Loss of Hong Kong Individuality
Hong Kong is one of the most unique places in China. It is distinctive because it does not operate under the same jurisdiction as the rest of the People’s republic of china and yet it remains a piece of sovereign Chinese territory. Today it is considered a Special Administrative Region (SAR) and is accorded a certain amount of autonomy. This was given in 1997 in the treaty which transferred the sovereignty of the area from the British to the Chinese. Under this legal framework, “Hong Kong is meant to enjoy freedoms unseen on the mainland, including freedom of expression, association, and elections.” Because of these stipulations, Hong Kong has remained a truly unique part of the People’s Republic Of China as a bastion for democratic ideals and practices in an otherwise oppressive state.
Since Its transfer of sovereignty, however, there has been the constant threat to its distinctive democratic lifestyle in the form of the Chinese Government inserting itself into the affairs of the island in order to tighten it grip on the semi-autonomous region. In 2014 it was proposed that the people of Hong Kong be able to vote on who should be their next executive leader. The catch was that the winner would need to be approved by a mostly pro-China board. This was seen by many as an attempt to steer the government of Hong Kong towards pro Chinese sentiments and policies. Many responded to this movement by the chinses with protests, saying that this is not a truly democratic system being proposed and it was not what the Sino-British treaty intended for Hong Kong. The changes in Hong Kong continue to trend towards a greater Chinese presence and control of the region.
In 2018, the Hong Kong Administration banned a pro independence political party. This is in direct violation of the original agreement, as it guaranteed the rights of those who lived in the area to freedom of speech and the right to protest. It is significant because it is the first instance of government crackdown on opposition parties ever done in the SAR. This was done in the name of national security which brings to question whether or not other groups will be brought down with this excuse. Many view this move by the Administration as pandering to the Chinese overlords and trying to destroy the pro independence movement so as to retain the grip they have been accumulating over the past years. The politics of Hong Kong are shifting towards Chinese tendencies with the reductions of the rights of those who live in Hong Kong. Does China have the right to change the way of life of Hong Kong? No, China does not have that right. They have sovereign rights to the land, but they agreed to its autonomy. What’s more concerning (and realistic) would be pro Chinese factions gaining control of the area through the use of the semi democratic system and enacting reforms which would bring them closer to China. This is how Hong Kong would lose its uniqueness.
Challenging Modern Ethics or Playing God?
According to the New York Times and The Straits Times, a Chinese scientist by the name of He Jiankui claimed to create the world’s first genetically edited babies. According to The Straits Times, “Chinese university professor He Jiankui posted a video on YouTube saying the twin girls, born a few weeks ago, had had their DNA altered to prevent them from contracting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).”
Jiankui started this process of genetic modification through regular in-vitro fertilization. The difference is in the following steps, after the in-vitro fertilization, using the CRISPR technique Jiankui was able to remove and replace a specific DNA strand that prevented the twins from contracting HIV. This action of directly shifting a DNA strand has raised questions from the brightest minds of the scientific community, to either agree or disagree with the Chinese scientist rhetoric. Jiankui clearly demonstrated his position on the issue through his actions, but can we as a society justify this idea of playing God or do we condemn the issue? A group of 122 Chinese scientists came out and declared Dr. Jiankui’s actions as “crazy,” and ” a huge blow to the global reputation and development of Chinese science.”
Personally, I prefer to not speak on my own opinion regarding the issue, but I would like to analyze the global impact that this entails. Many nations including the United States prohibit the use of deliberately altering the genes of human embryos, however, China, a global superpower does not. Therefore, how far does their sphere of influence reach and what possible consequences could follow Dr.Jiankui’s actions? Many scientists fear that the influence of embryonic DNA could result in affecting the human race itself. From IQ to eye color, scientists fear the idea of allowing change in the human DNA makeup due to natural causes and the possible medicinal impact. Hypothetically, if one of these genetically modified females reproduced with a un-modified human, their offspring could produce unknown genes to the scientific community. This is where we as a global community ask the question of allowance, and what do we find to be a tolerable medical practice?
On the flip side of this coin, do the benefits challenge the status quo enough to continue practicing editing DNA? Dr. Jiankui would argue that by protecting these individuals from contracting the human immunodeficiency virus, that he is advancing medicine to a higher form. If Dr. Jiankui is correct in his statements, and if he can create an individual that is truly more advanced than others, what is stopping us from creating a “more perfect world?” According to the Sun Yat-Sen University in Guangzhou, more than two-thirds of the Chinese population supported genetic editing if it improved treating the illness.
The last question I pose regarding the issue: is should there be a global police force in regards to medical ethics? The reason I ask this is due to the growing globalization we face today. In 1930s actions such as these could have been contained in a small region of the world if something went awry but in today’s modern era, globalization has provided opportunities for catastrophes to occur internationally. To clarify, if this trend of genetically modifying continues, would we not see reproduction from cross-continental genetically modified races, and what challenges would that bring? Would science be able to continually modifying, yet more importantly, would this idea of continuous modification turn into an infinite regression ethical question, or would there be an end to modifying humans?
Ultimately, I can not begin to predict the global impact Dr. Jiankui’s will entail, however, I will predict that the United States will try and either impede on its growth or gain influence in the matter. As a nation, we are invested in global progression whether we support it or not, and because of this I believe sooner rather than later the United States will have its’ name connected to Dr. Jiankui’s research.
A New World Order: US Seeks to Rebalance Trade with China
This weekend representatives from all around the world will convene at the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina. While many of the worlds most powerful leaders will be there the anticipated meeting between two in particular is of the upmost importance. It is here that Trump and Xi Jinping will meet and either come to an agreement on trade or risk escalating the current trade tensions. Trump plans to increase tariffs on a $200 billion list of trade items from 10 percent to 25 percent. The tariff increase is set to be effective on Jan. 1 and will add to the 25 percent tariff increase already placed on a separate list of Chinese imports valued at more than $50 billion. Trump doubled down on his promises to increase tariffs recently by mentioning a potential 10% tariff on imported Apple Products such as phones and computers. That news alone was enough to drop Apple stock 1.5%. The need for this deal is apparent but what exactly is it that the Chinese will have to concede if they hope to avoid further tariff escalation?
