Beijing’s new way of dealing with Western sanctions
China’s ambassador to Paris, Lu Shye, said he would not have time on Monday after the Minister de de Europe and de Affaires. And that, albeit the other way around, is the European Union ambassador in Beijing middle of the night The State Department was summoned. Went to Lu Qua d’Orsay only on Tuesday “On the French side due to EU sanctions“To represent against China. This display of confidence, which is unusual in diplomatic behavior, indicates a new approach by China to the West’s sanctions policy.”
As is well known, in March the European Union activated the approval mechanism passed in December for the first time, the opposition to the so-called Magnitsky Act of the United States, and four Chinese party and state officials from the Xinjiang region with an entry ban and seizure of European. His property in the Union – if he did there – took possession.
It is also notable that the action was previously coordinated with the United States, Great Britain and Canada, which imposed similar restrictions. There is a clear indication that the camps are being built in the Cold War.
Beijing’s odd response
The Chinese reaction came as a surprise. So far, such operations have been carried out symmetrically, as we know it from tensions with Russia: Berlin expelled four Russian diplomats, four days after the four Germans had to leave Moscow. “One eye for one eye, one tooth for one tooth” is the Old Testament motto.
Beijing’s counter-response, on the other hand, is more based on Hosea 8, verse 7: “because they sow the wind and the storm will lift”. That is, revenge was completely asymmetrical. Ten individuals, including family members, were banned from entering mainland China and Hong Kong, and their property, if any, in China was frozen. In addition, Chinese companies and government agencies are not allowed to do business with them. Charges of sanctions against four institutions, namely:
- Political and Security Committee of the European Union Council, the body responsible for the foreign policy and military affairs of the representatives of the member countries, which performs daily functions between ministerial meetings and summits;
- Subcommittee of European Parliament on Human Rights;
- Mercator Institute for China (Merix) based in Berlin; A private think tank that provides political advice and media work. The institution was brought into existence by the Mercator Foundation, founded by the billionaire family Schmidt / Schmidt Ruthenbeck;
- The Alliance of Democracies is a network founded in 2017 by the previous NATO Secretary-General Anders Fog Rasmussen. The project sees itself as a non-governmental organization that “Promotes democracy and free markets worldwide“. Guests at their meetings included economically strong champions of democracy such as the Francoist” People’s Party “since Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, Tony Blair, Donald Trump’s last Foreign Minister Mike Pompeo, and Spanish former Prime Minister Jose Maria Azanar. Includes. BMW, Google and Facebook.
There are five MEPs, including Michael Geller (CDU), a spokesman for security policy for the conservative EPP parliamentary group, and German Green politician Reinhard Butikofer, who has made a name for himself for some time as a NATO expert. In addition, three Members of Parliament and two people from national parliaments who are often cited by leading media as China’s experts.
Adrian Zenz, a well-known anthropologist in this country, is the author of the claim that one million Uigars are being held in the camps. Unlike the Trump and Biden administrations, they believe the term genocide does not apply to it, but it is still right to use it. Those who consider this a bizarre argument should state that Zenz considers his work a religious mission, because “God led him“And God’s ways seem unfathomable.
Beijing has taken similar measures on the United States, Canada and Great Britain.
International Law Vs Human Rights Export
The message Beijing is sending with its counter-attack is more than clear: we do not accept the presumption that we are both plaintiffs, judges and executioners in the international system. And indeed, the international system is characterized by the fact that – unlike a society – there is no overriding state order with supreme jurisdiction and associated monopolies over the use of force. At best, such approaches are in the UN Security Council and in organizations specializing in certain areas, such as the World Trade Organization and in international law.
However, these methods have been greatly weakened in recent years. The West led the illegal war in Yugoslavia in 1999, the Iraq War in 2003, the abuse of a UN ban for regime change in Libya in 2010, and the Obama administration’s drone war. All this was preceded by the Ukraine crisis, with which the era of the state narrative triggered tensions in the international system.
The practice has grown rapidly to move unilaterally on the basis of the “right of the strong” – militarily strong and economically strong. Those who impose sanctions do so because they believe that they can expel them with strength.
On the other hand, has any African country dared to approve structural racism in American society, the police, and the judiciary? Has a developing country ever dared to threaten Brussels with sanctions if EU corporations trample on human rights?
The entire system of sanctions is an expression of unequal and unjust power relations in the world and is inconsistent with the claims of the United Nations Charter. Already in the first article it has been stated that “international disputes or circumstances which may lead to a breach of the peace are to be settled or settled in peaceful ways according to the principles of justice and international law”. And Article 2 respects the “principle of equality and the principle of people’s self-determination”, which are “based on international relations.”