China
Deepening Shadows Over Chinese Law
Stanley Lubman, a long-time specialist on Chinese law, teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and is the author of “Bird in a Cage: Legal Reform in China After Mao,” (Stanford University Press, 1999). Chinese president Hu Jintao addressed a “study session” of leaders last week and called for new measures and policies of “social management.” His message foretells a tightening of controls over China’s population and over social protest. Although the speech may have been provoked by recent events in Tunisia and Egypt, brutal treatment of dissidents was already ongoing. It has become more intense and it will continue. A prominent civil rights lawyer, Mo Shaoping, recently spoke at a conference in Beijing on the status of lawyers at which he said that “our current system and government is not one that relies on rule of law, rather it relies on the law of the party.” The Wall Street Journal earlier this month pointed to the beating of blind legal activist Cheng Guancheng, who is currently being held prisoner in his home illegally after serving a prison sentence (four years and six months) for ”damaging public property and obstructing traffic.” Chen managed to smuggle from his house a video in which he described the severe conditions of his house arrest and criticized the government’s repression. After the video was released he and his wife were beaten, and reporters trying to reach his village were threatened. Some days later, police beat and arrested human rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong and his wife after they met with others to discuss how they might help Mr. Chen. The Journal pointed out that the case was “not isolated,” and is part of a pattern of using violence on activists such as Ai Weiwei and other dissidents, especially when they use technology to mobilize support. Tang Jitian, another human rights lawyer, was abducted from his home on February 16th after attending the same meeting. Five other lawyers were seized last month and their whereabouts were unknown, according to an online report from China Human Rights Defenders. Another report told of the expansion of “extended home confinement, abductions and in some cases assault or torture against a broadening array of perceived enemies.” One notable example of this is lawyer Ni Yulan, who helped Beijing residents fight forced demolitions occurring before the 2008 Olympics. She was disbarred, her own house was destroyed, and she was arrested and beaten so badly that she is permanently crippled. She was recently visited by US. Ambassador Jon Huntsman in her temporary quarters in a hotel. Hu Jintao’s recent speech shows that the events in the Middle East have deepened the leadership’s concerns about popular unrest, especially because the empowerment of the crowds in Tunis and Cairo was massively strengthened by social media. Against this background, the likely significance of President Hu’s speech has to be considered for the consequences it signals. He invoked, in Party-speak, “factors conducive to harmony,” meaning heightened repression of activists and a general tightening of control. Presumably, too, this is what he meant by emphasizing the need to “build a socialist social management system with Chinese characteristics, aiming to safeguard people’s rights and interests, promote social justice, and sustain sound social order.” The precise organizational implications of the improvement in “social management” that Hu called for will be spelled out in the days to come, but Hu said that it is necessary for the CCP and the government to “play the leading role” in a “mechanism for safeguarding the rights of the people.” The Xinhua report stated that Hu emphasized “the importance of information network management” and urged “improved management of the ‘virtual society’ and a better guidance of public opinions on the Internet.” To be sure, Hu also mentioned the need to “improve social service capacity at grass-roots level” and included the need to improve food, drug and work safety as well as “social order.” But soon after his speech on February19th, the party-state demonstrated the depths of its concern about Cairo-style activism and social stability. After an anonymous online call for people to initiate a “Jasmine Revolution” on Sunday, February 20th was circulated on Boxun.com and Twitter in China, police deleted most of it, blocked searches for the word “Jasmine,’ and temporarily disabled text-messaging services. On that Sunday in Beijing there were apparently no obvious demonstrators on Wangfujing in the small crowd that appeared, but there were many policemen and journalists. Over the weekend, the police detained “ dozens of activists .” The speed with which the police acted reflected government fears of the power of social media. Government action also demonstrated the range of actions it could take to block protest, not only jailing dissidents and placing some under house arrest, but acting, as the Journal put it , “to control the flow of information without shutting it down completely.” The power to compel internet companies to remove “politically sensitive content” was amply demonstrated, as was the government’s determination to control the flow of information as well as the protest that it might somehow ignite. The focus on controlling the media, including social networks and microblogs, should not obscure the unceasing government concern about the possibility that the “rights defense” ( weiquan ) lawyers might somehow ignite widening popular protest. The current anxieties about unrest have already been manifested in the repression of activist lawyers, and will undoubtedly continue. Lawyers and citizens who pursue rights formally granted to Chinese citizens could conceivably be deemed to veer close to the paranoid notion of “inciting subversion.” If so, those who assert legal rights could become targets of regime suppression, and the rule of law will suffer even more than it has in the past. CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post misidentified one of the Chinese lawyers reported abducted this month. It should be Tang Jitian, non Jiang Jitian as earlier written. Thanks to a reader for pointing out the error.
