20th Party Congress Progress in Central & State Organs - China's 5 Roads & 5 Strategic Advantages - Economic Data - Wang-Hoekstra Call - COVID - Zhong Sheng: US Bio-military Activities in Ukraine
20th Party Congress Progress in Central & State Organs - China's 5 Roads & 5 Strategic Advantages - Economic Data - Wang-Hoekstra Call - COVID - Zhong Sheng: US Bio-military Activities in Ukraine
Here are the stories and pieces that I found noteworthy from the Wednesday, March 16, 2022, edition of the People’s Daily.
Page 1: Let’s begin with a report that talks about the “smooth and oly progress” of the process of electing delegates the 20th Party Congress within central and state organs. The article says that:
“central and state organs and party organs at all levels have insisted on making the election of delegates a major political task, thoroughly studied and implemented the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important instructions on the election of delegates for the 20th Party Congress, conscientiously implemented the notice on the election of the 20th Party Congress and the deployment arrangements of the Central Organisation Department, and organized Party members and cadres to strictly enforce political discipline, organizational discipline and election discipline in the process of the election of delegates, ensured that the election work is carried out smoothly, and have taken practical actions to implement the ‘two safeguards’ as the first phalanx and the ‘first mile’ of the Party Central Committee's decision-making. At present, the central and state organs and departments have basically completed the recommendation and nomination of delegates, and achieved important results.” 党的二十大代表选举工作部署以来，中央和国家机关各级党组织坚持把做好代表选举工作作为重大政治任务，深入学习贯彻习近平总书记关于二十大代表选举工作的重要指示精神，认真落实《关于党的二十大代表选举工作的通知》和中央组织部部署安排，组织党员干部在推进代表选举工作中严肃政治纪律、组织纪律和选举纪律，确保选举工作风清气正、顺利推进，以实际行动走好践行“两个维护”第一方阵和贯彻落实党中央决策部署“最先一公里”. 目前，中央和国家机关各部门已基本完成代表人选推荐提名工作，取得了阶段性重要成果.
I am summarising the key points from the next few paragraphs. They inform us that the working committee of the central and state organs set up offices for the election. All departments committed to strengthening the Party’s leadership throughout the whole process of the election. The piece appreciates the work done by leading cadres in different departments. Leading comrades of the Party and state those who are in leadership positions in central and state organs participated in the nomination and recommendation process.
I thought this next bit was interesting:
“Some departments sent special staff to convey the relevant spirit and solicit opinions from old leaders, old comrades, and comrades who have been stationed abroad for a long time or are on temporary positions in other places. The in-depth and meticulous work has resulted in the participation rate of party organizations in various departments of the central and state organs to reach 100%. Except for some special cases, such as those related to the loss of one’s ability to express, the majority of party members all participated in the nomination of delegates, and the average participation rate of Party members exceeded 99%.” 通过深入细致的工作，中央和国家机关各部门党组织参与率达100%；除个别失去表达能力等特殊情况外，广大党员全都参加了代表人选推荐提名，党员平均参与率超过99%.
The next paragraph says that Party organizations at all levels have insisted on putting political standards in the first place, maintaining the bottom line on candidates’ integrity, and have been earnestly implementing the quota allocation and proportion requirements of representative structure.”
And then we get a glimpse of the performance criteria: those “who have made outstanding achievements in implementing the major national development strategies, fighting the three major battles, preventing and controlling the COVID-19 epidemic situation, carrying out disaster relief and creating model institutions have been recommended as candidates.” 严把人选政治关、廉洁关、身份关。各级党组织坚持把政治标准放在首位，把牢人选廉洁底线，认真落实名额分配和代表结构比例要求...通过逐级遴选、好中选优，一批在实施国家重大发展战略、打好三大攻坚战、新冠肺炎疫情防控、防灾救灾及模范机关创建中表现突出的优秀共产党员，被作为代表人选推荐了出来。
The final paragraph tells us that a supervision group has been established to strengthen discipline supervision and adopt a zero-tolerance attitude through the election process, and that any complaints have been promptly investigated and dealt with.
Next, a report (English report) about Xi Jinping’s congratulatory message to Serdar Berdimuhamedov on his election as the president of Turkmenistan. Xi said that “he is willing to work with president-elect Berdimuhamedov to take the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the two countries' diplomatic ties as a new starting point, build on past achievements and forge ahead into the future so as to jointly write a new chapter of the China-Turkmenistan strategic partnership.”
