Foreign Affairs

[Mlodj]

LINK

Quote

EXCLUSIVE: White House to block federal pension fund from expanding China investments (SBG)

WASHINGTON (SBG) - President Trump has instructed top aides to move quickly to rein in a federal pension fund before it expands its investment portfolio, later this year, include Chinese-held entities that U.S. officials believe to be tied directly to the Chinese military and to the country's global intelligence apparatus, sources said.  A source who discussed the matter directly with President Trump described him as incredulous over the looming prospect of U.S. service members seeing their paychecks deducted for the purpose of funding the Chinese military. "We can't allow this to move forward," the source quoted Mr. Trump as saying. "This needs to stop."

Senior White House officials told Sinclair the effort is being undertaken with urgency, both because of fresh concerns about Chinese misconduct in its handling of the coronavirus and because of pending action by the pension fund. Known formally as the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), the fund controls $700 billion in assets, drawn from the 5.5 million employees of the federal government, from Executive Branch officials and members of Congress to the armed forces and members of the National Guard.  A TSP spokeswoman acknowledged this week officials there have already begun filing the paperwork necessary to expand the fund's investments into China's "emerging markets."  "The president has asked our team to look at options," said one senior White House official, "to stop the investment of TSP funds in Chinese equities."

While administration officials would not divulge the exact nature of the actions under review, observers agree the likeliest course of immediate action by the White House is an executive order from President Trump addressing the subject -- even though administration officials concede such an order might not withstand court challenge, as TSP is governed by an independent agency.  Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL), the first Green Beret elected to Congress and also a National Guardsman, introduced legislation this week that would bar TSP from investing in foreign markets whose firms do not submit to audits by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a private-sector non-profit organization created by Congress to help regulate the accounting practices of publicly held firms. A similar measure has been introduced in the Senate.  "I'm looking for an executive order," Waltz told Sinclair on Wednesday. "I'll leave it to the White House to work through the exact tactics, but they understand the urgency....It needs to happen in the coming weeks."

The move by TSP into additional Chinese investment markets comes under a ruling issued on November 13 by the pension fund's governing body, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB). Under that ruling, the TSP's international investment vehicle, or "I" fund, worth approximately $50 billion, will shift the foreign market index it uses as a benchmark from the MSCI Europe, Australasia and Far East Index to the MSCI All Country World Ex-US Investable Market Index.  "That will literally send tens of billions of dollars onto the Chinese stock exchange," Waltz said, "and help companies that are directly involved in the Chinese defense industry -- and in espionage."

All five of FRTIB's members, the individuals who govern the investing strategy for the Thrift Savings Plan, were appointed by President Obama. The terms for each of the members all lapsed between 2015 and 2018. Under current law, however, board members are permitted to serve past the ends of their terms until the president nominates, and the Senate confirms, their successors. The Trump administration never submitted any nominations for FRTIB's membership -- a staffing failure that sources said the administration will likely move to redress sometime after the issuance of an executive order.  

The chairman of FRTIB, Michael Kennedy -- an Atlanta-based executive with Korn/Ferry International, the powerhouse recruiting firm -- declined to be interviewed for Sinclair's reporting. In a statement, Kennedy defended the expansion of TSP's "I" fund investing to include additional Chinese vehicles. "The Board’s primary focus is providing options to allow our participants to save for a secure retirement," Kennedy said. "My fellow Board Members and I serve as fiduciaries who are legally obligated to act 'solely in the interest of the [TSP] participants and beneficiaries.'"  He contended that until FRTIB decided in November to change TSP's foreign investing strategy, the nation's federal employees and service members did not enjoy a "level playing field" alongside civilian retirement funds.  "All ten of the largest publicly traded U.S. companies, all ten of the top federal contractors, the top twenty public (state employee) plans, and all six of the six largest target date fund providers include access to emerging markets," Kennedy's statement said.

If the federal government harbors concerns about the possible misuse of federal employees' pension funds that will be invested in mission-sensitive foreign entities, Kennedy argued, U.S. officials could try to put a halt to such investing through the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). "If OFAC bans a country or company, it would be dropped from the index," Kennedy concluded.  "I'm a free market, pro-growth guy all day long -- but not when it comes at the expense of national security," said Waltz. "The last thing we should have is our military members, who are out on the front line, having deductions from their paycheck to go to a 401k plan that then funds their very adversary. I mean, it's just -- it's just mind-boggling."