While our President may be known to stretch the truth to his own benefit at times, this situation is not one of them. Trump is right in saying that the current trade situation is imbalanced and unfair. Current access into the Chinese investment market is highly restrictive and not at all comparable to the access allowed by the US into its own markets. This means that foreign firms don’t have the ability to enter the Chinese market in a significant way. They are allowed only as minority investors in large business ventures and as a result cannot compete in the Chinese market.
Additionally in a report by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the issues that come with this imbalance of policies are highlighted. He notes that China is unfairly boosting its own high tech sectors by engaging in unfair trade practices such as imposing restrictive technology regulations which force U.S. companies seeking to license technologies to Chinese groups to do so on non-market based terms that favor Chinese recipients. He also claims that China directly and unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property and generate the transfer of technology to Chinese companies. These practices have allowed China to grow into an unfair position of strength. A position Trump says must come to an end or else.
This upcoming weekend will perhaps be one of the most pivotal occasions between China and the US that there has ever been. China has fully arrived as a world power and now openly rivals what was once undisputed US superiority. Trump has a right to call the power imbalance unfair but he must also remember that China has too much power to just lay down and concede to all US demands. This weekend will be one where global trade balance is recalibrated either for better or for worse. Buenos Aires in Spanish translates to “good air”, hopefully there will be nothing but good air between the two leaders and a fair agreement can be reached before the issue escalates.
What Happened To ISIS-Aligned Groups In The Philippines?
https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/a-year-after-marawi-whats-left-of-isis-in-the-philippines/
On October 23rd, 2017, Philippine forces declared the stoppage of fighting in the urban center of Marawi. This declaration ended a five month seige in the city that saw government forces fighting against an ISIS-linked militants. The fighting claimed the lives of about 1,000 people and displaced another 300,000. The city has been under martial-law ever since the fighting ended.
There were four ISIS-linked groups that coordinated an attack on Marawi. These groups are the Mautes, Abu Sayyaf, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and Ansar Khalifah Philippines (AKP). This entire conflict started when the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) attempted to capture the Abu Sayyaf leader named Isnilon Hapilon and one of the most wanted militants in Southeast Asia. When the AFP tried to capture him, they were overwhelmed by the hundreds of militants that began to overrun the city, take hostages, and raise the flag of ISIS. After five months of intense fighting, resulting in the deaths of 160 AFP troops, 900 militants, and 30 civilians, AFP forces killed Omar Maute, a leader of the Mautes. This began the domino effect as Isnilon Hapilon was also killed shortly after, thus leading to the militants defeat. While this defeat was a huge blow to the terrorist groups, they retreated and began to regroup in other cities.
The Mautes suffered the most casualties and had a lot of senior officers die, such Omar Maute and his brother Abdullah. This resulted in the group almost disappearing altogether, but some forces did retreat to Lanao del Sur. The group is laying low and only trying to recruit young men into joining their ranks, as an attempt to rebuild its forces.
Abu Sayyaf forces also had heavy casualties, with their leader Isnilon Hapilon’s death as well as his army wiped out. The terror group fled to an island called Mindanao. This is where it has been since the battles at Marawi. The group also has broken up into different factions due it not having a leader after Hapilon’s death. One faction is carrying out piracy and kidnapping of locals to raise funds to try and revive the group, but due to martial law, the ventures have not been very successful. The AFP has been attacking Abu Sayyaf camps and has forced the group to retreat even more. The last terror attack that had ties to Abu Sayyaf came on JUly 31st when a suicide bomber attacked a military checkpoint outside of Lamitan City, killing 11. The bomber also had ties to ISIS, showing that Abu Sayyaf and ISIS still have relations after the siege on Marawi.
The BIFF suffered the least amount of casualties and came out of the seige relatively unscaved. The group has been highly offensive recently with a bombing on August 28th that killed 3 people, and another attack on September 2nd, that killed 2. After these incidents a series of smaller bombings occurred that the group claimed. The government is concerned about the skills that the group has in bomb making. The BIFF has become the largest ISIS-linked group in the Philippines and has the most foreign soldiers.
Ansar Khalifah has made a resurgence in recent times. While the AKP was the smallest army that fought in Marawi, they have been active during the past year. The AFP blamed a bombing in General Santos city on September 16th on the AKP, which injured 7 people. The group has also clashed with the AFP multiple times in smaller provinces. While this shows that the AKP is still active, it still is not large enough to carry out any major attacks.
While most of the terror groups that fought in Marawi have almost been wiped out, there still is fear that another incident like Marawi could occur. This is due to the increase in bombings recently. President Rodrigo Duterte is considering extending the martial law that is set to expire on December 31, 2018. Even though the recent bombings, and the ISIS backing of these terror groups, it is highly unlikely that another attack like what happened at Marawi. This is because of how crippled the forces of the largest terrorist groups (Mautes and Abu Sayyaf) and how limited the other groups are when it comes to amount of manpower. Another reason that an event like that could not happen again is the global attack on ISIS and ISIS related groups, with countries like the United States funding anti-terrorist forces around the world.
Taiwan’s Rejection of Same-Sex Marriage
Last year, it seemed like Taiwan would become the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage, following a decision by the country’s high court that ruled bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. The high court also placed a two-year deadline for lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage, although this did not happen. As a result, some lawmakers who oppose same-sex marriage took the opportunity for a referendum, putting the fate of marriage equality in the hands of voters in the 2018 elections. Since the people rejected the referendum questions put forth by supporters of same-sex marriage, it appears that Taiwanese lawmakers are in a political limbo– stuck between ignoring the results of the referendum and passing a law that has already been ruled unconstitutional.
