China
U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue: Soft Power Gone Hard?
Kin Cheung/Associated Press Pro-democracy protesters and artists hold a banner of detained Chinese artist Ai Weiwei and Chinese writing “Undaunted Art, Innocent Truth” during a demonstration in Hong Kong Saturday, April 23, 2011 as they demand release of Ai. U.S. diplomats planned to discuss recent disappearances and detentions of Chinese dissidents during human rights talks in Beijing this week, the U.S. State Department said. More In Human Rights China Watch: Rights Lawyer Released, Facebook Willing to Censor? China Watch: Burberry, BRICS and Beating the Bible in Chongqing ‘Protracted Negotiations’ Solution to U.S.-China Tensions? Microblog Conjures Ghost of Protest Past Deepening Shadows Over Chinese Law With Beijing in the midst of unyielding crackdown on dissidents, how much can the latest round of U.S.-China human rights discussions, currently underway in Beijing, possibly hope to accomplish? The prospect of Chinese and U.S. officials holding constructive talks on human rights didn’t seem so absurd in back in January. At the time, China was in the midst of an elaborate “soft power” push, rolling out an glossy national image ad on Times Square just as Chinese president Hu Jintao was making his way to the White House for a summit with Barack Obama. At a press conference with Mr. Obama following the summit, Mr. Hu thrilled some top figures in Washington by admitting that “a lot still needs to be done in China, in terms of human rights” and indicating a willingness to discuss the issue with other countries. That was then. Spooked by anonymous online calls for a “Jasmine Revolution” in February, Beijing is in the midst of a crackdown on dissent that has seen dozens of writers, lawyers, artists, religious leaders and other and political activists arrested, detained or, in some cases, simply disappeared. Confronted with criticism over the sometimes extralegal measures taken to silence critics of the regime, China’s Foreign Ministry has been defiant, insisting foreign journalists and foreign countries should mind their own business. Security, in other words, appears to have taken precedence over soft power. Human rights talks between China and the U.S. are an on-again-off-again event. Beijing suspended the dialogues in 2004 in protest over a U.S-sponsored UN resolution criticizing China, agreed to resume the talks in 2008 then boycotted them again in 2009. The talks, when they actually occur, are known more for producing platitudes about the benefits of communicating than genuine breakthroughs, but the U.S. seems even less likely to win concessions from China this time around. Ahead of the meetings, the U.S. laid out in blunt terms its concerns with challenges to human rights in China, saying in a statement that the discussions in Beijing would include “the recent negative trend of forced disappearances, extralegal detentions, and arrests and convictions,” among an array of other human rights issues. While the recent crackdown gives the U.S. plenty of ammunition, Sharon Hom, executive director of Human Rights in China, an NGO based in Hong Kong and New York, argues that China’s willingness to sacrifice its international reputation in pursuit of security could make things harder on the U.S. “The U.S. has very few levers to push with,” Ms. Hom told China Real Time. Prior to the crackdown, the biggest advantage the U.S. possessed, she said, was “not economic and not political leverage. It was soft power.” Beijing has spent lavishly in an effort to improve its image abroad. In addition to the Times Square ad, China has greatly expanded the international presence of state-controlled media and funded an extensive network of Confucius Institutes to promote the study of Mandarin abroad. It seems unlikely that Beijing’s current security concerns would cause it abandon that effort altogether. If anything, China’s willingness to participate in the talks shows it still wants to be seen as a reasonable power. Yet the government has lately made virtually no effort to reconcile the current crackdown with the image it wants to project. Comments at a regular news conference Tuesday by a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman are perhaps the clearest indication yet that tough talk from the Chinese side will continue. “We oppose that any country interferes in China’s internal affairs under the pretext of human rights issues,” ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in response to a question about the human rights talks. –Brian Spegele, with contributions from Josh Chin. Follow Brian on Twitter @bspegele .
With Beijing in the midst of unyielding crackdown on dissidents, how much can the latest round of U.S.-China human rights discussions, currently underway in Beijing, possibly hope to accomplish?
The prospect of Chinese and U.S. officials holding constructive talks on human rights didn’t seem so absurd in back in January. At the time, China was in the midst of an elaborate “soft power” push, rolling out an glossy national image ad on Times Square just as Chinese president Hu Jintao was making his way to the White House for a summit with Barack Obama.
