WHO accused of being a Beijing puppet

The Chinese coronavirus outbreak shows WHO kowtowing to China's despots

By FRANK CHEN

Questions have been raised over the World Health Organization’s handling of the Chinese coronavirus in China, with one dissident calling the WHO an ‘affiliated organization’ of the Chinese Communist Party.
The comment came from Yu Jie, a scholar-turned-dissident who lives in exile in the US. 

Yu was a close associate of the late Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo and compared the WHO to an ‘affiliated organization’ of the Chinese Communist Party.
Yu noted the WHO’s flawed risk assessment of the spread of the Chinese coronavirus as well as its foot-dragging before declaring the public health emergency as an incident posing global risks.
Another critic was famed Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, a thorn in Beijing’s side for his politically iconoclastic artwork. 

He also relayed a petition letter demanding WHO Director-General and famous Beijing puppet Tedros Adhanom’s resignation.
“On January 23rd, 2020, Adhanom declined to declare China virus outbreak as a global health emergency. The number of infected and deaths has risen more than tenfold within only five days since then. Part of it is related to Adhanom’s underestimation of the situation in China.
“We believe the WHO is supposed to be politically neutral … On the other hand, Taiwan should not be excluded from the WHO for any political reasons. Their technologies are far more advanced than some of the countries on the ‘selected WHO list’ and can contribute to the global fight against the virus given its well-rounded medical and public health expertise and geographical proximity to mainland China,” read the petition.
When Chinese dictator Xi Jinping met Adhanom in Beijing at the end of last month, there were three tables separating Xi and Adhanom when the two were seated inside the Great Hall of the People, with no interpreters working behind them.
This unusual arrangement for when Xi receives a foreign dignitary has been interpreted by some observers as Xi’s unease about being infected with the coronavirus.
It was thought Xi wanted to keep a safe distance and take no risks, even though Adhanom was coming from Geneva, which had not been hit by the outbreak that started in Wuhan in the central Chinese province of Hubei.
Chinese dictator Xi Jinping with his puppet Tedros Adhanom in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

In a long-winded speech during the sit-down, Xi talked up how he had personally orchestrated the response to the pandemic and overseen the deployment of resources, stressing China’s confidence and capabilities to triumph over the virus under the strong and robust leadership of himself and the mighty Communist Party.
It was surely too much to expect Xi to make a personal appearance in the epidemic epicenter of Wuhan, where the acute respiratory disease has, regardless of the rampant under-reporting, struck down 35,991 people and killed more than 1,000, according to the latest official figure as of Friday afternoon.
The WHO, nonetheless, praised China’s “aggressive response” to the virus by closing transportation, schools and markets.
Adhanom, who hails from Ethiopia, a country that is a recipient of a large amount of Chinese foreign aid for Africa, was addressed by Xi and the Chinese state media as an “old friend” of China.However, he is now accused of fawning to Xi and putting the WHO under Beijing’s spell, especially after his indecision to announce a global health emergency early on, as well as his “gullible” acceptance of China’s tally of those infected, statistics from a country that are usually met with incredulity internationally.
In a remedial move, the WHO also held a press conference to update the public on the ongoing contagion, but the tone was as optimistic as the theme of many press conferences held by the Chinese government and attended by the deferential state media outlets.

The Beijing stooges: World Health Organization (WHO) Health Emergencies Programme head Michael Ryan, left, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and WHO Chair of Emergency Committee on Ebola Robert Steffen attend a combined news conference after a two-day international conference on Chinese coronavirus vaccine research. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang flew into Wuhan at the end of last month, but it appears Xi Jinping has no plans to inspect the epicenter of the contagion. 

The WHO cited Chinese health officials as noting that the number of new infections of the Chinese coronavirus appeared to be stabilizing outside Wuhan and the rest of Hubei province this week, despite a change in China’s methodology for determining who had the disease, which led to a spike in confirmed cases in Hubei.
Cadres in the Chinese virus-stricken province said on Thursday that “clinically diagnosed” cases would be counted as “confirmed cases” and that the change was made so a broader set of patients could receive the same treatment as those confirmed with the infection.

Obsequious Acquiescence
Sylvie Briand, WHO’s director of infectious hazards, endorsed the changes to diagnosis and treatment, saying it would be "normal" for a government to alter the case definition during the course of an outbreak as the situation would be constantly evolving.

Masked doctors wave a Communist Party flag at a hospital in Wuhan in a ceremony to muster ranks. 

Doctors in protective gear prepare before entering wards for the infected. 

Also, the WHO’s acquiescence when Beijing moved to lock down Wuhan and put its remaining residents – almost 10 million people – into mandatory quarantine regardless of their physical condition contradicts its calls not to curtail the flow of people from China.
It was only after its belated emergency categorization of the disease – seen as being too pliant in the face of Beijing’s concerns over the economy and the country’s image – did the United Nations agency start to mobilize financial and political support to contain the spread.
The WHO has long been seen as under Beijing’s sway.
Adhanom’s predecessor -- also a Beijing puppet -- Margaret Chan, was thrust into her position as the WHO chief with Beijing’s stumping efforts for her during the selection process back in 2007.
Chan, whose catastrophic handling of the SARS crisis once drew hefty flak when she was Hong Kong’s health minister in 2003, in turn did Beijing’s bidding to bar Taiwan’s participation and diverted substantial resources into the WHO’s programs in China, among other things.

Money Cult: The Long List of Beijing's Ass Kissers

Here's a list of companies kowtowing to China’s despots

It's not just Blizzard... there is a massive list of companies bowing to Chinese money
By Anthony Garreffa

I'm sure by now you've heard about the massive issues going on in China, which have been going on for a very, very long time now - but we're at a point where it's hard to ignore, even for gamers.
Activision Blizzard is in the crosshairs of Chinese censorship, with the Overwatch, Diablo, and World of Warcraft creator bowing to Chinese pressure. Activision Blizzard recently suspended one of its pro Hearthstone players after the player support pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
But the list is growing, wtih Apple taking a knee to Chinese censorship and even the likes of American Airlines, Gap, Mercedes-Benz, Ray-Ban, Nike, TikTok, and many others pressured by the country and its strict stance on criticism. Mashable has compiled a big list of these companies that include (so far, as I'm sure there are more):

1. Activision Blizzard 
2. American Airlines 
3. Apple 
4. Audi 
5. Cathay Pacific 
6. Coach 
7. Disney/ESPN 
8. Delta Airlines 
9. Gap 
10. Marriott International 
11. Medtronic 
12. Mercedes-Benz 
13. Muji 
14. NBA 
15. Nike 
16. Ray-Ban 
17. Swarovski 
18. Tiffany & Co 
19. Vans 
20. Versace 
21. Viacom/Paramount Pictures 
22. Zara
    Boycott them all, if youcan.

Google's plan to build a censored search engine in the country is a violation of human rights

• A former Google exec who worked in China has called Google's plan to build a censored search engine "stupid."
• Lokman Tsui, head of free expression for Asia, said he couldn't think of a scenario by which such a search engine didn't violate human-rights standards.
• Tsui said that Google no longer employs anyone with his former title, which was "head of free expression."
By Greg Sandoval

Lokman Tsui didn't mince words.
The Intercept on Friday published an interview with Tsui, Google's former head of free expression for Asia and the Pacific until 2014. 

