- On Monday, Chinese and Indian troops engaged in a violent confrontation along a disputed border that left at least 20 Indian troops dead. Chinese officials have confirmed that there were casualties on their side but refused to say how many.
- The incident is the most serious military confrontation between the two nuclear powers in nearly 40 years.
- India and China have been fighting over the disputed boundary for decades.
- Both countries claim to control huge sections of each other’s territories, and the border has never been formalized despite more than a dozen negotiations.
Indian and Chinese Troops Face-Off
The Indian government has said that at least 20 of its soldiers died in a violent altercation with Chinese military forces after fighting broke out Monday along a disputed border between the two countries, marking the most serious military confrontation between the two nuclear powers in decades.
It is unclear exactly what happened as both sides have given different accounts. Most of the details currently being reported have come from the Indian side. Chinese officials have largely remained tight-lipped and Chinese media has downplayed the incident.
However, according to most accounts, the two sides engaged in hand-to-hand combat using rocks, iron rods, and their fists to fight for several hours. Several people fell to their deaths, but neither side fired shots or used guns at any point.
Indian officials said that three of their soldiers were killed during the standoff, and 17 others died after succumbing to injuries in the sub-zero temperatures.
Indian officials also said that there had been casualties on the Chinese side, a fact that Chinese officials did eventually confirm Wednesday after skirting the question, though they did not say how many people died.
As for what started the stand-off, both sides blame each other for instigating. Indian officials say that Chinese forces crossed into the area under their control where they set up tents and guard posts and ignored verbal warnings to leave, which set off shouting matches, stones being thrown, and fist-fights.
Chinese officials say that Indian soldiers crossed the border into the area they control and “provoked and attacked Chinese personnel.”
While Monday’s events represent a serious escalation, these kinds of confrontations are not a new occurrence.
Just since last month, there have been a number of similar conflicts along the border, though no deaths have been reported. After those initial brawls, which reportedly started after both countries moved thousands of additional troops to the border, senior leaders from the Indian and Chinese militaries held meetings and agreed to disengage.
But the situation goes a lot deeper than that. In fact, India and China have been fighting over this disputed border for decades and decades.
In 1962, the two fought a full-scale war over the border which ended with a truce and the creation of a sort of de facto border called the Line of Actual Control (LAC), aroughly 2,000-mile boundary that runs along the Himalayas and the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region.
However, the LAC is and always has been a very rough boundary. Over the years, there have been more than a dozen rounds of talks and negotiations, but an actual border has never been formally decided.
As a result, India and China have competing views of where the line is, and both claim significant chunks of the other’s territory. Both sides patrol up to where they believe the border is, but because it is contested, that has led to frequent accusations of one side crossing the LAC which has resulted in numerous clashes.
Despite the frequency of these skirmishes, Monday’s incident has been described as the most violent and serious confrontation since a series of battles in 1967, as well as the first altercation that resulted in reported fatalities since 1975.
Notably, the two sides have worked together to try and keep the peace. In the early 1990s, they agreed to a set of protocols to contain the disputes and prevent escalation.
Those procedures included agreements for where troops would patrol, what weapons they could carry, where military installation would be built, and how close weapons and airplanes could be to the disputed areas.
But tensions have grown over the last few years. Many recent standoffs have been the result of both countries building infrastructure including roads, airstrips, and arms installations, which has resulted in the area becoming much more militarized.
China, in general, has been more assertive in building up its infrastructure, but in recent years, India has been strengthening its border infrastructure and upgrading its military installations— a move that experts say has angered China.
There is also a broader geopolitical element too. China has additionally been upset by India’s growing political and military relationship with the United States. Last year, China strongly condemned India for revoking the autonomous status of Kashmir— the disputed area claimed by both India and Pakistan— and placing it under the direct control of the central government.
On the other side, India is also worried that China is trying to slowly take over more of the disputed territory along the LAC, a concern that has grown as China continues to push forward with more bold, expansionist actions.
“China has pressed other controversial territorial disputes in recent years, stoking anxiety among its neighbors by building military installations in the South China Sea, extending control over Hong Kong and moving to deny Taiwan, which it sees as part of China, legitimacy and participation in international forums,” journalist Rajesh Roy explained in the Wall Street Journal.