Kim Weaver, a spokeswoman for FRTIB, indicated on Thursday that the transition to the broader foreign index is already underway and could take months to complete -- but that the agency expects the transition to be completed before year's end.  "We are in the process of opening custodial accounts in the countries that are in the [broader, all-country] MSCI ACWI ex. US [index] but not in the [more limited] MSCI EAFE [index]," Weaver said in an email sent to Sinclair on Thursday. "There are a number of factors that come into play, particularly liquidity to facilitate trading." She added: "The requirements and the time it takes for each country to process the paperwork varies widely, so I do not have a specific date to provide you regarding the start or finish for the transition."

The effort by Congress and the White House to restrict TSP's investment expansion comes as the agency is preparing to enact still another rule change: By October, the automatic payroll contributions to the pension fund from federal employees-- which are often matched by the federal government -- will increase from 3 to 5 percent.

 

 

[Mlodj]

 

[TEW]

8 hours ago, Mlodj said:

LINK

If you really want your mind blown, try this on for size — Chinese companies listed on US exchanges are exempt from the auditing standards and Dodd-Frank regulations applied to US companies.

So not only is American money financing our greatest geo-political threat and a truly evil, murderous regime through our own exchanges, but they are free to defraud Americans in the process.

It is utterly insane.

[Mlodj]

LINK

Republican lawmakers and other U.S. officials, determined to punish China for concealing early data on the coronavirus outbreak, are proposing numerous measures to turn up the heat, from suing Beijing to ending U.S. military cooperation with Hollywood studios that censor their films for Chinese consumption.

Some of the proposals are less likely to prosper than others, but all come as the Trump administration is eager to deflect blame for its handling of the pandemic and amid a growing contempt for Chinese policies that many officials believe cost lives.

Senior administration officials have also toughened their rhetoric toward China. After first praising Chinese President Xi Jinping for his handling of the coronavirus outbreak, President Trump now blames China’s lack of transparency for deaths around the world. This week Trump said he was contemplating investigating China’s role in the spread of the disease.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) plans to introduce a bill next week that would bar the Pentagon from advising U.S. film studios about war-reenactment and other military practices, or lend military equipment for a movie, unless the filmmaker pledges to not censor the movie for Chinese audiences at Beijing’s behest, a relatively common practice.  "China is America’s greatest geopolitical threat, and we need to start acting like it,” Cruz said in an interview. "Far too many members of Congress, far too many national media players have underestimated the threat posed by the Chinese communist government.”  As an example, Cruz cited the willingness of filmmakers to remove references in last year’s "Bohemian Rhapsody” to singer Freddie Mercury being gay.  "It is difficult to imagine a biopic of Freddie Mercury without including that Mercury was gay,” Cruz said. "And yet Hollywood was more than happy to comply to get access to the Chinese market.”  Prospects are unclear for the Cruz bill, which he calls "The Stopping Censorship, Restoring Integrity, Protecting Talkies Act,” or SCRIPT Act. But regardless of what actions Congress might take, he said the U.S.-China relationship has been fundamentally changed as a result of the recent crisis.

The initiative is part of a widening debate as lawmakers mark territory on ways to confront China.  Sixty-two bills related to China have been introduced in Congress by Republicans and Democrats since Feb. 1, a dramatic increase in what had already been a steady uptick in China-related legislation since 2017.  The COVID-19 outbreak opened the door for a tougher stance that lawmakers in both parties had been itching to take toward China for years, particularly as polls show U.S. public opinion turning decidedly sour on Beijing.  But while there is growing bipartisan consensus that the U.S. policy positions on China need to be readdressed, there is less consensus on how to do it.

"What you’re seeing right now is the full-throated beginnings of that policy debate and discussion,” said one Senate Republican aide, requesting anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.  In recent weeks, Republicans have introduced policy proposals that allow U.S. citizens to sue China or to impose sanctions against Chinese officials. Senate Republicans have called for economic sanctions; cancellation of visas for Chinese officials and families; and investigations into the pandemic, including China’s culpability and its relationship with the World Health Organization.  Trump has accused the WHO, the United Nation’s chief health body, of bias in favor of China and has threatened to cut off U.S. funding.  

