Pro Falun Gong campaigner against the CPC in London. [Photo: Missinterpreting.com]

Recently, at a campaign event in Virginia on Oct. 5 a Falun Gong practitioner shook hands with President Obama and handed him a letter. The letter was handed by Karen Gao, from the Washington D.C. Falun Dafa Association, in an attempt to update the President about the live, forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese Communist regime, and asked him to help end this atrocity. Is this really happening and if so why? On this article we will expose the two sides of the story.

Falun Gong was first introduced to the public in China by Mr. Li Hongzhi, in 1992. The people who initially tried the practice not only found powerful healing effects, but many also found answers to their deepest questions in life. As they continued to practice, their friends and family started to notice how they were becoming healthier and becoming better people overall. Thus, almost entirely by word of mouth, the numbers of enthusiasts kept growing. Falun Gong spread into 50 countries and attracted people from all walks of life and all cultural backgrounds.

What is Falun Gong?

According to the group’s literature, Falun Gong – or Law of the Wheel – originated in prehistoric times but only came to public notice in 1992 when Li Hongzhi, a man in his late forties referred to as “the master”, set up a study centre in Beijing. Falun Gong includes a mixture of Buddhist and Taoist beliefs; followers have a religious devotion to Master Li. In China, hundreds of people gather together in squares and parks throughout the country.The most public manifestation of Falun Gong is the practice of a range of exercises related to the ancient Chinese art of qigong – a kind of breathing meditation.To the accompaniment of special Falun Gong music, they perform routines with names such as “Buddha showing the thousand hands”, “The way of strengthening supernatural powers” and “The Falun Gong way to heavenly circulation”.

Originally, the Chinese government promoted Falun Gong, because the tremendous health benefits it offered eased the burden on China’s crumbling health care system. However, in seven years the number of Falun Gong practitioners grew to outnumber Communist party members almost two-to-one (there are around two million members according to the Chinese government).

The poster reads “Firmly support the decision of the Central Committee to deal with the illegal organization of ‘Falun Gong'”

In April 1999, an article critical of Falun Gong was published in Tianjin Normal University’s Youth Reader magazine. The article was authored by physicist He Zuoxiu who, as Porter and Gutmann note, is a relative of Politburo member and public security tsar Luo Gan. The article cast qigong, and Falun Gong in particular, as superstitious and potentially dangerous. Falun Gong practitioners responded by picketing the offices of the newspaper requesting a retraction of the article. That event was the beginning of the so called Tianjin and Zhongnanhai protests.

Falun Gong followers say they are a peaceful law-abiding group, following a philosophy and regime of exercises which lead to spiritual enlightenment and improve health. The authorities in China see Falun Gong in a far more sinister light.

Acting on orders from the government, police began harassing practitioners, preventing them from practicing together, and threatening them with arrest. Meanwhile, certain newspapers began printing negatively articles.

What supporters say about Falun Gong

Conversion program:  Falun Gong supporters claim that the Chinese regime aimed at both coercive dissolution of the Falun Gong denomination and “transformation” of the practitioners. By 2000, the Party upped its campaign by sentencing “recidivist” practitioners to “re-education through labor”, in an effort to have them renounce their beliefs and “transform” their thoughts. Terms were also arbitrarily extended by police, while some practitioners had ambiguous charges levied against them, such as “disrupting social order”, “endangering national security”, or “subverting the socialist system”.

Deaths and torture: Falun Gong supporters accuse the Chinese Government to be responsible for torture and deaths. Since 2000, the Special Rapporteur to the United Nations highlighted 314 cases of torture, representing more than 1,160 individuals, to the Government of China. Falun Gong comprise 66% of all such reported torture cases, 8% occurring within Ankangs. Some estimates on the number of Falun Gong adherents killed under persecution vary widely. In 2009, the New York Times reported that, according to human rights groups, the repressions had claimed “at least 2,000” lives. Amnesty International reported that at least 100 Falun Gong practitioners were believed to have been killed in the 2008 calendar year, either in custody or shortly after their release. Falun Gong sources have reported approximately 3,400 deaths. Journalist Ethan Gutmann of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies produced a median estimated death toll of 65,000 based on a refugee testimony, while researchers David Kilgour and David Matas produced an estimate of 41,500 killed from 2000 – 2005.

Organ harvesting: In March 2006 the Falun Gong-affiliated Epoch Times published a number of articles alleging that the China was conducting widespread and systematic organ harvesting of living Falun Gong practitioners. The website alleged that practitioners detained in labour camps, hospital basements, or prisons, were being blood- and urine-tested, their information stored on computer databases, and then matched with organ recipients. Within one month, third party investigators including representatives of the US Department of State, said that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. Former Canadian Secretary of State David Kilgour and human rights lawyer David Matas were commissioned by Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong to investigate the allegations. In July 2006, they published “Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China”, which concluded that large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners were victims of systematic organ harvesting throughout China, while still alive. US embassy staff visits showed an alleged location to be a normal hospital.

Ethan Gutmann, adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, approached the allegations by conducting extensive interviews around the world with a variety of former prisoners from Chinese labor camps and prisons, including Falun Gong practitioners and non-practitioners. He calculates that the number of practitioners killed for organs could be as high as 120,000, with a low estimate of 9,000, and 65,000 being the median. Estimates have been revised downwards from earlier numbers to reflect changing estimates of the overall Laogai System population by the Laogai Research Foundation. Chinese officials have repeatedly and firmly denied the organ harvesting allegations in the report.

Psychiatric abuse: Falun Gong and human rights observers began reporting widespread psychiatric abuse of mentally-healthy practitioners since 1999. Falun Gong says that thousands have been forcefully detained in mental hospitals and subject to psychiatric abuses such as injection of sedatives or anti-psychotic drugs, torture by electrocution, force-feeding, beatings and starvation.

