No Smiles Across the Taiwan Strait

Wars of words leave peace a long way off — and more aggression on the table.

A soldier puts a flower on a grave in a cemetery for soldiers during the 60th anniversary of the '823 bombardment' in Kinmen, Taiwan on August 23, 2018. (SAM YEH/AFP/Getty Images)

BY DEREK GROSSMAN

| JANUARY 7, 2019, 3:00 PM
A little over three years ago, Ma Ying-jeou, then the president of Taiwan, and Chinese President Xi Jinping met at a summit of sorts in Singapore. In preparation for the historic event on Nov. 7, 2015, both sides hammered out in excruciating detail the anticipated ins and outs of the encounter to avoid political traps. Ma and Xi addressed each other not as leaders of different countries but as “Mister,” or xiansheng. In doing so, Xi did not have to recognize Ma as “president,” a term—like other official positions—always referred to in quotation marks in mainland rhetoric. Beijing, after all, argues that Taiwan is not a country at all, but merely a renegade province. After the leaders exchanged pleasantries and sipped Maotai liquor together, peace appeared to be finally within reach. But the lasting image of Ma and Xi shaking hands paradoxically revealed the true limitations of negotiations across the Taiwan Strait.

Nothing close to a peace accord was agreed to during the Xi-Ma encounter despite seven years of cross-strait warming under Ma, underscoring how difficult a peace will be to reach even under the most favorable circumstances. Mutual suspicion and Beijing’s concerns over future Taiwanese leadership may have prevented any genuine breakthroughs. Xi likely had ulterior motives in meeting with Ma at that juncture. In late 2015, Tsai Ing-wen of the opposition and independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was considered Ma’s near-certain successor. Beijing may have figured that by engaging Ma, it could undercut Tsai’s future administration. Xi also likely hoped that the Xi-Ma discussion might lock Tsai into agreeing to the so-called 1992 Consensus—China’s preferred sovereignty formulation emphasizing “One China” but allowing for different interpretations (until recently)—as Ma had already done so. For its part, Taiwan did not pledge to forgo future independence activities that Beijing commonly labels as “separatist.” The Xi-Ma meeting may have been the best missed opportunity yet to forge real and lasting peace over the seven decades of tension across the strait.

Regrettably, the situation today is heading in the exact opposite direction. Just this past week, Xi and Tsai gave dueling speeches on the sovereignty dispute. In her annual New Year’s Day address, Tsai unveiled her “four musts,” saying Beijing must recognize the island’s existence, respect Taiwan’s freedom and democracy, deal with it peacefully and on equal terms, and only communicate through government-authorized channels. The following day, Xi commemorated the 40th anniversary of China’s “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan” by dispensing with the notion that the 1992 Consensus allows for “different interpretations” of “One China” and instead equating it exclusively with the “One China Principle.” He also emphasized “one country, two systems”—envisioning one China, but with different governments—as the future cross-strait political framework. Tsai then responded by saying that “we have never accepted the 1992 Consensus” and Taiwan “absolutely will not accept ‘one country, two systems.’” Indeed, the “cold peace” that has prevailed in the strait since Tsai’s election in January 2016 is getting even frostier, making a peace deal seem increasingly remote.

Most of the burden for this failure falls on Xi’s shoulders. Xi has tied reunification with Taiwan to his “Chinese Dream” of national rejuvenation. But Xi, unlike former presidents Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao before him, has used Taiwan’s recognition of the 1992 Consensus—again, now equal to “One China”—as the exclusive litmus test for whether Taipei’s intentions can be trusted in cross-strait relations. In his 19th Party Congress speech in 2017, Xi urged Taiwan to “recognize the historical fact of the 1992 Consensus and that the two sides both belong to one China, and then our two sides can conduct dialogue.” This is in stark contrast to Hu’s omission of the 1992 Consensus from his 17th Party Congress speech in 2007, and his mention of it in passing, and not as a prerequisite for further cross-strait exchanges, in his 18th Party Congress speech in 2012.

Moreover, Xi’s decision to re-emphasize “one country, two systems” did not begin last week. During his 19th Party Congress speech, Xi said, “we must uphold the principles of ‘peaceful reunification’ and ‘one country, two systems’ … and advance the process toward the peaceful reunification of China.” Xi’s re-inclusion of the framework to describe the desired end state of China-Taiwan relations is significant. Deng Xiaoping created the expression in the 1980s, but not since his time has leadership elevated it to characterize the preferred means for Taiwan’s integration with the mainland.