Then a report telling us that Xi’s speech at a central conference on the work of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference marking the 70th anniversary of the organization has been published in Quishi.
I had covered both these concepts in the March 7 edition of the tracker. But here’s a summary of the roads/paths and the strategic advantages/favourable conditions.
The five strategic advantages are:
First, the strong leadership of the Party, which “takes the overall situation into account and coordinates all parties in order to provide the fundamental political guarantee for calmly responding to various major risks and challenges”
Second, the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. To make this point, Xi touches on poverty alleviation and COVID-19 control as examples of governance strength and capacity. He also adds that with all this “the contrast between ‘the governance of China’ and ‘chaos in the West’ is even more apparent.”
Third, China has a solid foundation for sustained and rapid development. Its economic strength, scientific and technological capabilities, national defense capabilities, and overall national strength have significantly increased. China’s economy is large; there is significant room for manoeuvre and China has a super-large market. The economy has “strong resilience and vitality” and its long-term fundamentals will not change.
Fourth, there is a stable social environment. He says that under the Party’s rule, the level of social governance has been continuously improved.
Fifth, there exists a spiritual strength of self-confidence and self-improvement. The enthusiasm, initiative and creativity of the Chinese people have been further stimulated, their ambition, character and confidence have been unprecedentedly enhanced, and the party, army and people are in high spirits.
The five roads/paths are:
First, uphold the overall Party leadership is the path we must stick to and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Second, socialism with Chinese characteristics is the path we must take to realize the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
Third, working hard in unity is the path the Chinese people must take to make historic achievements.
Fourth, putting into practice our new development philosophy is the path we must take to develop our country into a strong nation in the new era.
Fifth, exercising full and rigorous self-governance of the Party.
Anyway, this piece in PD today is sort of a reaction piece, with cardres and delegates praising this summation of the situation by Xi Jinping. The main body of the article mentions Xi Jinping 18 times. So, this is about praising him and his wisdom rather than any objective discussion of China’s circumstances.
For instance, Zhang Zhanbin, member of the National Committee of the CPPCC and dean of the Marxism School of the Central Party School, says that the “Central Committee of the Communist Party of China with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has displayed profound strategic vision and superb strategic wisdom, and it has accurately grasped the laws and trends of development and led the way forward.” “在这样的新的时代背景下提出‘五个必由之路’和‘五个有利条件’的重大论断，体现了在新的历史条件下，以习近平同志为核心的党中央以深邃的战略眼光和高超的战略智慧，准确把握发展规律和大势，引领时代前行。”全国政协委员、中央党校（国家行政学院）马克思主义学院院长张占斌说。
Pu Binbin, an NPC delegate from Chongqing, talks about arming the mind with theoretical understanding and learning about the decisive significance of the Two Establishments.
Later the piece reiterates the bit from the history resolution about Xi Jinping’s core status being the key to the Party managing to address issues, which it had not been able to resolve for long, since the 18th Party Congress.
Finally, a report on the economic data from the first two months of the year.
China's value-added industrial output went up 7.5 percent year on year in the period. This figure was also 3.2 percentage points higher than that in December 2021, and more than 90% of the 41 major industries achieved growth.
Total retail sales of consumer goods increased by 6.7% year-on-year, 5 percentage points faster than December 2021.
Fixed asset investment increased by 12.2% year-on-year, 7.3 percentage points faster than the full year of 2021.
Manufacturing investment increased by 20.9% year-on-year, 7.4 percentage points faster than the full year of 2021.
Also note that: “Within fixed asset investment, that in high-tech manufacturing saw one of the largest increases, up by 42.7%. Infrastructure investment grew by 8.1%. Investment in real estate development rose by 3.7%, even as commercial floor space sold fell by 9.6%.”
The output of the high-tech manufacturing sector jumped 14.4 percent year on year from January to February.
Output of new energy vehicles, industrial robots, and solar cells increased by 150.5%, 29.6% and 26.4%, respectively, year-on-year.
The index gauging the country’s service industry output rose 4.2 percent year on year in the Jan-Feb period, 1.2 percentage points quicker than that in December 2021. The sub-index tracking the output of the information transmission, software and IT services climbed 16.3 percent year on year, while that for accommodation and catering expanded 8.2 percent.
While we are on the economy, and I guess politics too, I’d like to recommend reading this excellent piece by Lingling Wei in WSJ.
Quick thought: Much food for thought here. For me, this paragraph below was really important.
“Long sidelined by Mr. Xi, Mr. Li could leverage the economic pressure on Mr. Xi to install more members of his faction in key posts, party insiders said. They said that even though Mr. Li’s term as premier will soon end, he is likely to stay on in a different leadership position.”