The former Googler characterized Google's plan to build a censored search engine that complied with the demands of the Chinese government as "stupid."
Tsui also suggested that such a search engine would likely violate human-rights standards.
He was responding to the news last week that Google was building a search engine that would filter out search terms and web sites that the government of the People's Republic of China finds objectionable. 

Since then, Google has faced criticism from politicians, users and even its own employees.
"In these past few years things have been deteriorating so badly in China -- you cannot be there without compromising yourself," Tsui told The Intercept.
He added that a censored search engine in the China "would be a moral victory for Beijing...(which) has nothing to lose. So if Google wants to go back it would be under the terms and conditions that Beijing would lay out for them. I can't see how Google would be able to negotiate any kind of a deal that would be positive. I can't see a way to operate Google search in China without violating widely-held international human rights standards."

Google representatives did not immediately respond to questions about Tsui's comments.
A censored search platform represents a dramatic change of heart for Google, as the company pulled out of China in 2010 rather than help the Chinese government censor information.
This year, Google's managers have invited scrutiny into how committed they are to their long-stated values. 

The controversy over the proposed Chinese search engine comes after many Google employees protested the company's involvement in a military program, known as Project Maven.
Under Maven, Google provided artificial intelligence technology to help the Pentagon analyze video footage taken from drones. 

Employees as well as scholars and AI experts called for Google to end the relationship and pledge never to build AI-enhanced weapons. 

Management responded by publishing a list of AI principles that would government the company's future use of the technology and did promise never to build AI weapons.
Meanwhile, managers made a symbolic gesture earlier this year that might have hinted that they are, at minimum, re-evaluating some past ethical stances. 

The phrase that was supposed to be Google's main moral guidepost, "Don't be evil," was removed from the preface of the company's code of conduct and dropped to the bottom of the page.

The spurned sycophant

After a single day, Facebook is kicked out of China again

By Shannon Liao

Just one day after Facebook gained permission to open a subsidiary in China, the government pulled the business filing and began to censor mentions of the news. 

An anonymous source tells The New York Times that Facebook no longer has permission to launch the startup incubator it had planned.
Facebook planned to open up a $30 million subsidiary called Facebook Technology (Hangzhou) and run a startup incubator that would have made small investments and gave advice to local businesses.
The sudden rejection stems from a disagreement between Chinese authorities, the source told the Times. 

Local officials in Zhejiang, an eastern province that houses Alibaba’s headquarters, gave Facebook the initial permission, but the Cyberspace Administration of China, Beijing’s internet regulator, had not.
According to screenshots of the business filing on the remaining social media posts that haven’t been censored, the subsidiary had been listed as wholly owned by Facebook Hong Kong Limited. Facebook does have a sales office in Hong Kong, which isn’t subject to the rules and censorship of the mainland. 

In a statement yesterday, the company told The Verge, “We are interested in setting up an innovation hub in Zhejiang to support Chinese developers, innovators and start-ups.”
This would have been the first time that Facebook successfully expanded into China after Beijing blocked the platform in 2009 following its use by East Turkestan independence activists in the Ürümqi riots. 

Facebook previously tried to open an office in Beijing in 2015 and got as far as obtaining a permit, but ultimately, it was unsuccessful, a pattern that seems to be echoed here. 

Last year, Facebook quietly launched an app in China called Colorful Balloons that let users share photos with friends. 

Oculus, Facebook’s VR company, also has an office in Shanghai.
Last week in an interview with Recode, chief executive Mark Zuckerberg expressed significant doubt that his company could successfully reach China. 

When asked where Facebook was on China, he responded, “I mean, we’re blocked.” 

He then elaborated on the grim situation: “I mean, we’re a long time away from doing anything. At some point, I think that we need to figure it out, but we need to figure out a solution that is in line with our principles and what we wanna do, and in line with the laws there, or else it’s not gonna happen. Right now, there isn’t an intersection.”

Exiled in the U.S., a Lawyer Warns of ‘China’s Long Arm’

China’s rising threat to international freedom and democracy has become a hot topic

By Edward Wong
 

Teng Biao, a Chinese human rights lawyer who moved to the United States after being harassed by the Chinese authorities, has criticized China’s coercion of foreigners to bend to its point of view.

From his suburban home in New Jersey, Teng Biao has watched in frustration as what he sees as the apologies to China from Western companies have come fast and furious this year.
First, there was the hotel chain Marriott International, which apologized to the Chinese government in January for having sent out a customer survey listing Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau and the self-governing island of Taiwan as separate territories, a violation of the Communist Party canon that raised the ire of some Chinese citizens.
Then there was Gap Inc., which posted a message to the Chinese apologizing for a T-shirt with a map of China that ignited similar criticism. 

And in May, Air Canada on its website began listing Taipei, the capital of Taiwan, as a part of Communist-ruled China, which the Taiwanese reject.
For Mr. Teng, one of China’s pre-eminent civil rights lawyers, it all amounted to craven behavior from Western companies trying to stay in the good graces of Chinese officials to maintain access to the enormous consumer market in China.
“For the past two or three years, I’ve been paying attention to self-censorship by Western scholars, institutions and companies,” Mr. Teng, 44, said one recent afternoon in a cafe in Midtown Manhattan. 

“It’s urgent. China’s rising threat to international freedom and democracy has become a hot topic.”
Officials and political analysts in Western nations have indeed spoken up in the past year about what they call China’s “influence operations” or “sharp power,” how it coerces foreigners to bend to its point of view, or to self-censor in return for favors or access to the Chinese market.
Since 2013, Mr. Teng has spoken about these concerns four times to groups in the United States Congress and he has given lectures on university campuses on the same topic. 

He said he plans to write a book on it.
“I felt it’s high time to change the West’s policy toward China,” he said.
Mr. Teng has embraced this new role partly out of necessity. 

Under increasing harassment by the Chinese authorities, he left China in 2012 to spend time in Hong Kong and the United States. 

He does not dare return because of an official crackdown in recent years on rights lawyers that has landed many of his friends in prison. 

He now lives with his wife, Lynn Wang, and two daughters, ages 10 and 12, in West Windsor, N.J.
Mr. Teng’s interest in putting the spotlight on what he calls “China’s long arm” comes from personal experience. 

In 2016, he clashed publicly with the American Bar Association over its decision to rescind an offer to publish a book by Mr. Teng on the history of the lawyer-led rights movement in China. 

Mr. Teng said the group did this because it did not want to jeopardize its operations in Beijing. 

The Bar Association denied his accusation, saying the offer was withdrawn for economic reasons.
“The cross-border repression of which Teng Biao himself has become a victim has become this whole new complex set of issues,” said Eva Pils, a scholar at King’s College London, who once directed a center at the Chinese University of Hong Kong that hosted Mr. Teng. 

“I’m wary of how repression crosses borders, and I’m wary of how China is changing norms.”
Mr. Teng and his family also ran into financial difficulties in the United States after his wife was dismissed from her job as an international representative for a Chinese technology parts company — a move that he said had been forced by Chinese officials. 

His wife had worked for the company for 17 years.
“The Chinese government put pressure on that company,” Mr. Teng said. 

“The company said that because of me, they couldn’t sell their products to Chinese agencies and the military.”
Mr. Teng grew up in a village in the northeastern province of Jilin. 