Xi has touted the success of the framework in the special administrative regions Hong Kong and Macau, suggesting the arrangement would work similarly well for Taiwan if given the opportunity.
This is particularly worrisome because Beijing has increasingly interfered with politics and elections in these autonomous regions. Many Hong Kongers, especially among the young, see the framework as a failure. As Taiwan has watched the implementation of this system in these places, it has almost certainly bolstered the public’s belief that “one country, two systems” would be bad for democracy and rule of law on the island. In response to Xi’s continued elevation of the concept last week, Chen Ming-tong, the head of Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council, commented that “what Xi said fully exposed Beijing’s intention to destroy the Republic of China [Taiwan] and its ambition to take over Taiwan.”

For Taiwan’s part, Ma’s decision to recognize the 1992 Consensus makes him an outlier in Taiwanese politics. Taiwan’s overarching policy has consistently reflected Taiwanese citizens’ widely held belief that the island prefers to maintain the peaceful, albeit ambiguous, cross-strait status quo. Of course, there is debate over how to do that and whether Tsai’s refusal to acknowledge the previous 1992 Consensus would be wise over the long term. Nevertheless, Tsai has been consistent in her message that her priorities are to protect the free and democratic way of life in Taiwan, defend the island’s sustainable development, and maintain cross-strait peace and regional stability. She has also made numerous overtures to Beijing for peace during her two-plus years as Taiwan’s president. Press reports last summer indicated Taiwan was trying to facilitate a Tsai-Xi summit—based on Taipei’s traditional approach of no political preconditions—but this seems unlikely given high tensions. Tellingly, China has never publicly responded to Tsai’s overtures.

This is unfortunate, because Tsai has proven to be a pragmatic and credible partner for China. Although Chinese leaders view her as a potential secessionist, Tsai has steadfastly adhered to the old 1992 Consensus, if only in spirit. Tsai has distanced herself from elements within Taiwan seeking to elevate the issue of Taiwanese sovereignty. When confronted with Premier William Lai’s comments that he was a “political worker for Taiwanese independence,” Tsai said Lai knows “what the limits are.” She has refused to endorse national referendums on Taiwanese sovereignty. Tsai also made the point that she would never unilaterally attempt to change the status quo, unlike her DPP predecessor. During her last National Day speech, Tsai said: “We will neither act rashly to escalate confrontation, nor will we give in. … Instead, we will respond by seeking stability, adaptability, and making progress.”

Recent local election results in Taiwan will probably make cross-strait relations worse in the run-up to the January 2020 presidential elections. The DPP’s landslide losses to the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) may have emboldened Beijing to assess that its pressure strategy—including in the diplomatic, economic, and military spheres as well as in influence operations such as election meddling—is working against the island. Even though the DPP losses could mainly be attributed to domestic policy shortcomings, Beijing probably feels that at least some of Tsai’s loss in political altitude is due to the pressure campaign.

The DPP’s election troubles have also created new complications for the party and thus cross-strait relations. Tsai felt forced to step down as DPP chairwoman, making it far more difficult to remove independence language in the DPP charter as a potential concession to Beijing in lieu of recognizing the 1992 Consensus. In addition, Lai appears to be positioning himself for a presidential run. The premier is more forward-leaning on independence than Tsai and is relatively popular despite serving in Tsai’s administration. Beijing will likely look to stop his rise, but in doing so, Chinese leaders may end up propelling his candidacy, creating a thornier situation in 2020 if Lai were to win.

Either way, between now and the next Taiwanese presidential election, the prospects of forging a sustainable peace are exceptionally low. Both Xi and Tsai are dug into their respective positions. And Xi’s new prioritization of the 1992 Consensus and “one country, two systems” is likely to unnecessarily make the situation even tenser. Following Xi’s speech, the more China-friendly KMT essentially rejected his demands. If the DPP and KMT positions coalesce in opposition to China, this would be a nightmare scenario for Beijing. Hopefully Xi reassesses his position to stem such an outcome, but his recent doubling-down suggests—at least for the time being—that China believes it has the upper hand.

Derek Grossman is a senior defense analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Rand Corp. He formerly served as the daily intelligence briefer to the assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs at the Pentagon.

Angela Davis is latest Black target of Israel lobby

Angela Davis (Columbia GSAPP)

Ali Abunimah Lobby Watch 7 January 2019

The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute has canceled its annual gala at which iconic Black scholar and activist Angela Davis was to receive a prestigious human rights award.

Randall Woodfin, the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama, expressed his “dismay” at the decision, which he said came “after protests from our local Jewish community and some of its allies.”

“The reactive decision of the BCRI did not create an opportunity for necessary consensus dialogue,” Woodfin added.