As for the current situation, both India and China have said they want peace. In a short televised speech Wednesday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated that call, while also warning China that India will retaliate if provoked.
“The sacrifice of our soldiers will not be in vain,” he said. “The sovereignty and integrity of India is supreme, and nobody can stop us in defending that. India wants peace, but if provoked India is capable of giving a befitting reply.”
China’s Foreign Ministry has also said it does not want more clashes, and in a call today, both the foreign ministers of both agreed to “cool down” and said they favor peaceful diplomacy and dialogue.
It has also been reported that military leaders in the region are “talking to diffuse the tension.”
See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (The Guardian) (Al Jazeera)
Largest Network in the Philippines Denied Licensing Renewal, Reigniting Concerns Over Press Freedoms
- The Philippine’s largest broadcaster, ABS-CBN, has been officially taken off the air by the Filipino Congress.
- The outlet has been critical of President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs, which has seen thousands of Filipinos die in extra-judicial killings.
- This points to a growing trend of the president and his allies silencing outlets and individuals critical of him.
- The Philippines, once considered a stable and free democracy, currently ranks among the worst in the world when it comes to freedom of the press, according to the World Press Freedom Index.
Largest Broadcaster Pulled Off the Air
The Philippine’s largest broadcaster has been officially pulled off the air by the Filipino Congress after having its broadcast license renewal denied on Friday.
The outlet, called ABS-CBN, employs 11,000 people. It was available to an audience of 60 million and consistently was viewed by over 15 million. It was hoping to receive another 25-year broadcast license after its recent one expired in May.
However, that request was denied by a committee of the House of Representatives after 13 hearings. Most of the committee members are long-time allies of President Rodrigo Duterte, who has been extremely critical of the outlet since taking office.
Unlike other outlets petitioning for a license renewal, ABS-CBN weren’t allowed to continue using the free public airwaves while its application was pending, meaning it could only be a paid-subscription service.
Following the decision, ABS-CBN’s president and CEO, Carlo Katigbak, said in a statement on Friday, “We remain committed to public service, and we hope to find other ways to achieve our mission.” He went on to add the network was “deeply hurt” by the committee’s ruling.
The outlet can appeal, although there isn’t much hope that it’ll be successful.
Covering the War on Drugs
Duterte and his allies have long been critical of the outlet, claiming it’s biased, has long-standing labor violations, and is foreign-owned. This angle of attack was the focus of Duterte’s allies when they questioned the outlet during its hearings; however, many of these claims were debunked during the committee hearings.
As for the claims that its biased, that may be true. The outlet refused to air election ads from Duterte in 2016, and was accused by the then-candidate of favoring his opponent.
The outlet has since been a thorn in Duterte’s side because of its ongoing coverage of his drug war. Since taking office, Duterte has encouraged a war on drugs that has seen thousands of vigilante and capricious killings of civilians over accusations they are involved in the drug trade. Police have also been used to carry out attacks.
ABS-CBN has been extremely critical of the attacks and has long kept track of the extra-judicial killings, broadcasting their findings to millions of Filipinos. Duterte already wasn’t a fan of journalists, calling them “sons of bitches” and warning they weren’t exempt from physical attacks, but ABS-CBN’s reporting put it in the crosshairs of the president.
On multiple occasions, the president has stated that he planned to get the broadcaster’s license revoked, even as recently as December telling the station, “I will see to it that you’re out.”
However, despite his long history of disliking the outlet, the president’s spokesman, Harry Roque, tried to distance Duterte from the decision in a statement.
“The palace has maintained a neutral stance on the issue as it respects the separation of powers between the two coequal branches of government. Much as we want to work with the aforesaid media network, we have to abide by the resolution of the House committee,”
Duterte’s War on Journalists
ABS-CBN warned its 11,000 employees that if their license wasn’t renewed, they could expect to be laid off. Assuming their appeal is denied, that is expected to happen.
Congressman Carlos Zarate was appalled at this prospect and the committee’s decision, saying, “Why should we add 11,000 more to the number of unemployed in this most difficult time?” He was alluding to the coronavirus pandemic, which has hit the Philippines particularly hard with over 50,000 cases nationwide.
