Call for UK to ban patients travelling to China for 'organ tourism'

Forty MPs back effort before inquiry into China's forced organ harvesting
By Owen Bowcott 

UK patients should be banned from travelling to China for transplant surgery, the government has been told, before an inquiry into allegations of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience.
The call has so far been backed by 40 MPs from all parties before the next session of the independent China tribunal, which is investigating claims that detainees are being targeted by the regime. 

Opening a Westminster Hall debate last week, the DUP MP Jim Shannon urged the UK government to consider imposing an organ tourism ban like those already enacted by Italy, Spain, Israel and Taiwan.
“It is wrong that people should travel from here to China for what is almost a live organ on demand to suit themselves,” Shannon, the MP for Strangford in Northern Ireland, said. 

“It is hard to take in what that means – it leaves one incredulous.
“It means someone can sit in London or in Newtownards and order an organ to be provided on demand. Within a month they can have the operation.
“We need to control that structurally, as other countries have, not simply because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is necessary to protect UK citizens from unwittingly playing a role in the horrifying suffering of religious or belief groups in China.”
The China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC who was formerly a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has been taking evidence about mispractices from medical experts, human rights investigators and others.
It will hold a second round of hearings on 6 and 7 April in London. 

Its final judgment will be published on 13 June. 

China has been asked to participate but has declined to do so.
In an interim judgment released last December, the tribunal said: “In China forced-organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practised for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims... It is beyond doubt on the evidence presently received that forced harvesting of organs has happened on a substantial scale by state-supported or approved organisations and individuals.”
Among those killed are members of religious minorities such as Falun Gong, Tibetans, Uighur Muslims and Christian sects. 

In 2014, China announced that it would stop removing organs for transplantation from executed prisoners.
It is not clear how many UK citizens have travelled to China for transplants. 

Waiting times for operations are said to be far shorter than in the west. 

One inquiry suggested that a liver transplant could be arranged privately at a Chinese hospital for $100,000.
Fiona Bruce, the Conservative MP for Congleton, who is also leading the campaign for a ban said during the Westminster debate: “Our government could inquire about the numbers of organ removals and their sources … They could reduce demand by banning organ tourism … This is not a case of a few voluntary organ transplants; it is a case of mass killings through forced organ removal, of religious persecution, of grave allegations of crimes against humanity.”
Mark Field, the Foreign Office minister, acknowledged that there was a growing body of research, much of which was “very worrying” but he believed relatively few people in the UK chose to travel to China for organ transplants.
Introducing a travel ban, he said, would be difficult to police since it would be hard to establish whether people had travelled there for that purpose. 

Field said: “But, it is important that we make them aware that other countries may have poorer medical and ethical safeguards than the UK, and that travelling abroad for treatments, including organ transplants, carries fundamental risks.”

China Is Spying On Israel to Steal U.S. Secrets

Benjamin Netanyahu ignored the Chinese intelligence operations for too long. Now, the Israeli government is finally paying attention, but it could be too late.
BY YOSSI MELMAN
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talks with soldiers as he stands near a naval Iron Dome defense system installed on a Sa'ar 5 Lahav Class corvette of the Israeli Navy fleet, in the northern port of Haifa on Feb. 12.

This month, Israel’s National Security Council (NSC) will present the cabinet with its recommendations on foreign investments in Israel. 

Because of the sensitivity of the issue, no one in the cabinet is prepared to talk about the elephant in the room. 

Nevertheless, it is clear that the policy review and the report are primarily focused on China.
In the past decade, Beijing has increased its economic and military investments and interests in the Middle East, including Israel.
In the past decade, Beijing has increased its economic and military investments and interests in the Middle East, including Israel. 

The Israeli government ignored China’s behavior for too long, but lately it has begun to pay attention. The National Security Council has to reconcile two contradictory policies, both of which are important to the Israeli economy and its national-security interests.
The first is a policy embraced by all government across the political spectrum for decades: encouraging foreign investment, privatization of national assets and utilities, and the expansion of international markets for Israeli goods. 

In recent years, like many other exporters, Israeli firms have looked eastward to the growing and developing economies of Asia—and China’s in particular.
A recent survey by the Israeli intelligence community that is not in the public domain shows that Chinese investment in the Middle East rose by 1,700 percent between 2012 and 2017. 

Altogether, the Chinese have invested $700 billion in the region. 

Nearly half of it is in the energy sector, $150 billion in research and development, $113 billion in industry, $103 billion in transportation, $68 billion in the military field, $4 billion in financial loans, and only $155 million in humanitarian aid.
From 1992 to 2017, China’s bilateral trade with Israel has grown from $50 million to $13.1 billion, making it Israel’s largest trading partner in Asia and its third-largest trading partner in the world after the European Union and the United States. 

In the first half of 2018, China’s imports from Israel reached $2.77 billion, an increase of 47 percent compared with the same period in 2017.
The second policy is to defend national and strategic assets and infrastructure from being controlled and taken over by foreign governments and corporations, even if they are not hostile to Israel. Because of its high-tech economy, Israel also faces the delicate problem of foreign spying and theft of its advanced technologies and know-how. 

Russia and China have in recent years enhanced their espionage efforts in Israel, particularly to obtain access to both state-owned and private-sector Israeli tech companies, and through them to the United States
Russia and China have in recent years enhanced their espionage efforts in Israel, particularly to obtain access to both state-owned and private-sector Israeli tech companies, and through them to the United States, a close ally of Israel.
China has targeted Israel’s two largest arms exporters, Israel Aerospace Industries and the arms manufacturer Rafael, along with the company Elbit Systems. 

The first two are state-owned corporations, and all three have subsidiaries in the United States that help manufacture Israel’s most advanced weapons, including missiles and avionics. 

These designs and trade secrets are coveted by intelligence agencies and governments throughout the world.
Investigations by Israeli counterintelligence agencies discovered that Chinese hackers were particularly interested in the Israeli companies’ ties with U.S. defense contractors. 

The Israeli firms are collaborating with their U.S. counterparts such as Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin in the joint projects, which include F-16 and F-35 warplanes and the Arrow anti-ballistic missile defense systems. 

Clearly, China perceives Israel as a back door through which it can access and penetrate secret U.S. programs.
Israel is an international powerhouse when it comes to cyberwarfare, which is of the utmost importance to Moscow and Beijing. 

If they can steal state-of-the art technologies, it could create havoc in the United States and other Western democracies.
It’s no wonder that both countries have large embassies in Tel Aviv, which serve as hubs to advance their interests. 

Until recently, China was interested in purchasing a chunk of land in the posh neighborhood of Herzliya Pituach for its new embassy. 

It is located very close to Mossad headquarters and those of the military intelligence agency Unit 8200 at the Glilot Junction, north of Tel Aviv.
In their attempts to penetrate defense installations and steal security-related technologies, Russia and China have faced a fierce, determined, and skillful rival—the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service, which specializes in counterintelligence and information protection.
Huawei has deep ties to the Chinese government. 

Berlin might let it build the country’s next generation of communications infrastructure anyway.
But the civilian sector, especially firms producing technologies that can be used for both peaceful and military purposes, is less protected. 

For many years, consecutive Israeli governments neglected and ignored the security risks posed by China. 

On the contrary, they encouraged Chinese businessmen to invest in Israel and purchase Israeli assets. But when it comes to China, the so-called private sector is a fiction. 

The government controls the economy. 

Whoever deviates from party guidelines is severely punished.
And so over the last 15 years, Chinese companies have invaded Israel. 

They purchased Tnuva, a household name and the country’s largest producer of dairy products. 

They won tenders to build roads, light rail lines in Tel Aviv, and the Carmel Tunnels in Haifa. 

China has also expressed intentions to buy Israeli insurance companies and banks, to lease huge tracts of land in the Negev Desert to grow avocados and wheat, and to build a railroad from Tel Aviv to Eilat.
Chinese construction companies are now enlarging Israel’s two major ports in Haifa and Ashdod, which handle most of Israel’s trade. 

Even more worrisome is the fact that Chinese companies have gained the concessions to operate and run the new harbors for 25 years. 

Both ports are also the bases for the Israeli navy, including heavily fortified marine infrastructure which houses the Israeli submarine fleet. 

The decision to build the Haifa marina was a result of the 2006 war in Lebanon. 

During the war, Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa aiming at the port and navy vessels.
The five-strong submarine fleet (the sixth submarine is due to arrive next year from Germany, where all of them were constructed) reportedly carries nuclear-tipped missiles, thus providing Israel with a second-strike nuclear capability, if and when Iran obtains its own nuclear bombs.
For years, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his deputy, Transportation and Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz—who is now also acting foreign minister—encouraged the Chinese to gain access to the Israeli market and boasted about their achievements.
Only a few officials tried to warn Netanyahu and the cabinet, including the Shin Bet’s leaders and Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. 

But their warnings were not taken seriously. 

Even Shaul Chorev, a former rear admiral and commander of the submarine fleet from 1980-1985, who was also a defense ministry official and the director general of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), seemed not to be bothered and kept silent.
Now as the head of the Haifa Research Center for Maritime Policy and Strategy at the University of Haifa, Chorev has expresses some concerns about the new Chinese neighbors of the submarine fleet. “I admit that I was insufficiently interested in the topic because as the director of the IAEC I was too busy with other important issues,” he told Foreign Policy. 

“But now I and the center are actively raising awareness of the problem.”
Israel’s bureaucratic negligence was reversed only because of external pressure. 

The U.S. administration perceives China as its main rival and has turned its attention from the Middle East to Asia, the Pacific, and the Korean Peninsula.
U.S. President Donald Trump has declared a trade war on China and is trying to limit its economic and military expansion. 

One of the United States’ major concerns was Chinese involvement in the Haifa port, which is a host to frequent visits by the ships of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, including aircraft carriers.
That’s why Chinese involvement in Israel got Washington’s attention. 

The Trump administration asked Israel to reduce its ties with China, and U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton directly requested it. 

Israel doesn’t want to insult or humiliate China, which is sensitive in terms of its pride and would undoubtedly retaliate. 

But Israel can’t ignore a request, which is really a demand, from its most important strategic ally.
In the past, when it came to relations involving the three nations, Israel has bowed to U.S. pressure because it had to comply. 

It is almost certain that past failures and negligence, especially in the harbors, can’t be fixed. 

The contracts given to Chinese firms cannot be canceled. 

In case of war, the submarines will go to sea, but they and the U.S. fleet could still be vulnerable to a surprise attack.
The forthcoming Israeli National Security Council report is therefore likely to focus on the future and seek a solution that satisfies Washington without offending Beijing—offering a set of recommendations to the cabinet that addresses economic needs while defending essential strategic installations and interests in the fields of water, land, energy, food, telecommunications, and finance.
One thing is clear: If the report leads to new laws or regulations, they will employ generic language that will avoid singling out any specific country. 

They will refer to all foreign governments and corporations— although everyone now knows that the main targets will be Russia and China.

Israel Is Giving China the Keys to Its Largest Port

China will operate Haifa port, near Israel's nuclear-armed submarines

Shaul Horev dropped a bombshell, but hardly anyone noticed. 

Horev, an Israel Defense Forces reservist brigadier general who has served, among other posts, as the navy chief of staff and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, is currently director of the Research Center for Maritime Policy and Strategy at the University of Haifa. 

At the end of August, the center held a conference, to which participants from the United States were invited, to examine security issues relating to Israel and the Mediterranean region.
In an interview with the religious-Zionist media outlet Arutz Sheva, Prof. Horev noted that one topic that came up at the event was Chinese investments in Mediterranean ports, and in Israel in particular. 

Pointing out that a Chinese company will soon start operating Haifa Port, he said that Israel needs to create a mechanism that will examine Chinese investments to ensure that they do not put Israel’s security interests at risk.
“When China acquires ports,” Horev said, “it does so under the guise of maintaining a trade route from the Indian Ocean via the Suez Canal to Europe, such as the port of Piraeus in Greece. Does an economic horizon like this have a security impact? We are not weighing that possibility sufficiently. One of the senior American figures at the conference raised the question of whether the U.S. Sixth Fleet can see Haifa as a home port. In light of the Chinese takeover, the question is no longer on the agenda.”

Horev also noted that the Americans are now turning most of their attention to the southern China Sea and the Persian Gulf, at the expense of the Middle East. 

In a period like this, he said, it would be right for Israel to bolster its status as a strategic base for the Americans.Israeli, Chinese and Dutch officials sign agreements for foreign operation of Haifa and Ashdod ports, in 2015.

The Haifa conference was held in conjunction with the conservative Washington-based Hudson Institute. 

Several of the American participants were former senior Pentagon and navy personnel. 

The remarks of the senior figure Horev quoted were sharper than the polite tone he used. 

The Americans who were at the conference think Israel lost its mind when it gave the Chinese the keys to Haifa Port. 

Once China is in the picture, they said, the Israel Navy will not be able to count on maintaining the close relations it has had with the Sixth Fleet.
The Chinese company SIPG won the bid to expand the Haifa Port three and a half years ago. 

The project is slated to be inaugurated in 2021 and calls for the Chinese company, which also operates the Port of Shanghai, to run the Haifa Port for 25 years. 

Another Chinese firm won the bid to build a new port at Ashdod.
Those decisions were made by the Transportation Ministry and the Ports Authority, with zero involvement of the National Security Council, and without the navy being in the picture at all. 

The problem lies not only in the implications that ties with the Chinese have for Israel’s relations with the United States, which under the Trump administration is ramping up its rhetoric on China because of the trade wars and tensions in the China Sea.
The civilian port in Haifa abuts the exit route from the adjacent navy base, where the Israeli submarine fleet is stationed (and which, according to foreign media reports, maintains a second-strike capability to launch nuclear missiles). 

As with Chinese involvement in other huge Israeli infrastructure projects – such as the Mount Carmel tunnels and the light-rail train in Tel Aviv – it seems as though no one involved in the security or diplomatic arenas even stopped to think through the strategic consequences of these moves.
China is acquiring vast influence over essential infrastructures in Israel and, indirectly, also a closer look at some of Israel’s military capabilities. 

Over the years, that could place at Beijing’s disposal a potential means of wielding pressure against Israel, if the latter should endanger Beijing’s interests in the region.
In Chinese eyes, as I have written before, Israel is barely a speck on the great world map. 

China is looking to the long term, is building projects and expanding ties as part of its “one belt, one road” initiative (aka, the “economic Silk Road”): the strategy that aims to extend Beijing’s economic influence and upgrade its global status. 

China's interests are tangled and complex, and certainly don’t recall in any way those underlying the strong alliance between America and Israel.
A good example: China’s close ties to Iran, against the backdrop of its consumption of Iranian oil. The remarks of the senior American figure quoted by Horev need to serve as a warning light. 

Israel must upgrade its transportation infrastructures, and there’s nothing wrong with improving its trade relations with China. 

However, the question is whether the decisions that have been made took into account all the relevant considerations – and the possible risks.

Rogue Nation

China must be told to stop interfering in Australian affairs
By Graeme Smith

Chinese radio stations here deliver content identical to that of China's Ministry of Propaganda. 