U.S. governments have traditionally resisted allowing their citizens to sue foreign governments for actions overseas out of a fear that other nations would likewise permit their citizens to sue the United States. And the Trump administration has been particularly skeptical of the leading international legal bodies that might handle such claims, like the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.  It’s unlikely that Congress would move quickly on China policy. Senate Republicans have discussed the issue on their weekly conference calls but have no agreement on how to move forward.

A key concern is making the U.S. manufacturing supply chain -- particularly prescription drugs and health products -- less reliant on China. A proposal from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) that directs the Defense Department and Food and Drug Administration to analyze the country’s dependence on foreign countries for manufacturing, including pharmaceuticals, has support from three Democrats, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).  But lawmakers and policy experts acknowledge there are steep challenges in redirecting manufacturing back to the United States, and perhaps more importantly, convincing consumers to accept the higher prices they would face on prescription drugs and other goods.  Initially, it will be difficult to reduce U.S. reliance on China, which has steadily integrated itself into the global supply chain, and few economies can step up to fill the void.

The Trump administration is also divided over how to proceed against China. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin favors keeping lines open to foster trade deals. Matthew Pottinger, the official in charge of Asia on the National Security Council, and Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo are among the hawks.  Pompeo initially insisted on referring to the disease as the Wuhan virus to emphasize its supposed origin in that Chinese region.  Though he eventually dropped the term, he has continued to demand Chinese accountability and has hinted at accusations floated among some conservatives that the virus was man-made. Most scientists have dismissed such claims.  "There are multiple labs that are continuing to conduct work ... on contagious pathogens inside of China today, and we don’t know if they are operating at a level of security to prevent this from happening again,” Pompeo said at a news conference this week. "Remember, this isn’t the first time that we’ve had a virus come out of China.”

Like the Trump administration, China has also attempted to shift the narrative, embarking on what some have called "mask diplomacy” by shipping masks and other medical supplies, as well as healthcare workers, to countries in need around the world.  Whether that campaign will be enough to absolve the Xi government of blame remains to be seen. A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows six in 10 Americans now consider China’s growing power to be the greatest threat to the United States, after the spread of infectious disease and cyber attacks. It is a huge uptick from just three years ago, Pew said.  But some experts say the impulse to punish China may ultimately be short-sighted and mistaken. Its growing worldwide influence and habit of moving in where the U.S. has withdrawn make it a force to reckon with.  "In terms of U.S. policy, we will have to strike a balance between competition and cooperation,” said Patricia Kim, a China policy analyst at the nonpartisan U.S. Institute for Peace. "China is such a major player now. Its influence, capabilities and economic capacity all need to be leveraged to confront global challenges.”

[Mlodj]

LINK

BRUSSELS — Australia has called for an inquiry into the origin of the virus. Germany and Britain are hesitating anew about inviting in the Chinese tech giant Huawei. President Trump has blamed China for the contagion and is seeking to punish it. Some governments want to sue Beijing for damages and reparations.  Across the globe a backlash is building against China for its initial mishandling of the crisis that helped loose the coronavirus on the world, creating a deeply polarizing battle of narratives and setting back China’s ambition to fill the leadership vacuum left by the United States.  China, never receptive to outside criticism and wary of damage to its domestic control and long economic reach, has responded aggressively, combining medical aid to other countries with harsh nationalist rhetoric, and mixing demands for gratitude with economic threats.  The result has only added momentum to the blowback and the growing mistrust of China in Europe and Africa, undermining China’s desired image as a generous global actor.

Even before the virus, Beijing displayed a fierce approach to public relations, an aggressive style called "Wolf Warrior” diplomacy, named after two ultrapatriotic Chinese films featuring the evil plots and fiery demise of American-led foreign mercenaries.  With clear encouragement from President Xi Jinping and the powerful Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party, a younger generation of Chinese diplomats have been proving their loyalty with defiantly nationalist and sometimes threatening messages in the countries where they are based.  "You have a new brand of Chinese diplomats who seem to compete with each other to be more radical and eventually insulting to the country where they happen to be posted,” said François Godement, a senior adviser for Asia at the Paris-based Institut Montaigne. "They’ve gotten into fights with every northern European country with whom they should have an interest, and they’ve alienated every one of them.”