Human rights and media organizations decried the vote as a continuation of Duterte’s assault of the free press. The Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines said in a statement, “The decision deprives the Filipino people of an independent source of information when millions are grappling with the coronavirus pandemic.”
Another recent example of Duterte’s war against journalists is Maria Ressa, the head of the popular news site Rappler. She has also been critical of the government and its extrajudicial killings as part of its war on drugs. Last month, she was found guilty of libel in a case seen by many as an attempt to silence the site. She faces upwards of six years in prison.
Despite nominally enshrining the freedom of the press in its constitution, the Philippines ranks among the worst in the world in that regard, currently placed at 136 out of 180 on the World Press Freedom Index.
In addition to revoking the broadcast license of outlets that are critical of the president and charging reporters with libel, Reporters Without Borders claims, “Private militias, often hired by local politicians, silence journalists with complete impunity.”
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (CBS News) (BBC)
Body of Missing Seoul Mayor Found Just Days After He Faced Sexual Harassment Allegations
- Park Won-Soon, the mayor of Seoul, was reported missing on Thursday and was found dead early Friday morning, days after reportedly being accused of sexual harassment by a former secretary.
- His death was officially considered a suicide after a note was found at his residence.
- The allegations are particularly shocking because Park was a known advocate for women’s rights and was considered a potential presidential candidate.
- His accuser suggested more of Park’s victims existed but were scared to come forward. In accordance with South Korean law, an investigation into the matter has been dropped because of his death.
Body Found at Bukaksan
The mayor of Seoul, a potential presidential candidate and arguably the second most powerful public official in the country, was found dead on Friday, roughly two days after a former secretary from his office accused him of sexually harassing her in 2017.
According to authorities, the body of Park Won-Soon was found on a forested hill on Bukaksan, a mountain in northern Seoul, not too far from his home in the Jongno neighborhood. CCTV footage showed the mayor arriving at the park by taxi at 10:53 a.m. on Thursday. By 5:17 p.m. Thursday, his daughter filed a police report stating that he “had left home four to five hours ago” and left a message that sounded like his will. By this point, his phone was turned off.
Shortly after the report, upwards of 600 officers, K-9 units, and medical personnel were dispatched to search for the mayor. At 12:01 a.m. Friday, his body was found near a bag, a water bottle, a cell phone, writing utensils, and Park’s business card. Police reported that there were no signs this case was a homicide, and after the unveiling of a note from his residence, it was considered a suicide.
In the note, Park wrote that he was “sorry” to everyone and specifically stated that he was sorry to his family for “causing only pain.” His note made no mention of the allegations against him.
Police are in talks with the Park family over whether to conduct an autopsy. In the meantime his body is being kept at Seoul National University Hospital, where supporters could be seen outside crying and shouting, “Get up, Park Won-Soon,” and “We’re sorry, Park Won-Soon!”
Park’s death is a dramatic loss for the city for a variety of reasons. Despite South Korea having the highest suicide rate among the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, suicide by politicians is quite rare. Additionally, Park has been a staple of life in Seoul, which dominates the political landscape of South Korea. He was the longest serving mayor in the country’s history, having been in the role since 2011.
He was also considered a likely candidate to run for the Democratic party after President Moon Jae-in’s term was up in 2022 – the same time Park’s most recent mayoral tenure would end.
The circumstances leading up to his presumed-suicide have also left many South Korean citizens shocked. On Wednesday, a former secretary from his office went to police and filed a report accusing the mayor of sexual harassment, although this accusation wasn’t public until after Park went missing.
For years, South Korea has been embroiled in its own #MeToo reckoning, leading to many actors, businessmen, and politicians losing their positions and often facing jail time.
However, the allegations against Park, of which few details are actually known to the public, reportedly include unwanted physical contact and inappropriate messages. His alleged victim, according to Chosun Ilbo, gave investigators messages and inappropriate photos Park had sent her while she worked for him. She also allegedly said that there were more victims who were too scared to come forward.