His father was a painter and held a low-level official post related to education and culture, while his mother worked as a farmer. 

He received a slot at prestigious Peking University and decided to study law, eventually earning a doctorate in law in 2002.
While teaching at the China University of Political Science and Law, he became involved in the case of Sun Zhigang, a migrant worker killed by the police while in detention in the south. 

This started Mr. Teng and other lawyers on the road to activism, leading to their harassment by officials.
Mr. Teng and his wife watched with growing anxiety as Xi Jinping tightened control over civil society after taking power in 2012. 

Mr. Teng already had been detained repeatedly and beaten by police officers, with his family illegally kept in the dark as to his whereabouts for weeks at a stretch.
He went to the Chinese University of Hong Kong as a visiting scholar in 2012, then flew to the United States with his younger daughter two years later after getting an invitation from Harvard. 

By then, his wife and elder daughter had been barred from leaving the mainland, but they fled through Southeast Asia in 2015 with the help of smugglers, at one point riding on the backs of motorbikes through the hills of Thailand.
After Harvard, Mr. Teng was able to establish affiliations with New York University and Princeton University’s Institute for Advanced Study.
At Princeton in 2017, he collaborated with two other liberal Chinese to found a nonprofit group that aims to promote democracy in China by holding local gatherings, publishing books in Chinese and running online courses. 

Mr. Teng said the site for those courses is largely blocked in China.
Mr. Teng helped organize a march in Washington last July to call attention to China’s crackdown on rights lawyers, which officials began in earnest on July 9, 2015. 

About 50 people took part in the march, and Mr. Teng plans to hold another one next month.
This April, Mr. Teng wrote an essay for ChinaFile, a website run by the Asia Society in New York, arguing that “Xi Jinping’s new totalitarianism and Mao’s old style of totalitarianism don’t differ by all that much.”
“I think there must be some leaders, even top leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, who have ideas of liberal democracy,” he said in the interview. 

“But they don’t promote democracy. The first thing is they’re too scared. The second thing is they don’t want to lose the benefits they get from the system.”
One afternoon in March 2017, at a student-organized gathering at Princeton, Mr. Teng debated China’s future with Sida Liu, a professor from the University of Toronto who was also a visiting scholar at Princeton that academic year. 

Mr. Teng took a harsh view of the party, saying it would never change, while Mr. Liu was more circumspect.
In an interview this week, Mr. Liu said exiles like Mr. Teng have had to take a new approach to activism because of the crackdowns under Xi and the constant detentions.
“When I was in Princeton, Teng Biao was busy helping victims and families of the crackdown get out of China — to flee rather than to put in resources into China or support the next waves of activists,” Mr. Liu said.
Mr. Teng has warned that Chinese nationals in the United States try to monitor the dissenters in exile and report back to Chinese officials. 

He pointed to the 150 or so campus chapters of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association, where members maintain contact with Chinese diplomats and try to quash talks at universities that clash with the official Chinese view.

Kowtowing to China's Despots

How China is winning the battle to censor the world view of Taiwan
By Michael Smith

Alan Joyce at the IATA conference in Sydney this week. Qantas will be criticised for kowtowing to China over Taiwan's sovereignty. 

It turns out even a street address can be considered subversive in politically-sensitive China, particularly during the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
China's popular taxi-hailing app Didi was this week refusing to accepting my home address as a pick-up destination because it contains the numerals "6" and "4" -- a combination censors fear could refer to June 4, 1989 -- the date of the deadly student protests in Beijing.
Several attempts to type in the address were blocked and followed by a message which said the content contained "sensitive words".
China typically tightens internet censorship in early June, banning words such as "tank" or even combinations of numerals adding up to 64.
However, this was the first time I had heard of the Uber-like taxi service banning particular pick-up addresses.
The incident highlights the lengths to which China will go to erase events it would prefer not to see in the history books.

A candlelight vigil for victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in Hong Kong's Victoria Park this week. China has written the event out of its history. 

It also demonstrates the futile battle Qantas would have faced if it had decided to stand up to Beijing on another sensitive issue - Taiwan.
The airline was in the cross-hairs of Sino-Australian political tensions this week after chief executive Alan Joyce told an international airline conference the carrier would change the way it refers to self-ruled Taiwan in its public material following China's objections.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull backed Joyce's decision, while Foreign Minister Julie Bishop took issue with China telling Australian companies what to do.
The last thing Qantas, or any other company wants, is to get caught into the middle of a complex political spat between Canberra and Beijing.
These challenges are not new.
The Australian Financial Review first reported Qantas's decision to change the way it described some destinations on its website on January 15.
"Due to an oversight, some Chinese territories were incorrectly listed as 'countries' on parts of our website. We are correcting this error," the airline said at the time.
Beijing now wants airlines to add "China" in brackets after references to Taiwan in their list of destinations.
It is a lose-lose situation.
On one hand, Qantas will be criticised for kowtowing to China over Taiwan's sovereignty.
On the other, the airline has a responsibility to shareholders to protect its business interests in China -- which is now the biggest source of tourists to Australia.
Qantas, which has a partnership with China Eastern Airlines, would prefer the whole issue to go away.
Joyce notes he is merely adopting the Australian government's position on China.
While the chief executive has taken a stand on other social issues such as gay marriage, Taiwan's sovereignty is not a battle his shareholders would want him to take on.
Qantas is not alone.
China's aviation regulator wrote to around 36 other global airlines expressing its displeasure with the way they referred to Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong in their public material.
Eighteen airlines have not yet responded.
While the US government -- which denounced Beijing's displeasure as "Orwellian nonsense" -- has urged its carriers to dig in their heels, many other carriers in Asia are complying.
Garuda Indonesia, Asiana Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Lufthansa, Air Canada and British Airways all have changed the way they refer to Taiwan, according to local media.
Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific refer to Taiwan as a "destination".
The list of other companies scrambling to appease China is also growing.
US retailer Gap, Japan's Muji and the Marriott Hotel group have made changes to material after pressure from China.
Australian infant milk group Bellamy's said in January it was changing a reference to Hong Kong on its corporate website.
China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and will not have diplomatic relations with countries that recognise it as a separate nation.
It is now effectively using its economic clout to freeze out companies that do the same thing.
"There is only one China in the world and Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau have always been parts of China," a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said this week.
While many in the international community do not agree with this position, foreign governments as well as companies such as Qantas feel powerless to change it.
The US is the major exception.
Like its ability to erase references to Tiananmen Square within China, Beijing's ability to change the way the rest of the world refers to other sensitive issues such as Taiwan's independence is worrying for many.

Kowtowing to China’s Despots

Airlines caving to China's demands despite White House protest
By Erika Kinetz

In this May 21, 2018, photo, computer screens display the booking website of British Airways showing "Taiwan-China" in Beijing, China. Global airlines are obeying Beijing's demands to refer to Taiwan explicitly as a part of China, despite the White House's call this month to stand firm.
SHANGHAI — Global airlines are obeying Beijing's demands to refer to Taiwan explicitly as a part of China, despite the White House's call this month to stand firm against such "Orwellian nonsense." The Associated Press found 20 carriers, including Air Canada, British Airways and Lufthansa, that now refer to Taiwan, the self-ruled island that Beijing considers Chinese territory, as a part of China on their global websites.
There are just three days left for dozens of foreign airlines to decide whether to comply with Beijing's orders, or face consequences that could cripple their China business, including legal sanctions.