Since the virus, the tone has only toughened, a measure of just how serious a danger China’s leaders consider the virus to their standing at home, where it has fueled anger and destroyed economic growth, as well as abroad.  In the past several weeks, at least seven Chinese ambassadors — to France, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and the African Union — have been summoned by their hosts to answer accusations ranging from spreading misinformation to the "racist mistreatment” of Africans in Guangzhou.  Just last week, China threatened to withhold medical aid from the Netherlands for changing the name of its representative office in Taiwan to include the word Taipei. And before that, the Chinese Embassy in Berlin sparred publicly with the German newspaper Bild after the tabloid demanded $160 billion in compensation from China for damages to Germany from the virus.

Mr. Trump said last week that his administration was conducting "serious investigations” into Beijing’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak.  He has pressed American intelligence agencies to find the source of the virus, suggesting it might have emerged accidentally from a Wuhan weapons lab, although most intelligence agencies remain skeptical. And he has expressed interest in trying to sue Beijing for damages, with the United States seeking $10 million for every American death.  Republicans in the United States have moved to support Mr. Trump’s attacks on China. Missouri’s attorney general, Eric Schmitt, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to hold Beijing responsible for the outbreak.  A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, called the suit "frivolous,” adding that it had "no factual and legal basis’’ and "only invites ridicule.”  The suit seems to aim less at securing victory in court, which is unlikely, than at prodding Congress to pass legislation to make it easier for U.S. citizens to sue foreign states for damages.

"From Beijing’s point of view, this contemporary call is a historic echo of the reparations paid after the Boxer Rebellion,” said Theresa Fallon, director of the Centre for Russia Europe Asia Studies, referring to the anti-imperialist, anti-Christian and ultranationalist uprising around 1899-1901 in China that ended in defeat, with huge reparations for eight nations over the next decades. "The party’s cultivation of the humiliation narrative makes it politically impossible for Xi to ever agree to pay any reparations.”  Instead, it has been imperative for Mr. Xi to turn the narrative around, steering it from a story of incompetence and failure — including the suppression of early warnings about the virus — into one of victory over the illness, a victory achieved through the unity of the party.  In the latest iteration of the new Chinese narrative, the enemy — the virus — did not even come from China, but from the U.S. military, an unsubstantiated accusation made by China’s combative Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian.

Chinese diplomats are encouraged to be combative by Beijing, said Susan Shirk, a China scholar and director of the 21st Century China Center at the University of California, San Diego. The promotion of Mr. Zhao to spokesman and his statement about the U.S. Army "signals to everyone in China that this is the official line, so you get this megaphone effect,” she said, adding that it makes any negotiations more difficult.  But in the longer run, China is seeding mistrust and damaging its own interests, said Ms. Shirk, who is working on a book called "Overreach,” about how China’s domestic politics have derailed its ambitions for a peaceful rise as a global superpower.  "As China started getting control over the virus and started this health diplomacy, it could have been the opportunity for China to emphasize its compassionate side and rebuild trust and its reputation as a responsible global power,” she said. "But that diplomatic effort got hijacked by the Propaganda Department of the party, with a much more assertive effort to leverage their assistance to get praise for China as a country and a system and its performance in stopping the spread of the virus.”

In recent days, Chinese state media has run numerous inflammatory statements, saying that Australia, after announcing its desire for an inquiry into the virus, was "gum stuck to the bottom of China’s shoe.” Beijing warned that Australia risked long-term damage to its trading partnership with China, which takes a third of Australia’s exports.  "Maybe the ordinary people will say, ‘Why should we drink Australian wine? Eat Australian beef?’” China’s ambassador, Cheng Jingye, told The Australian Financial Review. Australia’s foreign minister, Marise Payne, dismissed China’s attempt as "economic coercion.”

 

[Mlodj]

 

[hey suess]

33 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

 

Their response to us turning the screws on more tariffs has been less than stellar.