The allegations are particularly shocking because of Park’s past. The mayor was long been considered a pillar of civil rights and women’s rights. He was famous for being a prominent civil rights attorney who founded the nation’s most influential civil rights group.
During his time as a lawyer, he campaigned on behalf of “comfort” women, Korean sex slaves who were forced into the role by the Japanese during the 1930s and ’40s. He also won major cases, including a case in the ’80s, during the country’s dictatorship, against a police officer who molested a woman while she was being interrogated. One of his biggest accolades was winning South Korea’s first sexual harassment case ever in the ’90s.
These actions were often praised by supporters because they challenged South Korea’s strict hierarchical and patriarchal structure, which are ingrained into the culture and language.
During his time as mayor, he focused on the environment and urban renewal for Seoul. Park also focused on fighting and containing COVID-19, leading to Seoul, a city of 10 million, having less than 2000 cases. For comparison, the city of Los Angeles, which is similar in population but less densely populated, had well over 50,000 cases.
Five Days of Funeral Services
In accordance with South Korean law, the police investigation against Park will be dropped due to his death. That’s because police won’t have someone to actually charge a crime with.
Although, when city officials were asked if they would be conducting their own investigation, officials said they are “not yet aware” of the allegations.
Park’s note mentioned that he wished to be cremated and have his ashes spread over his parents’ graves. Currently, the city of Seoul will be holding a mayoral funeral for Park, which means it will last five days. Generally speaking, Korean funerals last three days.
An altar will be set up in front of City Hall in Seoul for citizens and staff members wanting to mourn Park’s death.
See What Others Are Saying: (Yonhap News Agency) (Chosun Ilbo) (The Korea Times)
Hong Kong Bans Students From Engaging in Politics, Nations Respond to National Security Law
- In compliance with Hong Kong’s strict national security law, Hong Kong students are now being banned from engaging in political activity such as singing, skipping class, and posting online.
- Books and other educational material are being removed from libraries or placed under review if they break four crimes under the law: treason, sabotage, espionage, and terrorism.
- Critics and nations, like the US, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK, have called the law vague and are reexamining their relationships with Hong Kong.
- Most recently, Australia suspended its extradition treaty with the city over the recent changes, while also moving to expand visas for Hong Kongers.
Hong Kong University Bans
Students within Hong Kong are now banned from engaging in all political activity as of Wednesday.
This is just the most recent change to Hong Kong life after China’s new national security law was put into effect on June 30. Other changes include banning speech that violates the Four Rules: “treason, sabotage, espionage, or terrorism.”
On Wednesday the city’s education secretary Kevin Yeung announced that “schools are obliged to stop” students from engaging in a ton of political activity, citing that at least 1,600 students under the age of 18 had been arrested at protests.
He added, “We would like to reiterate that no political propaganda activities should be allowed in schools, and no one, including students, should play, sing, and broadcast songs which contain political messages or hold any activities to express their political stance.”
This means activities like posting political slogans, forming human chains, or singing “Glory to Hong Kong” (the unofficial anthem of the protests) are now prohibited. That song, in particular, was targeted because it “contains strong political messages and is closely related to the social and political incidents, violence and illegal incidents that have lasted for months. Therefore, schools must not allow students to play, sing or broadcast it in schools.”
Some of the most serious fighting between protesters and police took place at universities and officials likely hope this move will sap the energy of many pro-democracy protesters, as students were a driving force for the movement.
Hong Kong Quickly Changing
Beyond banning students from protesting, Hong Kong has seen many political activities curbed. Last week, popular slogans associated with the protests were banned for breaking the Four Rules of the national security law. Slogans like “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times!” and “Hong Kongers, build a nation,” are now illegal and seen as undermining Chinese national sovereignty.
One aspect of the national security law and its Four Rules often criticized are that they’re so vague. Nearly any pro-Democracy advocate in Hong Kong is considered to be breaking the law, which over the weekend led to public libraries being forced to review books in their collections that could break these rules.
This meant that a wide array of books are currently “under review” to determine whether or not they need to be banned.
A similar move was made on Monday when Hong Kong’s Education Bureau issued new rules to universities throughout the territory that would also ban books and learning materials.