What the Chinese Government says about Falun Gong

Falun Gong as a cult: The Chinese government allegates that Falun Gong is “propagating feudal superstition”, that Li had changed his birthdate, and that the practice exploited spiritual cultivation to engage in seditious politics. In exposés such as “Falun Gong is a Cult“, “Exposing the Lies of the ‘Falun Gong’ Cult“, and “Cult of Evil“, they allege that Falun Gong engages in mind control and manipulation via “lies and fallacies,” causing “needless deaths of large numbers of practitioners.” State media seized upon Li’s writing in which he expressed that illnesses are caused by karma, and that Li has stated on several occasions that the sign of a true practitioner is to refuse medicine or medical care. Li was portrayed as a charlatan, while snapshots of accounting records were shown on television, “purporting to prove that [he] made huge amounts of money off his books and videos.”

Opposed to the CPC: Xinhua News Agency, the official news organisation of the Communist Party, declared that Falun Gong is “opposed to the Communist Party of China and the central government, preaches idealism, theism and feudal superstition.” Xinhua also asserted that “the so-called ‘truth, kindness and forbearance’ principle preached by Li has nothing in common with the socialist ethical and cultural progress we are striving to achieve”, and argued that it was necessary to crush Falun Gong in order to preserve the “vanguard role and purity” of the Communist Party. Other articles appearing in the state-run media in the first days and weeks of the ban posited that Falun Gong must be defeated because its “theistic” philosophy was at odds with the Marxist-Leninism paradigm and with the secular values of materialism.

Threat to national security and stability: According to a press release from the Embassy of PRC in the USA “The government has worked to educate the majority of  Falun Gong practitioners, while cracking down, according to law, on a handful of those who have engaged in  criminal activity and jeopardized the public safety.” The official statement continues by saying that “So far, the cult has been directly responsible for 1,500 deaths– more than the number killed by the Ugandan “Ten Commandments of God” cult. Meanwhile, over 600 people have become mentally ill after practicing Falun Gong.”

Tool for mind manipulation: According to Chinese official statement Li Hongzhi used the lies and fallacies to manipulate the minds of the “Falun Gong” practitioners and caused needless deaths of large numbers of practitioners.  Over 1,000 practitioners died because they followed Li’s teachings and refused to seek medical treatment for their illnesses.  Several hundred practitioners committed self-mutilation or suicide.  Over 30 innocent people were killed by mentally deranged practitioners of “Falun Gong”.  In view of the serious violation of human rights and other criminal activities of “Falun Gong” cult organization, the Chinese Government outlawed this cult according to law in 1999 and issued a hue and cry for the arrest of the suspects including Li Hongzhi. According to the officials Falun Gong is against modern science, preaches the end of the world, forbids its followers watching TV or being treated in hospital and maintains that diseases do not exist and that ailments are due to sins people commit. They preached that UFOs had arrived on earth; aliens had taken over human bodies, and were trying to annihilate humanity through the control of TV and radio.

Is Falun Gong a cult?

Hongzhi Li wrote he could personally heal disease and that his followers can stop speeding cars using the powers of his teachings. He wrote that the Falun Gong emblem exists in the bellies of practitioners, who can see through the celestial eyes in their foreheads. Li believes “humankind is degenerating and demons are everywhere “extraterrestrials are everywhere, too and that Africa boasts a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor. He also said he could can fly. But  if classic characteristics of cults are taken into account, according to an article published by the Time Magazine back in July 2001, Falun Gong is not a cult.

For further information:

Falun Gong, from sport to suicide

http://www.facts.org.cn/reports/world/201012/t122601.htm

Timeline of persecution

http://www.thegreatprotest.com/van/timeline-of-persecution.html

The Chinese Government’s Crackdown on Falun Gong

http://newton.uor.edu/departments&programs/AsianStudiesDept/china-falun.html

Last June a case in which a 23-year old Chinese girl called Feng Jiamei, from Shaanxi province, was forced into abortion in the seventh month of pregnancy -even when Chinese law clearly prohibits abortions beyond six months- opened the pandora box in China, and outside the country. The baby was killed while still in the womb by an injection arranged by local family-planning officials.

After the event took place the Shaanxi Provincial Population and Family Planning Commission said in an official statement:

“Such practice has seriously violated the relevant policies set by national and provincial family planning commissions, which harmed the image of our family planning work, and caused extremely poor effects in society,” said the statement. Based on the findings, we have requested the local government to punish the relevant officers according to law.”.

It was too late to apologize. Millions of messages from outraged people circulated on social networks in China when they realized about the news. Also prominent voices joined in the criticism. “The outrageous and violent forced- abortion incident in June is not unique to Shaanxi”, wrote Liang Jianzhang (chief executive of Ctrip, on of China’s most successful travel companies), on Sina Weibo, China’s version of Twitter. “Abolition of the absurd family-planning policy is the only way to root out this kind of evil,” he went on. Mr Liang’s post has been retweeted more than 18,000 times.

In 1983, 14 million women had abortions organised by family-planning committees (many of them coerced). In 2009, there were 6 million. The number has declined in recent years as local officials have more incentives to impose fines on extra births rather than prevent them altogether.

So does it make sense to undertake such a policy in current China? Here we break down some arguments why the one-child policy is defended and some of why is heavily criticized.

Arguments in favor of the one-child policy

Social problems alleviation: this policy was introduced in 1978 and initially applied to first-born children from 1979. It was created by the Chinese government to alleviate social, economic, and environmental problems in China, and authorities claim that the policy has prevented more than 250 million births between 1980 and 2000, and 400 million births from about 1979 to 2011.

Lower the fertility rate: After the introduction of the one-child policy, the fertility rate in China fell from 2.63 births per woman in 1980 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to 1.61 in 2009. However, the policy itself is probably only partially responsible for the reduction in the total fertility rate.

Poverty eradication: In China’s poor areas, economic and cultural backwardness and too many births often interact as both cause and effect. The Chinese government has taken a step in giving support to the development of poor areas to alleviate poverty by promoting family planning, holding population growth under control, and raising the life quality of the population in those areas.