[Mike030270]

I feel like many countries will gang up on China. No idea what will happen but I imagine a lot will want answers and maybe even repercussions

[TEW]

9 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I feel like many countries will gang up on China. No idea what will happen but I imagine a lot will want answers and maybe even repercussions

It’s already becoming a bipartisan issue in the US. Japan and Australia are ready. Europe isn’t far behind.

We need something good to come out of this tragedy, and that good needs to be the annihilation of the CCP and it’s control of China.

[The_Omega]

Curious to see how the companies we rep, as well as other us companies handle this. I’d love to see them get tough with China, but trying to get back to normal is far easier.

[TEW]

5 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Curious to see how the companies we rep, as well as other us companies handle this. I’d love to see them get tough with China, but trying to get back to normal is far easier.

Companies are starting to catch on that there are other options for manufacturing which are just as or nearly as economical without the geopolitical risks and without the threat that China steals your IP or prevents you from repatriating your funds.

I really think this is a turning point. We have the catalyst. We just need our political leaders to come together and push the issue.

[DrPhilly]

Remember when Trump burnt his "bluff on Taiwan card"?  Good times.

[DrPhilly]

I thought from day 1 that China would be Trump's big foreign situation.  It started with the Taiwan bang but then fizzled a bit to the steady tariff war drum beat.  I would have never thought a pandemic would be the trigger point but it sure looks like China will be the top Trump story when all is said and done form a foreign policy perspective.  This thing may just trump (haha) the internal domestic battles with the Dems as well nipping them at the finish line.

[PoconoDon]

I think most of the developed world is angry with China. Collectively, they may decide to pull an economic train on those commies after the pandemic settles down. I'm for it. F China.

[Mlodj]

 

[Mlodj]

LINK

In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, China forces out foreign reporters

Australian-born New York Times reporter Chris Buckley is leaving China after the Government refused to renew his visa.  After 24 years reporting in China, Chris Buckley — a highly regarded and experienced foreign journalist — has been forced to leave the country he has devoted his career to amid a worsening crackdown on foreign media.  The Australian reporter for the New York Times left Beijing with his wife on Friday bound for Sydney after China's Government refused to renew his press card when it expired in mid-February while he was reporting in Wuhan.  He is the 19th foreign journalist expelled or forced to leave China in the past 12 months, and the second Australian.  Even as he prepared to leave the country, the Government made its presence felt.  At least four men followed and filmed Buckley as the ABC met him for an interview on his final day in China near the New York Times office in central Beijing.  One of the men retreated into a coffee shop as Buckley attempted to talk to him.

Buckley risked his health by travelling to the city believed to be the epicentre of the viral outbreak on the day it was locked down in January.  He was then told to stop reporting on the unfolding crisis when his press card expired the following month.  "It was a very frustrating time being in Wuhan, seeing all the dramatic developments with the lockdown and then the city beginning to overcome the epidemic but being prevented from reporting on it," he told the ABC.  "There's a lot the rest of the world can learn from Wuhan's experience but it was gained through a lot of sacrifices from the residents there. We shouldn't forget that."  Due to increasingly tight lockdown rules in Wuhan, Buckley was forced to ride share bicycles around the empty city for interviews.  "On one of those days, I did about 24 kilometres on a rather small share bike," he said.

With China and the US locked in an increasingly bitter battle for global influence and trading barbs about the origins of COVID-19, the number of foreign reporters on the ground in China is now the lowest for many years.  Buckley's departure comes after another Australian working for US media, Phillip Wen of the Wall Street Journal, was expelled in February along with two colleagues.  A further 14 American journalists working at the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post were expelled in March.  Some Chinese staff working for US media have also been forced to quit their jobs by the division of China's Foreign Ministry that employs and manages them on behalf of international media organisations.  "China's become a much tougher place to report. It's become more controlled, more centralised, more authoritarian," said Buckley.  "These trends have deepened under [President] Xi Jinping and I think they're likely to continue for a while," he said.

