Muqing, June 2, 2020

____________

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Hong Kong Security Secretary: “Terrorism breeding in HK, iron fact”

The following is a translation of an RTHK (Radio Television Hong Kong) report on yesterday’s LegCo security panel session. Translated off the cuff. If you find mistakes, please let me know.

Links within blockquote added during translation.

Police have said that from last year to now there have been 14 cases involving explosives, four cases of genuine arms, and 76 arrested, of who 30 had already been prosecuted. Security Bureau secretary John Lee Ka-chiu said that this illustrated that local terrorism was breeding in Hong Kong. He emphasized that counter-terrorism was a responsibility of the entire population, and called on the public to cooperate in law enforcement. The authorities would strike with the strictest laws.

警方說,去年至今出現14宗涉及爆炸品及4宗真槍的案件,共拘捕76人,30人已被檢控。保安局局長李家超說,顯示本土恐怖主義正在香港滋生,強調反恐是全民責任,呼籲公眾配合執法,當局會以最嚴厲的法律打擊。

At the Legislative Council’s Panel on Security meeting, John Lee Ka-chiu said he believed that in various violent [events] there had been financial funding organizations and assistance, such as supplies of helmets, gas masks, weapons and umbrellas, etc., and there had been cases where such material had been provided from ranks behind to the first lines. John Lee Ka-chiu described great numbers of resources, and a lot of related material left behind on the streets after insurrection. He believed that because of the authorities’ recent effective strikes, and maybe because of decreasing funding from abroad, such equipment had been reduced in recent violent incidents.

在立法會保安事務委員會會議上,李家超說,相信在不同暴力中都有資金提供組織及支援,例如提供頭盔、防毒面罩、武器和雨傘等,亦出現將有關物品由後方提供到前方的情況。李家超形容資源很多,而在暴動過後很多有關物品留在街上,他相信由於當局近期有效打擊,又或者是外來資金減少,近期暴力事件中,有關裝備已減少。

Legislative Council member Claudia Mo Man-ching asked the authorities to provide evidence for the cases mentioned, and asked if the authorities had been part of terrorism in the Yuen Long July 21 incident of last year. John Lee Ka-chiu retorted that the other side should not trivialize the violence and added that evidence would be seen in court, describing this as an iron fact.

議會陣線毛孟靜要求當局就提到的案件提供證據,又詢問當局去年元朗7.21事件是否屬本土恐怖主義。李家超反駁對方不要淡化暴力,又說上到法庭就會見到證物,形容是鐵一般的事實。

____________

Related

Attendance list, June 2, 2020
Background brief, June 2, 2020
For discussion, June 2, 2020

HK officers in Xinjiang, SCMP, Jan 9, 2019

____________

Updates/Related

“Riding roughshod,” RTHK, Jul 4, 2020

____________

Friday, May 15, 2020

Uyghur Human Rights Bill passed by U.S. Senate

Click picture for Tweet

The following is a translation of a news article published by the China Times, a Taiwanese pan-blue-leaning newspaper. Links added during translation.

Main link: Senate passes Uyghur Human Rights bill, mentions Xinjiang Party Secretary by Name

The human rights situation of the Uyghurs in China Xinjiang has become one of the major issues of US Congress. The U.S. Senate passed a “2020 Uyghur human rights policy bill on Thursday (May 14), demanding that President Trump exert more pressure on China, concerning Uyghur human rights issues.

中国新疆维吾尔族人权状况成为美国国会关注重点之一,美国参议院周四(14日)通过《2020年维吾尔人权政策法案》,要求总统川普就新疆人权问题,向中国施加更大压力。

The bill, proposed by Republican Senator Marco Rubio, received cross-party support and was unanimously passed by the Senate on Thursday. The bill demands Washington to sanction officials who suppress Uyghurs and Islamic groups, and also mentions Xinjiang Autonomous Region’s party secretary Chen Quanguo by name, accusing him of “serious violations of human rights,” and demanding once again that Washington impose sanctions. The bill also indicates that former Xinjiang Political and Legal Affairs Commission secretary Zhu Hailun must be directly held responsible for the suppression of human rights.