Davis is the latest prominent Black intellectual and outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights to be targeted by the Israel lobby.

Roy S. Johnson, a columnist for several Alabama newspapers, revealed Monday that those demanding the cancellation were “primarily – though not exclusively – from the city’s Jewish leadership, according to a source familiar with a decision that transpired quickly, and stunningly, in a span of just a few days.”

Last month, Southern Jewish Life, a communal publication serving southern states, ran an article criticizing the BCRI for honoring Davis, claiming that she is “an outspoken voice in the boycott-Israel movement, and advocates extensively on college campuses for the isolation of the Jewish state, saying Israel engages in ethnic cleansing and is connected to police violence against African Americans in the United States.”

While there is vocal and growing opposition to Israel’s policies among American Jews at large, the leaders of established Jewish communal groups, including the Birmingham Jewish Federation, tend to be strongly pro-Israel.

The Birmingham Jewish Federation was reportedly among the groups that pressured BCRI.

Others who pressured BCRI to ditch Davis reportedly included General Charles Krulak, a retired Marine commander and former president of Birmingham-Southern College.

Support for Palestinians

Angela Davis, a Birmingham native, has long been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights and an advocate of the BDS – boycott, divestment and sanctions – movement to hold Israel accountable for its violations and crimes against Palestinians.

Davis has also stood up for Rasmea Odeh, the Palestinian activist and torture survivor deported from the US in 2017 following a conviction for immigration fraud.

Adam Milstein, a major financier of anti-Palestinian groups, took note of the BCRI’s decision on Twitter:

View image on Twitter

Adam Milstein

✔@AdamMilstein

The Birmingham (AL) Civil Rights Institute canceled its Fred Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award for #AngelaDavis after protests from local #Jewish community and concerned Americans. #BCRI concluded she unfortunately does not meet all of the award's criteria https://www.cbs42.com/news/local/bcri-no-longer-honoring-angela-davis/1689376820 …

19

3:14 AM - Jan 7, 2019

Milstein was named in a censored Al Jazeera documentary about the Israel lobby leaked by The Electronic Intifada in November, as a founder and financier of the anti-Palestinian smear website Canary Mission.

That same film, The Lobby–USA, also identified how Israel and its agents are targeting and attempting to co-opt Black leaders and activists in order to disrupt growing Black identification and solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

Affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute was founded in 1992 to commemorate the city’s role in the struggle against institutionalized American racism.

In a statement Saturday, BCRI noted that in September its board “selected Angela Davis to receive the prestigious Fred Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award at its annual gala in February 2019.”

View image on Twitter

BCRI@bhamcivilrights

The associated gala event, scheduled for February 16th at Haven has been cancelled. Ticket purchasers will received a full refund.

“In late December, supporters and other concerned individuals and organizations, both inside and outside of our local community, began to make requests that we reconsider our decision,” BCRI added, without naming or further characterizing the groups or their objections.

“Upon closer examination of Ms. Davis’ statements and public record, we concluded that she unfortunately does not meet all of the criteria on which the award is based,” BCRI stated.

“Therefore, on 4 January, BCRI’s Board voted to rescind its invitation to Ms. Davis to honor her with the Shuttlesworth Award.”

Targeting Black voices

Davis is the second high-profile Black intellectual to be targeted by pro-Israel lobby pressure in recent weeks.

In November, Marc Lamont Hill was dismissed from his role as a CNN political commentator following an Israel lobby campaign of lies and smears misrepresenting a speech he made at the United Nations in support of Palestinian rights and BDS.

Temple University also faced pressure from the Zionist Organization of America to dismiss Hill as a professor – a step it has not taken amid warnings that this would violate Hill’s First Amendment rights.

Hill called BCRI’s decision to withdraw its award from Davis “shameful.”

Read More

MPs raise safety fears with police after Anna Soubry subjected to 'Nazi’ taunts

Letter to Met police comes after Speaker expresses concern about protesters targeting MPs outside parliament
Brexiteers follow pro-EU MP Anna Soubry into parliament on Monday. Photograph: George Cracknell Wright/Alamy

Caroline Davies, Peter Walker and Kevin Rawlinson-Mon 7 Jan 2019 23.43 GMT

Dozens of MPs have written to the UK’s most senior police officer to raise concerns about safety outside parliament after the Conservative MP Anna Soubry faced chants from protesters on Monday calling her a “Nazi”.

At least 55 parliamentarians signed the letter to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Cressida Dick, after the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, urged officers to do more to protect MPs and Soubry criticised the lack of police response to the abuse.