Unlike Wen, who was officially expelled over a guest opinion column headline deemed racist by China's Government, Buckley has been told he can reapply in future to come back.  He was asked to leave China in 2012 and spent three years in Hong Kong before he was allowed to return.  "This time does feel different because China's changed so much," he said.  "The Chinese Government feels that it's stronger, it's more assertive and it's less likely to heed messages or pressure from outside to let journalists back in," he said.  Along with a Hong Kong-based colleague, Austin Ramzy, Buckley published one of the biggest scoops in decades last November when they revealed more than 400 pages of Chinese Government internal documents.  They detailed a ruthless campaign of coercion in China's far-west Xinjiang region based on ideas from internal speeches by Mr Xi himself.  The policies culminated with hundreds of thousands of ethnic minority Uyghurs and Kazakhs being separated from their families and interned in re-education centres, some of which still operate to this day despite pervasive efforts of Chinese authorities to thwart reporting.

"I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that Chris is respected as the gold standard for reporting not just on China, but also Chinese elite politics," said Richard McGregor, a Senior Fellow with the Lowy Institute and former journalist.  "His insights come from old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting, a painstaking reading of Chinese language sources and decades of experience — all skills that will not be easily replaced," he said.  When asked why Buckley was being forced to leave the country, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said: "The laws and regulations are the laws and regulations."  Buckley was stuck in Wuhan when his visa expired and therefore unable to apply for a renewal in Beijing.  "The New York Times will negotiate and settle the issue … there is a lot of speculation. I would advise you not to think too much about it," said Hua Chunying.  Hu Xijin is an influential editor of a nationalistic Communist Party-run tabloid called the Global Times, which has previously attacked New York Times reporting.  "As someone in the media, I feel regret that he can no longer continue to work in China," he told the ABC.  "But I believe this isn't just a problem of the Chinese side. I hope China and the US can have more mutual respect and can jointly create better working conditions for each other's journalists."

China's escalating media war with the US

Beijing's move to expel 14 American journalists in March was boob-for-tat in a rapidly escalating information war between the US and China.  With China and the US both pushing conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 origins, the number of foreign reporters on the ground in China is now the lowest for many years.  The abrupt expulsions came after the White House announced it would not renew 60 work visas for Chinese state media employees in the US, in a bid to limit visas to a similar number granted by Beijing to American reporters.  It came after an earlier effort to designate Chinese government media outlets in the US as "diplomatic entities".  Tom Mitchell, the Financial Times Beijing bureau chief, said that the White House's efforts for reciprocity unintentionally forced top investigative reporters from China.  "US traded queens for pawns. Bad chess move," he wrote on Twitter.  Aside from the 19 foreign journalists recently forced to leave, dozens are stuck outside the country waiting for visas.  At least four Australian journalists working for different media outlets have been waiting for months.  "The Chinese Government has been very energetic and supportive of sending more Chinese journalists abroad because I think they want Chinese people to understand the rest of the world better," said Buckley.  "I think if you're going to turn that interflow off, it's dangerous for both sides and it just creates more room for speculation and rumours."

 

[Mike030270]

Oh it's going to be interesting what happens

[Mlodj]

 

[Mlodj]

LINK

Quote

How China Is Losing Europe

With a clumsy and ugly disinformation campaign, China is trying to project "soft power” as the U.S. loses its cachet. That’s backfiring.

If 2019 was the year when Europeans began having serious doubts about Beijing’s geopolitical intentions, 2020 may go down in history as the moment they turned against China in defiance. That’s not because they blame the Chinese for originating Covid-19, as U.S. President Donald Trump and his secretary of state seem obsessed with doing. It’s because China, by trying to capitalize on the pandemic with a stunningly unsophisticated propaganda campaign, inadvertently showed Europeans its cynicism.  The motivation behind the Chinese propaganda is obvious enough: With the U.S. flailing under Trump, Beijing sees an opening to finally rise to the status of a second superpower. The biggest geopolitical prize in this contest is the European Union, formerly anchored securely in the transatlantic camp but in recent years increasingly nervous about Trump and open to Chinese trade, investment and influence.