Out of ten referendum questions posed to voters in this year’s elections, more than six million voters in Taiwan chose to support the referendum question legally defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. This vote is seen as a devastating blow to the growing progressive ideals that Taiwan has been moving towards. Last year’s high court ruling looked, for many people in the international community, to be one of the final steps towards legalizing same sex marriage in Taiwan. In addition, the annual gay-pride parade held in Taiwan is the largest in that region of the world, and Taiwan is home to a large and vibrant LGBT+ community. Annie Huang, Acting Director of Amnesty International Taiwan, stated: “Despite this setback, we remain confident that love and equality will ultimately prevail.”
Unfortunately, this setback against LGBT+ rights is not an isolated phenomenon in Asia. Although most Asian countries have not outright banned same-sex activity, anti-LGBT+ sentiments have risen significantly, and this does pose challenges to the growing efforts towards equality for LGBT+ populations in Asian countries. In recent decades, Taiwan– as well as other countries in the region– has seen decreasing rates of secularism, which could be attributed as one of the possible reasons for growing anti-LGBT+ sentiments. Even Japan, which is considered to be on par with developed nations like the United States and Western European countries, has not legalized same-sex marriage at the national level.
Beyond same-sex marriage, many Asian countries also do not have laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT+ citizens. Even in countries where such laws do exist, rarely are they enforced. Moreover, some countries go so far as to actually criminalize same-sex activity, sometimes even with the threat of life in prison. All around, many places in Asia are objectively unsafe for LGBT+ persons, and Taiwan’s rejection of same-sex marriage serves as a brutal reminder that there is much work to be done in the fight for LGBT+ equality.
Since the referendum results came out, advocates of marriage equality from around the world have offered support to the LGBT+ population in Taiwan. Leaders of the marriage equality movement have said that they will continue fighting for same-sex marriage in Taiwan. Additionally, they argue that the results of the referendum are not due to a lack of support for marriage equality, but rather a failure to properly campaign for their referendum questions. Either way, the issue of same-sex marriage in Taiwan has created an interesting dilemma for the country’s lawmakers.
Realities of Modern Slavery : Indentured Servitude in Hong Kong
Imagine you are a middle aged Pakistani man struggling to support yourself and your parents. One day you receive an offer for an arranged marriage with a bride of Pakistani descent. Her family is well off and living in Hong Kong and has promised a better life for you and your family. The obvious answer is yes; but you soon find yourself trapped in Hong Kong as a “slave groom” working for the bride and your in-laws, being beaten into submission, too afraid of retribution, with no rights and nowhere to turn.
This is the unfortunate reality for hundreds of migrant men, predominantly from Pakistan and India, now living in Hong Kong and being forced to work at construction sites or in restaurants.
The Southern Asian expectation that men abide by hyper-masculine tendencies enables this under-reported trend to continue by reinforcing the shame a man would experience if he were to admit to suffering from abuse or attempt divorce.
The typical target, a single, poor male, usually finds himself bound to his new family through a combination of isolation and removal of his passport and identity papers upon arrival for “safekeeping.” Physical battery, forced labor and fear of death also prevent him from escaping.
The world is conditioned to hearing about horrific stories of females being trafficked for prostitution. This story sounds all too familiar, except for the fact that men are now being vocal about suffering from this phenomenon as well.
Let’s take a look at why and how this issue is so prevalent in Hong Kong…
“Hong Kong laws provide a narrow definition of human trafficking, including only trafficking for the purpose of prostitution. Forced labour is not covered, and illegal employment is a separate offence.” – Alvin Lum
As this quote exemplifies, Hong Kong has no particular agency, rather a host of agencies loosely associated with the issue of human trafficking that are not adequate enough to incite reduction of the phenomenon. For example, for the victims who do present themselves as such must currently go through the grueling process of reliving their experience through repetition of their story (as evidence) to different government departments who, at present, enforce different legislation and penalties for crimes associated with human trafficking.
Further, a report released by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) states that “[a]s reported over the past five years, Hong Kong is primarily a destination, transit, and to a much lesser extent, a source territory for men, women, and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking.” Not only has Hong Kong become an ideal location for traffickers, it was also determined to be on the Tier 2 watch list by the DOJ in terms of human trafficking since it does not meet the minimum requirements for dealing with this issue. Accordingly, a 2016 estimation determined that as many as 1 in 6 domestic workers is a victim of labor exploitation in Hong Kong.
Finally, a British lawmaker in April of this year, after having passed similar legislation in 2015 in Britain, suggested Hong Kong consider establishing a blanket policy that would standardize the punishment traffickers would receive if caught. The response the Chief Secretary of Hong Kong gave was something along the lines of “maybe.” Although the government is aware of their status as being complicit in the continuation and existence of human trafficking and is said to be making efforts in the right direction to decrease this victimization; major change has yet to emerge. For men in particular, the issue is just coming to light for many.
The Dismantling of The Reconciliation and Healing Foundation: Is it for Money or Gender Equality?
Hello everyone, welcome to my second blog about my favorite topic: politics in Eastern Asia. This blog will be on the recent decision made by South Korean officials to dismantle the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation, an organization used to provide financial support/resources/counseling to victims of Japanese wartime sex slavery, known as ‘comfort women’. So, I came across an article concerning this foundation when doing my daily read up of Eastern Asian political news, and when reading it I felt myself growing angrier with the blatant lack of consideration for women’s rights in comparison to people’s obsession with money. The Reconciliation and Healing Foundation was started to give money to the victims and/or victim’s families of women who were used as sex slaves to Japanese soldiers during World War II. This foundation sounds like a good thing, and it is, but there is more that meets the eye. This was only recently established in 2016, and only as a result of an agreement signed earlier in 2015 between Japan’s government and South Korea’s Park Geun-hye administration that stated “the intention of both states to “establish a foundation whose purpose is to support former sex slaves,” and to “dispense all funds necessary from Japan’s government budget to restore honor and dignity of the victims.”