Scotland Yard later confirmed it had opened an investigation into whether any offences had been committed when chants of “Soubry is a Nazi” could clearly be heard while the pro-remain MP was being interviewed by BBC News on Abingdon Green, a grassed area outside parliament used by broadcasters.

It is the second time in recent weeks that Soubry has been targeted by a small group of pro-Brexit protesters wearing yellow vests, some of whom have links to the far right. On the earlier occasion, she was surrounded by shouting men calling her a traitor.


 MP Anna Soubry accosted by pro-Brexit demonstrators in December – video

The MPs’ letter to Dick reads: “After months of peaceful and calm protests by groups representing a range of political views on Brexit, an ugly element of individuals with strong far-right and extreme-right connections, which your officers are well aware of, have increasingly engaged in intimidatory and potentially criminal acts targeting members of parliament, journalists, activists and members of the public.

“We understand there are ongoing investigations but there appears to be an ongoing lack of coordination in the response from the police and appropriate authorities including with Westminster borough policing, and despite clear assurances this would be dealt with following incidents before Christmas, there have been a number of further serious and well publicised incidents today.”

In the letter, the MPs said they wanted to ensure that people retained the right to protest peacefully outside parliament. “It is, however, utterly unacceptable for members of parliament, journalists, activists and members of the public to be subject to abuse, intimidation and threatening behaviour and indeed potentially serious offences while they go about their work.”

After the latest incident against Soubry, the Conservative MP Nick Boles raised the issue with Bercow, asking what could be done to end the harassment.

Bercow said safety off the parliamentary estate was not part of his remit, but he took the issue very seriously and had been in touch with police, “who have been made very well aware of our concerns”
.
The Speaker told MPs: “Peaceful protest is a vital democratic freedom, but so is the right of elected members to go about their business without being threatened or abused, and that includes access to and from the media stands in Abingdon Green. I am concerned at this stage about what seem to be a pattern of protest targeted in particular – I don’t say exclusively – at women.”

He was backed by other MPs, among them Labour’s Mary Creagh, who said such “vile, misogynist thuggery, abuse and harassment” raised particular worries following the murder of her colleague Jo Cox in 2016 by a far-right terrorist.

Bercow said he was aware of incidents “involving aggressive and threatening behaviour towards members and others by assorted protesters who have donned the yellow vests used in France”.

He said it was a matter for the Met rather than parliamentary authorities as it had happened in the street, but added: “Female members, and in a number of cases I’m advised, female journalists have been subjected to aggressive protest and what many would regard as harassment. I can assure the House that I am keeping a close eye on events and I will speak to those who advise me about these matters.”

During the BBC interview, Soubry broke off from answering questions to tell the presenter Simon McCoy: “I do object to being called a Nazi actually. I’m sorry but I just think this is astonishing.”
The abuse continued as Soubry was interviewed by the Sky News presenter Kay Burley, with chants of “liar, liar” heard throughout the live broadcast.

Soubry told Burley: “I don’t have a problem with people demonstrating and making their views heard. I have a real problem with people who call me a traitor, or ‘Soubry, you Nazi’. That is a criminal offence and I’m a criminal barrister.

“I’m told that we should get used to it, but we shouldn’t have to. Apparently it’s democracy in action and the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] believe that no offences are being committed.”

In a later tweet, Soubry said: “Apparently MPs and politicians are meant to accept it as part of the democratic process. I fail to see why journalists and technicians should be subjected to the same abuse & intimidation as the police stand by and do nothing. They tried to stop me getting into parliament.”

The political commentator Owen Jones was accosted by a group outside parliament earlier on Monday, with some wearing union flags. He shared a video of his encounter on Twitter, where they could be heard calling him a “traitor” a “horrible little man” and accusing him of writing “fake news”.

Many of the incidents have been carried out by the same small group of protesters wearing yellow hi-vis jackets, modelled on the French gilets jaunesmovements, who like to livestream their actions on Facebook. They have also blocked Westminster Bridge and harassed other politicians and journalists, including shouting racist and sexist abuse at a Sky News team.

A key member of the group is James Goddard, who identified himself as the person filming the first abuse of Soubry. Goddard is a supporter of the far-right activist Tommy Robinson and has posted anti-Muslim messages on the social media site Gab, which is popular with far-right users.

Brexit ‘meaningful vote’ to be held next week

Gary Gibbon-7 Jan 2019Political Editor

As lorries took to the tarmac of Manston Airport in a test of plans for a no-deal departure from the EU, the Brexit Secretary confirmed to MPs that a meaningful vote on the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal will take place next week.