Many have already sided with Beijing.
The spread of "Taiwan, China" on the drop-down menus and maps of airline websites represents another victory for China's dictator Xi Jinping and his ruling Communist Party's effort to force foreign companies to conform to their geopolitical vision, even in operations outside of China. 

China's incremental push to leverage its economic power to forge new international norms — in this case regarding Taiwan's status — creates worrying precedents.
Beyond fiery missives there is little Washington can do to unify a fractured global response and effectively push back against Beijing's demands.
"What's at stake is that we're allowing a revisionist regime with a terrible track record on freedom of speech to dictate what we say and write in our own countries," said J. Michael Cole, a Taipei-based senior fellow with the China Policy Institute and the University of Nottingham's Taiwan studies program. 

"If Beijing does not encounter red lines, it can only keep asking for more."
For Beijing, there is only one China and Taiwan, which has been a democracy since the 1990s, is part of it. 

The People's Republic of China and Taiwan separated during a civil war in 1949. 

Washington officially recognizes Beijing rather than Taipei, but despite the lack of formal ties, the U.S. is legally bound to respond to threats to Taiwan and is the island's main supplier of foreign military hardware.
"We strongly object to China's efforts to bully, coerce, and threaten their way to achieving their political objectives," Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement to the AP. 

"We call on all countries around the world to stand together to uphold the freedom of speech and freedom to do business. We also call on private firms to collectively reject China's unreasonable demands to change their designation of "Taiwan" to "Taiwan, China."
Xi has warned a Taiwanese envoy that the issue of unification cannot be put off indefinitely, and the People's Liberation Army has sent fighter planes near Taiwan's coast. 

As China steps up efforts to isolate Taiwan diplomatically, the list of multinationals that have bent to Beijing's will is long — and growing.
U.S. clothing retailer The Gap apologized this month for selling T-shirts with a map of China that omitted Taiwan and pulled the offending merchandise from stores around the world. 

In January, Delta Airlines, Marriott, Zara and medical equipment maker Medtronic all publicly apologized for referring to Taiwan as a country.
"You can't just say 'no,'" said Carly Ramsey, a regulatory risk specialist at Control Risks, a consultancy in Shanghai. 

"Increasingly, for situations like this, non-compliance is not an option if you want to do business in and with China."
The day after Delta apologized for "emotional damage caused to the Chinese people," the Civil Aviation Administration of China published a notice on its website saying it requires foreign airlines operating in China to avoid referring to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau as countries.
Some foreign carriers began changing drop-down menus on their websites from "country" to "country/region."
But Beijing wanted more.
On April 25, the Civil Aviation Administration of China sent a letter to 36 foreign airlines ordering them to explicitly refer to Taiwan as a part of China. 

The regulator did not respond to requests for comment.
In a strongly-worded statement 10 days later, the White House called that demand "Orwellian nonsense."
"China's efforts to export its censorship and political correctness to Americans and the rest of the free world will be resisted," it said.
China's foreign ministry hit back the next day, saying Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau are "inalienable" parts of China's territory and foreign companies operating in China "should respect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, abide by China's laws and respect the national sentiment of the Chinese people."
A growing number of airlines have heeded Beijing's call.
The AP found that Air Canada, Lufthansa, British Airways, Finnair, Garuda Indonesia, Asiana Airlines, and Philippine Airlines all have changed the way they refer to Taiwan to bring their global websites in line with the Chinese Communist Party's vision. 

SAS airlines, Swissair, Malaysia Airlines, Cebu Pacific Air, Aeroflot, Italy's Alitalia, Austrian Airlines, Air Mauritius, Etihad Airways, Spain's Iberia, Israel's EL AL, MIAT Mongolian Airlines and Russia's S7 Airlines all also refer to Taiwan as part of China, but it was not immediately clear how long they had been using that formulation.
Lufthansa, British Airways, Air Canada and Finnair said they abide by laws and regulations internationally and in the jurisdictions in which they work.
"This includes taking customs of the international clientele into consideration," Lufthansa said in a statement, adding that we "seek your understanding for the situation."
Finnair said a decision was taken to amend the website earlier this year and "in line with the general view taken in Europe, Taiwan is not shown as an independent country in our list of destinations."
Major U.S. carriers have not yet caved. 
United Airlines, American Airlines, Delta and Hawaiian Airlines, as well as Australia's Qantas Airways — all of which received April letters from the regulator — did not refer to Taiwan as part of China on their websites as of Tuesday.
The airlines told AP they were reviewing the request.
But the sweep of concessions will likely make it harder to resist Beijing's call.
"If they make individual corporate decisions, they will likely accede, individually but entirely, to Chinese demands," said Robert Daly, the director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
What Washington could do, he added, is "launch and sustain a global discussion of the implications of Beijing's insistence on the worldwide jurisdiction of Chinese law. That kind of effort would require a commitment to global leadership and strong alliances that this administration has not yet demonstrated."
In one apparent exception to Beijing's rules the national flag carrier Air China seems not to have gotten the regulator's memo.
On its U.S. site, Taipei is a part of "Taiwan, China."
But its Taiwan website lists it as "Taipei, Taiwan."
Air China did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Air Canada’s kowtowing to China’s despots sends a dangerous signal

Democracy, liberty and freedom should be areas of no-compromise in our negotiations with Chinese dictators. 

By J. MICHAEL COLE

In the months since China began to bring pressure on international airlines to remove all references from their websites, apps and booking services to Taiwan as anything other than part of China, I, along with many other Canadians living in Asia, had taken great pride in the fact that Air Canada had refused to be cowed by the authoritarian giant.
Sadly, that is no more. 

Joining a growing list of airlines including Qantas, Delta, British Airways and Lufthansa, Air Canada now uses a designation – “Taipei, CN” – that does not reflect reality, but can only please the leadership in Beijing, which refuses to acknowledge the existence of Taiwan as a sovereign entity.
Despite only having 19 official diplomatic allies, Taiwan −a vibrant democracy of 23.5 million people that shares many of the values we as Canadian cherish − entertains constructive ties with many countries around the world. 

An important economic partner of Canada, Taiwan is also home to as many as 60,000 Canadians. Taiwan has its own passport, its own elected government, military, currency and enjoys many advantages, such as visa-free entry, the Chinese people are denied.
China, meanwhile, has shed constitutional limits to the presidency, and in recent years has done much to undo a lot of the limited progress it had made in the past two decades or so – some of that with Canadian assistance – in terms of civil liberties. 

Freedom of expression, of belief, have been eroded; repression in East Turkestan has reached levels which border on conditions in a prison camp; activists, lawyers, academics, in and outside China, have been threatened, denied visas and taken to court merely for exposing the transgressions of a regime that brooks no criticism. 

Under Xi Jinping, China has become worryingly aggressive in its territorial claims, going as far as to militarize the South China Sea, and is now seen as a threat to several smaller countries in the region. Under Xi’s guidance, China has also launched a series of initiatives, known as “sharp power”, to undermine democracies worldwide.
Beijing has also exploited Ottawa’s desire to sign a free-trade agreement with the world’s second-largest economy, to compel it to look the other way whenever it has violated the beliefs and values that define us as Canadians.
For Taiwan, Ottawa has been a solid partner, supporting Taipei’s efforts to join multilateral institutions such as the International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Health Assembly, which Beijing has prevented for political reasons. 

