Connect with us

International

China Expels 3 Wall Street Journal Reporters After “Sick Man of Asia” Opinion Headline

Published

on

  • China announced it will deport three Wall Street Journal reporters after a separate writer for the newspaper published what the Chinese government called a “racist statement.”
  • The article the Chinese government is referring to is titled, “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia.”
  • That article, which is largely about the Chinese government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak, calls the Communist Party weak, but also invokes the use of a historical phrase many in China deem to be racist.
  • This is the first time the Chinese government has deported multiple reporters from a single news organization since the era of Mao Zedong.

China Expels Three WSJ Reporters

The Chinese Government is revoking the visas for three Wall Street Journal reporters after the newspaper ran an opinion piece titled “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia.”

Denouncing the headline and article as racist, an official with China’s Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday that the three reporters now have five days to leave the country. 

“The Chinese people do not welcome media that publish racist statements and maliciously attacks China,” he said.

“The Chinese side has lodged stern representations with WSJ and made our solemn position clear,” that official continued. “China demands the WSJ recognize the severity of its mistake, make an official apology and hold the persons involved accountable. Meanwhile, we reserve the right to take further actions.”

This is the first time the Chinese government has deported multiple reporters from a single news organization since Mao Zedong’s rule, though the Communist Party did ban a BuzzFeed reporter in 2018 and a different WSJ reporter in 2019.

However, none of those three reporters who are now being expelled from the country wrote that column. In fact, they didn’t have anything to do with it aside from working at the WSJ. The article was actually written by Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russel Mead.

Why Is the Communist Party Calling the Column Racist?

The article, which is about the Chinese government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak, begins by challenging the might of the coronavirus against Beijing’s influence and power.

“The mighty Chinese juggernaut has been humbled this week, apparently by a species-hopping bat virus,” Mead says in the column. “While Chinese authorities struggle to control the epidemic and restart their economy, a world that has grown accustomed to contemplating China’s inexorable rise was reminded that nothing, not even Beijing’s power, can be taken for granted.”

The article then continues by calling China’s initial response “less than impressive,” insulting Wuhan’s action by calling it “secretive and self-serving.” Mead also says while the national government reacted vigorously, its response has also been seemingly ineffective at stopping the virus.

He adds that “the performance to date has shaken confidence in the Chinese Communist Party at home and abroad.” Mead ends by saying “that China’s power, impressive as it is, remains brittle.”

While the Chinese Government is no stranger to censoring those critical of it, the article’s headline seemed to strike a different cord.

The term “sick man of Asia” began as a different phrase: “sick man of Europe;” however, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “sick man of Asia” was to describe internal conflict within the Chinese government. That conflict then led to a weakened government. Because of that, China was then forced to sign a number of unequal treaties with imperial powers such as Japan, Russia, and Western powers.

To this day, the phrase is particularly hated in China. In fact, in the 1972 film Fist of Fury, a character portrayed by Bruce Lee smashes and rips up a sign carrying the words “sick man of Asia” while in front of a group of Japanese men.

Chinese Citizens Double Down on Racism Claims

Because of the phrase’s historical use, many Chinese people have also echoed criticisms of racism, saying that the term “sick man”  stereotypes them as disease-ridden and unclean.

“…this article will further encourage racism and discriminatory [behavior] towards all Chinese, and possibly all east Asians in the US or outside the country,” one person said in the comments section under Mead’s article.

“Content is not necessarily all wrong but definitely a bit salty – but I get it,” another person said before adding: “However, I must say that the title is quite misleading, if not utterly offensive.” 

The WSJ Stands By Its Opinion Department

In a statement, WSJ publisher William Lewis stressed the division between the News and Opinion departments at the newspaper while also criticizing China’s decision to remove the three reporters from its country. 

“We are deeply disappointed with today’s announcement from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to expel three Wall Street Journal news reporters,” Lewis said in a statement posted to Twitter. “This opinion piece was published independently from the WSJ newsroom and none of the journalists being expelled had any involvement with it.”

In that statement, Lewis also noted the Opinion Department “regularly” publishes pieces that people both agree and disagree with.

“However, this has clearly caused upset and concern amongst Chinese people, which we regret,” he added. 

Lewis then ended his statement by asking China’s Foreign Ministry to reinstate the visas for those three reporters. 