But there’s little sign that Conservative MPs have returned from their Christmas break any more willing to vote for it. More than 200 MPs have written to the Prime Minister asking her to rule out a no deal, in the expectation her proposal won’t make it through the Commons. Mrs May says she’s seeking further assurances from the EU and is holding a drinks reception in a bid to woo her rebellious backbenchers.

Profit-hungry tiger breeders behind push to lift China’s trading ban

FILE PHOTO: Tiger bones and products made from endangered animals seized by Kunming Forest Police are displayed during a news conference in Kunming, Yunnan province, China November 23, 2018. Liu Ranyang/CNS via REUTERS/File Photo

Farah Master, Joyce Zhou=JANUARY 7, 2019

HONG KONG/HARBIN, China (Reuters) - At the Siberia Tiger Park in the frigid Chinese city of Harbin, visitors can learn about the facility’s successful breeding programme and buy chicken carcasses to toss to around 20 tigers pacing the snow flecked ground of their enclosure.

At the park gates, a shop sells liquor soaked with tiger bones for up to $1,000 a bottle.

China has made significant strides in wildlife protection in recent years, including a total ban on ivory and plans to open one of the world’s largest reserves for wild tigers in northeast China in 2020.
But it also has formidable, profit-driven wildlife business interests that risk undermining progress on protecting the endangered big cats, conservationists say.

“The industry occupies a strategic position which concentrates in the country’s less developed regions where poverty reduction remains a top priority of the local authorities,” said Houston-based Peter Li, a China Policy Specialist at Humane Society International.

Operators of tiger breeding farms have told state media that without the ability to sell bones, skins and meat they are not be able to cover the high costs of running their parks and carry out key conservation plans endorsed by the national government.

After pressure from some breeders, China’s State Council said in October it would replace a 1993 ban on the trade of tiger bones and rhino horn, opening up exceptions under “special circumstances”, including medical research. [nL3N1X9590]

But in November, Beijing postponed the move following widespread protests from conservation groups who worry any resumption in the legal trade of tiger parts will be a death knell for the species by enabling the laundering of wild animal parts into farmed supplies. [nL4N1XN38H]

Conservationists also argue that no captive Chinese bred tigers have been released into the wild and there is no scientific or medical need to use rhino horn and tiger bone in traditional Chinese medicine.
Still, lifting the ban is backed by China’s powerful State Forestry and Grassland Administration.

“If rhino horns and tiger bones can be used for medicinal purposes, and their use causes zero harm to the two endangered species in the wild, why should we oppose it?” Tang Xiaoping, an executive at the administration was quoted in the state-run China Daily newspaper.

The Forestry and Grasslands administration did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

 

 

PROFIT-DRIVEN BUSINESS

At the Siberia Tiger Park, tiger bone wine is sold openly and is recognised by the Forestry Bureau and Commerce Ministry, according to a sales representative in the store. However, the park is not allowed to publicly promote it due to the sensitivity of the situation, the sales rep said. Officials at the park declined to comment on the record.

The wine, which ranges in price from 280 yuan-6,888 yuan, ($40-$1,003) is displayed in large glass cabinets and also sold on China’s Twitter-like WeChat.

Park executives, officials and conservation experts say tiger parks have been accumulating stocks of animal skin and bone in freezers, with the aim of selling it for medicinal use in thefuture.

Conservation groups estimate there are now over 6,500 farmed tigers at some 200 facilities in China and around 40 farmed rhinos. Chinese media say tiger bone can fetch 5,000-9,000 yuan ($727-$1,308) per kg - tens of thousands of dollars per animal.

The World Wildlife Fund believes there are only around 40-50 wild tigers left in China out of around 3,900 globally.

Debate over lifting the ban on tiger trade comes as China seeks to develop its traditional medicine industry, worth some $50 billion annually, and position it as a key pillar of its ‘One Belt One Road’ strategy.

Slideshow (2 Images)

The World Health Organisation is set to recognize traditional Chinese medicine for the first time next year in its global medical compendium according to Nature International Journal of Science, citing the governing body.

CASH STRAPPED

The Siberian Tiger Park has more than 1,300 tigers spread across three locations. Selling tiger bone wine is a way to subsidise the daily expenses of the park, said one of the park’s tour guides.

Currently, visitor fees are the parks’ main source of income, along with government subsidies. Ticket prices are 100 yuan and visitors can pay extra to feed the tigers. A menu of meat displays prices for a live chicken at 120 yuan while a raw cutlet is 10 yuan.

In a CCTV documentary shown in November, Liu Dan, the chief engineer of the Northeast Tiger Forest park, near China’s border with Russia, says his 1,000-plus tigers each eat around 3,000 yuan ($435) worth of chicken per month.