I think it offers a prism to think about the possible motivations driving the questioning of the Chinese government’s narrative and policies around the Ukraine war too. Do pieces by say Wang Huiyao or Hu Wei represent a genuine debate among the elite about Chinese interests that could have immediate policy implications or is it about political contestation leading into the 20th Party Congress?
Page 2: The paper today has published the full texts of the SPC and SPP’s work reports; these start on the second page and go into the other pages.
Page 3: First, the Yang Jiechi-Jake Sullivan meeting readout is published on the page. But, it’s only one of the two readouts, i.e., the one about China-US ties, which focussed heavily on Taiwan. The readout about China’s position on the Ukraine situation has not been published in the paper.
But there’s a report about Wang Yi speaking to Dutch Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Wopke
Hoekstra. Xinhua reports:
Wang said the position of the Chinese side on the Ukraine issue has been consistent and open, noting that ‘the four musts’ highlighted by Chinese President Xi Jinping are China's clearest and the most authoritative attitude, and that all measures taken by China will be based on the ‘four musts.’..Wang said China, as a peace-loving country, has always been committed to peaceful settlement of disputes through political means, and is ready to work with the Netherlands and other countries of the European Union to play a constructive role in resolving the Ukrainian crisis. The international community generally hopes to realize a cease-fire as soon as possible, ease the situation on the ground and avoid civilian casualties, which is also China’s expectation, he said.”
Noting that Russia and Ukraine have held four rounds of talks and progress has been slow, Wang said there is hope for a cease-fire and a peaceful future can be opened up if the talks can be maintained, adding that China will continue making efforts in its own way to promote peace talks. Noting that the escalating sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe against Russia have compounded the difficulties facing a struggling global economic recovery and inflicted undue damage on the people's livelihood of various countries, Wang called on all parties to do more to promote peace talks, not the opposite. He also pointed out that the top priority for the international community at the moment is to deal with a possible large-scale humanitarian crisis, saying that China has already put forward a six-point proposal on easing the humanitarian situation in Ukraine and taken concrete actions, and the first batch of emergency humanitarian aid has arrived and been distributed, with more assistance to be provided in the future as needed.
Stressing that behind the Ukraine crisis lies the issue of Europe's security, Wang said that how to safeguard Europe's security in the future concerns the vital interests of all European countries, including the Netherlands. The conflict will eventually end, Wang said, expressing his hope that European countries can sit down with Russia for an in-depth and comprehensive dialogue, and discuss ways to set up a balanced, effective and sustainable European security framework in a bid to achieve long-term stability in Europe.
Hoekstra appreciated China's humanitarian assistance to the Ukrainian refugees, deeming dialogue and negotiation the most important way to resolve conflicts and confrontations. Expressing the hope that China could continue to play a positive role in this regard, Hoekstra said that under the current circumstances, all countries should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries and abide by the basic norms governing international relations. Wang said that it is exactly the traditional position China has always adhered to. On China's Taiwan question, the Chinese foreign minister said he hopes that such words would also be matched with deeds, and double standards should not be applied.”
Third, there’s a report about the ILD hosting an event with some 50 representatives from 18 political parties and 12 medi organisations, and think tanks from 16 Arab countries. The theme was the CCP in the new era, “telling the story of democracy and development well -- the responsibilities and roles of political parties, media, and think tanks.
Finally, a short report informing that two from the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Commerce - Zhao Chenxin and Zhu Bing - spoke to foreign enterprise representatives about the signals from the Government Work Report. Zhao spoke about maintaining stable growth, supply side structural reform and expanding domestic demand. Zhu spoke about the construction of a new development pattern bringing more opportunities to these enterprises. More than 130 representatives from foreign-funded enterprises and public relations companies at home and abroad attended the conference.
Page 7: Finally, there’s a somewhat detailed report (related English report) on the COVID-19 outbreaks in China. The piece is basically the coverage of a press briefing by officials from Monday. It informs that currently outbreaks have spread to 28 provincial-level regions. But still “the overall epidemic situation is still under control,” officials say.
The piece adds that China will continue with its dynamic zero-COVID policy. What does this mean? Health officials said that this includes “a combination of targeted lockdowns, mass testing and rapid isolation.” So basically, the same as it has been in the past. However, there is a shift in the sense that those who are asymptomatic or with mild infections are being kept at makeshift facilities.