Public support: a 2008 survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center reported that 76% of the Chinese population supports the policy.

Arguments against the one-child policy (text taken from Wikipedia)

Other available policy alternatives: One type of criticism has come from those who acknowledge the challenges stemming from China’s high population growth but believe that less intrusive options, including those that emphasized delay and spacing of births, could have achieved the same results over an extended period of time. Some critics stress that some of these alternatives were known but not fully considered by China’s political leaders.

Policy benefits exagerated: Another criticism is that the claimed effects of the policy on the reduction in the total fertility rate are exaggerated. Studies by Chinese demographers, funded in part by the UN Fund for Population Activities, showed that combining poverty alleviation and health care with relaxed targets for family planning was more effective at reducing fertility than vigorous enforcement of very ambitious fertility reduction targets.

Human rights violation and forced abortions: The one-child policy is challenged in principle and in practice for violating a human right to determine the size of one’s own family. According to a 1968 proclamation of the International Conference on Human Rights, “Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children.” In 2002, China outlawed the use of physical force to make a woman submit to an abortion or sterilization, but it is not entirely enforced. In the execution of the policy, many local governments still demand abortions if the pregnancy violates local regulations, or even force abortions on women violating the policy, such as Feng Jianmei’s case.

The “four-two-one” problem: As the first generation of law-enforced only-children came of age for becoming parents themselves, one adult child was left with having to provide support for his or her two parents and four grandparents. Called the “4-2-1 Problem”, this leaves the older generations with increased chances of dependency on retirement funds or charity in order to receive support. If personal savings, pensions, or state welfare fail, most senior citizens would be left entirely dependent upon their very small family or neighbours for assistance.

Possible social problems for a generation of only children: Some parents may over-indulge their only child. The media referred to the indulged children in one-child families as “little emperors”. Since the 1990s, some people have worried that this will result in a higher tendency toward poor social communication and cooperation skills among the new generation, as they have no siblings at home. No social studies have investigated the ratio of these over-indulged children and to what extent they are indulged. With the first generation of children born under the policy reaching adulthood, such worries were reduced.

Unequal enforcement: Government officials and especially wealthy individuals have often been able to violate the policy in spite of fines. For example, between 2000 and 2005, as many as 1,968 officials in central China’s Hunan province were found to be violating the policy, according to the provincial family planning commission; also exposed by the commission were 21 national and local lawmakers, 24 political advisors, 112 entrepreneurs and 6 senior intellectuals. Some of the offending officials did not face penalties, although the government did respond by raising fines and calling on local officials to “expose the celebrities and high-income people who violate the family planning policy and have more than one child.”

Birth tourism: A way to escape the strict rules of the one-child policy is for Chinese women to give birth to their second child overseas. A favourite destination was Hong Kong. Hong Kong is exempt from the one-child policy and the Hong Kong passport, which is different from a China mainland passport, provides additional advantages. Recently though, the Hong Kong government has drastically reduced the quota of births set for non-local women in public hospitals. As a result fees for delivering babies there have surged.

UPDATE (Dec, 2013): Chinese government has announced changes to ease the One-child policy which will allow more parents to have a second child, starting the roll out early 2014, according to state media.

For further information:

Chinese academics urge end to one-child policy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9378679/Chinese-academics-urge-end-to-one-child-policy.html

China one-child policy leads to forced abortions, mothers’ deaths

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/15/world/la-fg-china-abortions-20120616

The one-child policy: The brutal truth

http://www.economist.com/node/21557369

Recently different media have extensively featured the escalating tension between China and the Philippines regarding territorial claims over numerous small islands and waters in the South China Sea. Last week the dispute reached a new level of concern, with hints of economic retaliation and even war. China has suspended tourist travel to Philippines and reinforced inspection on the country’s fruit -Chinais the single biggest buyer of Philippine bananas.

What is the conflict between the two countries?

Since early April,Chinaand the Philippines have been locked in a standoff at the Scarborough Shoal where they have stationed non-military vessels. Both claim to own the string of small islands in the South China Sea, about 230 kilometers from the Philippines and more than 1,200 kilometers from China.

The South China Sea is a marginal sea that is part of the Pacific Ocean, encompassing an area from the Singapore and Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan of around 3.5 million km2. It contains over 250 small islands, atolls, cays, shoals, reefs, and sandbars, most of which have no indigenous people, many of which are naturally under water at high tide, and some of which are permanently submerged. The area’s importance largely results from one-third of the world’s shipping transiting through its waters, and it is believed to hold huge oil and gas reserves beneath its seabed.

The South China Sea dispute

Several countries have made competing territorial claims over the South China Sea. It is a dispute over territory and sovereignty over ocean areas and the Paracels and the Spratlys – two island chains claimed in whole or in part by a number of countries. Such disputes have been regarded as Asia’s most potentially dangerous point of conflict. Both China and Taiwan claim almost the entire body as their own, demarcating their claims within what is known as the nine-dotted line, which claims overlap with virtually every other country in the region. Competing claims include:

• Indonesia, China, and Taiwanover waters NE of the Natuna Islands
• The Philippines, China, and Taiwanover the Malampaya and Camago gas fields.
• The Philippines, China, and Taiwanover Scarborough Shoal.
• Vietnam, China, and Taiwanover waters west of the Spratly Islands. Some or all of the islands themselves are also disputed between Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
• The Paracel Islands are disputed between the PRC/ROC andVietnam.
• Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam over areas in the Gulf of Thailand.
• Singapore and Malaysia along the Strait of Johore and the Strait of Singapore.

Who are the main players?

China: claims by far the largest portion of territory – an area stretching hundreds of miles south and east from its most southerly province of Hainan. Beijing has said its right to the area come from 2,000 years of history where the Paracel and Spratly island chains were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation. In 1947 China issued a map detailing its claims showing the two island groups falling entirely within its territory. Those claims are mirrored byTaiwan, because the island considers itself the Republic of China and has the same territorial claims.