This doesn’t sound like a plea to stop the obstruction of the rights and freedoms of victims of sex slavery, does it? No, it sounds like a feeble attempt to pass off their worry over the funds they gave for this foundation for the actual benefit of the foundation itself. They are masking their greedy selfish desires with concern for victim rights, and it is just as apparent as it is disgraceful.
As I read this article, the layers of misogyny continuously revealed themselves. To start, Japan didn’t voluntarily give up this generous donation of an estimated $9 million to South Korea to fund this progressive organization, but rather had to due to an agreement imposed on them regarding Japanese soldiers forcing South Korean women to be sex slaves to them in World War II (side note: uh why is this just now being addressed?). Not only this, but an apology was supposed to be given, which was actually refused to be given. The Japanese regime does not seem to care about the trauma and precedent they set with comfort women, and this is embarrassing. Not only this, but when South Korea ended the program, they were more worried about the money they gave and what was to become of it, not the loss of a helpful resource to victims. And to add the cherry on top, why did South Korea end this program anyways? Reports do say that the program was not doing a sufficient job, so why not put the unused (and there was a lot of it) money to better the training/resources/educators than to just close the program altogether? It sounds like this issue was never about victims of sex slavery’s rights, but rather the money and fight for power. This is so reflective of the overall conversation regarding women’s rights today, as most people only value gender equality if it is instrumental to their goals, rather than an intrinsic goal itself. Now I ask my audience, how do we get people to pay attention to women’s rights? How do we make it a priority and get people to look past their love for capital to see this?
US-China Trade War: Who can impose the most tariffs?
Hope you guys enjoy!
Superpowers Collide on the World’s Biggest Stage
(
Over the course of this past year, the United States and China have continually seemed to have a worsening relationship. Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Beijing to attempt to smooth out the worsening tensions between the global superpowers. Going on round four of the United States trade war with China, the Sino-US deal once again resulted with no solution. So how, how did we get here, what caused the worlds two leading economies to come to the largest trade war of all time?
- Trump’s Agenda
Being the stubborn leader our President is known for, President Trump believes that he can fix the world’s problems through inflicting the United States economic hegemony throughout the globe. Is this a sense of American Imperialism, or is this accurate in stating that China has been taking advantage of the United States? Surprisingly, both sides are argued with strong narratives. Some argue that two years ago China began this war and that the United States is just now beginning to fight back. While the others on the flip side of this coin, believe that Donald Trump is making a huuuuuggeee mistake by engaging in this war. They believe that by engaging in this war, the United States is risking its position as the economic global leader and challenging an unchangeable force.
- The Truth
Here’s the truth. China will not change its policies, but they will reform them. The United States has threatened to place tariffs on over $500 billion dollars of Chinese imports, and have blamed China for North Korean intransigence on denuclearisation. Whether the world wants to admit it or not, the United States supports China’s economy beyond a shadow of a doubt. Chinese officials will work to reform their policy in order to meet some type of U.S. standard. Some would argue that the United States has a $375 billion dollar trade deficit and that China holds the ball in their court, in all reality the United States in the worlds leading economy and could withstand an economic fallout with China if push came to shove. But let us be real, neither side wants this to escalate to this degree of a Pyrrhic Victory where both sides lose. Furthermore, not only would this affect individuals quality of life in both nations, but this could possibly cause global economic fallout to a degree that has never been encountered.
- The Fix
While I would like to say that there is one magical fix that could rebuild this collapsing relationship, I, unfortunately, can’t. This situation is a multi-leveled crisis that needs patching in many areas, beginning with personnel. Whether we like it or not, both President Trump and President Xi Jinping have their own personal agendas. It seems to me that this causes them to act selfishly on their own pride, rather than for the good of the nations, and if we want relations to progress at all, we begin at the top. The second stage of this process is military de-escalation in the region. I believe that instead of projecting militant power and hegemony, we use diplomacy to bring China to the negotiation table. By de-escalating the region, China will recognize this and hopefully open their markets to the United States. Last but not least, dropping the threat of tariffs and agreeing on a ” Big Deal” for goods, not services. While this sounds crazy and seems like their intended goal, I believe that by dropping the tariff threat both United States consumers and Chinese producers will recognize the possible crisis and will take matters into their own hands to fix this economic catastrophe.
Ultimately, the United States and China are on the brink of engaging in one of the largest economic trade wars of all time. If both nations to not bring viable options to the table in the near future, both economies will greatly suffer, resulting in inflicting struggles on not only the elite class but also middle and lower class America.
Cambodian Elections 2018: Has An Authoritarian Dictatorship Been Created?
Cambodia is no stranger to dictatorships and the death and destruction this political system can cause within Cambodia’s borders. From 1975 to 1979, the Communist Khmer Rouge regime and its leader Pol Pot were responsible for the deaths of over 1.7 million Cambodians in an attempt to transform Cambodia’s society into a self-sufficient agrarian society . In recent years, Hun Sen, the leader of Cambodia for 33 years and current Prime Minister of the Cambodian Peoples Party (CPP), has sought to once again restore a dictatorship within Cambodia, with the July 29th election all but reestablishing an autocratic government.
On July 29th, the CPP won 100 parliamentary seats and now controls all 125 seats, giving almost unlimited power to Prime Minister Sen, whose official title is “princely exalted supreme great commander of gloriously victorious troops”. The election results have largely been seen as a sham, as Sen has systematically eliminated all opposition and has been accused of influencing the election results through intimidation and violence. Numerous Cambodians, whose identities were hidden for there own safety, have stated that the CPP and Sen use the threat of economic penalties and even death on those who do not vote with the CPP. Also, in the months leading up to the election, the CPP and Sen also barred its main political opposition, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), from running for political office and had its leader, Kem Sokha, imprisoned on the charge of conspiring with foreign governments in order to start a revolution. In the aftermath of the election, Sochua Mu, the vice-president of the CNRP and now living in exile abroad, stated that ” July 28, 2018 marked the death of democracy in Cambodia (and) a new dark day in its history.” While in recent months Sen and the CPP had become increasingly intolerant to the opposition, Sen has used violence to silence the opposition in the past.