Page 9: Not going into the details, because a lot of it is repetitive. But the lead piece on the theory page is by Jiang Jinquan, director of the Policy Research Office of the CPC Central Committee, talking about the importance of self-revolution as the second key aspect of overcoming the limitations of the dynastic cycle.
In the last paragraph, he warns that:
“At present, the outstanding problems existing in the Party, such as political, ideological, organizational and stylistic impurities have not been fundamentally solved. Some of the problems that have been addressed may resurface, and new problems will emerge one after another. Some party members and cadres are unable to resist temptations and are unable to withstand the ‘hunting,’ some do not converge or cease, some become corrupt as they rise and some engage in corruption at a young age. All of this warns us that the anti-corruption struggle cannot cease until the corrupt soil is eradicated, and there is a long way to go for self-revolution, and there is a long way to go to strictly manage the party in an all-round way. We must keep a clear head, be prepared for danger in times of peace, and always be alert to whether our century-old party’s spirit and energy is being depleted. We must not forget about the detours and twists and turns in the history of the Party, and we must not forget about the profound lessons learned from the political history of China and foreign countries of being content with the status quo and dying in peace. We must not be slow to respond to our own problems, or handle them slowly and softly…”当前，党内存在的政治不纯、思想不纯、组织不纯、作风不纯等突出问题尚未得到根本解决，一些已经解决的问题还可能卷土重来，新问题也层出不穷，一些党员干部禁不住诱惑、扛不住“围猎”，有的不收敛不收手，有的边升边腐，有的年纪轻轻就搞腐败。这也再次警示我们，腐败土壤不铲除，反腐败斗争就不能停，自我革命任重道远，全面从严治党任重道远。我们必须保持头脑清醒，居安思危，时刻警惕我们这个百年大党会不会变得暮气沉沉。对党的历史上走过的弯路、经历的曲折不能健忘失忆，对中外政治史上那些安于现状、死于安乐的深刻教训不能健忘失忆；对自身存在的问题不能反应迟钝，处理动作慢腾腾、软绵绵。
Page 16: Finally, on the international page, the lead piece is about racial discrimination in American prisons. Next, there’s this bit from yesterday’s MoFA press briefing about the “serious problem of police brutality and torture in the US.”
CNR: On March 11, the 49th Session of the Human Rights Council held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Chinese representative expressed concern over the serious problem of police brutality and torture in the US. Do you have more information on that?
Zhao Lijian: There has been an endless string of malicious incidents involving deaths caused by police brutality of US law enforcement. In 2021, over 1,124 Americans died of police violence. Most of the victims were killed by the police in circumstances involving non-violent crimes or even without criminal behavior. The Lancet published a study showing that around 30,800 people died from police violence between 1980 and 2018 in the US. Black people is 3.5 times more likely than White people to be killed by police brutality. There are frequent media revelations about torture, abuse and violence in various detention facilities in the US including private prisons. The Guantanamo Bay prison is infamous for the systemic abuse and torture of prisoners. The CIA, using the so-called “war on terror” as a pretext, has set up black sites in many countries, where so-called “terrorist suspects” were secretly held in arbitrary detention and confessions were extorted by torture. As the MFA spokespersons and media outlets have revealed many times, the US “floating prisons” aboard 17 navy ships and network of black sites in countries like Lithuania are more typical examples of how the US prison system wantonly tramples on rule of law and human rights. As has been fully proven by facts, the US is in no position to claim itself a beacon or defender of human rights, still less to make wanton remarks about other countries’ human rights conditions under false pretenses. China calls on the Human Rights Council and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to pay closer attention to the US’ violation of human rights and urge it to adopt concrete measures to resolve relevant issues.
Finally, there’s a Zhong Sheng commentary backing the Russian claims of US bio-military labs in Ukraine. But that said, there’s a legitimate question in there about Washington’s position regarding the verification protocol under the BWC.
The commentary says:
“Recently, Russia successively exposed bio-military cooperation projects implemented by the United States in Ukraine, further lifting the veil off the ‘bio-military empire’ of the United States.” 近日，俄罗斯接连曝光美国在乌克兰实施的生物军事合作项目，进一步揭开了美国这个“生物军事帝国”的面纱。
It further adds: “According to the data released by the United States itself, the US Department of Defense has carried out biological cooperation projects in more than 30 countries around the world. The United States controls hundreds of biological laboratories in the name of ‘cooperation to reduce biosafety risks’ and ‘strengthening global public health’. American bio-military activities in Ukraine are just the tip of the iceberg.” 根据美国自己公布的数据，美国国防部在全世界30多个国家开展生物合作项目。美国以“合作减少生物安全风险”“加强全球公共卫生”等名义，控制了数百个生物实验室。美国在乌克兰的生物军事活动只是冰山一角.