Stanley Lubman, a long-time specialist on Chinese law, teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and is the author of “Bird in a Cage: Legal Reform in China After Mao,” (Stanford University Press, 1999).
Chinese president Hu Jintao addressed a “study session” of leaders last week and called for new measures and policies of “social management.” His message foretells a tightening of controls over China’s population and over social protest. Although the speech may have been provoked by recent events in Tunisia and Egypt, brutal treatment of dissidents was already ongoing. It has become more intense and it will continue. A prominent civil rights lawyer, Mo Shaoping, recently spoke at a conference in Beijing on the status of lawyers at which he said that “our current system and government is not one that relies on rule of law, rather it relies on the law of the party.”
The Wall Street Journal earlier this month pointed to the beating of blind legal activist Cheng Guancheng, who is currently being held prisoner in his home illegally after serving a prison sentence (four years and six months) for ”damaging public property and obstructing traffic.” Chen managed to smuggle from his house a video in which he described the severe conditions of his house arrest and criticized the government’s repression. After the video was released he and his wife were beaten, and reporters trying to reach his village were threatened.
Some days later, police beat and arrested human rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong and his wife after they met with others to discuss how they might help Mr. Chen. The Journal pointed out that the case was “not isolated,” and is part of a pattern of using violence on activists such as Ai Weiwei and other dissidents, especially when they use technology to mobilize support. Tang Jitian, another human rights lawyer, was abducted from his home on February 16th after attending the same meeting. Five other lawyers were seized last month and their whereabouts were unknown, according to an online report from China Human Rights Defenders.
Another report told of the expansion of “extended home confinement, abductions and in some cases assault or torture against a broadening array of perceived enemies.” One notable example of this is lawyer Ni Yulan, who helped Beijing residents fight forced demolitions occurring before the 2008 Olympics. She was disbarred, her own house was destroyed, and she was arrested and beaten so badly that she is permanently crippled. She was recently visited by US. Ambassador Jon Huntsman in her temporary quarters in a hotel.
Hu Jintao’s recent speech shows that the events in the Middle East have deepened the leadership’s concerns about popular unrest, especially because the empowerment of the crowds in Tunis and Cairo was massively strengthened by social media. Against this background, the likely significance of President Hu’s speech has to be considered for the consequences it signals. He invoked, in Party-speak, “factors conducive to harmony,” meaning heightened repression of activists and a general tightening of control. Presumably, too, this is what he meant by emphasizing the need to “build a socialist social management system with Chinese characteristics, aiming to safeguard people’s rights and interests, promote social justice, and sustain sound social order.”
The precise organizational implications of the improvement in “social management” that Hu called for will be spelled out in the days to come, but Hu said that it is necessary for the CCP and the government to “play the leading role” in a “mechanism for safeguarding the rights of the people.” The Xinhua report stated that Hu emphasized “the importance of information network management” and urged “improved management of the ‘virtual society’ and a better guidance of public opinions on the Internet.” To be sure, Hu also mentioned the need to “improve social service capacity at grass-roots level” and included the need to improve food, drug and work safety as well as “social order.” But soon after his speech on February19th, the party-state demonstrated the depths of its concern about Cairo-style activism and social stability.