According to the Human Rights Watch, Sen has “remained in power by creating a cadre of ruthless members of the security forces to implement his vision and order.” Sen’s forces have been able to keep Sen in power for many years by targeting newspapers, radio stations, and other sources of opposition that have dared to challenge Sen and the CPP, thus creating a national sense of fear to vocally oppose the CPP, as violence may be used against them or their families. One example of this violence is seen in the murder of Dr. Kem Ley, an outspoken critic of Sen and his regime. Ley’s murder occurred during the middle of the day, just two days after Ley criticized Sen for using his power to accumulate a vast fortune. His murder to this day remains officially unsolved in Cambodia, even though numerous international organizations have publically stated that Sen is likely behind the murder. While it is clear that Sen and the CPP have successfully consolidated power in Cambodia and have all the characteristics of an authoritarian dictatorship, why haven’t other nations been more outspoken about his regime?
In particular, China has given billions of dollars to Sen and his regime in order to bolster Cambodia’s growing export economy in garments and other cheaply produced goods, thus keeping Sen in economic, and therefore, political control. While it may be expected that China would help keep an authoritarian regime in power in order to help their own economy, the United States is guilty of economic support as well by allowing Cambodia to exports its good duty -free, thus turning a blind-eye to Cambodia’s numerous human rights violations in the name of economic prosperity. It is no secret that Sen and the CPP now control Cambodia’s political system and have succsefully consolidated all power so that Sen is now the unquestioned authoritarian leader of Cambodia. As a citizen of a nation who is economically supporting this regime, we must ask the question; are numerous human rights violations and the possibility of widespread death and violence worth the economic gain?
Addressing the Rohingya Human Rights Crisis
A recent report conducted by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and funded by the U.S. State Department has concluded that Myanmar’s government has been actively employing its security forces to assist in what is being referred to as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing” of the native Rohingya people. The deliberate abuse and oppression of the minority group detailed in the report includes systematic, large-scale violent strikes on villages, sexual abuse, and mutilation of civilians. The U.S. report comes just weeks after an independent investigation carried out by the U.N. called for military Commander-in-Chief Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing and 5 accomplices to be prosecuted for international crimes against humanity. The U.N. report stops just short of referring to the violence as being considered a genocide.
Who are the Rohingya and what makes them so controversial as to trigger such human rights atrocities? The Rohingya people are a muslim minority group who trace their roots back centuries to the Arakan Kingdom and reside in the northern Rahkine region of Myanmar. They were governed by British India and since being shackled from colonial rule and gaining independence, successive ruling parties of Myanmar have refused to grant them citizenship and have outrightly denounced their historical claims of being indigenous. Before the crisis began in October of 2016, it is estimated that more than 1 million Rohingya people were residing in Myanmar. Studies have estimated that nearly 300,000 people have arrived in the neighboring country of Bangladesh and the preliminary response plan has estimated that 77 million US dollars will be required to deliver urgent, life-saving assistance.
Why has the situation had to escalate to this magnitude for the U.N. to finally call for action and refer Myanmar to the international criminal court? Have we become so numb to the presence of violence that this type of behavior in the world has become commonplace?
Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist country, has claimed its Tatmadaw military forces have only been targeting terrorist militant groups of the Rohingya in an attempt to mediate and secure peace within the country, but these damning reports, along with satellite images obtained by the Human Rights Watch, show that the situation is much darker than the Myanmar government have attempted to convey. Myanmar has refused Human Rights investigators access to the country, making it increasingly difficult to monitor and assess the entire situation.
Just simply formally addressing the Rohingya crisis is a step in the right direction for policing human rights issues abroad, but it isn’t enough. Further action must be taken to ensure the protection of citizens against a government that is deliberately attempting to intimidate, terrorize, and punish its civilian population. All of this information begs the question, what responsibility does the United States have to police and ensure basic human rights abroad?
There are steps that our government could take to help eliminate the problem, which first starts with the United States recognizing and imposing targeted sanctions against military leader Min Aung Hlaing. Additionally, we need to actively impose pressure on the Myanmar government in an attempt to be staunch on this type of behavior. The deeper problem that will remain is the inherent resentment for the minority group in question. Any attempt to provide humanitarian assistance will unlikely improve the situation in the long-term unless there is an overhaul of the basic ideology that causes the hatred against the group that has run deep for generations. The cynical view is that the situation is unlikely to improve unless perpetrators are charged in the international criminal court of law. That may be enough to stop the violence, but it may not be enough to ensure the Rohingya will be safe and accepted in the future.
Peace in the Korean Peninsula: At what cost
At the highly talked about Pyongyang summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, held from September 18-20, 2018, an agreement was made between both leaders. This agreement intends to prevent any further military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula. It creates buffer zones, based on the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) on land, and on the Northern Limit Line (NLL) at sea. These zones will serve to limit new weapons and military supplies
in the regions as well as establishing no fly zones. A joint North and South Military committee will also be established as more lines of communication and trade begin to open up between the two neighboring countries. This agreement is the newest of many that have been made since the end of the Korean War. Now more than ever it looks likely that countries like Japan and South Korea can and will open diplomatic and economic relations up to include North Korea.