由共和党参议员鲁比欧提出的法案获得跨党派支持,周四在参议院表决中获一致通过。法案要求华府制裁打压维吾尔族和回教团体的官员,更点名指控新疆自治区党委书记陈全国「严重违反人权」,再次要求华府加以制裁。法案又指,新疆前政法委书记朱海仑就新疆人权打压问题需负直接责任。

The bill calls on US companies and individuals with business in Xinjiang to take measures to avoid issues of forced labor in the local supply chains. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman James Risch and Ranking Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Bob Menendez described the  passage of the bill as “an important step in fighting against China’s totalitarian government’s extensive and atrocious suppression of human rights,” and called on the House of Representatives to pass the bill as soon as possible, to pass it on to Trump for signing it into law.

法案呼吁,在新疆有业务的美国企业或个人应採取措施,避免当地的供应链有强迫劳工问题。共和党参议院外交关系委员会主席里施(James Risch)及委员会首席民主党成员梅南德斯(Bob Menendez)形容,法案获通过是「对抗中国极权政府广泛而可怖地打压人权的重要一步」,呼吁眾议院尽快通过法案,交予特朗普签署成法。

____________

Related

Uyghurs and Muslim minorities, Aug 19, 2018

____________

Monday, April 13, 2020

Have a Guess why WHO Director-General Tedros thinks he’s right

First off, I want you to know that I have signed this petition, and that I would like to encourage you to sign it, too. My main reason to ask for Dr. Tedros’ resignation is that he supports a policy of locking more than 20 million Taiwanese people out of the World Health Organization (WHO). That scandal didn’t start with his tenure, and has been WHO policy for a long time, but it is now exacting a price in terms of global health. Taiwan could share its eperience in a so far successful fight against COVID-19. Taiwan could also contribute financially. Taiwan seems to have warned the WHO on December 31, in an email query to the organization. And the WHO leadership appears to be unwilling to take this into account and make a wiser decision than in the past.

I don’t feel a personal dislike for Tedros, and I think that many “social media” remarks about him are inappropriate, and actually false assertions.

But every public official must be accountable to the people he serves, or claims to serve. That’s why I believe that the WHO’s director general should clear the way for a successor with a more inclusive policy than his.

It doesn’t help when people insult each other. Above all, character assassination blinds for the more likely facts and factors in political processes. Both sides are wrong when accusing each other of “politicizing” issues. WHO is inevitably about politics, because it depends on the funding of governments with very different interests, and different economic capabilities to contribute to the WHO’s work. The demands of the world’s poorest, as elementary and obvious as they may be, are also political. And China’s cover-up approach is political, too. Everything is politics – that’s no suitable swearword to use for either WHO officials, or their critics.

It is true however that when you look at the mere numbers – in million US-$ -, China’s influence on the WHO doesn’t seem to make sense:

member state fees1) voluntary2)   total
USA 57.9 401.1 459.0
China 28.7 16.9 45.6
Japan 20.5 46.7 67.2
Germany 14.6 89.9 104.5
United Kingdom 10.9 163.7 174.6

Then why the WHO’s understatement when China covered up their SARS-2 cases, why the blind eyes to Taiwan’s warning query in December 31 (not to mention the WHO’s discrimination of Taiwan in general), and why the WHO director-general’s generally meek interaction with Beijing?

  • Trump is toying with the idea of reducing America’s contributions. Any WHO director general has to plan ahead, especially when the organizations main stakeholder becomes unreliable.
  • Tedros is probably convinced that he is doing the right thing by chumming up to China. Losing people to disease is unacceptable for him, and that much is credible. There is no way that WHO can enforce transparency on the ground – be it in China, be it in any other countries, though smaller countries may be more susceptible to pressure. And conceited leaders (like China’s) are more susceptible to flattery. (That, of course, doesn’t make it right to help them downplay a crisis, neither knowingly nor unknowingly. But it may become a more understandable approach, when you keep in mind that understanding something isn’t the same thing as condoning it.)
  • Then there is a – supposed – trend. While Taiwan would probably contribute as much today as does China, it could be different in future. That’s what most in the global political class expect to happen. They may have to think again – China is regularly overestimated. While questionable statistics have often help its image among foreigners, forgery will backfire when it does damage to the faithful foreigners’ home countries. (Never mind a million “extremist” inmates in Chinese internment camps – that’s far, far away.)