Philippines: claims the Spratly Islands, which are believed to lie above significant oil and gas reserves. The area is also of high strategic value as a vital sea lane for much of the world’s trade.Philippines invokes its geographical proximity to theSpratlyIslands as the main basis of its claim for part of the grouping. Both the Philippines and China lay claim to the Scarborough Shoal (known as Huangyan Island in China) – a little more than 100 miles (160km) from the Philippines and 500 miles from China.

Vietnam: disputes China’s historical account, saying China never claimed sovereignty over the islands until the 1940s.Vietnam says both island chains are entirely within its territory. It says it has actively ruled over both the Paracels and the Spratlys since the 17th Century – and has the documents to prove it.

Taiwan: Taiwan’s “U-shaped line” in the South China Sea overlaps with China’s “9-dotted line,” but Taiwan claims territorial sovereignty over all the islands within this boundary. However, this claim has been questioned by theUS and the other countries with territorial stakes to the area.

Malaysia and Brunei: they also lay claim to territory in the South China Sea that they say falls within their economic exclusion zones, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982. Brunei does not claim any of the disputed islands, but Malaysia claims a small number of islands in the Spratlys.

Singapore: claims over Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Putih including neighboring Middle Rocks by both Singapore and Malaysia were settled in 2008 by the International Court of Justice, awarding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore and Middle Rocks toMalaysia.

United States: the US has been traditionally the dominant power in Asia-Pacific, and it has been strengthening its engagement in the region to keep in check China’s regional ambitions. In July 2010, when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became involved in the debate and called for a binding code of conduct, China was not pleased. The Chinese Foreign Ministry dismissed her suggestion as an attack on China.

Energy resources in South China Sea

The Ministry of Geological Resources and Mining of the People’s Republic of Chinaestimated that the South China Sea may contain 17.7 billion tons of crude (compared to Kuwait with 13 billion tons). But American scientists have estimated the amount of oil at 28 billion barrels. According to the EIA, the real wealth of the area may well be natural gas reserves. Estimates say the area holds about 900 trillion cubic ft (25 trillion cubic m) – the same as the proven reserves of Qatar.

[vsw id=”V7SA3p8ys-s” source=”youtube” width=”425″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

For further information:

Q&A: South China Sea dispute

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349

Timeline of Huangyan Island incident

http://www.globaltimes.cn/SPECIALCOVERAGE/SouthChinaSeaConflict.aspx

South China Sea Conflict? No Way

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/10/23/south-china-sea-conflict-no-way/?all=true

Last Sunday  Li Zhaoxing, spokesman for the annual session of China’s national legislature, unveiled the new China’s military figures for 2012: its defense budget will increase by 11.2 percent to 670 billion yuan (106.4 billion U.S. dollars) this year. The draft defense budget is 67.6 billion yuan more than the defense expenditure of 2011. As it is being usual in the last few years the number of the the world’s second highest military budget in the world, after the U.S., provokes some confrontation between the Western countries and China.

Defense spending has more than doubled since 2006, tracking a rise in nominal gross domestic product from 20.9 trillion yuan to 47.2 trillion yuan in that time. It is expected to double again by 2015, making it more than the rest of the Asia Pacific region’s combined, according to a report from IHS Jane’s, a global think tank specializing in security issues. According to the report, Beijing’s military spending will reach $238.2 billion in 2015, compared with $232.5 billion for rest of the region.

Arguments in favor of China’s military budget rise

According to economic development: China’s main argument in favor of such a increase in defense budget is that the Chinese government follows the principle of coordinating defense development with economic development. It sets the country’s defense spending according to the requirements of national defense and the level of economic development. According to Li, “The Chinese government follows the principle of coordinating defense development with economic development. It sets the country’s defense spending according to the requirements of national defense and the level of economic development”.

Low proportion relative to GDP: According to China’s government  the share of defense spending in China’s GDP dropped from 1.33 percent in 2008 to 1.28 percent in 2011, and that in China’s fiscal expenditure dropped from 6.68 percent in 2008 to 5.53 percent in 2011, since China’s gross domestic product (GDP) and national fiscal expenditure showed year-on-year growth of 14.5 percent and 20.3 percent, respectively, but the country’s defense expenditure only grew by 13 percent, according to Li.

Intended to modernize the army: The increase in its military spending is intended to meet the necessary demands for military modernization. China’s military spending mainly comprises the living expenditures of servicepeople, expenses for training and maintenance, and spending on equipment, Li said at the press conference. The costs for research, experimentation, procurement, repair, transport and storage of all weapons and equipment, including new types of weapons, are included in the defense budget that is published every year, the spokesman said.

To improve army’s conditions: “Chinese people can share the fruit of economic development and its 2.3 millions soldiers should be no exception. The defense budget should cover expenses such as pay increases and training and the army would benefit from a fast-developing social security system.”, mentions Li Hong, secretary-general of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, writes in China Daily.

People’s Liberation Army officers earn at least 5,400 yuan ($845) per month on average, a very competitive wage compared to Chinese state owned enterprise employees’ average monthly earnings of closer to US$626 (4,000 RMB).

Not interested in arms race: China will not develop its military strength beyond national security demands and economic capability, and will not conduct an arms race with any country, according to Chinese analysts. “China will not engage in an arms race with other countries”, Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said last February 24th, stressing that China’s military growth is for defensive purposes.

Peaceful rise of China: According to the Chinese official, China is committed to the path of peaceful development and follows a national defense policy that is defensive in nature. The limited military strength of China is solely for safeguarding its national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and will not pose a threat to any country, said Li.

Arguments against China’s military budget rise

The actual figures are higher: According to foreign analysts the actual spending on China’s military activities is greater than the publicly disclosed budgets and analysts can only estimate the total costs. Phillip Saunders, director of the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at National Defense University in Washington, estimates China’s true defense spending is 50 percent higher than the official budget because items such as research and development as well as foreign weapons procurement are not included. Vital elements of the Chinese military buildup, including cyberwarfare, space capabilities and foreign procurements, were not included in the announced budget,  analysts say.