While on the exterior the agreement and the concessions that come with it seem positive it does not seem to address the pressing issue of denuclearization that countries such as the US are most concerned about. While South Korea works on building trust and new diplomatic avenues the US remains wary of the threat the North Korean state poses, most notably by their development of nuclear weapons. While other countries loosen their guard and begin to accept a potentially peaceful North Korea the US still remains aware of the threat and of the anti-US sentiment that seems to run through the country. This presents the US with a dilemma, does it stay strong on its position about the threat North Korea poses or does it sway with the leaders of Asian countries who are ready to establish diplomatic relations with Pyongyang such as Malaysia and Japan
There has perhaps never been a time to be more optimistic about the situation in the Korean Peninsula. South Korean President Moon Jae-in certainly believes that the rapport built by Trump and Kim Jung-un is real and capable of inciting change. He has urged South Korean allies such as the US to be more trusting and help Pyongyang develop so that the North Korean state can develop and become part of the larger industrial world. From here the US must measure its position carefully. As a strong ally to South Korea it is in our best interests to keep those ties strong by supporting their own plans for peace in the peninsula. Reducing dependence on US military strength while maintaining our strong alliance is key. These optimistic views and plans for the future will however prove moot unless North Korea can show the US in particular that they are serious this time around about changing their ways and denuclearizing. If they can show that they are willing to do those things then perhaps a hopeful future can exist. With the right aid and strategy North Korea can provide more for its own people and modernize without being the global nuclear boogieman.
Why Chinese censorship is relevant beyond its borders
It’s not a stretch to say censorship in China is nothing new, nor is it uncontroversial. Especially from the perspective of a democracy, it’s hard to imagine our daily lives without the level of free speech and access to even the most damning information about our government.
The effects of China’s approach to censorship are multidimensional. Website being shut down, internet accessibility being limited to what the government deems appropriate, and entertainment being tightly controlled are just one aspect. For example, this tweet referring to President Xi as “salt-and-pepper-haired” was rejected from being published on a Chinese news page because the website needs to be cautious by staying away from disrespecting or criticizing the leader in any way. As innocuous as it may seem, it could still be construed in a way that could harm the website or even get it shut down.
These things–censorship broadly speaking in China alone–shouldn’t be discounted or forgotten, and they all carry a whole host of issues on their own, but what needs to be brought to the forefront are the things not everyone sees.
First, it’s pretty clear China has made efforts to stymie free speech beyond their borders. An NPR article details how China had used intimidation on Western businesses to control public perception of the country. For example, Chinese authorities attempted to convince the commercial director for the Confederation of Independent Football Associations (CONIFA), which runs the World Cup soccer tournament, to remove Tibet from the tournament amidst the tension between China and their autonomous region. Additionally, China suspended Marriott’s Chinese website when they referred to Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau as “countries” by mistake. These are just two examples illustrating a problem that is more widespread than we might think. Though they seem relatively banal as isolated incidents, China has shown a pattern of continual disregard, and arguably disrespect, of free speech. To infringe on their own citizens’ and press’ free speech is one thing, but when it begins to affect those outside, namely CONIFA and Marriott–two Western groups–we need to start paying more attention.
The second aspect of this to note is that this influence on Western business is only the beginning of a deep wormhole of accusations from the United States that China is attempting to influence political discourse here. Vice President Mike Pence, for example, harshly criticized China’s use of their “power in more proactive ways than ever before to exert influence and interfere in the domestic policy and politics of this country.” Although this is harder to prove and can be done much more discreetly, that doesn’t mean Pence’s accusations are completely without substance. China has and continues to foster a culture of censorship, and it seems clear from the CONIFA and Marriott incidents that they are not reluctant to push that culture further, even into American discourse when it benefits them.
The takeaway from this should not be that China is the enemy, nor should this be taken as a comment on authoritarianism generally speaking. And there there is no reason to say our democracy as we know it is at stake. Yet. The takeaway should be that we all–including Americans lying together under the safety blanket of the First Amendment–need to be at least cognizant of China’s system of censorship and how it can, and may already, impose on the free flow of ideas and information even in the freest places on Earth.
Rodrigo Duterte vs. The Philippine National Police
“Hitler massacred 3 million Jews … there are 3 million drug addicts (in the Philippines) … I’d be happy to slaughter them.” “Me? They are saying I’m part of a death squad? True, that’s true.” “Just because you are a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a son of a bitch.” Who would have guessed these words would come from the mouth of the President of a sovereign nation? Well, it is 2018 so how surprised are we really? Nevertheless it is important to know where world leaders stand on certain issues and Rodrigo Duterte, President of the Philippines, makes his position unsettlingly clear.
In 2016 Duterte was sworn in as the 16th president of the Philippines, serving for a fixed six year term. During his campaign, he promised to cleanse the government of corruption and the country of drugs. Since his time as president his “war on drugs,” according to Human Rights Watch, has claimed the lives of over 12,000 Filipinos. Alleged offenders were massacred (2,555 lives) by the Philippine National Police (PNP) and around 3,600 people by vigilanties.
These baffling numbers could amount to crimes against humanity which is of no concern to Duterte based on his meeting at Malacañang (Philippine Presidential Palace) on August 7. In this meeting, 102 PNP officials, of which several are accused of kidnapping, rape, robbery extortion, involvement in the illegal drug trade, illegal detention, going on absence without leave (AWOL), non-appearance in court duties, and neglect of duty, were scolded and threatened with death by Duterte who expressed his deep hatred for the police force as it stands. He was so upset that he even threatened the families of police officers saying that if they attempt to intervene claiming human rights violation and due process he will not care since they have been warned. Duterte also said that he was refraining from beating the PNP officers himself since other non-police officials were in the room.
There are many parallels to be drawn between the bigoted language that President Trump likes to use and the inflammatory statements of President Duterte. “We both like to swear. One little thing, we curse right away, we’re the same” – Duterte on Trump. Something that is worth analyzing is just how much weight do these comments carry? Duterte has shown us that he means what he says (at least when it comes to the “war on drugs”); although much of the population in the Philippines dismisses his comments as hyperbole. Trump, on the other hand, has demonstrated that he cannot fulfill everything that he promised such as the wall between the United States and Mexico that Mexico was supposed to pay for.