Liu, who has raised tigers for over 30 years and has repeatedly called for the ban on trading tiger parts to be lifted, told state media that government tax breaks are not enough for the park to be financially viable. Currently, parks make most of their money from visitors.

Liu and the park declined to comment for this article.

Chinese medicine experts say there is no need to use tiger bone and rhino horn in treatments as substitutes are readily available.

Tiger bone, for example, is often used to treat arthritis and joint pain, but there are dozens of other herbs with similar properties, said Eric Karchmer, chief medicine officer at Dao Labs.

Lixin Huang, the president of the American College of Traditional medicine, said a reversal of the ban would create a huge challenge for the Chinese medicine community.

“We stopped using it 25 years ago. We don’t understand. I don’t think the Chinese medicine community and medical professionals would understand.”
($1 = 6.8624 Chinese yuan renminbi)

Reporting by Farah Master and Joyce Zhou; Additional reporting by the Beijing newsroom and Trista Shi; Editing by Lincoln Feast.

Myanmar: Ceasing-fire for four months

by S. Chandrasekharan-Jan 7, 2019

Jan 7, 2019

On 21st December, in a surprise move, the Army Chief Gen. Hliang announced a four-month ceasefire of operations in the northern and eastern regions bordering China and to end by April 30th  2019.

The idea, it is said, is  to let the Government have some free space  to negotiate with the ethnic Insurgent Groups that have not so far signed the ceasefire agreement.  The Army announced that they are forming special teams of Army Officers to help the Government in the negotiations.  It is also sad that this period will be utilized in settling the differences among the signatories themselves like the one between the KNU and the RCSS , though no mention was made of the conflicts between the Army and some of the ethnic groups that have signed the national cease-fire agreement.

The Northern Alliance consisting of KIO, TNLA, MNDAA and AA met on 27th and responded to the Ceasefire declaration.  They said that they would halt all military activities but offered to hold talks in China and not within Myanmar. It was also mentioned that the talks should involve the Government, the Military and the ethnic groups belonging to the FPNCC.

Significantly the offer of ceasefire did not include the operations that are going on in Northern Rakhine State because of the continuing threat from the ARSA as declared by the Army. The reason could be that the operations against the Arakan Army and the ARSA do not affect the Chinese border as the present cease fire order appears to be China driven.  China also suspects that ARSA is in league with Uighur terrorists of Xinjiang.

The Arakan Army has also not been quiet.  On 4th January, over 300 Arakan Army Insurgents attacked four border posts in Rakhine State’s Buthidaung Township.  14 Policemen were killed and 7 injured and another 14 taken prisoners. The prisoners that  had 14 Border Police Officers and 9 civilian women were returned the next day.

Earlier, there was another incident suspected to be by the ARSA when two Buddhists were killed, and their throats slit. Counter operations have been going on since then.

It is therefore no surprise that the operational areas in the northern Rakhine State have been excluded from the Army’s ceasefire declaration.  But it will be an embarrassment both to the Northern Alliance and the bigger group- the Federal Political Negotiation and Consultative Committee (FPNCC) led by United Wa State Army, backed by China, as the AA is part of the Northern Alliance and the FPNCC.  Yet the northern alliance had agreed for the negotiations apparently on the advice of the Chinese as the present initiative of the Army appears to be China driven and China backed move.

The Army also insisted on four of the six points it had demanded earlier from the ethnic groups in accepting the cease-fire and these were-

•   Avoid capitalizing on the cease-fire Agreement.
• Avoid placing a heavy burden on the local people
• Abide by the existing laws.
• Adhere to the promises agreed to in the peace declaration.

Reasonable enough, though no monitoring system to supervise the cease fire and an institutionalized system to resolve allegations of ceasefire violations which normally arise in case of conflicts have been made.

More significantly, the Myanmar Army chief claimed on the same day he announced the unilateral cessation of operation that the peace process will be completed by 2020.  Why 2020?  Was he referring to the next General elections when the NLD of Suu Kyi  is not likely to get the same majority and the Army backed USDP (Union Solidarity & Development Party) is expected to have a better showing!

The Army’s position on the cease fire needs a fundamental paradigm change as the 2008 Constitution is not federal in character and needs to be amended.  Only then can meaningful talks take place to look for a permanent solution to the ethnic problem that has battered the country since its independence.  The Army Chief has not helped the situation, when he declared following the cease-fire declaration that the ethnic armed groups need to participate in the peace process if they accept democracy and national development through national unity and solidarity!

The cease-fire has to be a long and sustaining one and nothing can be achieved within the four months stipulated by the Army.