At a press conference with Mr. Obama following the summit, Mr. Hu thrilled some top figures in Washington by admitting that “a lot still needs to be done in China, in terms of human rights” and indicating a willingness to discuss the issue with other countries.
That was then.
Spooked by anonymous online calls for a “Jasmine Revolution” in February, Beijing is in the midst of a crackdown on dissent that has seen dozens of writers, lawyers, artists, religious leaders and other and political activists arrested, detained or, in some cases, simply disappeared. Confronted with criticism over the sometimes extralegal measures taken to silence critics of the regime, China’s Foreign Ministry has been defiant, insisting foreign journalists and foreign countries should mind their own business.
Security, in other words, appears to have taken precedence over soft power.
Human rights talks between China and the U.S. are an on-again-off-again event. Beijing suspended the dialogues in 2004 in protest over a U.S-sponsored UN resolution criticizing China, agreed to resume the talks in 2008 then boycotted them again in 2009. The talks, when they actually occur, are known more for producing platitudes about the benefits of communicating than genuine breakthroughs, but the U.S. seems even less likely to win concessions from China this time around.
Ahead of the meetings, the U.S. laid out in blunt terms its concerns with challenges to human rights in China, saying in a statement that the discussions in Beijing would include “the recent negative trend of forced disappearances, extralegal detentions, and arrests and convictions,” among an array of other human rights issues.
While the recent crackdown gives the U.S. plenty of ammunition, Sharon Hom, executive director of Human Rights in China, an NGO based in Hong Kong and New York, argues that China’s willingness to sacrifice its international reputation in pursuit of security could make things harder on the U.S.
“The U.S. has very few levers to push with,” Ms. Hom told China Real Time. Prior to the crackdown, the biggest advantage the U.S. possessed, she said, was “not economic and not political leverage. It was soft power.”
Beijing has spent lavishly in an effort to improve its image abroad. In addition to the Times Square ad, China has greatly expanded the international presence of state-controlled media and funded an extensive network of Confucius Institutes to promote the study of Mandarin abroad. It seems unlikely that Beijing’s current security concerns would cause it abandon that effort altogether. If anything, China’s willingness to participate in the talks shows it still wants to be seen as a reasonable power.
Yet the government has lately made virtually no effort to reconcile the current crackdown with the image it wants to project.
Comments at a regular news conference Tuesday by a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman are perhaps the clearest indication yet that tough talk from the Chinese side will continue. “We oppose that any country interferes in China’s internal affairs under the pretext of human rights issues,” ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in response to a question about the human rights talks.
–Brian Spegele, with contributions from Josh Chin. Follow Brian on Twitter @bspegele.
Cumulative appreciation of the renminbi against the US dollar since the end of the dollar peg was more than 20% by late 2008, but the exchange rate has remained virtually pegged since the onset of the global financial crisis.
In 2009, China announced that by 2020 it would reduce carbon intensity 40% from 2005 levels.
China is the world’s fastest-growing major economy, with an average growth rate of 10% for the past 30 years.
Some economists believe that Chinese economic growth has been in fact understated during much of the 1990s and early 2000s, failing to fully factor in the growth driven by the private sector and that the extent at which China is dependent on exports is exaggerated.
China is the world’s largest producer of rice and is among the principal sources of wheat, corn (maize), tobacco, soybeans, peanuts (groundnuts), and cotton.
China has acquired some highly sophisticated production facilities through trade and also has built a number of advanced engineering plants capable of manufacturing an increasing range of sophisticated equipment, including nuclear weapons and satellites, but most of its industrial output still comes from relatively ill-equipped factories.
By the early 1990s these subsidies began to be eliminated, in large part due to China’s admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, which carried with it requirements for further economic liberalization and deregulation.
Globally, foreign investment decreased by almost 40 percent last year amid the financial downturn and is expected to show only marginal growth this year.
Last year was the eighth consecutive year that the nation’s ODI had grown.
China reiterated the nation’s goals for the next decade – increasing market share of pure-electric and plug-in electric autos, building world-competitive auto makers and parts manufacturers in the energy-efficient auto sector as well as raising fuel-efficiency to world levels.
In large part as a result of economic liberalization policies, the GDP quadrupled between 1978 and 1998, and foreign investment soared during the 1990s.
Agriculture is by far the leading occupation, involving over 50% of the population, although extensive rough, high terrain and large arid areas – especially in the west and north – limit cultivation to only about 10% of the land surface.
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.