This Ottawa does because it understands the values of inclusion. 

And even though it “took note” of Beijing’s claims that Taiwan is part of China upon establishing diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China in October, 1970, Ottawa’s multifaceted engagement of Taiwan is guided by the recognition of its value as a distinct polity and partner.
We may be critical of Donald Trump’s White House for many things, but it spoke for many of us earlier this month when it referred to Beijing’s pressure on international airlines as “Orwellian nonsense”.
Understandably, Justin Trudeau’s government looks to China as an important economic partner to ensure our own prosperity, but we cannot afford to compromise the values, beliefs and traditions that make us who we are in the process. 

Canadian companies need not give in to bullying and blackmail for access to the Chinese market. Instead, we need to make it clear that this is a relationship of equals, one in which we have our own red lines.
Democracy, liberty and freedom should be areas of no-compromise in our negotiations with Chinese authorities. 

When we yield to Beijing’s preposterous demands, the way Air Canada did on how it refers to Taiwan, we display our weakness and our willingness to compromise what we believe in. 

A revisionist regime that seeks to undermine and alter the international system can only see such weakness as an invitation to demand more – and in doing so, we sow the seeds of our own misfortune.
I speak for many Canadians today in feeling ashamed for the decision by Air Canada, a company we can be proud of, to give in to Beijing’s coercion. 

Surely we can do better than this.

Xi Jinping's Pope

The case of a bishop detained by the Chinese government—and what it says about a looming deal between Beijing and the Vatican

By BETHANY ALLEN-EBRAHIMIAN 

Children hold candles during the Easter mass at a church in Xiaohan village of Tianjin municipality in 2009.

The Chinese government detained a beloved Catholic bishop earlier this week in an apparent attempt to keep him out of sight around the Easter holidays, just as an end to a decades-long split between Beijing and the Vatican may be in sight.
The bishop, Guo Xijin, is recognized by the Vatican but not by the official Catholic Church in China, which is under government control. 

Such underground bishops are at the heart of the split. 

Since the 1950s, the Chinese government has insisted it must approve the selection of bishops, but the Vatican has continued to ordain clergy in secret, leading to overlapping sets of official and underground bishops in some Chinese parishes.
Guo was detained in the days leading up to the Easter holidays after refusing to hold services alongside a government-approved bishop. 

The Vatican had asked the 59-year-old bishop to step down as a concession to Beijing. 

Negotiations between Beijing and the Holy See to end the dueling bishoprics and unify the Church are now underway, and a deal is expected as early as Easter weekend. 

But Guo’s detention is indicative of exactly what kind of solution the Chinese Communist Party has in mind. 

Most likely, it will not be a gentle rapprochement with the Vatican so much as a heavy-handed crackdown on the underground church, with the government attempting to neutralize it once and for all.
For decades, the Communist party-state has tolerated the existence of a parallel system of official churches organized under government auspices, and unofficial, or “underground,” churches that operate without government oversight. 

(This is true of both Protestant and Catholic Churches in China. While the Vatican deal will only affect underground Catholic bishops, legal and bureaucratic changes are likely to pressure both Protestant and Catholic underground churches.) 

A series of recent moves indicates that the party is now rejecting the status quo, and is seeking to extend its control over these formerly independent congregations.
New legislation took effect on February 1, tightening government regulation of religion and placing more explicit restrictions on unofficial religious activity. 

A leaked directive dated March 16 ordered local government agencies to begin investigating all underground Christian activity in Beijing, which suggests a coming crackdown on that activity, as other sectors of Chinese society have experienced in recent years.
Most telling, however, is the government reorganization announced last week that delegated religious affairs, previously under the auspices of the religious affairs bureau, a government office, to the United Front Work Department, a Communist Party organ under the direct control of the party’s Central Committee.
“The party is in some ways distrustful of the religious affairs bureau for fear that some people in that agency may have the kind of training that makes them more open to or sympathetic with different religious groups,” said Xi Lian, a professor of world religion at Duke Divinity School. 

“But now the United Front is going to take over and impose the iron will of the party.”

China is governed by a dual, parallel structure of party and government bodies at every level, from the highest echelons of power down to the village committees. 

Government bodies have tended to have relatively more transparency than party organs; the party is an information black hole. 

And the United Front Work Department in particular is the primary means by which the party has extended and solidified its influence over every level of Chinese society.
There is little room for speculation about the implications of this move for the Catholic Church in China. 

It almost certainly means more direct party control and marginalization for anyone who doesn’t toe the party line.
“The point of having administrative control over religious groups in China is to ‘deconflict’ an organization from competing with the party,” said Peter Wood, an analyst at the datamining firm TextOre who researches the United Front. 

“The point isn’t to provide services—it is control, redirection, and deconfliction.”
None of this bodes well for Chinese Christians, said Lian.
“It’s making a lot of Christians in China very nervous,” said Chloe Starr, a professor of Asian Christianity and theology at Yale Divinity School. 

“A lot of rights lawyers had wanted a greater transfer to the judiciary, rather than state oversight, but we’ve moved in the opposite direction. This is taking it further away from judicial process and more directly under the party influence, which is worrying a lot of Christians.”
A move to co-opt or even disband the underground church would be well in line with Xi Jinping’s sweeping campaigns in the past few years to strangle dissent and consolidate party control over every aspect of Chinese society. 

Xi has eliminated many of the gray areas that in the past allowed for a limited degree of expression. During his tenure, the party has created a comprehensive internet censorship regime, cracked down on human rights lawyers, implemented ideological controls in universities and private businesses, and constructed a high-tech surveillance state in the far-west region of East Turkestan.
The looming Vatican deal, then, comes at a time when Beijing is moving to exercise more control over religious affairs than it has in decades. 

One possible arrangement for such a deal, reportedly being discussed, would allow the party to select bishops but give the Vatican veto power over the final selection. 

But such an admission of foreign control over domestic affairs—and particularly over religion, which the party has always viewed with special suspicion—would likely be anathema to the party given its current direction.
“Not only is the deal a terrible one, the Vatican has chosen the worst time to do it—at a time when Xi Jinping is becoming the new emperor, when the party is cracking down so harshly,” said Lian. 

“I really have a hard time understanding why the Vatican still clings to this completely unrealistic hope of striking a deal that will the benefit the Church, and striking a deal that the Communist Party will honor.”
Lian raised the example of Hong Kong. 

The agreement signed between Britain and China when the city was handed back to the mainland after 150 years of British colonial rule specified that Beijing must allow universal suffrage in Hong Kong by the year 2017. 

But China has come to refer to that agreement as a historical document rather than a binding agreement, and it has refused to allow elections in Hong Kong without first vetting the candidates. 

Similarly, it’s highly unlikely that the Communist Party will now give true veto power to the Vatican. 

More likely, even if some kind of ceremonial veto power is given, all the candidates will be completely pre-vetted by Beijing. 

There is little reason to think that the party would honor any concessions to the Vatican, said Lian.
The case of Guo Xijin is likely a taste of what any supposed deal will look like on the ground—arrests, detentions, and forced adherence to Beijing’s line. 

Going forward, Chinese Catholics can expect more of this, not less.