Meanwhile, Mead also posting to Twitter, insinuated that he did not write the headline that was ascribed to his article. 

“…a word to my new Chinese followers: at American newspapers, writers typically do NOT write or approve the headlines,” Mead said. “Argue with the writer about the article content, with the editors about the headlines.”

U.S. Labels Major Chinese Media Outlets as Government Operatives

The Chinese Government’s decision to expel the reporters comes one day after U.S. State Department labeled five major Chinese state-run media outlets as government operatives.

Those five outlets include Xinhua, CGTN, China Radio, China Daily and The People’s Daily.

“There is no dispute that all five of these entities are part of the [Chinese] party-state propaganda news apparatus and they take their orders directly from the top,” an unnamed State Department official told reporters.

“We all know these guys have been state-controlled forever, but that control has gotten stronger over time, and it’s far more aggressive,” that reporter added. 

Now, employees of those agencies will be required by the State Department to register as consular staff, though the U.S. has noted that it won’t impede their reporting activities.

See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (South China Morning Post) (NPR)

International

Israel Relaxes Abortion Restrictions in Response to U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

Published

on

The reforms follow similar moves by France and Germany as leaders across the political spectrum denounce the court’s decision.


Health Minister Makes Announcement

Israel is easing access to abortion in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s repeal of Roe v. Wade, Nitzan Horowitz, the country’s health minister and head of the small left-wing Meretz party, announced Monday.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s move to deny a woman the right to abortion is a dark move,” he said in the announcement, “oppressing women and returning the leader of the free and liberal world a hundred years backward.”

The new rules, approved by a majority in the parliamentary committee, grant women access to abortion pills through the universal health system. Women will be able to obtain the pills at local health centers rather than only hospitals and surgical clinics.

The new policy also removes the decades-old requirement for women to physically appear before a special committee that must grant approval to terminate a pregnancy.

While women will still need to get approval, the process will become digitized, the application form will be simplified, and the requirement to meet a social worker will become optional.

The committee will only conduct hearings in the rare case it initially denies the abortion procedure.

Israel’s 1977 abortion law stipulates four criteria for termination of pregnancy: If the woman is under 18 or over 40, if the fetus is in danger, if the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or an “illicit union,” including extramarital affairs, and if the woman’s mental or physical health is at risk.

All of the changes will take effect over the next three months.

The World Reacts

Politicians across the political spectrum from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision since it was announced Friday.

On Saturday, French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne expressed support for a bill proposed by parliament that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the country’s constitution.

“For all women, for human rights, we must set this gain in stone,” she wrote on Twitter. “Parliament must be able to unite overwhelmingly over this text.”

Germany scrapped a Nazi-era law prohibiting the promotion of abortion Friday, just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

In Israel, abortion is a far less controversial issue than it is for Americans. Around 98% of people who apply for an abortion get one, according to the country’s Central Bureau of Statistics.

Part of the reason for Israel’s relatively easy access to abortion is that many residents interpret Jewish law to condone, or at least not prohibit, the procedure.

In the United States, several Jewish organizations including the American Jewish Committee, Hillel International, and the Women’s Rabbinic Network have expressed opposition to the court ruling, and some Jews have protested it as a violation of their religious freedom.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (ABC News) (The Guardian)

Continue Reading

International

Flight Deporting Refugees From U.K. to Rwanda Canceled at Last Hour

Published

on

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the U.K.’s asylum policy sets a “catastrophic” precedent.


Saved By The Bell

The inaugural flight in the U.K. government’s plan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda was canceled about an hour and a half before it was supposed to take off Tuesday evening.

A last-minute legal intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) halted the flight. Tuesday’s flight originally included 37 people, but after a string of legal challenges that number dwindled to just seven.

In its ruling for one of the seven passengers, a 54-year-old Iraqi man, the court said he cannot be deported until three weeks after the delivery of the final domestic decision in his ongoing judicial review proceedings.

Another asylum seeker, a 26-year-old Albanian man, told The Guardian he was in a “very bad mental state” and did not want to go to Rwanda, a country he knows nothing about.

“I was exploited by traffickers in Albania for six months,” he said. “They trafficked me to France. I did not know which country I was being taken to.”

A final domestic effort to block the flight in the Court of Appeals failed on Monday. The High Court will make a ruling on the asylum policy next month.