Coal is the most abundant mineral (China ranks first in coal production); high-quality, easily mined coal is found throughout the country, but especially in the north and northeast.
China’s leading export minerals are tungsten, antimony, tin, magnesium, molybdenum, mercury, manganese, barite, and salt.
Hydroelectric projects exist in provinces served by major rivers where near-surface coal is not abundant.
Most of China’s large cities, like Shanghai, Tianjin, and Guangzhou, are also the country’s main ports.
Read more here:
U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue: Soft Power Gone Hard?
Business
Democrat Claims Musk is Undermining Spending Bill Due to China Restrictions – The Hill
A Democrat claims Elon Musk influenced the reduction of a spending bill due to its restrictions on China, suggesting his actions impacted the legislation’s progress and funding allocation.
Allegations Against Musk
A prominent Democrat has accused Elon Musk of deliberately sabotaging a significant spending bill in response to China-related restrictions. This accusation comes amid ongoing tensions between the U.S. and China, particularly regarding technology and trade policies. The claims suggest that Musk’s influence is affecting critical legislative processes, raising concerns among lawmakers about foreign influence in American politics.
Implications for Legislation
The potential ramifications of Musk’s alleged actions could be significant. As a major player in the tech industry, his decisions can sway public opinion and impact the economy. Lawmakers fear that if influential figures like Musk oppose necessary legislation, it might hinder efforts to address vital issues such as national security and economic stability.
Political Reactions
The controversy has sparked debates among both Democrats and Republicans, highlighting the intersection of technology and politics. Many are demanding greater transparency and accountability from tech giants. As the situation unfolds, lawmakers may need to reassess their strategies to ensure that essential legislation moves forward uninterrupted.
Source : Democrat accuses Musk of tanking spending bill over China restrictions – The Hill
China
Dissolving a Company in China: A Comparison of General Deregistration and Simplified Deregistration
China promotes simplified deregistration to enhance its business environment, offering a faster process requiring fewer documents than general deregistration. Companies must meet eligibility criteria, resolve issues, and can choose procedures based on their situation, ensuring compliance for both options.
In addition to the general deregistration procedures, China has been promoting simplified deregistration as one of the key measures to enhance its business environment. This article highlights the differences between the general and simplified procedures, explains the eligibility criteria, and clarifies common misunderstandings about these processes.
Foreign investors may decide to close their business for multiple reasons. To legally wind up a business, investors must complete a series of procedures involving multiple government agencies, such as market regulatory bureaus, foreign exchange administrations, customs, tax authorities, banking regulators, and others. In this article, we outline the company deregistration process overseen by the local Administration for Market Regulation (AMR), comparing the general and simplified procedures.
Before 2016, companies could only deregister through the general procedure. However, on December 26, 2016, the Guidance on Fully Promoting the Reform of Simplified Company Deregistration Procedures was released. Effective March 1, 2017, simplified deregistration procedures were implemented nationwide. Since then, there have been two options: general procedures and simplified procedures.
Companies must follow the general deregistration process if any of the following conditions apply (hereinafter referred to as “existing issues”):
Companies not facing the above issues may choose either the general or simplified deregistration process.
In summary, simplified deregistration is a faster process and requires fewer documents compared to general deregistration. Companies that meet the criteria typically would typically opt for simplified deregistration. Those that do not meet the criteria may choose this route after resolving outstanding issues. For companies with unresolved issues but seeking urgent closure, they can first publish a deregistration announcement. Once the announcement period ends and all issues are addressed, they can proceed with general deregistration. Some companies may question the legitimacy and compliance of simplified deregistration. This is a misconception. “Simplified” does not mean non-compliant, just as “general” does not imply greater legitimacy. Both processes are lawful and compliant. The AMR provides these options to enable companies ready for closure to complete the process efficiently while granting those with unsolved issues the necessary time to address them after publishing the deregistration announcement. Companies can select the most suitable process based on their specific circumstances.
| 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
China’s influence grows at COP29 climate talks as US leadership fades
The 2024 U.N. climate talks in Baku yielded mixed results, agreeing to increase funding for developing nations. However, challenges remained in addressing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving sustainable progress.
The 2024 U.N. climate talks ended in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Nov. 24 after two weeks of arguments, agreements and side deals involving 106 heads of states and over 50,000 business leaders, activists and government representatives of almost every country.
Few say the conference was a resounding success. But neither was it a failure.
The central task of the conference, known as COP29, was to come up with funding to help developing countries become more resilient to the effects of climate change and to transition to more sustainable economic growth.