Why then did the Army declare a temporary cease fire now when it can continue the operations against the Northern Alliance for any length of time?  The Myanmar media suggests that that the idea is to divert international attention where they are under pressure both individually and collectively for their operations and alleged atrocities against the Rohingyas.  This does not appear to be the position as they will be facing flak anyway in the coming months from the International Criminal Court and the UN backed Human Rights Groups.

What is more likely is that it is at the initiative of China who seem to be in need for peace and stability in their border region with Myanmar for successful completion and operation of projects under the BRI.

The Sino-US technology duel flares up

Struggle for 21st Century world economic and technical leadership

Kumar David-January 5, 2019, 7:16 pm 

The arrest of Ms Meng Wanzhou, Executive Board Director of the Chinese technology giant Huawei in Vancouver, Canada,at the behest of the U.S. allegedly in connection with investigations into violations of U.S. trade sanctions is but the tip of an iceberg. It is far more than about sanctions busting or concerns that Huawei products in Western country communications systems pose a security threat though I will discuss these issues anon. What is at stake is global economic and technological rivalry as the twenty-first century unfolds. Both sides know this well and that is why neither will climb down; it is the struggle for leadership in this century. It is of far greater import than trade-wars or Trump’s weirdness. Some idiot savant wrote a book about the ‘End of History’; and history is only just getting started, how pathetic!

I will begin with a narrower canvas, the technological ramifications of the incident itself. There are three competing explanations fighting to be heard.

= The US is nervous that Huawei devices and networking equipment, in particular China’s 5G advancements will overshadow American technology, and leadership of the sector-apex will pass to China reducing Silicon Valley to second best.

= Huawei is intimately linked to the Chinese government; its systems and smart phones are "wired" to collect sensitive strategic and commercial data and relay it back home through a "backdoor". That is to say Huawei poses a security threat.

= America is leading an intensive effort to overthrow the Iranian government and bring regime change toTeheran and has instituted a raft of biting sanctions. Huawei, like the Chinese company ZTE before it has been supplying Iran with telecoms gear and busting American sanctions. (This is the official US ‘reason’ for the extradition request against Ms Meng).

The plain fact is that all three are true in degrees and deserve attention.Though I would like to focus on the first only this is not possible since it will leave readers up in the air. First, what is 5G? The great leap of Fifth Generation communications over 4G, the current top of the range, is speed of data transfer and millisecond connectivity. But the point is this, 5G is not only inside a device but is in the system; it is part of the communications backbone (access and core networks) that connected devices run on. A 5G cell-phone in a location without a 5G backbone-system is like a Ferrari in a country that has no highways.

[For those who want a little jargon: Browsing speeds will go up from 70 Mbps for the median 4G user to 1.4 Gbps for the median 5G user, with response times 20 times faster. Download speed will rise from 100 Mbps to 10 Gbps (10,000 Mbps).You can download an entire movie in a few seconds. 5G mobile data speeds will far outstrip the fastest home broadband network now available. 5G, it is claimed, will be as much as 1,000 times faster than 4G].

The second point is that it is in data-transfer that the advantage will show. Your daughter drooling over your new 5G Huawei mobile when it becomes available (promised for 2019) with her boyfriend will enjoy no better sensations; voice-calls will see no perceptible gain. It is links that receive and send huge amounts of data that will see benefits (video/movie channels, data heavy companies, governments, defence establishments, self-drive vehicles, drones and AI research). And it will be fast! An electrical engineer friend in New Zealand who visited a Huawei exhibition where they had set up a demonstration said "Wow, it really flew". So that point is settled; the Chinese have surpassed the Americans in 5G communications technology – note I am not saying technology leadership in general, but one cutting edge aspect.

The American’s are fighting back by sealing their market to Huawei products and attempting to close the markets of their Western allies. They have taken steps to block the firm from entering US including banning government purchases of Huawei gear and denying government help to any carrier that uses Huawei equipment. Top carriers Verizon Communications and AT&T pulled out of deals to distribute Huawei smartphones earlier in 2018.The Committee on Foreign Investment ordered Qualcomm to delay a shareholder vote on a Broadcom (a semiconductor maker) offer to acquire Qualcomm. It said that the purchase would give Huawei the upper hand in 5G technology because Broadcom would cut back on R&D funding at Qualcomm, strengthening Huawei’s position at a time when rivals are grappling with weak telecoms R&D budgets.

AT&T and Verizon will deploy 5G networks in a few cities in 2019; T-Mobile and Sprint the following year. Vodafone, meanwhile, the world’s second largest carrier trusts Huawei. "A very innovative company; very open. We never found anything less than normal in Huawei equipment and software.". The expectation is that at home China will blanket the country with 5G coverage before the US. Nevertheless, exclusion from the US communications market is a severe setback to Huawei but it is unlikely to hold it back for long enough to give American competitors time to catch up.

