The China Thread

[Sheilbh]

And linked to that I see that there's been a fairly negative business reaction to proposals in Hong Kong to reduce the publicly available information on corporate registers.

I could be wrong but my guess would be that the intention is to make it more difficult to discover links between government officials in Beijing/their relatives and connections they may have with Hong Kong companies or Hong Kong interests.

[Sheilbh]

Re. my suspicion that China might do something in relation to Taiwan to test Biden:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-china-defense/taiwan-reports-largest-incursion-yet-by-chinese-air-force-idUSKBN2BZ1L1

[Tonitrus]

I kind of see China having two realistic options when it comes to moving on Taiwan:

1. Expect the U.S. will defend Taiwan in full:  This would make the PLA planners see it as necessary to not just attack Taiwan, but obliterate U.S. military threats in the regions (i.e. any CVNs, U.S bases on Okinawa, etc).  This would inevitably drag us, and likely Japan/other allies into a major conventional conflict that becomes very dangerous, very quickly.  A massive pre-emptive attack on the US bases on Okinawa, or the destruction of a CVN could not help but bring out all of the Pearl Harbor references one would care to muster.  Overall, a pretty bad idea.

2.  A full-focus attack on Taiwan alone, that completely ignores US/allies.  Perhaps the best option...if the attack/cross-channel crossing has enough surprise, and they don't wait to long to move personnel onto Taiwan proper (a couple days at most)  I could easily be wrong/ignorant/stupid, but I actually think that if PLA troops move onto Taiwan en masse, and in rapid order (not waiting for things like air superiority, etc), Taiwan will probably fold very quickly...far more quickly than most conventional war planners and number crunchers think.  Ignoring US forces also means they would test our resolve/dare us to put our money where our mouth is, and contest the propaganda angle that we are "attacking China" while they resolve an "internal matter".  Essentially try and make it a "Crimea-East" situation.

Alas, I tend to think it is only a matter of time, and not that much time anymore either, before they move on Taiwan...their only uncertainty is how far we will go to defend them.  Not to tie it in too much with the matters in Ukraine...but I am pretty certain that if Putin moves on Ukraine in a big way...and the West just sits by and watches, China could see that as the US/West lacking any kind of resolve, and Taiwan could shortly follow.

[Threviel]

Reasonable, the best way for China to do it would be in, or immediately after, the lame duck period after the next new president is elected. If they are quick enough a new baked president will be more or less served a fait accompli and it would perhaps be difficult to gather support for a war to re-conquer an already defeated Taiwan.

If successful it would be difficult for the US to setup a counter-China alliance. Trump has already showed that the US is an untrustworthy long term ally and a strategic defeat would remove the rest of the credibility.

[Jacob]

In earlier times I'd expect to see a lame duck president co-ordinate with a successor, but with the current crop of GOP that might be less certain.

[Threviel]

I imagine it would be dangerous if trump were to win, he's unpredictable and it is a huge gamble. But when he loses next time it will be a very uncoordinated handover.

[Tamas]

Chances of Xi and Putin coordinating to resolve their pending border adjustments simultaneously?

[Jacob]

Chances of Xi and Putin coordinating to resolve their pending border adjustments simultaneously?

Possible, but China and Russia are not exactly buddies and neither are above playing the other.

I'd expect it'd be more along the lines of one of them deciding to make a move and the other deciding that changes things enough that they should also move.

[Barrister]

Reasonable, the best way for China to do it would be in, or immediately after, the lame duck period after the next new president is elected. If they are quick enough a new baked president will be more or less served a fait accompli and it would perhaps be difficult to gather support for a war to re-conquer an already defeated Taiwan.

If successful it would be difficult for the US to setup a counter-China alliance. Trump has already showed that the US is an untrustworthy long term ally and a strategic defeat would remove the rest of the credibility.

It's not unheard of for a defeated President to order military action during their lame-duck period.  Bush Senior ordered troops into Somalia in December 1992.

[Threviel]

Reasonable, the best way for China to do it would be in, or immediately after, the lame duck period after the next new president is elected. If they are quick enough a new baked president will be more or less served a fait accompli and it would perhaps be difficult to gather support for a war to re-conquer an already defeated Taiwan.

If successful it would be difficult for the US to setup a counter-China alliance. Trump has already showed that the US is an untrustworthy long term ally and a strategic defeat would remove the rest of the credibility.

It's not unheard of for a defeated President to order military action during their lame-duck period.  Bush Senior ordered troops into Somalia in December 1992.

Yeah, for a normal president it would be an opportunity to do the right thing without needing to be bothered by a future election. Hence the "or immediately after", it would all depend on the personalities involved.

[Tonitrus]

Chances of Xi and Putin coordinating to resolve their pending border adjustments simultaneously?

Possible, but China and Russia are not exactly buddies and neither are above playing the other.

I'd expect it'd be more along the lines of one of them deciding to make a move and the other deciding that changes things enough that they should also move.