The biggest challenge was agreeing on who should pay, and the results say a lot about the shifting international dynamics and offer some insight into China’s role. As a political science professor who has worked on clean tech policy involving Asia, I followed the talks with interest.
Slow global progress
Over three decades of global climate talks, the world’s countries have agreed to cut their emissions, phase out fossil fuels, end inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies and stop deforestation, among many other landmark deals.
They have acknowledged since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, when they agreed to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, that greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, would harm the climate and ecosystems, and that the governments of the world must work together to solve the crisis.
But progress has been slow.
Greenhouse gas emissions were at record highs in 2024. Governments are still subsidizing fossil fuels, encouraging their use. And the world is failing to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial times – a target established under the 2015 Paris Agreement to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Extreme weather, from lethal heat waves to devastating tropical cyclones and floods, has become more intense as temperatures have risen. And the poorest countries have faced some of the worst damage from climate change, while doing the least cause it.
Money for the poorest countries
Developing countries argue that they need US$1.3 trillion a year in financial support and investment by 2035 from the wealthiest nations – historically the largest greenhouse gas emitters – to adapt to climate change and develop sustainably as they grow.
That matters to countries everywhere because how these fast-growing populations build out energy systems and transportation in the coming decades will affect the future for the entire planet.
Negotiators at the COP29 climate talks. Less developed countries were unhappy with the outcome.
Kiara Worth/UN Climate Change via Flickr
At the Baku conference, member nations agreed to triple their existing pledge of $100 billion a year to at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing countries. But that was far short of what economists have estimated those countries will need to develop clean energy economies.
The money can also come from a variety of sources. Developing countries wanted grants, rather than loans that would increase what for many is already crushing debt. Under the new agreement, countries can count funding that comes from private investments and loans from the World Bank and other development banks, as well as public funds.
Groups have proposed raising some of those funds with additional taxes on international shipping and aviation. A U.N. study projects that if levies were set somewhere between $150 and $300 for each ton of carbon pollution, the fund could generate as much as $127 billion per year. Other proposals have included taxing fossil fuels, cryptocurrencies and plastics, which all contribute to climate change, as well as financial transactions and carbon trading.
China’s expanding role
How much of a leadership role China takes in global climate efforts is an important question going forward, particularly with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump expected to throttle back U.S. support for climate policies and international funding.
China is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the second-largest economy.
China also stands to gain as provider of the market majority of green technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles.
Whether or not China should be expected to contribute funding at a level comparable to the other major emitters was so hotly contested at COP29 that it almost shut down the entire conference.
Previously, only those countries listed by the U.N. as “developed countries” – a list that doesn’t include China – were expected to provide funds. The COP29 agreement expands that by calling on “all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing.”
In the end, a compromise was reached. The final agreement “encourages developing countries to make contributions on a voluntary basis,” excluding China from the heavier expectations placed on richer nations.
Side deals offer signs of progress
In a conference fraught with deep division and threatened with collapse, some bright spots of climate progress emerged from the side events.
In one declaration, 25 nations plus the European Union agreed to no new coal power developments. There were also agreements on ocean protection and deforestation. Other declarations marked efforts to reenergize hydrogen energy production and expanded ambitious plans to reduce methane emissions.
Future of UN climate talks
However, after two weeks of bickering and a final resolution that doesn’t go far enough, the U.N. climate talks process itself is in question.
In a letter on Nov. 15, 2024, former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and a group of global climate leaders called for “a fundamental overhaul to the COP” and a “shift from negotiation to implementation.”
After back-to-back climate conferences hosted by oil-producing states, where fossil-fuel companies used the gathering to make deals for more fossil fuels on the side, the letter also calls for strict eligibility requirements for conference hosts “to exclude countries who do not support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy.”
With Trump promising to again withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, it is possible the climate leadership will fall to China, which may bring a new style of climate solutions to the table.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
- Democrat Claims Musk is Undermining Spending Bill Due to China Restrictions – The Hill
- Dissolving a Company in China: A Comparison of General Deregistration and Simplified Deregistration
- China’s influence grows at COP29 climate talks as US leadership fades
- HSBC Chairman to Head Key UK Business Delegation to China
- China’s November 2024 Economy: Navigating Mixed Signals and Ongoing Challenges
- Ukraine war: 10% of Chinese people are willing to boycott Russian goods over invasion – new study