Another similarity between the two is that they are preoccupied with the media’s representation of them. At the meeting on Tuesday, Duterte stated that “It’s just one newspaper article, one instance of shouting… The noise on TV, that’s just two, three days then it’s over. It’s only that. Media? They only go so far. Publication, a headline then nothing. You’re history.” This is to say that the media will cover their imminent deaths and then forget about them, driving the point home that they are worthless in his eyes. Trump has also used attacks on the media to his advantage by calling it out for spreading “fake news” and promoting “fake books” about his agenda that he himself has had trouble articulating.
Despite what you might think, Duterte’s popularity stays high according to a September 2017 poll indicating that Filipinos trust the President thanks to his blunt rhetoric.
Overall, Duterte has expressed that he will continue this “war on drugs” until he has successfully eliminated all drug related threats. Instead of taking a more humanistic approach and addressing mental illness and psychological well-being, he will continue even if that means ignoring UN policy on human rights. Answering a violent problem with violence seems to be the solution for President Duterte but is it the best solution?
The Xinjiang Uyghurs: a Humanitarian Crisis
In a recent interview with NPR, Cui Tiankai, Chinese ambassador to the United States, denied the existence of internment camps in Xinjiang, a northwestern province of China. This denial has reignited debates over human rights abuses by the Chinese government in Xinjiang, where reportedly hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs are being detained in camps.
The Uyghurs are an ethnic Muslim minority that makes up less than one-percent of the country’s population. Following riots in 2009 and Uyghur-connected terrorist attacks in later years, the Chinese government began cracking down on the Uyghur population. Military presence in the Xinjiang region increased to a radical level, with Uyghur households facing regular house checks from government officials. Additionally, cities within Xinjiang are subject to constant camera surveillance by the government, and individuals with smartphones are made to install government spyware on their devices. Uyghurs are often encouraged by the government to spy on their neighbors and report suspected misbehaviors. The government has severely restricted means of communication for Uyghurs, including completely shutting off internet access in Xinjiang for a period of time. Worst of all, though, hundreds of thousands of Uyghur civilians have been arbitrarily detained by the Chinese government and held in “re-education” internment camps.
The government’s actions against the Uyghurs are part of a larger fight against perceived terrorism as well as, to a much less publicized extent, a fight against any potential threats to the Chinese national identity, under which Western religions such as Christianity and Islam seem to fall. Out of a fear that the Uyghurs are working to delegitimize the country, the Chinese government has detained large numbers of Uyghur civilians without offering them due process or trials. Even more, these Uyghurs are often detained without being able to say goodbye to their families or letting them know what has happened.
What exactly is the purpose of these camps? For one, the Uyghurs are expected to renounce their Islamic faith and instead declare loyalty to China and its leader, Xi Jinping. According to a report by the Human Rights Watch, the detained Uyghurs are “being forced to learn Mandarin Chinese, sing praises of the Chinese Communist Party, and memorize rules applicable primarily to Muslims. Those who resist or are deemed to have failed to ‘learn’ are punished.”
Despite widespread reports covering the extent of the human rights abuses occurring in Xinjiang, Chinese government officials continue to deny that any internment camps exist or that they are being used to harm a minority population. However, through satellite technology, journalists have been able to clearly show the construction of these internment camps as well as track their locations throughout the Xinjiang province. This data therefore poses a new challenge: what are we– as Americans, as observers– supposed to do with this information?
The answer is not very optimistic. Although the UN has publicly condemned the human rights abuses unfolding in Xinjiang, little has been done to stop further government actions or to help the Uyghur population. These re-education camps look like the blueprints for another genocide, but at present it seems as though there are very few options for preventing this situation from escalating even further.
Malaysia’s First Steps Towards Democracy
Politics around the world has seen many disagreements and opposing views, especially in our own country. From the moment Donald Trump was elected President, our primary political parties have been at ideological war over a multitude of issues. To this day, many people are upset at the election results because Trump was elected due to the Electoral College, not because he won the popular vote. This feeling of discontentment is something felt all too familiar by the people of Malaysia, who for years have been controlled by the United Malays National Organization run by Prime Minister Najib Razak, however the citizens of Malaysia are taking steps to make a long overdue change. In 2018, Malaysia had a change of regime in its first time since gaining independence from Great Britain in 1957.
The UMNO, controlled by the National Front coalition, have had control over the government and campaigns for years. The Washington Post reports that Razak used legal force, police intervention, and connections to the electoral commission to sabotage opposing parties’ campaigns. To further this monopolization of politics the UMNO held, the National Security Council Bill 2015 was passed. This gave authorities a large amount of power, including the right to make arrests and searching/seizing without a warrant. This abuse of power did not go unseen by the Malaysian people, and many protested the bill. Even some members of the National Front were not happy with the bill, and this was one of the reasons the Hope Pact party (under Mahathir Mohammad) was so successful in replacing the UMNO.
One aspect that makes Malaysia’s blossoming democracy stand out is the fact that some of the Hope Pact party’s members were actually defected from the UMNO party, including the leader himself, Mahathir Mohammad. Mohammad was apart of the UMNO party during his first term as Prime Minister from 1981 to 2003, where he put harsh sanctions on civil liberties (biography.com). He shut down opposing newspapers and arrested activists. However, Mohammad and many of his constituents had a change of heart come 2018, when he defected from the National Coalition into the Hope Pact party. Mohammad came forward with remorse, arguing that his old party’s ideas were corrupt and wrong. While he is 92, he is now working to improve the economy and quality of life for the people of Malaysia.
I think that this changing of parties is very rare, given so many people strongly identify with their ideology and thus rarely strain from their party’s ideas. It is optimistic to know, however, given the strong party divide occurring in our own country right now. We are so accustomed to putting people into categories and only seeing them for their membership on the opposing team, that we lose sight of the real issues at hand. Labels are important, but they should not distract from the freedoms and humanitarianism that every political system should promote. This raises a question, did Mahathir Mohammad truly have a change of heart in the 2018 election, or is he just remodeling the image of the UMNO?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/malaysia-democracy-najib/560534/
Why is the US Trade War on China Is Doomed to Fail?