Prison hospitality with Airbnb

Airbnb to give Chinese authorities guest information
BBC News

Airbnb is to start sending the Chinese government information about customers who book accommodation in China.
Data shared with the authorities will include passport details and the dates of bookings.
Hosts listing accommodation in China will also have their details passed on once they start accepting bookings.
The online home-sharing giant said the move meant it was now complying with local laws and regulations, "like all businesses operating in China".
Airbnb China -- the firm's local operation -- has about 140,000 listings.

Hotels in China are already required to share their guest information with the government and local police.
And tourists and travelers staying in private homes are also technically supposed to register their accommodation details with the police within 24 hours of arriving at a destination.
Airbnb said it was simply falling in line with the "traditional" hospitality industry in China.
"The information we collect is similar to information hotels in China have collected for decades," an Airbnb spokesperson told the BBC.
"[It is] one step we are taking as we explore ways to help our hosts and guests follow the appropriate rules and regulations [in China]."

De-listing option
Unlike most countries, before customers can confirm an Airbnb China accommodation booking, they have to provide their passport information.Airbnb China requires passport information to be filled in before a booking can be made

Airbnb said its local entity in China already stored this information and would share it with authorities on request.
But now it will be proactively sharing that data once bookings are made.
Information on new hosts on the site would only be sent to the government once that host started accepting bookings, Airbnb said.
The company sent an email to its China-based hosts on Thursday advising them that their information would be shared with the government from Friday.
It said hosts who were unhappy about the changes had the option of de-listing their accommodation offerings.
Airbnb has been focused on growing its Asia operations, especially in China, which is one of the fastest growing markets for the firm.
It launched Airbnb China in 2016 to facilitate bookings on the Chinese mainland.
Airbnb said it made it clear then to users and hosts that any information collected in China would be kept in the country and shared.
"If you reside outside of China and do not have a listing in China, nothing will change for you," the firm said in a 2016 blog posting.
"If you reside outside China and have existing listings in China, your information related to such listings will only be transferred to, stored, used or processed by Airbnb China upon your acceptance of our revised terms of service."
Airbnb said at the time the change was in line with the way China's "traditional" hospitality industry handled stays in hotels.
Airbnb China faces tough competition from the country's biggest player in the market -- Tujia.com -- an online home sharing site that says it has more than 400,000 listings.
In an effort to attract more users in China, in March last year, Airbnb unveiled its new Chinese name -- Aibiying 爱彼迎 -- meaning welcome each other with love -- which is easier to pronounce for Mandarin speakers.
On Thursday, the firm announced the launch in Shanghai of Airbnb Plus -- a system that offers guests accommodation options that have been inspected and verified for cleanliness and comfort against a 100 point checklist.
It also unveiled its Airbnb Host Academy for China -- a program to help hosts offer the best experience they can to guests, and to become so-called super hosts.
Airbnb has said it is aiming to have one billion annual guests worldwide by 2028.
The firm is one of Silicon Valley's most valuable companies and is already worth an estimated $30bn.

Tech Quisling

Amnesty International Is Accusing Apple of Betraying Chinese iCloud Users

By LAIGNEE BARRON

Amnesty International says Apple Inc is creating the Orwellian future it once envisioned by potentially opening up the data of Chinese iCloud users to Beijing’s scrutiny.
Texts, photos, emails, contacts and any other information stored on Apple’s cloud service in China could now be easily accessed by the government, Amnesty claims, warning of arrests or imprisonment as rights to privacy and free speech are infringed upon.
Apple famously positioned itself as a champion of free expression in its iconic “1984” advertisement.
According to an Amnesty blog post, to comply with new legislation in China, Apple, as of last month, began hosting Chinese users’ accounts on servers operated by a Chinese company, with the encryption keys managed by the local provider. 

The rights group says that previously, in order to view a Chinese account, Beijing would have had to go through the U.S. legal system. 

Now, communist officials will be able to go through China’s compliant courts.
“Apple’s pursuit of profits has left Chinese iCloud users facing huge new privacy risks,” Amnesty’s East Asia Director Nicholas Bequelin alleged in a statement. 

Apple reported record earnings of $17.9 billion in Greater China in the last quarter, up from US$16.2 billion in the same period a year ago.
According to some estimates, mainland China is the largest market of iPhone users.
“By handing over its China iCloud service to a local company without sufficient safeguards, the Chinese authorities now have unfettered access to all Apple’s Chinese customers’ iCloud data. Apple knows it, yet has not warned its customers in China of the risks,” Bequelin said.
The human rights group this week launched a social media campaign targeting Apple, just in time to coincide with Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook’s visit to Beijing.

On the Vatican’s Capitulation to Beijing

Negotiating with the Devil has never been the long suit of Vatican diplomacy.
By GEORGE WEIGEL
Christmas Eve mass at a Catholic church in Shanghai, China, December 24, 2017. 

The “examination of conscience” is an important part of Catholic spirituality, which always precedes confession but is ideally practiced at the end of each day: a review of what one got wrong, and what right, as preparation for an act of contrition and a prayer of thanksgiving for graces received. 

And while there are obvious and important differences between individual Catholics examining their conscience and Vatican diplomats reviewing the Church’s successes and failures in the thorny, dense thickets of world politics, one might have thought that this spiritual discipline would have some bearing on the diplomacy of the Holy See, if only as a reality check.
But if you thought that, you’d be hard pressed to find evidence for it in the history of Vatican diplomacy’s dealing with totalitarian regimes.
As an integral part of the 1929 Lateran Accords (which also created an independent Vatican City State while recognizing the Holy See as a sovereign actor in world politics), Pope Pius XI made a concordat with Mussolini’s Italy — a treaty that was thought to guarantee the Catholic Church’s freedom of action in the fascist state. 

Two years later, with blackshirt thugs beating up Catholic youth groups and the state media conducting a viciously anticlerical propaganda campaign, Pius XI denounced Mussolini’s policies with the blistering 1931 encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno, in which he condemned fascism’s “pagan worship of the State.”
In 1933, as Hitler was consolidating Nazi power, Vatican diplomacy negotiated the Reich Concordat in another attempt to protect the Catholic Church from the totalitarian state through a web of legal guarantees. 

The strategy worked as poorly in Germany as it had in Italy, and in 1937, after many attacks on churchmen and Catholic organizations, Pius XI condemned Hitler’s race-ideology in another thunderbolt encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge, which had to be smuggled into Germany to be read from Catholic pulpits.
Then came the Ostpolitik of the late 1960s and 1970s. 

Faced with what he once described as the “frozen swamp” of Communist repression behind the iron curtain, Pope Paul VI’s chief diplomatic agent, Archbishop Agostino Casaroli, began to negotiate a series of agreements with Communist governments. 

Those agreements were intended to provide for the sacramental life of the Church by facilitating the appointment of bishops, who could ordain priests, who could celebrate Mass and hear confessions, thereby preserving some minimal form of Catholic survival until Communism “changed.” 

And another disaster ensued.
The Catholic hierarchy in Hungary became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hungarian Communist Party. 

In what was then Czechoslovakia, regime-friendly Catholics became prominent in the Church while the underground Czechoslovak Church of faithful Catholics struggled to survive under conditions exacerbated by what its leaders regarded as misguided Roman appeasement of a bloody-minded regime. 