Fair, I think.  Both are looking in very different, non-overlapping strategic directions, and, at least superficially, Putin and Xi have shown some public "fondness" for each other.

At the very least, one can expect each will support the other in any of the inevitable (lack of) action in the UNSC following any moves.

[Jacob]

Oh yes, both will be very adamant in support the right of big powers to throw their weight around without the US or international society doing anything about it.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/14/uyghur-commons-vote-all-party-motion-declaration-genocide-xinjiang-china

Commons to vote on declaration of genocide in Xinjiang province

The House of Commons is to be given a chance to vote to declare that a genocide is under way in Xinjiang province in China, in a move likely to damage Sino-British relations.

The organisers hope that at least two-thirds of MPs will vote on 22 April to back the all-party motion in a declaration of intent against China for its treatment of the Uyghur Muslims.

Relations are already at a low ebb after China sanctioned 10 individuals and entities in the UK in response to the Foreign Office imposing sanctions on four Chinese officials implicated in setting up detention camps in Xinjiang.

Ministers are likely to be asked to abstain in the vote on the basis that the government believes it is for the international courts alone to declare a genocide. The Foreign Office also supports the UN high commissioner on human rights being allowed by China to go to Xinjiang to conduct an unfettered inquiry.

China has already slapped sanctions on some MPs critical of China's human rights record, including the chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, Tom Tugendhat, and the chair of the Conservative party policy board, Neil O'Brien.

It is very rare for the Commons to make collective decisions on genocide, but MPs did vote in April 2016 by 278 to 0 in April 2016 to say the Yazidis had suffered genocide at the hands of Islamic State. The latest motion does not declare a terrorist group is committing genocide, but a fellow member of the UN security council.

The Foreign Office minister at the time, Tobias Ellwood, said he believed personally that a genocide was under way, but it was not for the UK government to have an opinion.

Although the new vote will be dismissed as non-binding on government, a large number of British MPs denouncing China for committing genocide could have a large diplomatic and moral impact.

The motion due to be included on the order paper on Thursday reads: "This house believes the Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang region are suffering crimes against humanity and genocide."

It also calls on the government to fulfil its obligations under the convention on the prevention of genocide and other instruments of international law to bring it to an end.

The motion points out that two of the UK's closest allies – the US and Canada – have declared it a genocide.

The organisers of the motion are hoping that opposition frontbenches will impose a three-line whip to ensure there is a strong turnout on Thursday afternoon, and as many as 400 MPs will go through the division lobbies.

The Yazidi vote in 2016 was on a Wednesday when MPs were less likely to have already returned to their constituencies.

The foreign affairs select committee investigation into Xinjiang detention camps is looking at whether the UK should follow the US with a total ban on cotton imports from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. It is also likely to recommend an update to the Modern Slavery Act, with a new corporate duty to prevent harm in business supply chains, so mandating companies to undertake due diligence or face fines. The Modern Slavery Act merely requires companies to publish reports on their diligence.

The committee has also been given evidence on "the conspicuous silence of the UN International Labour Organisation about the extent of forced labour in Xinjiang".

The news of the vote comes as a group of parliamentarians led by Lord Patten and the shadow foreign secretary, Lisa Nandy, call for Boris Johnson to extend limited sanctions to Hong Kong officials.

In a letter to Johnson, more than 100 parliamentarians write: "This unprecedented attack on democratic representatives of the western world deserves a robust and coordinated response.

"The time has come to expand the list of Chinese officials sanctioned for the gross human rights abuses taking place against the Uyghurs, including the architect of the detention camps, Chen Quanguo, and to finally introduce Magnitsky sanctions against the officials and entities responsible for the crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong."

[Monoriu]

And linked to that I see that there's been a fairly negative business reaction to proposals in Hong Kong to reduce the publicly available information on corporate registers.

I could be wrong but my guess would be that the intention is to make it more difficult to discover links between government officials in Beijing/their relatives and connections they may have with Hong Kong companies or Hong Kong interests.

Yes.  And this will be a blow to the rioters and pan-democrats.  One of their favourite tactics is doxxing businesses interests and owners for supporting the government.  This will make it easier for companies to throw their weight behind the government without the owners being harrassed by angry, young internet users. 

[grumbler]

And linked to that I see that there's been a fairly negative business reaction to proposals in Hong Kong to reduce the publicly available information on corporate registers.

I could be wrong but my guess would be that the intention is to make it more difficult to discover links between government officials in Beijing/their relatives and connections they may have with Hong Kong companies or Hong Kong interests.

Yes.  And this will be a blow to the rioters and pan-democrats.  One of their favourite tactics is doxxing businesses interests and owners for supporting the government.  This will make it easier for companies to throw their weight behind the government without the owners being harrassed by angry, young internet users.

I don't think that the victory of the thugs over the pro-democracy movement in the battle for Hong Kong will make it likelier that companies want to rely on thugs for legal protections.  If companies want to rely on thugs, there are plenty of banana republics closer than Hong Kong.