It makes no sense to demonize Tedros. He isn’t much different from most national or business leaders when it comes to dealing with China. The difference of course is that national leaders are usually held accountable, sometimes more, sometimes less, but more so than heads of international institutions. That’s why African politicians do criticize China for the way Africans have been treated in Guangzhou, while Tedros, who had shortly before tried to mobilize African public opinion in his favor and against “Taiwanese racism” remains oddly silent now.

But of course, it makes no sense to defend Tedros’ policies, either.

I would still prefer some civility in the effort to make him go. One doesn’t need to hate or disdain a man who oppose him. Rather, you can oppose him more effectively when you try to understand him and his supporters.
____________

Notes

1) Source for obligatory contributions
2) Source for voluntary contributions
____________

Sunday, March 1, 2020

Sino-German relations: two Countries, irreconcilable Interpretations, common Ground

The following are excerpts from an article published by Guanchazhe on Friday, written by Huang Ying (黄颖), a researcher with Tongji University’s German Studies Center.

By political turmoil or upheaval, her article refers to the botched attempt of the conservative-liberal parties in Thuringia’s parliament to get to power with support from far-right parliamentarians.

CDU chairperson Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer resigned a few days after she had failed to get her Thuringian partisans back to the federal party line which ruled out cooperation both with the Left Party and the far-right AFD. Huang’s article gives a detailed account of these political events, and then addresses the question about if and how they could affect China’s relations with Germany. The translated paragraphs all deal with this question.

Links within blockquotes added during translation.

Related: “Enhancing and deepening”, German foreign office article, Febr 13, 2020 (click picture for text)

Main Link: Will Germany’s political turmoil affect Sino-German relations? (德国政坛动荡,会不会给中德关系带来不确定性?) – page 2

[…]

A lot of people will ask if Germany’s political turmoil could bring uncertainty to Sino-German relations. The author believes that basically, Germany’s China policy won’t be greatly affected. Although Sino-German economic relations are close, China’s strategic significance for Germany – in political terms – comes only after the European Union and the United States. Germany’s domestic political turmoil won’t change its fundamental political system. No matter to which degree the structure of its political parties may be in upheaval, Germany won’t stop denouncing China’s political system and human rights issues. China’s economic and political rise makes it a challenger in the eyes of Germany’s political and academic circles, not only a challenger of its economy, but also a possible challenger for the Western democratic political system. The fundamental and insurmountable conflict between China and Germany concerning the political systems and values, and the two countries’ different interpretations of freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights etc. remains irreconcilable, no matter which political party is in power.

不少人会问,德国政坛动荡会不会给中德关系带来不确定性。笔者看来,德国对华政策基本上不太会受到影响。虽然中德经济关系日益紧密,但是从政治角度来看,中国对德国的战略重要性次于欧盟和美国,德国内政的动荡不会改变其基本政治制度。无论德国政党格局怎么动荡,德国不会停止对中国制度和人权问题上的诟病。中国经济和政治崛起被德国政界和学界都视为挑战者,不仅挑战其经济制度,还可能挑战西方的民主政治制度。中德之间存在着根本的不可逾越的政治制度和价值观冲突,两国对自由、民主、法治、人权等方面有着不同的解读,无论德国哪个党派执政,这一冲突都不可调和。

However, recent Sino-German relations have become somewhat easier, which can be seen from two things above all. The first is where the German government stands on the issue of allowing Huawei participation in the building of Germany’s 5G network. At the end of January, the British government had made it clear that Huawei would be allowed to participate in the building of non-central components of Britain’s 5G network, but not in the construction of the sensitive sites, such as nuclear power stations or military bases. This matches two demands: it doesn’t endanger national security and won’t damage relations with important allies (America), and it allows Britain to use new technology and to maintain its competitiveness in the markets.