After an anonymous online call for people to initiate a “Jasmine Revolution” on Sunday, February 20th was circulated on Boxun.com and Twitter in China, police deleted most of it, blocked searches for the word “Jasmine,’ and temporarily disabled text-messaging services. On that Sunday in Beijing there were apparently no obvious demonstrators on Wangfujing in the small crowd that appeared, but there were many policemen and journalists. Over the weekend, the police detained “dozens of activists.”
The speed with which the police acted reflected government fears of the power of social media. Government action also demonstrated the range of actions it could take to block protest, not only jailing dissidents and placing some under house arrest, but acting, as the Journal put it, “to control the flow of information without shutting it down completely.” The power to compel internet companies to remove “politically sensitive content” was amply demonstrated, as was the government’s determination to control the flow of information as well as the protest that it might somehow ignite.
The focus on controlling the media, including social networks and microblogs, should not obscure the unceasing government concern about the possibility that the “rights defense” (weiquan) lawyers might somehow ignite widening popular protest. The current anxieties about unrest have already been manifested in the repression of activist lawyers, and will undoubtedly continue. Lawyers and citizens who pursue rights formally granted to Chinese citizens could conceivably be deemed to veer close to the paranoid notion of “inciting subversion.” If so, those who assert legal rights could become targets of regime suppression, and the rule of law will suffer even more than it has in the past.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post misidentified one of the Chinese lawyers reported abducted this month. It should be Tang Jitian, non Jiang Jitian as earlier written. Thanks to a reader for pointing out the error.
China has generally implemented reforms in a gradualist or piecemeal fashion.
China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development.
The People’s Republic of China is the world’s second largest economy after the United States by both nominal GDP ($5 trillion in 2009) and by purchasing power parity ($8.77 trillion in 2009).
The restructuring of the economy and resulting efficiency gains have contributed to a more than tenfold increase in GDP since 1978.
Technology, labor productivity, and incomes have advanced much more rapidly in industry than in agriculture.
The technological level and quality standards of its industry as a whole are still fairly low, notwithstanding a marked change since 2000, spurred in part by foreign investment.
The market-oriented reforms China has implemented over the past two decades have unleashed individual initiative and entrepreneurship, whilst retaining state domination of the economy.
Both forums will start on Tuesday.
In 2009, global ODI volume reached $1.1 trillion, and China contributed about 5.1 percent of the total.
China is aiming to be the world’s largest new energy vehicle market by 2020 with 5 million cars.
Although China is still a developing country with a relatively low per capita income, it has experienced tremendous economic growth since the late 1970s.
Despite initial gains in farmers’ incomes in the early 1980s, taxes and fees have increasingly made farming an unprofitable occupation, and because the state owns all land farmers have at times been easily evicted when croplands are sought by developers.
In terms of cash crops, China ranks first in cotton and tobacco and is an important producer of oilseeds, silk, tea, ramie, jute, hemp, sugarcane, and sugar beets.
Sheep, cattle, and goats are the most common types of livestock.
China is one of the world’s major mineral-producing countries.
Alumina is found in many parts of the country; China is one of world’s largest producers of aluminum.
In the 1990s a program of share-holding and greater market orientation went into effect; however, state enterprises continue to dominate many key industries in China’s socialist market economy.
Brick, tile, cement, and food-processing plants are found in almost every province.
Read this article:
Deepening Shadows Over Chinese Law
Business
China Limits Apple Operations as BYD Manufacturing Moves to India and Southeast Asia Amid Trade Frictions | International Business News – The Times of India
China is restricting the export of high-tech manufacturing equipment and personnel to India and Southeast Asia, aiming to maintain domestic production amid potential US tariffs, impacting companies like Foxconn and BYD.
China Curbs on High-Tech Manufacturing
China is intensifying restrictions on the movement of employees and specialized equipment essential for high-tech manufacturing in India and Southeast Asia. This measure aims to prevent companies from relocating production due to potential tariffs under the incoming US administration. Beijing has urged local governments to restrict technology transfers and export of manufacturing tools as part of this strategy.
Impact on Foxconn and Apple’s Strategy
Foxconn, Apple’s primary assembly partner, is facing challenges in sending staff and receiving equipment in India, which could impact production. Despite these hurdles, current manufacturing operations remain unaffected. The Chinese government insists it treats all nations equally while reinforcing its domestic production to mitigate job losses and retain foreign investments.