The fourth round of Sino-US trade negotiations were held in Washington D.C., which ended in with no solution being made, the largest trade war after World War II continues. There are many reasons that there have been no progress being made when it comes to finding a solution. One reason is the Chinese control over financial information. China has the ability to limit the amount of information that gets made public. And with most places that are in debt, they are ran by the state and will not disclose that they are in debt, but this cannot happen in the United States due to the press immediately reporting on a liquidity crisis or they would sensationalize the threat of one.
Another problem is that the Chinese capacity to nationalize systematic economic agents on the spot. This means that when the stability of the economy is at stake, a big corporation can be nationalized and liquified in order to create funds for the state. This can be compared to the 2008 financial crisis where the US bailout of the auto industry, which took time for both Congress and the Executive branch to act on the matter.
Another thing that leads to issues during negotiations is that China leads the world in cashless transactions. Companies such as DHgate and Alibaba are massive, with Alibaba having more transactions than Mastercard in 2017 via its online websites such as aliexpress.com and alibaba.com.
One of the biggest issues that face these negotiations are that most of the economy of China is domestically based. In mid-August, government officials in China told banks to stop liquefying toward companies that would be affected by the trade war. Meaning that the Chinese economy is bracing for a hit due to the trade war. China has done some other things that have helped them prepare for a trade war, by investing in grassroots entrepreneurship, China’s economy is going to be determined more by domestic policy, supply-side reform, and sustained opening up. China’s 2013 Third Plenum reforms started to prepare the country for a trade war, the Third Plenum “slimmed its shadow finance sector, launched initiatives to securitive lending, worked to shore up risks in regional banks and reined in runaway credit creation.” China has allowed itself to become mostly self-sufficient, leading to a boosted national product and normalized long-term debt-to-GDP ratio.
The last reason that the negotiations are not leading to anything is that tariffing cannot win. Some economists believe that a protracted trade war is not inevitable. Meaning that there are other alternatives to going into a trade war. One of the most important things that American economist need to do is successfully predict the health of the Chinese economy. If they were to overestimate, trade tariffs could not make a significant impact on the Chinese economy, and underestimating could lead to pushing more towards a trade war that could end up hurting the US’s economy.
My thoughts on this issue is that the United States needs to make sure they have tried everything they could before going into a trade war with one of our biggest trade partners, which could have a negative impact on the American economy.
Japan’s Self Defense Force
In 1947, the United States rewrote the Japanese constitution, restructuring the government to be more of a democracy and including article 9, which prohibited the creation of a military and the involvement of Japan in any military conflict, forbidding the use of war as a way to settle international disputes. At the time, it seemed like a sensible move to demilitarize a country which had problems with over militarization in the past. However, one questions the sovereignty of a country which is limited by a foreign written constitution which is not allowed to maintain its own military. This created a dependency on the US for protection during the cold war.
In 1954, Japan created its self defense force which existed as an extension of the police force and did not constitutionally violate article 9. This technicality meant that the SDF exists as a semi military body but cannot engage in military actions. In 2015, these stipulations were changed somewhat with the passing of laws by the Japanese Diet whom held that the SDF could take a more active role in the defense of itself and its allies. If there is no other recourse the laws provide a legal allowance for Japanese SDF troops to engage in gunfire to defend themselves as well as their allies. The laws also allow Japanese troops to share provisions and even ammunition with allies which had previously been a controversy.
With the reinterpretation of the article 9 in 2015, the SDF became a force which could be used as more of a military than it was previously. This makes involvement in peacekeeping missions much easier considering that an SDF soldier will not be in violation of the law if he or she kills someone to protect themselves. This reinterpretation continued in 2017, when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that there would be a revising of article 9 to constitutionally recognize the SDF as the legal military of Japan. This announcement met with controversy when people explained that the constitution has allowed for a peaceful japan to emerge and be a positive force in the world.
The rest of the article would be allowed to remain but this calls to question why keep it at all? Legally, the SDF forces are allowed to engage in combat. It has been 70 years since the end of World War II and the nation of Japan has changed dramatically, with a high percentage of its citizens subscribing to pacifism. Japan has modernized and learned its lesson. It can be a valuable ally in the Pacific, if it is allowed to maintain a legitimate military which is the right of every sovereign nation. In a time when China lays claim to Japanese held territories and North Korea has extensive military capabilities, it would be in Japan’s interest to legitimize its already strong and capable military forces. People change and though much of japan had become pacifist, the rest of the world is not so nice. Japan should be ready to protect itself.
The Politics of Asia Blog
- Throughout the semester, students will use this site to submit posts related to course content.
- Posts will focus on a current event or policy question in the Asia-Pacific region.
- Posts will be assessed based on two criteria: 1. Ideas and content: ideas are substantive, original, clearly expressed, properly referenced and related to the subject matter; and 2. Writing or presentation quality: posts are well-written or presented in terms of style and attractive to readers or viewers.
- University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center provides a useful guide to effective blog posts. This five-step approach to blog writing is also helpful.
- Assignment #1: Compose a 500-750 word blog post
- Assignment #2: Compose a 2-minute video post
- Assignment #3. Compose either a 2-minute video post or 500-750 word blog post
- Recommended sources: Brookings/Asia (https://www.brookings.edu/topic/asia-the-pacific/); CFR/Asia (https://www.cfr.org/asia); SupChina (https://supchina.com/); the Diplomat (https://thediplomat.com/regions/east-asia), China File (http://www.chinafile.com/); Shanghaiist (http://shanghaiist.com/); China Digital Times (https://chinadigitaltimes.net/); Asia Society/Asia Blog (https://asiasociety.org/blog/asia)
Politics of Asia 