In Poland, Holy See envoys tried to work around, rather than through, the heroic Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński, in a vain attempt to regularize diplomatic relations with the Polish People’s Republic. And while all that was going on, the Vatican itself was being deeply penetrated by the KGB, the Polish SB, the East German Stasi, and other East Bloc intelligence services, as I documented from first-hand Communist secret-police sources in the second volume of my John Paul II biography, The End and the Beginning.
In light of this dismal track record, prudence and caution would seem to be the order of the day in Vatican negotiations with the totalitarians in charge in Beijing, at whose most recent party congress religion was once again declared an enemy of Communism. 

But there has been no discernible examination of conscience at the higher altitudes of Vatican diplomacy. 

And now it seems likely that an agreement between Rome and Beijing will be announced, in which the Chinese Communist government will be conceded a role in the nomination of bishops — another step toward what various older but still-key figures in the Vatican diplomatic service have long sought, namely, full diplomatic exchange between the Holy See and the PRC at the ambassadorial level.
One such figure, speaking off the record, tried to justify the impending deal by saying that it was best to get at least some agreement now, because no one knows what the situation would be in ten or 20 years. 

This is obtuse in the extreme.
If the situation gets worse — if, through increasing repression, Xi Jinping manages to hold together a Maoist political system despite a rising middle class — then what reason is there to have any confidence that the Chinese Communist regime would not tighten the screws on Catholics who challenged the state on human-rights grounds? 

What reason is there to believe that the Chinese Communists would break the pattern set by Italian fascists, German Nazis, and Eastern and Central European Communists by honoring treaty obligations? 

Has nothing been learned from the past about the rather elastic view of legality taken by all totalitarian regimes of whatever ideological stripe?
In light of this dismal track record, prudence and caution would seem to be the order of the day in Vatican negotiations with the totalitarians in charge in Beijing.
If, on the other hand, things get better in a liberalizing China, with more and more social space being created for civil-society associations and organizations, why should those Chinese interested in exploring the possibility of religious faith be interested in a Catholicism that had kowtowed to the Communist regime? 

Why wouldn’t Evangelical Protestants who had defied the regime in the heroic house-church movement be the more attractive option?
Vatican diplomacy prides itself on its realism. 

But on any realistic assessment of China’s future — the bad news or the good news — the Catholic Church comes out the loser if it caves to Communist demands that the regime have a significant role in the appointment of Catholic bishops now.
As described in press reports, the new deal between the Holy See and China also violates the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the embodiment of that teaching in the Church’s own canon law.
For well over a century, Vatican diplomacy worked hard, and in this case effectively, to disentangle the Church from state interference in the appointment of Catholic bishops. 

That achievement was recognized by Vatican II in its decree Christus Dominus, “On the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church.” 

There, the Council fathers said this about the imperative that the Church be free to choose its own ordained leaders: “In order to safeguard the liberty of the Church and more effectively to promote the good of the faithful, it is the desire of the sacred Council that for the future no rights or privileges be conceded to the civil authorities in regard to the election, nomination, or presentation to bishoprics.” 

That conciliar desire was then given legislative effect in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, where canon 377.5 flatly states that “for the future, no rights or privileges of election, appointment, presentation, or designation of Bishops are conceded to civil authorities.”
In theory, of course, Francis, as the Church’s supreme legislator, could suspend or even abrogate canon 377.5 in the case of the People’s Republic of China. 

But to do so would not only make something of a mockery of Church law (a temptation too often indulged by some in recent years, in a campaign against “legalism”). 

It would also be to deny the truth that Vatican II taught: The libertas ecclesiae, the freedom of the Church to conduct its evangelical and charitable mission by its own criteria and thereby remain true to its Lord, is not easily squared with state involvement in episcopal appointments.
Vatican diplomats, primarily Italians, have been obsessed with achieving full diplomatic exchange with the PRC for decades. 

It is argued, by these men and their defenders in the media, that China is the rising world power and that for the Holy See to be a player on the world stage requires that it be in formal diplomatic contact with Beijing. 

But this is a fantasy indulged by Italian papal diplomats for whom “the Vatican” is still the Papal States, a third-tier European power that craves recognition of its status by superior powers. 

That world ended, however, at the Congress of Vienna.
The truth of the matter is that, today, the only power the Holy See wields is moral power, the slow accretion of moral authority that has come to Catholicism, as embodied by the pope, through the Church’s sometimes sacrificial defense of the human rights of all. 

How playing Let’s Make a Deal with totalitarians in Beijing who at this very moment are imprisoning and torturing Christians adds to the sum total of Catholicism’s moral authority, or the papacy’s, is, to put it gently, unclear. 

The same might be said for the de facto betrayal of Rome-loyal bishops in China who are now being asked to step aside so that they can be replaced by bishops essentially chosen by the Chinese Communist Party apparatus. 

This is far less realism than a species of cynicism that ill befits a diplomacy presumably based on the premise that “the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).
According to a (sometimes dubious) source, Pope Pius XI once said that he would deal with the Devil himself if doing so would accomplish something good and help the Church in its mission. 

I imagine that if he did say that, it was during one of that crusty pontiff’s crustier moments, and an expression of his own willingness to face down the powers of Hell if necessary. 

But as strategy in the gray twilight zone of world politics, dealing with the Devil — at least as Vatican diplomacy has done in dealing with totalitarianisms — has never worked out. 

Consorting with the Devil’s agents is a ticklish business; assuming their willingness to abide by agreements (much less their goodwill) is folly; and carrying the sulfurous odor of too much contact with the Devil’s legions does absolutely nothing to advance the evangelical mission of the Church.
In fact, it does just the opposite.

Kowtowing to China’s despots

India is willing to snub the Dalai Lama to please China

By Devjyot Ghoshal

On March 17, 1959, a 23-year-old Buddhist monk disguised as a soldier fled Tibet, travelling for three weeks across the Himalayas before reaching the border with India. Since then, the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, has run a government-in-exile from India, which is also home to some 95,000 Tibetan refugees.
So, to mark the 60th year of his arrival, the Dalai Lama and his Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) had planned a series of events this year, starting March 31. 

“Tibetans will thank India for promoting its rich ancient culture and unique identity, assuring the viability and sustainability of Tibetan leadership and Tibetan communities..,” the CTA said in an invitation sent out in January.
But the Narendra Modi government, it appears, would have none of this fanfare and festivity, lest it displeases China. 

Beijing, of course, considers Tibet an integral part of its territory and views the senior monk with barely concealed disdain.
On Feb. 22, India’s foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale wrote to cabinet secretary PK Sinha asking “senior leaders” and “government functionaries” to stay away from the CTA’s events, the Indian Express newspaper reported.
“The proposed period will be a very sensitive time in the context of India’s relations with China. Participation by senior leaders or government functionaries, either from the central government or state governments, is not desirable, and should be discouraged,” Gokhale, who previously served as the Indian ambassador to Beijing, wrote, according to the Indian Express.
Sinha then sent out a directive in a similar vein to central and state government bureaucrats, the newspaper reported.
The Dalai Lama and the CTA seem to have received the message.
Two major events they planned to hold in New Delhi have now been either shifted out or scrapped. 

A large rally that was to be organised at Delhi’s Thyagaraja Stadium on April 01 will now be held in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh, where the CTA is based. 

