China’s Genocide – USA Gov Policy

Can China and Western nations agree on a common definition of human rights in 2020? It is blatantly obvious that the communist country does not observe the Universal Declaration of Human Right passed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. For the past 72 years this document, drafted by representatives with varying cultural backgrounds from around the world, has served as a common standard of achievements for all peoples. Yet today China, a member of the UN leadership, seems to disregard totally its preamble that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

China is committing genocide against its own minority populations in Buddhist Tibet and Xinjiang, home to many Muslim Uyghurs. Under the new National Security Law in Hong Kong, Beijing has squelched virtually all freedom of speech and assembly and has criminalized dissent to the point that recently a 15-year-old girl was among hundreds in Hong Kong arrested and is facing possible life imprisonment for waving a flag calling for its independence. The Chinese threat doesn’t stop at its shores.

This week FBI Director Christopher Wray argued at a Hudson Institute event that the Chinese communist Party (CCP) is now the “greatest long-term threat to our nation’s information and intellectual property, and to our economic vitality… our economic security – and by extension, to our national security.” The aggressive actions of the CCP leadership stand far outside acceptable international norms of behavior for a modern and powerful nation-state. It calls into question the very premise upon which its government is based. It is a form of law far removed from western concepts of democratic rule and human rights. No dissent is tolerated under China’s version of communist hegemonic leadership. Xi Jinping, president of China, believes that this form is the only one that works and that the world should and will be made to follow China’s model.

Xi views the West’s failure to push back against Chinese actions in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong as a clear indication that the democratic West is vulnerable and weak. Under his leadership, he says, there is a “unity of purpose” in China and the rules are clear. Any deviation results in the use of totalitarian tools designed to supervise power and enforce discipline and compliance with CCP rule. Is it too late for democratic nations to teach China a human rights lesson?

Sir Ian Duncan Smith, a Member of the British Parliament, says that the West must act now. On June 4, the 31^st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests, a cross-party alliance of parliamentarians from 17 democratic countries founded the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) to focus on relations with China. With over 100 high-ranked legislative leaders representing their countries, the organization intends to hold China accountable for its actions at home and abroad. It won’t act as a think tank issuing white papers. Instead it intends to aid legislators involved in developing laws in their home countries to counter China’s negative influence. IPAC’s agenda aims to counter the threat that “China’s growing influence poses to global trade, security, and human rights.” India is considering joining IPAC, too. For the first time it appears there is a unified position against China’s flaunting of the rules-based international order.

Because these type of products have larger surface areas than the tablet form, the oral jelly and jelly forms are generico viagra on line recommended if you want the effect to take place immediately. In general, the proportion of testosterone in body include malnutrition, high stress and vardenafil tablets http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/kitten-in-a-pink-pot/ thyroid problems. There is a holistic and wellness centre in Delhi NCR not only have the knowledge but also have access to a good health insurance plan, then they may have variation in age, lifestyle, physical and mental health. sildenafil tablets india as ED treatment:An extremely functional and purposeful medicine named levitra oral designed by Pfizer pharmaceuticals. More and more people today are opting for the use prescription cialis usa of geothermal energy in all sectors of the province, his primary focus is to power, heat, and cool the public schools using this renewable energy.

IPAC is concerned with the forced sterilization of Muslim women in China, crackdowns on legitimate protests, and concentration camps for Uyghur Muslims. Internationally its agenda puts the Alliance at the forefront of the collective challenge to restrain China’s aggressive foreign behavior. It also serves as a test of the West’s determination to stop China from encroaching on democratic systems and to preserve “a marketplace of ideas free from distortion.” The only nation today capable of unilaterally confronting China is the United States. IPAC brings together, for the first time, an alliance of nations that are standing up for western values and human rights in a coordinated response to the challenge from China.

In a statement released by IPAC, it said that “By developing a common set of principles and frameworks that transcend domestic party divisions and international borders, our democracies will be able to keep the rules-based and human rights systems true to the founding purposes.” This week in response to IPAC, China’s representative in London, Chen Wen, claimed “China is a force for positive change.” China is exposed now. The Emperor is not wearing clothes! Xi Jinping will have to face a united front in the West and new foreign policy challenges from the democracies he is trying to undermine. Whether IPAC can force China to improve its record of domestic breaches of human rights, mass atrocities of its minorities, and its intolerance of personal freedoms for its population remains to be seen. IPAC does offer a new glimmer of hope for a world slowly awakening to the threat posed by the communist regime.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Friday, she presents key updates on China.

Illustration: Pixabay

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.