不过,最近的中德关系有所缓和,这主要表现在两件事上。第一件是备受关注的德国政府对是否允许华为参与德国5G网络建设的表态。一月底,英国明确表态:允许华为参与英国5G网络非核心部分的建设,但不能参与核电站和军事基地等重要网络和敏感地点的建设。这一表态实现了两全:一方面不危及国家安全和不破坏与重要盟友(美国)的关系,另一方面又可以使英国使用新技术和保持市场竞争力。

Soon after that, the European Union also suggested that there was no need to keep Huawei out, and member countries should be allowed to use Huawei equipment, provided that these installations were up to mobile net operation standards and that national security was protected, thus avoiding too much dependence on one supplier. After Britain and the EU had made their positions clear, it was no surprise that Germany’s governing coalition reached a consensus on February 12, saying that Huawei shouldn’t be automatically excluded from the 5G network construction, but that Huawei would have to comply with the highest safety standards. This decision still needs to be negotiated and passed with the social democratic coalition partner1). Before, many social democratic members had opposed Huawei’s participation in Germany’s 5G construction. It can basically be safely said that in 5G network construction, Germany won’t exclude Huawei, and this position will also have a positive influence on other EU member states, and will benefit the stable development of Sino-German relations.

随后,欧盟也建议不要一开始就将华为排除在外,允许成员国采用华为的设备,前提是要收紧对移动网络运营商的安全要求,严格实施保护国家安全的设施,避免对一个供应商产生过分依赖。在继英国和欧盟纷纷表态后,果不出意外,德国联盟党议会党团于2月12日便达成一致,表示不应自动将中国的华为排除再5G网络建设之外,但要求华为必须遵守最高的安全要求。这一决定目前还要与执政伙伴社民党协商通过,此前,有不少社民党成员都反对华为参与德国的5G建设。基本上可以确定,在5G网络建设上,德国不会将华为排斥在外,而且德国的表态还会积极影响欧盟其他国家对华为的态度,这将有利于中德两国关系稳定发展。

What also brought about a turn for the better was that when China raised the nationwide strengths to fight the new-type corona virus, Germany gave China essential support and help. In early February, Germany’s foreign minister Heiko Maas expressed admiration for the Chinese government’s public, transparent and cooperative attitude and vigorous and effective measures against the “epidemic”. The plane that took German compatriots back to Germany had also delivered 5.4 tons of aid supplies to China.

另外,给中德关系带来转机的是,在中国举全国之力抗击抗新冠肺炎的时刻,德国给予了中国必要的支持与帮助。2月初,德国外长海科·马斯(Heiko Maas)对中国政府在抗“疫”过程中采取的公开、透明、合作态度以及有力、有效的措施表示钦佩。借撤侨之机,将5.4吨援助物资运抵中国。

When meeting Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi in Berlin on February 13, Merkel said that Germany highly appreciated the firm and vigorous control measures taken by China to resist the epidemic, and would continue to provide China with support and help. […]

2月13日,默克尔在柏林会见王毅外长时表示,德方高度赞赏中国在对抗疫情时采取的果断有力的防控措施,会继续向中方提供支持和帮助。[…]

While Huang Ying argues that there is common ground, the commentariat (or, maybe, just the comments that remain undeleted) are mixed in their views. On the defensive side, demands for esthetic repairs are made:

The title doesn’t fit, it seems to suggest that China is meddling in Germany’s domestic politics. How about changing it into: How does Germany’s multi-party plight affect China,*)

标题不当,好像中国要干涉德国内政
改一下如何:德国的多党困境,对中国有啥影响

or

Just a trade partner. Germany only looks at China’s wallets. Don’t count on anything else.

一个商业伙伴而已。德国只看中了中国的钱包。其他难指望。

Replying to the reader who worries about the title, another commenter suggests that

I think you are too sensitive, elder brother. […] The ambassador to Germany has kept saying that “no Huawei, no Audi”. Isn’t that interference in German domestic politics?

我倒觉得大兄弟你太敏感了 […] 驻德大使直接放话了,不能搞华为,否则就搞奥迪了。这算不算干涉德国内政?

____________

Note

*) Don’t know if the title has hence been changed.

____________

Related

德国政治面临何种变局, 澎湃, Dec 7, 2018

____________

%d bloggers like this: