The Beacon of Freedom and Democracy

U.S. Lawmakers Nominate Hong Kong Protesters For Nobel Peace Prize

By Russell Flannery

Protesters march on the streets against an extradition bill in Hong Kong on June 16, 2019. 

It isn’t easy to get politicians from the two main U.S. political parties to agree on much. 

One common area, however, is often U.S. policy toward China, and today a bipartisan group of American lawmakers released a letter nominating Hong Kong’s pro-democracy moment for the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize.
The move comes at time when U.S.-China relations have been strained by trade and geopolitical tension, and as Beijing’s leaders are straining to control a coronavirus outbreak that has led to more than 400 deaths and 20,000 illnesses and threatens first-quarter economic growth (see related story here).

Representative James P. McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, Representatives Christopher Smith, a New Jersey Republican, Thomas Suozzi, a New York Democrat, and Tom Malinowski, a New Jersey Democrat, as well as Senators Jeffrey Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, Steve Daines, a Montana Republican, and Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, supported the nomination. 

They are all members of the bipartisan and bicameral Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
The full letter is below:

January 31, 2020

Berit Reiss-Andersen
Chair
Nobel Peace Prize Committee
NO-0255 Oslo
Norway

Dear Chair Reiss-Andersen and Members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee:

We, the undersigned members of the United States Congress, respectfully nominate the pro-democracy movement of Hong Kong to receive the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their efforts to protect Hong Kong’s autonomy, human rights, and the rule of law as guaranteed in the Sino-British Declaration and Hong Kong’s Basic Law.
The pro-democracy movement of Hong Kong has inspired the world as countless and often anonymous individuals risked their lives, their health, their jobs, and their education to support a better future for Hong Kong. 

They have demonstrated civic courage, extraordinary leadership, and an unwavering commitment to a free and democratic Hong Kong that upholds the rule of law and fundamental human rights and freedom.
In March 2019, a series of large-scale, pro-democracy protests began in Hong Kong in opposition to a proposed extradition bill that would have put anyone in Hong Kong at risk of extradition to mainland China, where arbitrary detention, lack of due process, torture, and other serious human rights abuses are well documented. 

The protest on June 16, 2019, included over two million participants out of a total population of approximately 7.5 million people living in Hong Kong, making it one of the largest mass protests in history.
The protesters represent a broad spectrum of Hong Kong society – students, children, retirees, women, teachers, flight attendants, bankers, lawyers, social workers, entrepreneurs, medical professionals, airport staff, migrant domestic workers, and civil servants. 

The entire city is engaged in a movement both unique and inspiring in its size, scope, and creativity. 

The protesters are savvy and have used peaceful and innovative methods of expression including art, music, lasers, projections on buildings, and joining hands across Hong Kong.
The pro-democracy movement made five reasonable demands of the Hong Kong government: 

1) withdraw the extradition bill; 

2) conduct an independent inquiry into the police violence; 

3) drop charges against all arrested protesters; 

4) retract the characterization of the June protests as “riots”; and 

5) the use of universal suffrage to elect the chief executive and legislative council members.
Instead of a pursuing political dialogue and negotiation, the Hong Kong government implemented a crackdown on peaceful protests and used excessive and unnecessary force in contravention of the U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms for Law Enforcement Officers. 

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for an investigation of these incidents. 

The U.S. and the U.K. have both suspended the sale of police and crowd control equipment to Hong Kong.
Numerous individuals and organizations have for decades pressed for greater freedoms in Hong Kong, and the current movement is no exception. 

The pro-democracy movement of the past year has been impressively organized and coherent, yet notably leaderless and flexible. 

For this reason, rather than highlighting an individual or single organization, we wish to nominate the peaceful Hong Kong pro-democracy movement. 

This prize would honor the millions of people in Hong Kong whose bravery and determination have inspired the world.
We deeply appreciated the Nobel Committee’s past willingness to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo in 2010. 

Liu Xiaobo’s unjust imprisonment and ultimately his death is a stark reminder of the sacrifices made by so many people in China who have dared to speak out for their human rights.
We hope that the Nobel Committee will continue to shine a light on those struggling for peace and human rights in China and we believe the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong is more than deserving of recognition this year.

China's Fifth Column: The Manchurian Senator

How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding
By Josh Rogin

A congressional delegation led by Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) presents frozen steaks to Li Keqiang on April 10 in Beijing. The gift was meant to underscore the importance of opening Chinese markets to U.S. beef imports.

In its effort to cultivate foreign influence, the Chinese Communist Party boldly mixes economic incentives with requests for political favors. 

Its dealings with Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) this year offer a success story for Beijing.
Last month Daines announced a breakthrough in his long-standing effort to win access for Montana’s beef exports to China — a $200 million deal with a leading Chinese retailer.
Then, on Dec. 5, the regime of Xi Jinping got something at least as valuable from Daines. 

The senator hosted a delegation of Chinese Communist Party officials who oversee Tibet, at the request of the Chinese Embassy — thereby undercutting a simultaneous visit to Washington by the president of the Tibetan government in exile.
Lobsang Sangay, the Tibetan leader regarded as an enemy by Beijing, was in Washington to meet with lawmakers and members of the Tibetan community. 

The House Foreign Affairs Asia subcommittee held a hearing Dec. 6 on Chinese repression in Tibet.
The rival meeting hosted by Daines the day before included Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). 

After the meetings, the state-owned China Daily claimed the congressmen had praised Chinese officials in Tibet for doing “a good job in environmental protection and traditional cultural preservation.”
The episode illustrated China’s growing practice of enlisting Western politicians to blunt criticism of the regime — and also its determination to haunt its opponents wherever they travel. 

“Everywhere I go, I’m followed by a high-level Chinese delegation” denying human rights abuses in Tibet, Sangay told me, adding that Chinese officials pressure governments across the world not to meet with him.
Sangay was in town to push legislation calling for foreigners to have the same access to Tibet that Chinese officials who oversee Tibet have here. 

The Chinese Communist Party did allow one congressional delegation to visit Tibet in April — led by Daines — which met top Chinese officials.
Daines’s office couldn’t produce any record that he, either in China or Washington, publicly raised the fact that the Chinese government is perpetrating brutal, systematic repression in Tibet, including attempted cultural genocide, environmental destruction, mass surveillance, mass incarceration and severe denial of freedoms for Tibetans.
The senator had another agenda — selling Montana beef. 

He presented four frozen steaks to Li Keqiang in Beijing and hosted Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai at a Montana ranch. 

The $200 million contract was the first reward for his efforts.
Daines has done other favors for the Chinese government. 

Early this summer, he discussed with other senators his opposition to a bill that would rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy in Washington after Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who later died in Chinese government custody, his office confirmed.
Spokeswoman Marcie Kinzel told me Daines has pushed to visit multiple Chinese regions where human rights are a concern. 

Daines’s approach to Chinese human rights is “not connected” to his push for beef exports, Kinzel said. 

Yet for the Chinese government, economics and politics are always linked. 

By helping the Communist Party squash political criticism in Washington, Daines’s actions constituted a victory for Chinese foreign influence operations, said Derek Mitchell, former U.S. ambassador to Burma.
“It confirms everything the Chinese believe about us, that anyone can be bought,” he said. 

“We’re only as strong as our weakest link, and that Daines would do this only encourages them to continue.”
There’s no evidence of a direct quid pro quo or any illegal behavior, just multiple favors between Daines and the Chinese government. 

But by using his power to protect China from accountability on human rights, Daines compromised American values and helped perpetuate the suffering of innocent people abroad.
In Australia last week, a senator resigned after it was revealed he took money from a Chinese donor and then parroted Chinese government lines on the South China Sea issue. 

It’s the same pattern: China dangles economic incentives and, soon enough, its friends begin helping China’s political aims.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is leading a national drive to excise Chinese foreign influence from Australian politics. 

“Foreign powers are making unprecedented and increasingly sophisticated attempts to influence the political process, both here and abroad,” Turnbull said.
In Washington, political and policy leaders are just waking up to the scope and scale of China’s efforts to interfere. 

But if the Chinese government can claim U.S. lawmakers as defenders of its repression in Tibet, it’s clear the problem is much worse than we realize.

U.S. Chinese Fifth Column

FBI, other agencies work in buildings owned by China
By JOEL GEHRKE

Federal officials are putting sensitive materials in Chinese-owned buildings, making them vulnerable to cyberattack and espionage, senators warned Friday.
Their alarm bells were set off by a report that said the General Services Administration has been placing FBI agents and other "high-security" government officials in buildings owned by foreign entities in China.

The GSA didn't tell the tenants, according to the government report, so the officials aren't taking addition security precautions.
"Yet, in some cases the space is used for classified operations and to store sensitive data," Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., wrote in a Thursday letter to acting GSA Administrator Timothy Horne. 

"Given the highly sensitive information that is often stored at high-security leased sites, we are concerned with the lack of policies and procedures concerning the ownership of these sites."
The Chinese-owned buildings have national security and privacy implications, as they house agencies ranging from FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency field offices to a Social Security Administration office in Seattle, Wash. 

Even the U.S. Secret Service rents space from companies based in China, according to the Government Accountability Office, which is the research arm of Congress.
The GAO warned that "foreign ownership of government-leased space can pose security risks particularly regarding cybersecurity," with particular reference to China. 

The report noted that "companies in China are likely to have ties to the Chinese government," as well as federal government warnings about Chinese government hackers targeting private and federal U.S. entities. 

"China is the leading suspect in the cyber intrusion into the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) systems affecting background investigation files for 21.5 million individuals which OPM reported in July 2015," the GAO added.
Although the buildings are leased formally from companies based in foreign countries, GSA can't be sure that those private companies are the true owners of the buildings. 

"GSA lacks complete information regarding foreign-owned leased space including beneficial owner information (which GAO defined as the person who ultimately owns and controls a company)," the senators noted.
Federal agencies took extra precautions after realizing they were in a foreign-owned building, but nine of the 14 agencies contacted by the GAO didn't have any of that information. 

"Federal agencies are among the top targets for cyber criminals, with many agencies experiencing thousands of attempted attacks daily," Duckworth and Daines wrote. 

"Agencies must have the information necessary to assess and address the risks to their high-security facilities, including cybersecurity vulnerabilities that exist in foreign-owned buildings."
The lawmakers want an update on how GSA will change its leasing procedures and "notify tenants that their leased space is foreign owned." 

But they also need to learn more about which buildings are foreign-owned, according to the GAO. "The real property database did not include information on all of the buildings in which GSA leases high-security space," the GAO report says. 

"Therefore, the results of our analysis are likely understated and GSA may be leasing more high-security space than what we identified in the 25 leases."