Lack of transparency:  Acting Australia Foreign Minister Craig Emerson yesterday emphasised the need for China to be upfront about its military spending. “We seek transparency in the Chinese defence budget”. Another neighbor, Japan, is “closely watching” China’s military spending and is seeking greater transparency in its outlays, Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura told reportered yesterday in Tokyo.

To increase military presence: China is further strengthening its capabilities in response to U.S. plans to increase its military presence in the Pacific and is followed by China’s neighbors as an indicator of China’s growing capability to project force beyond its borders. China claims indisputable sovereignty over the islands, reefs and shoals of the South China Sea and their surrounding waters, demarcating a tongue-shaped claim on Chinese maps extending hundreds of miles from mainland China.

To scare neighbors: China is “always ready” to use force if necessary to ensure its territorial integrity in the South China Sea, Maj. Gen. Luo Yan, deputy secretary general of the Chinese Academy of Military Science, said yestrday. China’s military should be “strong and big,” and the country should do more to mark its rightful claim to the area, he told reporters in Beijing.

To confront territorial disputes: China also has contests control over the Senkaku, or Diaoyu islands with Japan, which sparked a diplomatic standoff in 2010 after Japan detained a Chinese fishing boat captain when his vessel collided with a Japanese patrol boat. Vietnam recently filed a protest saying China assaulted its fishermen and prevented them from entering the Paracel Islands. China responded by claiming sovereignty over the islands and said it didn’t board the vessels.

To protect economic interests: China has economic interests around the world, including 812,000 workers abroad at the end of 2011, mean China’s military may increasingly deploy across the globe. China set a frigate to Libya last year to help evacuate thousands of Chinese nationals during the revolt that saw the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi.

Military race: IHS Jane’s report predicts a military budget increase by an average of 18.75 percent annually until 2015. “China’s investment will race ahead at an eye watering 18.75 percent, leaving Japan and India far behind,” said Paul Burton, senior principal analyst of IHS Jane’s Defence Budgets.

For further information:

Pentagon’s 2011 report to Congress on the Chinese military

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2011_cmpr_final.pdf

China Military and Armed Forces (People’s Liberation Army, PLA)

http://www.chinatoday.com/arm/

China’s Defense Spending Dilemma

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/03/05/chinas-defense-spending-dilemma/

A few weeks ago was unveiled the 2011-2012 edition of the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR), a yearly report published by the World Economic Forum which ranks countries based on the Global Competitiveness Index. The first report was released in 1979. The 2011–2012 report covers 142 major and emerging economies. On the latest edition of the report China (which ranks 26th) continues to lead the way among large developing economies, improving by one more place and solidifying its position among the top 30.

China has improved its score and rank each year since 2005. The world’s most populous country continues to lead the BRICS economies by a significant margin. Why?

Key points of China competitiveness

Good macroeconomic situation. Despite its prolonged high inflation (which usually is over 5-6%) China’s macroeconomic situation is again very favorable (ranking 10th in the world in that aspect).

Low debt and high savings. China is one of the world’s least indebted countries, boasts a savings rate of some 53 percent of GDP, and runs only moderate budget deficits. These factors, combined with good economic prospects, contribute to an improvement of the quality of its sovereign debt far greater than that of the other BRICS.

High standards in health and education. China also achieves relatively high standards in terms of health and basic education (ranks 32nd), with positive trends in health indicators and nearly universal access to primary education, which is well assessed in terms of quality.

The Chinese culture has a tradition of placing a high premium on learning and on continuing education. An ancient proverb says “Never stop learning as long as you live.”

Improve in innovation and business. Turning to the more sophisticated areas of competitiveness, China ranks high in business sophistication (37th) and innovation (29th), particularly when considering its level of development.

Financial market development. The country improves markedly in financial market development (48th in the world, up nine spots), thanks to an increased availability and affordability of financial services and better access to credit.

Internet and mobile penetration. China is also making strides in technological readiness (77th, up one), largely because of double-digit growth in the penetration rates of Internet use and mobile telephony.

What still needs to be improved

Corruption and judicial independence. On a less positive note, a number of challenges persist in the areas of corruption and judicial independence within the institutions.

Decline in safety. Moreover, the sentiment among businesses is that the country has become less safe over the past three years, resulting in higher costs for protection against diverse forms of crime and violence.

Poor accountability. Standards of business ethics (57th) and corporate accountability (66th) are below those found in a number of other economies. As in previous years, China’s fairly poor results in the financial market development and technological readiness pull down the economy’s overall competitiveness performance.

According to the report, businesses think that some of the most problematic factors for doing business in China are inflation, access to financing, inefficient government bureaucracy, policy instability, corruption, and inadequate supply of infrastructure.

For further information:

The Competitiveness of China’s labour costs

http://www.chinasourcingblog.org/2010/11/labourcosts.html

The Myth of Chinese Competitiveness

http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/miyakodayori/047.html

Enhancing China’s Competitiveness Through Lifelong Learning

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/KFDLP/Resources/461197-1170257103854/ECCLL_execsumm.pdf

Just a few countries in the world can tell what China can tell now: a story of success in reducing poverty. Spectacular progress had been made in reducing absolute rural poverty levels to one eighth of what they were in 1978 when the economic reform process commenced – nearly all people have enough to eat and some clothing.  In China poverty rate declined from 85% in 1981 to 16% in 2005 (poverty being defined as the number of people living on <$1.25/day, the World Bank’s poverty standard). However, income disparities have increased in the meantime.  In fact, the Gini measure of inequality increased from 0.31 at the beginning of the economic reforms to 0.41 by 2007 (one of the highests rates in all Asia).