The rules include banning education materials, “If any teaching materials have content which is outdated or involves the four crimes under the law, unless they are being used to positively teach pupils about their national security awareness or sense of safeguarding national security, otherwise if they involve other serious crime or socially and morally unacceptable act, they should be removed.”
So, what books can be expected to see a ban in schools? If the public library ban is used as a guideline, books by pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong are likely the first to be removed. Activists Joshua Wong and Tanya Chan both had their books removed from shelves while they are “under review.”
Wong was quick to criticize the move, saying on Monday, “If basic freedom still exists under the national security law, how come the book I published when I was still in high school was banned in the Hong Kong public library?”
The activist went on to add, “It’s not only about the political rights any more. It’s not only about the rights of protesters. It’s about the fundamental freedom or liberty that everyone cherish in this city, being eroded and fade out already.”
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement criticizing the extent to which the national security law is being implemented, “With the ink barely dry on the repressive National Security Law, local authorities — in an Orwellian move — have now established a central government national security office, started removing books critical of the CCP.”
He also lamented that rights Hong Kong previously enjoyed, which were shared by most developed Democratic nations, were now eroded, such as freedom of the press.
For their part, the Hong Kong government under Chief Executive Carrie Lam has tried to spin the new national security law and all of the rules coming out because of it as a good thing for freedom in Hong Kong. On Tuesday she told reporters, “Instead of spreading fear, the law will actually remove fear and let Hong Kong people return to a normal peaceful life and Hong Kong will resume its status as one of the safest cities in the world.”
Freedom of the Press
All of these provisions have caused widespread fear over the freedom of the press, which had widespread freedoms in the city before last week. For example, on Monday the Hong Kong government announced that RTHK, a public broadcaster in the city, would be undergoing a six-month review of their “governance and management.” It’s widely assumed that the means the station will be purged of any anti-Chinese Communist party viewpoints.
Despite this, Lam tried to say that journalistic freedom would still exist in Hong Kong. She told journalists that they wouldn’t face censorship or prosecution under the law by stating, “if journalists can guarantee that they won’t breach this law, then I can also guarantee the same.”
This means journalists are safe from prosecution as long as they don’t report on any facts that break the national security law – a law that is written to apply worldwide. Recent coverage detailed that posts written in America are subject to the law, so journalists critical of the regime face repercussions upon entering Hong Kong.
Nations Respond to Shifts
Since the national security law went into effect, Hong Kong has been quickly changing, which has caused countries to reexamine their relationship with the city. Many nations gave Hong Kong special exemptions on the premise that it was separate and distinct from mainland China.
Since June, the U.S. has stated that they would no longer give Hong Kong special trade exemptions, which added fuel to the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China. The U.S. wasn’t alone, over the last week New Zealand announced it would also review its relationship with Hong Kong and consider new visa and trade rules.
Canada approached the situation from a different angle, announcing last week they would be pulling out of an extradition treaty with the city. That move was followed up by Australia, which announced on Monday that it would also suspend their extradition treaty.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in a press conference the country was also changing visas for Hong Kongers, “There will be citizens of Hong Kong who may be looking to move elsewhere, to start a new life somewhere else, to take their skills, their businesses.”
Hong Kong students, graduates, and workers in Australia on temporary visas will now have the opportunity to stay and work for an extra five years, and then apply for permanent residency after that time.
The new system, on the surface, sounds similar how the UK plans to deal with Hong Kongers wishing to move to the UK. Although a deeper looks shows they are quite different, notably the UK’s version applies to people who hold a BNO passport. Those passports holders include over 300,000 people who were born in Hong Kong before the territory was transferred back to China.
Australia’s rules would apply to about 10,000 Hong Kongers living in the country.
Although future student visas would also cover a five-year period; however, Morrison said they were “not expecting large numbers of applicants any time soon.”
China was extremely upset with Australia’s decision and Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian warned that Australia should stop interfering in Chinese affairs. He added that China could retaliate by reminding the Australians that most of their exports go to China.
Throughout the world, democratic leaders like Angela Merkel have been pressured to act as the Chinese Communist Party continues to be a polarizing figure on the world stage.