As the pandemic’s epicenter moved from Wuhan to European countries such as Italy and Spain, China initially had the right idea. Starting in mid-March, it sent Europe big shipments of face masks and other medical equipment, adorned with Chinese flags. Some of this gear turned out to be shoddy, but people saw it as a nice gesture. China could have stopped at "mask diplomacy” and come out ahead.  It didn’t. Bejing’s minions instead began spreading disinformation, apparently intended to paint the EU’s democracies as effete and authoritarian China as comparatively strong. In France, the Chinese embassy posted on its website a wild accusation that French retirement homes leave old people to die. In Italy, Chinese sock puppets disseminated tales that the coronavirus had in fact originated in Europe, or doctored video clips to show Romans playing the Chinese anthem in gratitude. In Germany, Chinese diplomats (unsuccessfully) urged government officials to heap public praise on China.  In response, the EU’s diplomatic service assembled a report on the disinformation campaigns being waged by China and that other usual suspect, Russia. China promptly made a bad situation worse, leaning on the publication’s authors to tone it down. At this, members of the European Parliament took even more umbrage and demanded assurances that the EU will not self-censor under Chinese pressure.

In some European countries, these tensions aren’t new. Even before the coronavirus, Swedes were outraged by the Chinese ambassador’s thinly veiled threats against their press, and some politicians want to throw him out of the country. But other EU members have willingly put up with the heavy-handed China treatment.  They include several southern and eastern EU countries — such as Croatia and Hungary — which have signed up for China’s two big geopolitical efforts. One is a Chinese-led forum called 17+1, in which Beijing (the 1) tries to organize economic cooperation with 17 European countries. The other is the Belt and Road Initiative, a global infrastructure project that skeptics see as a Chinese attempt to turn Asian, African and European countries into economic vassals.  Even before the pandemic, Europeans were becoming disappointed by the one-sided nature of these "partnerships,” both economically and politically. Take the rather symbolic tiff between Prague and Beijing, for example, which agreed to be sister cities, with Prague accepting the One-China policy (which denies that Taiwan is a country) and Beijing delivering, among other things, some cute pandas to the Prague zoo. But the pandas never came. As other conflicts escalated between the two partners, Beijing backed out in a huff. The mayor of Prague, fed up, found a different sister city in Taipei, Taiwan.

China’s largest trading partner in Europe, Germany, has also put up its guard after several Chinese companies took stakes in German technology firms ranging from a robot maker to a power company. Last year, Berlin tightened the rules on such sensitive acquisitions. The EU followed suit, with a common investment-screening approach taking effect this year. Meant to preserve Europe’s technological and industrial autonomy, it implicitly aims to keep China at bay.  The weather vane showing the overall direction of the EU’s China policy will be this year’s rollout of fifth-generation telecoms networks, or 5G. Even with the Trump administration haranguing Europeans to get them to boycott the largest Chinese equipment maker, Huawei Technologies Co., the EU’s members have been split or undecided on whether to allow the company to bid for contracts. In Germany, the mood seems to be tilting against Huawei. Even the U.K., now outside the EU, may reconsider its decision to let Huawei participate in its 5G plans.

For all of this, Beijing only has itself to blame. Somehow, Chinese officials have managed to offend Europeans across the continent who usually agree on nothing. At the beginning of the year, the calendar for 2020 was filled with Sino-European summits celebrating ever deeper ties. Instead, the pandemic is likely to be the occasion for Europeans to begin emancipating themselves from a bad relationship.  Even on the assumption that the real target of China’s infantile propaganda campaign is its domestic audience or the Chinese diaspora, this "diplomacy” can’t exactly pass as brilliant strategy. If it reflects the quality of Beijing’s statecraft, fears of China’s rise may have been greatly exaggerated.

[devpool]

TSP is the bomb, I'm afraid to look at mine right now though lol

[matchew88]

OMG LMAO

The Chinese government is both so arrogant and ignorant, they think the rest of the world's citizens have the same relationship with their government as China does. That they can just make something up and people will believe it and want to raze their government. This reality distortion field of theirs is making them look like nincompoops. 

[Mlodj]

4 minutes ago, matchew88 said:

OMG LMAO

The Chinese government is both so arrogant and ignorant, they think the rest of the world's citizens have the same relationship with their government as China does. That they can just make something up and people will believe it and want to raze their government. This reality distortion field of theirs is making them look like nincompoops. 

I think much of their propaganda is more for internal consumption, setting up an "Us against the world" vibe for their citizens.

[matchew88]

11 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

I think much of their propaganda is more for internal consumption, setting up an "Us against the world" vibe for their citizens.