Latest China’s Government move regarding this was taken on Nov. 29 when announced a new threshold defining poverty, or 2,300 yuan (US$362) in terms of the annual net income of farmers, is equal to US$1.80 a day. This represents an increase of over 80% from the 1,274 yuan (US$200) standard in 2010. That will make 128 million people, or 13.4% of the registered rural population, eligible for government anti-poverty subsidies. This differs substantially from the figures provided by the government which admits a poor population of 26.88 million by the end of 2010.

China’s new poverty line over World Bank’s

China’s poverty line is set at 2010 prices. Thanks to inflation, 6.3 yuan (result of dividing the new poverty threshold by 365 days) in 2010 bought only as much as 5.46 yuan in 2005.  According to the World Bank, 5.46 yuan in China in 2005 stretched about as far as $1.33 in America in the same year, which is 8 cents higher than the World Bank poverty line standard ($1.25/day).

China’s standard is an absolute poverty line, using income and consumption aspects with food and non-food expenditures. Since the earliest line of 100 yuan in 1978, China’s poverty line has been adjusted over 20 times, mostly due to inflation adjustments. For food expenditure, a basket of foods which could achieve 2,100 calories per day is used, with proportions spread amongst various locally consumed grains, vegetables, meat, rice/noodles etc. For the 1,196 yuan standard, a pre-determined Engel’s coefficient (ratio of food expenditure to total expenditures) of 0.6 was used. Poverty line and poverty rate calculations are done by the National Bureau of Statistics, which conducts the National Rural Household Income Survey and the National Poverty Monitoring Survey annually.

China’s plans to fight poverty

China’s latest ‘Outline for Poverty Reduction and Development of China’s Rural Areas (2011-2020)’ is the latest Chinese government plan to fight against poverty in the country. Officials said ensuring sufficient food and clothing for the impoverished and helping them become prosperous will be a priority over the next decade. This is the third state-level poverty-reduction plan and is part of the government’s efforts to build a well-off society in an all-around way by 2020. In 2001, China published the ‘Outline for Poverty Reduction and Development of China’s Rural Areas (2001-2010)’, reiterating the need to reduce poverty through development projects.

China increased its spending on poverty reduction from 12.75 billion yuan in 2001 to 34.93 billion yuan in 2010, representing an average annual growth rate of 11.9 percent.

New poverty lines will be decided by local governments

In August 2011, it was announced that provinces and autonomous regions would be allowed to set their own poverty lines for rural populations according to local circumstances. Last August, China Daily was precisely stressing out how China will, from now on, allow local governments to replace the national standards for what constitutes poverty with their own in an effort to lift millions of rural residents out of the ranks ofthe poor in a decade. According to this media, Hong Tianyun -spokesman of the State Council’s leading group office of poverty alleviation and development- states:

“The latest outline of poverty alleviation and development in rural China, which will be in effect from later this year until 2020, will let provinces and autonomous regions set their own poverty line in accordance with local average incomes, natural conditions and other circumstances”.

World Bank’s doubts: ‘China is poorer than we thought, but no less successful in the fight against poverty’

World Bank always hesitates about Chinese Government releases, so they do in poverty issues. On 2008 the Organization realeased a paper on whose authors were showing some doubts on the real number of poor people in the country. The authors stressed: ‘Using an international poverty line of USD 1.25 at 2005 PPP, we find a substantially higher poverty rate for China than past estimates, with about 15% of the population living in consumption poverty, implying about 130 million more poor by this standard. The income poverty rate in 2005 is 10%, implying about 65 million more people living in poverty. However, the new International Comparison Program data suggest an even larger reduction in the number of poor since 1981.’

For further information:

– Poverty Profile of the People’s Republic of China 

– Poverty Statistics in China

– Govt to let regions establish their own poverty standards

– China to raise poverty threshold

One of the latest and most notorious reports released about corruption in China (a Chinese central bank report released last June) unveiled something striking: since 1990 China missed about 800 billion yuan (more than $120 billion). How can a country “miss” $120 billion in 20 years? Easy. Allowing around 18,000 officials to steal, on average, an estimated 50 million yuan (more than $7 million). This is the number of of Communist Party and government officials, public security members, judicial cadres, agents of State institutions, and senior management figures of state-owned enterprises fleeing China since 1990. This means that  the Chinese officials mentioned stole as much money as Qatar’s 2010 GDP (according to CIA World Factbook). In China corruption afects about 3% of the GDP.

Another recent publication by Transparency International (TI’s 2011 Bribe Payers Index), released early this month, ranks 28 leading international and regional exporting countries by the likelihood of their firms to bribe abroad. Companies from Russia and China, who invested $120 billion overseas in 2010, are seen as most likely to pay bribes abroad.

China’s anti-corruption watchdog said that 106,000 officials were found guilty of corruption in 2009, an increase of 2.5% on the year before. The number of government officials caught embezzling more than one million yuan ($146,000) jumped by 19% over the year.

In the US the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA)  is a federal law known primarily for two of its main provisions, one that addresses accounting transparency requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and another concerning bribery of foreign officials. Just a few days ago the investigative firm James Mintz Group released a new database — called “Where the Bribes Are” — of every FCPA case that it says allows users to access such information in short order by clicking on an interactive map. The database points out that China was the only country in the database that cut across every sector (energy, manufacturing, defense, etc.) that has ever been targeted.

Almost every day the Chinese government arrests someone. A few years ago, it was the Communist Party secretary of Shanghai, Chen Liangyu. Recently the mayor of Shenzhen was sacked. The country’s richest man, Huang Guangyu, founder of the electronics retailer Guomei, was arrested for this very same reason. Just a few days ago the former boss of Beijing’s main airport has admitted taking bribes. So, the question is?

Is China the most corrupt country in the world?

The answer is: not at all. For 2010, China was ranked 78 of 179 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, ranking slightly above fellow BRIC nations India and Russia, but below Brazil and most developed countries. Means of corruption include graft, bribery, embezzlement, backdoor deals, nepotism, patronage, and statistical falsification.