Broader Implications for India
Additionally, these restrictions affect electric vehicle and solar panel manufacturers in India, notably BYD and Waaree Energies. Although the measures are not explicitly targeting India, they complicate the business landscape. As foreign companies seek alternatives to China, these developments are likely to reshape manufacturing strategies amidst ongoing geopolitical tensions.
China
China’s GDP Grows 5% in 2024: Key Insights and Main Factors
In 2024, China’s GDP grew by 5.0%, meeting its annual target. The fourth quarter saw a 5.4% increase, driven by exports and stimulus measures. The secondary industry grew 5.3%, while the tertiary increased by 5.0%, totaling RMB 134.91 trillion.
China’s GDP grew by 5.0 percent in in 2024, meeting the government’s annual economic target set at the beginning of the year. Fourth-quarter GDP exceeded expectations, rising by 5.4 percent, driven by exports and a flurry of stimulus measures. This article provides a brief overview of the key statistics and the main drivers behind this growth.
According to official data released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) on January 17, 2025, China’s GDP reached RMB 134.91 trillion (US$18.80 trillion) in 2024, reflecting a 5.0 percent year-on-year growth at constant prices. During the 2024 Two Sessions, the government set the 2024 GDP growth target of “around 5 percent”.
By sector, the secondary industry expanded by 5.3 percent year-on-year to RMB 49.21 trillion (US$6.85 trillion), the fastest among the three sectors, while the tertiary industry grew by 5.0 percent, reaching RMB 76.56 trillion (US$10.63 trillion) and the primary industry contributed RMB 9.14 trillion (US$1.31 trillion), growing 3.5 percent.
A more detailed analysis of China’s economic performance in 2024 will be provided later.
(1USD = 7.1785 RMB)
| This article was first published by China Briefing , which is produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The firm assists foreign investors throughout Asia from offices across the world, including in in China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Singapore, and India . Readers may write to info@dezshira.com for more support. |
Read the rest of the original article.
China
Can science be both open and secure? Nations grapple with tightening research security as China’s dominance grows
The U.S.-China science agreement renewal narrows collaboration scopes amid security concerns, highlighting tensions. Nations fear espionage, hindering vital international partnerships essential for scientific progress. Openness risks declining.
Amid heightened tensions between the United States and China, the two countries signed a bilateral science and technology agreement on Dec. 13, 2024. The event was billed as a “renewal” of a 45-year-old pact to encourage cooperation, but that may be misleading.
The revised agreement drastically narrows the scope of the original agreement, limits the topics allowed to be jointly studied, closes opportunities for collaboration and inserts a new dispute resolution mechanism.
This shift is in line with growing global concern about research security. Governments are worried about international rivals gaining military or trade advantages or security secrets via cross-border scientific collaborations.
The European Union, Canada, Japan and the United States unveiled sweeping new measures within months of each other to protect sensitive research from foreign interference. But there’s a catch: Too much security could strangle the international collaboration that drives scientific progress.
As a policy analyst and public affairs professor, I research international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public and foreign policy. I have tracked the increasingly close relationship in science and technology between the U.S. and China. The relationship evolved from one of knowledge transfer to genuine collaboration and competition.
Now, as security provisions change this formerly open relationship, a crucial question emerges: Can nations tighten research security without undermining the very openness that makes science work?
Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping and American President Jimmy Carter sign the original agreement on cooperation in science and technology in 1979.
Dirck Halstead/Hulton Archive via Getty Images
China’s ascent changes the global landscape
China’s rise in scientific publishing marks a dramatic shift in global research. In 1980, Chinese authors produced less than 2% of research articles included in the Web of Science, a curated database of scholarly output. By my count, they claimed 25% of Web of Science articles by 2023, overtaking the United States and ending its 75-year reign at the top, which had begun in 1948 when it surpassed the United Kingdom.