That's not smart.

[Mlodj]

1 hour ago, matchew88 said:

That's not smart.

They need to do something to keep the population in line.  They already have up to a million Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and other ethnic Turkic Muslims and Christians locked up in "re-education camps" in Xinjiang, they're engaging in forced sterilization of Uyghur women, and their entire economy is a house of cards which will eventually fall.  Stirring up some nationalist sentiment is a time proven strategy.

[Mlodj]

Any leader of a Western nation that would let Huawei get involved in their 5G network is an idiot.

Quote

Trump could withdraw US spy planes and agents from the UK if Boris Johnson pushes ahead with Huawei 5G deal

The White House is reviewing the US security relationship with the UK.  The US is looking at all of its military and intelligence asset in Britain, The Telegraph newspaper reported.  The White House has launched the review amid concern over Boris Johnson's decision to let Chinese telecomms firm Huawei develop the UK's 5g network.  Prime Minister Johnson went ahead with the deal despite US warning that it would make intelligence more vulnerable to China.  The review could lead to US aircraft, military personnel, and even spies being withdrawn from the UK.

The White House is reportedly conducting a wide-ranging review into the US security relationship with the UK due to concern over Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to let Huawei develop Britain's 5G network.  The review is looking at all US security and intelligence assets based in the UK, and could lead to US aircraft and spies being withdrawn from Britain, half a dozen US and UK sources have told The Telegraph newspaper.  Johnson angered the Trump administration in January by granting Chinese telecoms firm Huawei a limited role in developing the UK's 5G network, despite US warnings about potential security risks.  The disagreement between Washington and London culminated in early February, with President Trump hanging up on Prime Minister Johnson during an "apoplectic" phone call.

Now the US is reportedly holding a major review into whether it should scale back its security and intelligence presence in the UK, with potentially huge ramifications for the US-UK "special relationship."  A former US official who up until recently was on the White House's National Security Council, told The Telegraph it was "likely" that intelligence assets would be withdrawn.   "This was not a bluff. You cannot mitigate the danger Boris Johnson is exposing the UK to by letting Huawei into the network," the source said.  "This review is not a punishment. This is the White House saying 'okay if they're going to go down this path and put themselves at risk then how do we protect ourselves'."

Included in the review are US RC-135s aircraft currently based at a base in Suffolk, southeast England, the Telegraph report suggests, due to the intelligence-gathering technology the planes possesses. The status of more than 10,000 US personnel based in the UK and barracks used to store military vehicles, is also being looked at by US officials.  The White House is also looking at whether it is safe to allow its secret agents to continue operating in Britain, as it is concerned that their mobile phones and other devices could be infiltrated.

Johnson is under growing pressure to scrap the Huawei deal

This development will pile more pressure on Prime Minister Johnson to reverse his decision to let Huawei develop parts of the UK's 5G network.  Business Insider reported last month that a growing number of MPs in Johnson's Conservative party wanted him to scrap the deal amid fury over how China had handled the coronavirus pandemic.  Tom Tugendhat MP, who last month with other Conservative MPs launched the China Research Group, told Business Insider: "This really makes clear something that many of us have been clear about for a long time.  "China is playing a strategic game in trying to make us choose between our economic future and our strategic partnerships. This is not a decision that we can afford to get wrong."  Conservative MP Neil O'Brien, the China Research Group's secretary, said the White House review meant that Johnson's UK government would have to choose whether it wanted to work with the US or China.  "As the US and China compete and decouple, allies and businesses will be pressed to choose which they want to work with," he told Business Insider.  "There is a lot of bipartisan legislation coming through in the US aimed at securing its economy against the Chinese government, which will also have side effects for third countries like the U.K. and EU.  "There are going to be lots of tricky choices coming up for the rest of the west."

The news also comes on the day that UK and US negotiators begin negotiations over a new free trade deal.  Negotiators will hold an opening round of talks over video conference on Tuesday. The UK is being led by senior UK official Oliver Griffiths, while the US negotiating team is being led by assistant trade representative, Daniel Mullaney.  Johnson's government has framed a free trade agreement with the Trump administration as a major prize for the UK after leaving the European Union.