This rally, which was to be attended by the Dalai Lama, was specifically mentioned in Gokhale’s note to Sinha. 

An inter-faith meeting at Mahatma Gandhi’s memorial at Rajghat scheduled for March 31, too, has been cancelled.
“There was no direct message from the government to call off the commemorations, but it was conveyed to our leadership that perhaps these events should not be held in Delhi,” Tsering Dhondup, spokesperson of the Dalai Lama’s Bureau, told The Hindu newspaper.
Diplomatic relations between New Delhi and Beijing have been rocky in recent months, particularly following last year’s military standoff in Doklam, bordering Bhutan. 

The border face-off in the Himalayas lasted nearly two months before the two countries agreed to pull back their troops from the disputed area.
The neighbours may now be looking to mend fences, with a number of upcoming high-level meetings scheduled, including those during prime minister Modi’s trip to China in June for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit. 

Foreign secretary Gokhale was himself in Beijing last month, holding talks with Chinese vice-foreign minister Kong Xuanyou. 

Already, there are murmurs of discontent and hurt within the Tibetan community, but the official position remains pragmatic. 

“Some people may be disappointed,” Ngodup Dhongchung, representative of the Dalai Lama in Delhi, told the Hindustan Times newspaper. 

“But we are guests of India. Indian people have been very generous to us. We understand the compulsions.”

Rotten Apple

Apple under fire for moving iCloud data to China: Apple's latest move has privacy advocates and human rights groups worried.

by Sherisse Pham

The U.S. company is moving iCloud accounts registered in mainland China to state-run Chinese servers on Wednesday along with the digital keys needed to unlock them.
"The changes being made to iCloud are the latest indication that China's repressive legal environment is making it difficult for Apple to uphold its commitments to user privacy and security," Amnesty International warned in a statement Tuesday.
The criticism highlights the tradeoffs major international companies are making in order to do business in China, which is a huge market and vital manufacturing base for Apple.
In the past, if Chinese authorities wanted to access Apple's user data, they had to go through an international legal process and comply with U.S. laws on user rights, according to Ronald Deibert, director of the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab, which studies the intersection of digital policy and human rights.
"They will no longer have to do so if iCloud and cryptographic keys are located in China's jurisdiction," he told CNNMoney.
The company taking over Apple's Chinese iCloud operations is Guizhou-Cloud Big Data (GCBD), which is owned by the government of Guizhou province. 

GCBD did not respond to requests for comment.
The change only affects iCloud accounts that are registered in mainland China.
Apple made the move to comply with China's latest regulations on cloud services. 

A controversial cybersecurity law, which went into effect last June, requires companies to keep all data in the country. 

Beijing has said the measures are necessary to help prevent crime and terrorism, and protect Chinese citizens' privacy.
The problem with Chinese cybersecurity laws, Deibert said, is that they also require companies operating in China "to turn over user data to state authorities on demand -- Apple now included."
Other big U.S. tech companies have had to take similar steps -- Amazon and Microsoft also struck partnerships with Chinese companies to operate their cloud services in the country.
"Our choice was to offer iCloud under the new laws or discontinue offering the service," an Apple spokesman told CNN. 

The company decided to keep iCloud in China, because cutting it off "would result in a bad user experience and less data security and privacy for our Chinese customers," he said.
Apple users typically use iCloud to store data such as music, photos and contacts.
That information can be extremely sensitive. 

Earlier this month, Reporters Without Borders urged China-based journalists to change the country associated with their iCloud accounts -- which is an option for non-Chinese citizens, according to Apple -- or to close them down entirely.
Human rights groups also highlighted the difficult ethical positions Apple could find itself in under the new iCloud arrangement in China.
The company has fought for privacy rights in the Unites States. 

It publicly opposed a judge's order to break into the iPhone of one of the terrorists who carried out the deadly attack in San Bernardino in December 2016, calling the directive "an overreach by the US government."
At the time, CEO Tim Cook pretentiously said complying with the order would have required Apple to build "a backdoor to the iPhone ... something we consider too dangerous to create."
Human Rights Watch questioned whether the company would take similar steps to try to protect users' iCloud information in China, where similar privacy rights don't exist.
"Will Apple challenge laws adopted by the Chinese government that give authorities vast access to that data, especially with respect to encrypted keys that authorities will likely demand?" asked Sophie Richardson, China director for Human Rights Watch.

Apple declined to answer that question directly,.
"Apple has not created nor were we requested to create any backdoors and Apple will continue to retain control over the encryption keys to iCloud data," the Apple spokesman said.
Rights groups and privacy advocates are not convinced.
"China is an authoritarian country with a long track record of problematic human rights abuses, and extensive censorship and surveillance practices," Deibert said.
Apple users in China should take "extra and possibly inconvenient precautions not to store sensitive data on Apple's iCloud," he advised.
Most of those users have already accepted the new status quo, according to Apple. 

So far, more than 99.9% of iCloud users in China have chosen to continue using the service, the Apple spokesman said.

Tech Quisling and Moral Pygmy

Apple is kowtowing to China’s police state
Washington Post

CHINA AND Russia, among other places ruled by strongmen and their political cronies, are demanding that technology companies locate all their data on national soil.  

The titans of American digital innovation — Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and others — face a difficult choice. 

They can risk moving the data of millions of customers to a police state, or they can refuse and risk losing millions of customers.
This week, Apple is choosing option A: police state. 

Starting Wednesday, the data of its iCloud customers in China will be transferred to China, as required by a new law, to be housed in a center operated by a Chinese company. 

Apple will control the encryption keys but says it will respond to “valid legal requests” from Chinese authorities for the data of individuals. 

This applies only to the popular iCloud and what Chinese users decide to store there; data on an iPhone itself is encrypted, and users are the only ones who can unlock it.
Previously, a request for the cloud data would have come to the United States and would have been subject to the rigors of U.S. law and due process. 

China, however, is ruled by the Communist Party, which remains above the law. 

A vivid glimpse of how the mechanism works is China’s recent campaign to silence and punish human rights lawyers, jailing them for defending people who dared speak their minds openly. 

China is also rolling out a nationwide system to monitor the behavior of individuals, including their financial transactions, shopping habits, social media, traffic tickets and unpaid bills, and combining it with ubiquitous surveillance. 

This is the legal environment that will oversee the iCloud data of Chinese users.

Amazon and Microsoft have also established data centers in China. (The chief executive and founder of Amazon, Jeffrey P. Bezos, owns The Post.)
Two years ago, Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, refused to help the FBI crack open an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorists. 

Cook insisted that it was vital to protect data encryption for privacy, that to give in to the FBI would “make hundreds of millions of customers vulnerable around the world, including in the U.S.” 

We understand that Cook was talking about the iPhone then, and not the cloud, but he was very passionate about the principle of resisting government snooping. 

“We need to stand tall and stand tall on principle,” Cook bombastically declared.

When it comes to China, however, Apple says that it decided to “remain engaged.” 

This cannot have been an easy decision for Apple or Cook. 

Other companies will confront it, too. 

Of course it would have been painful to Apple’s customers, and to its bottom line, to pull out of China. 

But obeying “local laws” can mean honoring the whims of mega-snoops and dictators who do not share the values of democracy and free expression. 

Apple should find that painful, too.