The security threat story is the hardest to swallow though a raft of pro-US countries and carriers have moved against Huawei raising a red flag.US intelligence agencies allege that Huawei is linked to the Chinese government and its equipment could contain "backdoors" for use by government spies. No evidence has been produced and the firm has repeatedly denied the claims. Not just the American government but no rival system makers or investigators has produced a shred of evidence of this anal orifice or of the leakage of toxic vapours and valuables. Court cases are pending and let us see what hard evidence American prosecutors put out.

What is true is that China engages in flagrant abuse of intellectual property. For example, all foreign countries and companies that set up ventures in China are compelled to hand over their technology. This means that the best stuff is simply handed over gratis on a platter. This has provoked much bitterness. Theft of intellectual property is multisided and every country is doing it all the time; America is the biggest loser because it holds some of the best stuff.

On sanctions busting, morally I am on the side of anyone who busts American sanctions imposed on Iran to tilt the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of itself and Israel, and at worst to force regime change in Tehran. This is old style imperialism. Unfortunately, countries and companies have no choice but to bow their heads and follow the American dictate. Nearly all international transactions are in dollars and pass through global, that is American banking systems and to fall foul would mean exclusion from global trade. Huawei’s smaller rival ZTE Corp pleaded guilty last year to conspiring to evade embargoes by selling US equipment to Iran. Then the US Commerce Department said ZTE violated that settlement and barred it from buying any US components - a move that all but halted many ZTE operations.

The big picture

What about the big picture of global technology leadership in the rest of this century? Let me keep two perspectives in mind – up to a decade from now say to 2030 and secondly up to the middle of the century; I am not fool enough to stray beyond that. There is little argument that on the broad front, the best US technology still holds a commanding lead but in several specific domains China has pulled ahead in the last 10 to 20 years. In heavy engineering and manufacturing, and in civil engineering and infrastructure, the Chinese have built a big lead. In highspeed rail and integrated transportation hubs the lead is so great that the Americans will never close the gap. China is also world leader in the generation of electricity from solar energy. The US is well ahead in military hardware and software, aircraft and avionic systems and where it really holds a decisive edge is in logistics and in flexibility of thinking at organisational, systems and network levels.

Huawei’s leap shows what will happen on a larger scale in the next decade. The company was founded in 1987 by former military officer Ren Zhengfei, remains privately owned, and is based in Chinese tech hub Shenzhen across the border from Hong Kong. The plausible background picture is that like all Chinese breakthrough technology enterprises there is a deep but inscrutable connection to the state. Reliance on the state gives China’s technology-drive its purposive strength; I cannot see how otherwise a single company can take on and beat the whole of Silicon Valley. The US state supported technology from the 1960s up to the fall of Soviet Union via NASA and the Pentagon but slackened afterwards.

Huawei was a pioneering supplier of telecom gear at the time when China was spending heavily to upgrade its networks; it began competing internationally in the 1990s and was known for undercutting rivals on price. Competitors branded it a cut-rate vendor of copycat equipment, and companies including Cisco and Motorola filed lawsuits over alleged trade secret theft. But Huawei continued to spend heavily on research and development with state encouragement, and is now global leader intelecom network technologies and high-end smart phones. In contrast, its Western rivals, Nokia and Ericsson, have struggled with R&D budgets while Huawei continues to expand into new areas including chip development, artificial intelligence and cloud computing. Apple has no plans to introduce 5G devices in 2019 and perhaps even 2020.

What I am driving at is that it is the state motivated, if not directed drive that explains China’s extraordinary rise to prominence in technical fields. I have counted a number of areas in which China is ahead of the US already and I will add the following hat-trick as candidates that will fall into China’s bag in the next decade; on-line services, artificial intelligence and global freight and port services. What I mean by on-line services are the likes of: (a) e-commerce giants Alibaba and JD.com (China’s Amazons), (b) social media (Ten cent is China’s Facebook) and (c) Baidu (China’s Google).

By the middle of this century China will strive to reach the top in biotechnology and to close the gap with the US on military capability. I am of the view that China cannot match American superiority in the projection of military power across the globe in the foreseeable future. This is of great significance since all my Hong Kong and China friends are convinced "The Americans will never let China rise; they may even go to war to prevent it." Recall that the Sino-American rapprochement of the 1970s happened because, in the context of a dangerous Sino-Soviet rift, Mao and the Party became convinced that a Soviet nuclear strike on China was possible!