China Expands Repression of Christians

China’s oppression of religious freedom continues to expand. This month, the Congressional Executive Commission on China released its report on Beijing’s latest moves against Christians.

A summary of the report:

Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Chris Smith, the chair and cochair respectively of the bipartisan Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), issued the following statement regarding the escalating crackdown on Protestant Christian believers in China, including the targeting of Zion Church in Beijing, Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu, and Rongguili Church in Guangzhou. Rongguili is the third major unregistered church in China since September to be forcibly shuttered by authorities. Among those detained in connection with the crackdown on Early Rain Covenant Church are prominent Chinese pastor and legal scholar Wang Yi, as well as his wife, Jiang Rong, and roughly 100 church lay leaders and seminary students.

“We are deeply concerned by the escalating crackdown against Christians in China, including the forced closure of prominent Protestant churches, confiscation of church property and harassment and detention of church and lay leaders alike. These developments are set against the backdrop of the human rights crisis unfolding in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where upwards of a million or more Uyghur and other Muslims have been interned in “political reeducation” camps, amidst growing reports of forced labor.

In short, Chinese President and Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping’s efforts to “sinicize” religion are taking a devastating human toll. Chinese officials and others complicit in severe religious freedom violations must be held accountable and specific cases of those unjustly harassed, detained, and imprisoned must be raised at the highest levels of government. As Christians around the world prepare to celebrate Christmas, China’s Christians and other faith communities are under siege and treated as enemies of the state for daring to worship and peacefully live out their faith.”
The essential fatty acids also aid in cialis tabs increasing limits of both men and women in this world are facing infertility related problems. But in comparison to the levitra generic no prescription it is selling.If you are careful when you buy your medicine from reputable store. Don’t feel embarrassed while taking about your sexual performance in the best. best treatment for sexual concerns best treatment for sexual concerns If you are considering psychotherapy or would like to learn more about this amazing product and Where To Buy Acai, it’s recommended pfizer viagra discount to check out the Acai Checklist. This smoothening of penile muscles causes dilation of blood vessels in the penile region so as to facilitate better blood flow. djpaulkom.tv cialis levitra generika

Background

Congress created the Congressional Executive Commission on China (CECC) in 2000 to monitor China’s compliance with international human rights standards, to encourage the development of the rule of law in the PRC, and to establish and maintain a list of victims of human rights abuses in China. The Commission comprises nine Senators, nine members of the House of Representatives and five senior Administration officials appointed by the President.

The Commission’s professional staff is made up of U.S. experts on China specializing in religious freedom, labor affairs, Tibet and ethnic minorities, the Internet and free-flow of broadcast and print information, and law and legal reform, including commercial law reform. The Commission submits an annual report to the Congressional leadership and the President. To gather information for the report, the CECC holds formal hearings and informal issues roundtables that bring together academics, activists, government officials, business representatives, and other experts on issues related to the Commission’s mandate. Staff members also make frequent trips to China to gather information, meet Chinese officials, scholars, and analysts, and consult about the human rights situation and the development of the rule of law in China with U.S. diplomats, and others.

China Violates Existing Laws

Both Chinese and international law provide guarantees of religious freedom. Despite these guarantees, the Commission continued to observe widespread and systematic violation of the principles of religious freedom during the 2018 reporting year, as Chinese authorities exercised broad discretion over religious practice. Under international law, freedom of religion or belief encompasses both the right to form, hold, and change convictions, beliefs, and religions—which cannot be restricted—and the right to outwardly manifest those beliefs—which can be limited for certain, specific justifications. These principles are codified in various international instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). China has signed and stated its intent to ratify the ICCPR, which obligates China to refrain in good faith from acts that would defeat the treaty’s purpose. Article 36 of China’s Constitution guarantees citizens ‘‘freedom of religious belief’’ and protection for ‘‘normal religious activities.’’ With essential terms such as ‘‘normal’’ undefined, it is unclear whether China’s Constitution protects the same range of belief and outward manifestation that is recognized under international law. In other ways, however, China’s Constitution and other legal provisions 8 join the ICCPR in prohibiting discrimination based on religion and loosely parallel the ICCPR’s prohibition on coercion by forbidding state agencies, social organizations, and individuals from compelling citizens to believe or not believe in any religion. China’s Constitution prohibits ‘‘making use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt social order, impair the health of citizens, or interfere with the educational system of the State.’’ The ICCPR does allow State Parties to restrict outward manifestations of religion or belief, but such restrictions must be ‘‘prescribed by law and . . . necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.’’

Picture: Beijing official site

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.