The piece then talks about the need for the US to engage in a protocol for multilateral verification of compliance “In 2001, the international community reached an agreement on the establishment of the verification mechanism of the Biological Weapons Convention, but the United States suddenly and unilaterally withdrew from the negotiations on the grounds that ‘verification harms the security and economic interests of the United States’. Since then, the United States has been exclusively opposed to the establishment of a verification mechanism.” 2001年，国际社会本已就建立《禁止生物武器公约》核查机制达成一致，美国却以“核查损害美国的安全和经济利益”为由，突然单方面退出谈判。此后，美国一直独家反对建立核查机制.
The next paragraph lashes out at the US’ “robber logic and hegemonic behaviour” for refusing to participate in finalising such a mechanism. It argues that because of this, it is impossible to verify the US’ bio-military activities. “In the face of questions from the international community, the position of the United States has become even more extreme. The United States stubbornly believes that only it can decide whether it has complied with the BWC. The United States not only does not allow the international community to investigate, but also does not allow any country to ask questions of it. And whoever asks a question will be accused of ‘spreading false information’.” 正是由于没有核查机制、无法进行核查，美国的生物军事活动日益引发国际社会严重关切。面对国际社会质疑，美国的立场变得越发激进。美国顽固地认为，美国有没有遵守《禁止生物武器公约》，只能自己说了算。美国不仅不让国际社会查，而且不让任何国家问，谁问就给谁扣上“散布虚假信息”的帽子。这是典型的强盗逻辑、霸权行径.
Then we get this:
“Last November, the United States said that there were 26 laboratories and other cooperative facilities in Ukraine, and on March 11th this year, it changed its mind to say that there were 46. It is said that the United States does not operate laboratories in Ukraine, and only occasionally sends personnel to help Ukraine ensure the safety of laboratories. However, the agreement signed by the United States and Ukraine in 2005 clearly states that representatives of the US Department of Defense have the right to participate in all related activities at Ukrainian facilities, and all dangerous viruses in Ukraine must be stored in these laboratories and provided to the United States as required, and Ukraine must not disclose the ‘sensitive information’ identified by the United States. The international community cannot help but ask: Whose laboratory is this? How many such laboratories are there? What does America need so many viruses for? Why can’t public health information be made public? American biological laboratories are located all over Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Middle East and Africa. Are they all in this ‘cooperation’ mode? If America's intention is really to safeguard biological safety and strengthen public health, there is no reason why the international community should not support it. But if the United States is taking the opportunity to seize other countries’ biological resources or even research to develop biological weapons, it is another matter altogether. Under the current situation, it is time for the United States to give an account to the international community for the health and safety of people in Ukraine and its surrounding areas and the whole world. It is hoped that the United States will make a comprehensive clarification on bio-military activities in Ukraine and around the world in a responsible manner, and stop its exclusive opposition to the establishment of the verification protocol under the Biological Weapons Convention.” 美国经常说的话自相矛盾，恐怕自己都不相信。去年11月，美国说在乌克兰有26个实验室等合作设施，今年3月11日又改口说有46个。美国说在乌克兰没有运营实验室，偶尔派人也只是帮助乌方确保实验室安全，但2005年美乌签署的协议明明白白写着，美国国防部代表有权参与乌方设施所有相关活动，乌境内所有危险病毒都必须储存在这些实验室并按要求提供给美方，乌方不得公开美方认定的“敏感信息”。国际社会不禁要问：这到底是谁的实验室？这样的实验室到底有多少？美国要那么多病毒干什么？公共卫生信息为什么不能公开？美国的生物实验室遍布中亚、东欧、东南亚、南亚、中东和非洲，是不是都是这样的“合作”模式？如果美国的意图真的是维护生物安全、加强公共卫生，国际社会没有理由不支持；但如果美国是在借机攫取别国生物资源，甚至研发生物武器，那就要另当别论。当前形势下，为了乌克兰和周边地区以及全世界人民的健康和安全，美国是时候给国际社会一个交代了。希望美国本着负责任的态度，对在乌克兰以及全球范围内的生物军事活动作出全面澄清，停止独家反对建立《禁止生物武器公约》核查机制.
Anyway, here’s BBC Reality Check and BBC Monitoring’s report fact checking the Russian claims, which are repeated in the above commentary.