Fighting against corruption in China

Chinese government has more than 1,200 laws, rules, and directives against corruption, but its implementation is spotty and ineffective. Despite enormous media coverage when officials are caught under corruption charges less than three percent of them are going to jail, making corruption a high-return, low-risk activity.

The CCP has tried a variety of anti-corruption measures, constructing a variety of laws and agencies in an attempt to stamp out corruption. In 2004, the CCP devised strict regulations on officials assuming posts in business and enterprise. The Central Committee for Discipline Inspection and the Central Organisation Department issued a joint circular instructing Party committees, governments and related departments at all levels not to give approval for Party and government officials to take up concurrent posts in enterprises. Such measures are largely ineffective, however, due to the insufficient enforcement of the relevant laws.

This ineficiency results from corruption being addressed in the vast majority of cases by Communist Party disciplinary organs; only a fraction of cases are submitted to state judicial organs for prosecution. Only at the lower administrative levels are corrupt government and party officials punished with any frequency. At the higher and central-government levels, many corrupt officials are able to escape punishment; only a few show cases have been given extensive media coverage in order to demonstrate that the government and the CCP are determined to rein in corruption.

China’s ruling Communist Party said last June that it plans more inspections and supervision of officials as it battles corruption. The party will monitor the use of public vehicles and supervise officials’ financial assets to curb and combat illegal financial activities. Will these new measures be effective? Ask the officials who are already enjoying the “missing” money abroad.

For more information:

Corruption Threatens China’s Future

http://carnegieendowment.org/2007/10/09/corruption-threatens-china-s-future/g4

Corruption in China: how public officials took $120 billion, and ran

http://www.worldcrunch.com/corruption-china-how-public-officials-took-120-billion-and-ran/3355

Anti-corruption websites pop up in China

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/26/china.corruption/index.html

This is the million dollar question. If you ask this question to a Westerner he/she would probably say ‘no’, but if you ask this very same question to a Chinese he/she would probably say ‘yes’. In fact an English-speaking Chinese woman, a graduate of an American university, at an expensive restaurant in the most fashionable neighborhood of Beijing just said when asked about this question: “Why do you assume that we want Western democracy?” This is the key point in the discussion on China’s democracy.

What kind of democracy are we talking about?

China’s leaders do not think of democracy as people in the West generally. “Our objectives of carrying out the socialist modernization drive are to catch up with the developed capitalist countries in terms of economy and to create a higher level of democracy with more substance than that of capitalist countries in terms of politics,” Deng Xiaoping said long ago. And just two years ago Parliament chief Wu Bangguo said that China would draw on the achievements of all cultures but would not “simply copy” the West. Communist Party leadership should be strengthened and “the correct political orientation” maintained, he said.

The three most important leaders of China’s recent history (Sun Yat-sen, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping) diverged on democracy’s approach but agreed that democracy was not an end in itself but rather a mechanism for achieving China’s real purpose of becoming a country that could no longer be bullied by outside powers.

Local elections in China

China already holds more elections than any other nation in the world. Under the Organic Law of the Village Committees, all of China’s approximately 1 million villages – home to some 600 million voters – hold elections every three years for local village committees. Critics scoff at these elections and say they are manipulated by local Communist party officials. But village elections have been growing more competitive, with more independent candidates and use of the secret ballot becoming more common.

Western approach vs Chinese approach

The Western approach

Western researches and think tanks agree that China is not a democracy. “Today, of course, China is not a democracy. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a monopoly on political power, and the country lacks freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, and other fundamental attributes of a pluralistic liberal system.”, states John L. Thornton in a Foreign Affairs article.

Freedom House classifies China as a “Not Free” country, which means dictatorship, and the Economist Intelligence Unit sees China as an “Authoritarian Regime” (where Functioning of the Government and Political Culture are the best valued categories). Freedom House states on its latest assessment on China’s democracy: “Article 35 of the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, association, and publication. However, such provisions are subordinated to the national interest as defined by the courts, and the constitution cannot be invoked in court as a legal basis for asserting individual rights.” And adds: “Judges are appointed by and generally follow the directives of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly in politically sensitive cases. There is no press law that governs the protection of journalists or punishment of those who attack them.”

The Chinese approach

Unlike the western approach Chinese vision on democracy is focused mostly on the ruling party, in what is called the inner-party democracy. Ye Xiaowen, secretary of the Party Committee of the Central Institute of Socialism, states: “The Party’s democracy is “better” because it has effectively combined the adherence to the Party’s leadership with the rule by the people and the rule by law and established the system of people’s congresses, the system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the Party’s leadership, the system of regional autonomy for ethnic minorities and the grass-roots mass self-government system. This is the institutional guarantee of democracy. “

Jiang Zemin’s speech at the 16th CPC National Congress in 2007 pointed out that “Inner-Party democracy is the life of the Party and plays an important exemplary and leading role in people’s democracy.”

Xiaowen, continues by saying: “The Party’s democracy is “more pragmatic” because most developing countries face not only the issue of democracy but also the issue of the correct path and means toward democracy.”. And the he exemplifies how Russia and Eastern European countries once embraced Western-style democracy need to adopt radical reforms in order to imitate the Western democracy. According to Xiaowen, after numerous setbacks, the politicians and the masses there are now aware that “although it is worth pursuing democratic politics, the pushes to democracy will lead to social discontent and unrest and accordingly undermine the legitimacy of the regimes if they cannot advance economic and social development during the process. “

For further information:

The Communist Party of China: Reforms & Democracy

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66098/index.html

China’s tentative steps towards democracy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/19/china-barack-obama

CPC inner-party democracy: theory, practice and institutionalization

http://www.china.org.cn/english/congress/228201.htm

The Glorious 15th of October: The 17th Party Congress Opens!

http://china.blogs.time.com/2007/10/14/the_glorious_15th_of_october_t/

V.P.N.’s are popular with China’s huge expatriate community and Chinese entrepreneurs, researchers and scholars who expect to use the Internet freely. I am using one while writing these lines… But this week it’s been tough to get internet access since the Chinese government might be pushing harder because of the fortchoming China’s National Day (next October, 1st).