Monday night's episode of Four Corners lined up an array of academics, bureaucrats and politicians expressing alarm about China's attempts to influence Australia through clandestine activities.
Australia's former ambassador to China, Geoff Raby, was a notable exception, observing that China's efforts were much like those of other nations, particularly Israel.
Some similarities between the external activities of Israel and China are striking.
Both are driven by contested identities, based on post-colonial politics dating back to the 1940s and beyond.
On this front, China is faring better than Israel: Taiwan's diplomatic isolation is almost complete, while more than 70 per cent of UN members now recognise the state of Palestine.
Both are well resourced, and because of language barriers, much of their work is outside the view of most Australians.
Both continue to have a take-no-prisoners approach to the espionage side of the influence game, with Israel known for its assassination operations, and China rolling up a network of CIA informants with ruthlessness worthy of an early John Le Carre novel.
Both attempt to enlist politicians to their cause, and on this front, Israel is more effective.
Few would question Michael Danby's longstanding commitment to Israel, while his Labor Party colleagues, from Sam Dastyari to Joel Fitzgibbon, have found pro-China activities do little to benefit their political careers.
Yet this is where the similarities end, and why no-one in ASIO is losing sleep over Israel's activities in Australia.
Israel is not our major trading partner. 

There are not one million people of Israeli descent living in Australia. 

Israel does not influence sea lanes to our immediate north. 

Israel is a democracy.
Beyond this, the purpose and nature of China's "influence operations" are quite different.

China working to 'persuade, manage, discipline and control'
As John Fitzgerald noted in an episode of the Little Red Podcast, "the Propaganda Bureau and others have given up on trying to persuade non-Chinese Australians … it couldn't care what they think. Rather it's messaging to them the consequences of what they think. Whereas within the Chinese community there's an effort to persuade, manage, discipline and control."
The first incident to alarm Australia's intelligence service — the sudden mobilisation and arrival of thousands of Chinese students to Canberra to protect the Olympic torch ("sacred flame" in Chinese media reports) from anti-China protesters — provided a perfect illustration of this difference.
For mainstream Australian TV viewers, the sight of Chinese students being arrested after shouting down and assaulting pro-Tibet protesters looked like a colossal soft power fail.
But the elaborately choreographed and expensively assembled protest wasn't staged for non-Chinese consumption. 

It sent an effective message that the party line extended well beyond China's borders.
The comparison also does little justice to the sophistication of Israel's public diplomacy, embodied by Australian-born Mark Regev, former chief spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister, now ambassador to Great Britain.
Will we ever see an Australian-born Chinese citizen arguing — in a reassuring drawl — for Australia to give China "a fair go" in Tibet or Xinjiang? 

It seems unlikely.
It also misses the point that Israeli citizens can choose from a range of political parties with different foreign policies.
Chinese citizens cannot remove their ruling party, or even mildly rebuke it abroad for failing to deal with air pollution.
Under Xi Jinping's assertive approach, Ministry of Foreign Affairs representatives even feel comfortable organising the disruption of international forums in Australia, and inciting other countries to join in.

Politicians can no longer claim ignorance
Against this background of renewed assertiveness brought by Xi's leadership, it is the zeal for controlling the message about China to Chinese Australians that is perhaps most difficult to fathom.
All 24-hour Chinese language radio stations in Australia now broadcast content identical to that delivered by China's Ministry of Propaganda. 

Yet Chinese consular officials visit the stations in person to vet talkback callers and instruct the stations on which guests are off limits.
The majority of print media outlets follow a similar line, and arms of the Chinese state actively pressure the holdouts.
All Chinese language media are instructed on what they should and should not run at "sensitive" times, such as the recent visit of  Li Keqiang.
As the child of Scottish migrants, it would be as if Nicola Sturgeon's Scottish Nationalist Party decided it had the right to act as the arbiter of what I heard, read and said about Scotland — and had the means to stop me criticising the weather or my countrymen's love of offal.
It is an absurd situation.
It is tragic that Chinese citizens live in what political theorist Stein Ringen has described as a "controlocracy", but we should not tolerate Chinese Australians being subject to the perfect dictatorship.
Our politicians can no longer claim that they don't know.
It is time to ask China to stop interfering in our internal affairs.