In 1980, China had no patented inventions. By 2022, Chinese companies led in U.S. patents issued to foreign companies, receiving 40,000 patents compared with fewer than 2,000 for U.K. companies. In the many advanced fields of science and technology, China is at the world frontier, if not in the lead.
Since 2013, China has been the top collaborator in science with the United States. Thousands of Chinese students and scholars have conducted joint research with U.S. counterparts.
Most American policymakers who championed the signing of the 1979 bilateral agreement thought science would liberalize China. Instead, China has used technology to shore up autocratic controls and to build a strong military with an eye toward regional power and global influence.
Leadership in science and technology wins wars and builds successful economies. China’s growing strength, backed by a state-controlled government, is shifting global power. Unlike open societies where research is public and shared, China often keeps its researchers’ work secret while also taking Western technology through hacking, forced technology transfers and industrial espionage. These practices are why many governments are now implementing strict security measures.
Nations respond
The FBI claims China has stolen sensitive technologies and research data to build up its defense capabilities. The China Initiative under the Trump administration sought to root out thieves and spies. The Biden administration did not let up the pressure. The 2022 Chips and Science Act requires the National Science Foundation to establish SECURE – a center to aid universities and small businesses in helping the research community make security-informed decisions. I am working with SECURE to evaluate the effectiveness of its mission.
Other advanced nations are on alert, too. The European Union is advising member states to boost security measures. Japan joined the United States in unveiling sweeping new measures to protect sensitive research from foreign interference and exploitation. European nations increasingly talk about technological sovereignty as a way to protect against exploitation by China. Similarly, Asian nations are wary of China’s intentions when it seeks to cooperate.
Australia has been especially vocal about the threat posed by China’s rise, but others, too, have issued warnings. The Netherlands issued a policy for secure international collaboration. Sweden raised the alarm after a study showed how spies had exploited its universities.
Canada has created the Research Security Centre for public safety and, like the U.S., has established regionally dispersed advisers to provide direct support to universities and researchers. Canada now requires mandatory risk assessment for research partnerships involving sensitive technologies. Similar approaches are underway in Australia and the U.K.
Germany’s 2023 provisions establish compliance units and ethics committees to oversee security-relevant research. They are tasked with advising researchers, mediating disputes and evaluating the ethical and security implications of research projects. The committees emphasize implementing safeguards, controlling access to sensitive data and assessing potential misuse.
Japan’s 2021 policy requires researchers to disclose and regularly update information regarding their affiliations, funding sources – both domestic and international – and potential conflicts of interest. A cross-ministerial R&D management system is unrolling seminars and briefings to educate researchers and institutions on emerging risks and best practices for maintaining research security.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development keeps a running database with more than 206 research security policy statements issued since 2022.
Emmanuelle Charpentier, left, from France, and Jennifer Doudna, from the U.S., shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2020 for their joint research.
Miguel RiopaI/AFP via Getty Images
Openness waning
Emphasis on security can strangle the international collaboration that drives scientific progress. As much as 25% of all U.S. scientific articles result from international collaboration. Evidence shows that international engagement and openness produce higher-impact research. The most elite scientists work across national borders.
Even more critically, science depends on the free flow of ideas and talent across borders. After the Cold War, scientific advancement accelerated as borders opened. While national research output remained flat in recent years, international collaborations showed significant growth, revealing science’s increasingly global nature.
The challenge for research institutions will be implementing these new requirements without creating a climate of suspicion or isolation. Retrenchment to national borders could slow progress. Some degree of risk is inherent in scientific openness, but we may be coming to the end of a global, collaborative era in science.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
- China Limits Apple Operations as BYD Manufacturing Moves to India and Southeast Asia Amid Trade Frictions | International Business News – The Times of India
- China’s GDP Grows 5% in 2024: Key Insights and Main Factors
- Can science be both open and secure? Nations grapple with tightening research security as China’s dominance grows
- China Lures Indonesia to Ease Its Position on the South China Sea
- EFIS Maroc and China Eastern Airlines Set to Launch Service Between Morocco and China
- China Considers Selling TikTok US Operations to Musk as a Viable Option – Bloomberg