Britains Divided by Controversial Policy

U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel spoke to lawmakers after the flight was canceled, defending the asylum policy and saying preparations for the next flight will begin immediately.

“We cannot keep on spending nearly £5 million a day on accommodation including that of hotels,” she said. “We cannot accept this intolerable pressure on public services and local communities.”

“It makes us less safe as a nation because those who come here illegally do not have the regularized checks or even the regularized status, and because evil people-smuggling gangs use the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains to fund other appalling crimes that undermine the security of our country,” she continued.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Filippo Grandi, told CBC the policy sets a “catastrophic” precedent.

“We believe that this is all wrong,” he said. “This is all wrong. I mean, saving people from dangerous journeys is great, is absolutely great. But is that the right way to do it? Is that the right, is that the real motivation for this deal to happen? I don’t think so. I think it’s… I don’t know what it is.”

An Iranian asylum seeker in a British detention center who was told to prepare for deportation before being granted a late reprieve was asked by ABC whether he ever thought the U.K. would send him to Africa.

“I thought in the U.K. there were human rights,” he said. “But so far I haven’t seen any evidence.”

The Conservative government’s plan was announced in April, when it said it would resettle some asylum seekers 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, where they can seek permanent refugee status, apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in a safe third country.

The scheme was meant to deter migrants from illegally smuggling themselves into the country by boat or truck.

Migrants have long made the dangerous journey from Northern France across the English Channel, with over 28,000 entering the U.K. in boats last year, up from around 8,500 the year prior. Dozens of people have died making the trek, including 27 who drowned last November when a single boat capsized.

See what others are saying: (BBC) (The Guardian) (CNN)

Continue Reading

International

Ryanair Draws Outrage, Accusations of Racism After Making South Africans Take Test in Afrikaans

Published

on

Afrikaans, which is only spoken as a first language by around 13% of South Africa, has not been the country’s national language since apartheid came to an end in 1994.


Airline Won’t Explain Discrimination

Ryanair, Europe’s largest airline, has received widespread criticism and accusations of racism after it began requiring South African nationals to complete a test in Afrikaans to prove their passport isn’t fraudulent.

The airline told BBC the new policy was implemented because of “substantially increased cases of fraudulent South African passports being used to enter the U.K.”

Among other questions, the test asks passengers to name South Africa’s president, its capital city, and one national public holiday.

Ryanair has not said why it chose Afrikaans, the Dutch colonial language that many associate with white minority rule, for the test.

There are 11 official languages in South Africa, and Afrikaans ranks third for usage below Zulu and IsiXhosa. Only around 13% of South Africans speak Afrikaans as their first language.

“They’re using this in a manner that is utterly absurd,” Conrad Steenkamp, CEO of the Afrikaans Language Council, told reporters. “Afrikaans, you have roughly 20% of the population of South Africa understand Afrikaans. But the rest don’t, so you’re sitting with roughly 50 million people who do not understand Afrikaans.”

“Ryanair should be careful,” he continued. “Language is a sensitive issue. They may well end up in front of the Human Rights Commission with this.”

Ryanair’s policy only applies to South African passengers flying to the United Kingdom from within Europe, since it does not fly out of South Africa.

The British government has said in a statement that it does not require the test.

Anyone who cannot complete the test will be blocked from traveling and given a refund.

Memories of Apartheid Resurface

“The question requiring a person to name a public holiday is particularly on the nose given that SA has a whole public holiday NEXT WEEK commemorating an historic protest that started in response to language-based discrimination,” one person tweeted.

South African citizen Dinesh Joseph told the BBC that he was “seething” with anger when asked to take the test.

“It was the language of apartheid,” he said, adding that it was a trigger for him.

Officials in the country were also surprised by Ryanair’s decision.

We are taken aback by the decision of this airline because the Department regularly communicates with all airlines to update them on how to validate South African passports, including the look and feel,” South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs said in a statement.

Any airline found to have flown a passenger with a fake passport to the U.K. faces a fine of £2,000 from authorities there. Ryanair has also not said whether it requires similar tests for any other nationalities.

Many people expressed outrage at Ryanair’s policy and some told stories of being declined service because they did not pass the test.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (BBC) (Al Jazeera)

Continue Reading