China, as it happened in other fields such as economy, has been rapidly increasing its internet penetration in the country. Since its first internet connections with the global computer network in 1994, China has witnessed explosive internet development, and by the end of 2008, China replaced the United States as the largest Internet user of the world. As a result of that, the growth of chinese language internet users has been exponential since year 2000, with an increase of 1,277%. And internet is usually a synonym of free access to the information, unless somebody does something to prevent it = internet censorship.

Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. China, along with another 8 countries (like Myanmar, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc), is censoring internet to maintain the traditional social values, to maintain political stability and to maintain national security.

Last year China’s government released a white paper defending its censoring policy. The document said the country has the right to govern the internet according to its own rules inside its borders: “Within Chinese territory the internet is under the jurisdiction of Chinese sovereignty. The internet sovereignty of China should be respected and protected,” it said according to the BBC. The white paper basically mentions that Chinese government is blocking the internet because it “wants to curb the harmful effects of illegal information on state security, public interests and children.”

China’s internet police

According to Wikipedia the size of the Internet police “is rumored at more than 30-50,000. Critical comments appearing on Internet forums, blogs, and major portals such as Sohu and Sina usually are erased within minutes.” In 2010 about 1.3 million websites closed down in mainland China made 41 percent fewer websites at the end of 2010 than a year earlier.

The Great Firewall

According to the OpenNet Initivative the ‘great firewall of China’ uses a variety of overlapping techniques for blocking content containing a wide range of material considered politically sensitive by the Chinese government. While China employs filtering techniques used by many other countries, including DNS (domain name system) tampering and IP (internet protocol) blocking, it is unique in the world for its system of Internet connections when triggered by a list of banned keywords. Known as a TCP reset, this content filtering by keyword targets content regardless of where it is hosted.

TCP reset filtering is based on inspecting the content of IP packets for keywords that would trigger blocking, either in the header or the content of the message. When a router in the Great Firewall identifies a bad keyword, it sends reset packets to both the source and destination IP addresses in the packet, breaking the connection.

The most blocked keywords in China

The most blocked keywords in China are those related to Tibetan independence, Dalai Lama, Taiwan independence, police brutality, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, freedom of speech, pornography, some international news sources and propaganda outlets (such as Voice of America and the Chinese edition of BBC News), and certain religious movements (such as Falun Gong).

In May 2009 the most blocked keywords by Baidu (the most popular search engine in China) were the following:

• Chinese Communist Party, Ruling government
• Puppet government, One-party system
• Dictatorship, tyranny
• Human rights in China & Freedom of expression
• Gao Zhisheng (Chinese lawyer and activist)
• Falun Gong (Banned cult in China founded by Li Hongzhi)
• Keywords related to Military, Gambling, Brainwashing & Sex
• Kidney harvesting from live people, Organ Sale
• Tiananmen Square Massacre
• Tibet, Taiwan Independence
• Cheating in Examinations, Fake Diploma courses
• How to make bombs, counterfeit money and so on

For further information:

In the village of Longsheng (Guangxi province, China), famous for its widely known rice terraces (Longji terraces), modernity and tradition coexist. This small village is visited for thousands of tourists every year. It hosts four minority nationalities: Miao, Yao, Dong and Zhuang.

The Yao and Zhuang nationalities live in Longji. The Yao have distinctive clothing and hair styles which set them apart from other ethnic groups. Yao women are famous for having the longest hair in the world. Once they turn 18 years old they never cut their hair again.

56 ethnicities in China

China officially recognizes 55 ethnic minority groups within the country in addition to the Han majority. As of 2010, the combined population of officially recognised minority groups comprised 8.49% of the population of mainland China. Xinjiang and Yunnan are the most diverse provinces in China, with 47 and 25 ethnic groups respectively.

The Zhuang minority (the ethnic minority this girl belongs to) is the most populous of China’s Nationalities, and one of the best integrated with the Han. They share with the Dai (ethnic kin of the people of Thailand) common linguistic roots and love of festival singing and dancing. The Zhuang are found in the Provinces of Yunnan, Guangdong, Guizhou, and the Guangxi Autonomous Region. On the other side, the Lhoba minority ,  a Tibeto-Burman tribespeople living in and around “Pemako” (a region in Southeastern Tibet), is the smallest minority with barely 3,000 people belonging to it.

China describes itself as a “united socialist multiethnic state” united under the umbrella of the dominant Han people. The Han make up about 92 percent of China’s population, and they occupy many positions of power in the Chinese government. According to the New York Times: ‘The government has sought to suppress any movement by minority groups toward greater autonomy or outright independence that the Han see as threatening China’s stability.’

In 2009 tensions between the Han and minority groups led to deadly riots in different parts of the country, the expansion of the Han population across the country has provoked frictions in those territories previously dominated by minorities. Probably the most known conflict is the one in Tibet, but this is something we will introduce in a specific post in the future.

According to the Spiegel: ‘The allure of the country’s economic miracle, the appeal of its booming cities and the dominance of the Chinese language in film, radio and on television are wearing away at minorities’ distinct identity. More than all inept propaganda slogans, the consumer society and pop culture are becoming a true steamroller that flattens all traditions. The pull of the dominant Chinese culture has thoroughly infiltrated the daily lives of the country’s minorities.’ And still adds: ‘This dominance stems from the concept of a natural hierarchy with the Han on top, as political leaders, social role models and even as a “civilizing” force.’

On the photo a girl in Longsheng is persuaded by the money she could get in late 2007 by taking pictures – with a digital camera – to hundreds of tourists anxious for having an image with a member of the  Zhuang minority dressed up in the traditional style.

For further information:

Minorities in China: interactive

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/10/world/20090711-xinjiang.html

Ethnic minorities in China

http://asiasociety.org/countries/traditions/ethnic-minorities-china

The Fate of China’s minorities

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,570402,00.html