Mediaboss Marketing

One of Donald Trumps most consistent election messages is that Joe Biden, not he, is the threat to democracy. The New York Times has an excellent story explaining how this message, which Trump summarizes as BAD (Biden Against Democracy), is designed to neutralize Trumps most important political weakness.

The article puts this strategy in the context of Trumps lifelong habit of accusing his opponents of whatever Trump himself is doing in order to muddy the waters and foster cynicism. But there is another aspect of this argument the article does not consider: BAD is not only a Trumpian schoolyard taunt but also an argument that is being advanced by putatively serious conservative intellectuals.

The literal version of Trumps argument which casts Biden as an authoritarian tyrant who stole the election and is now hell-bent on imprisoning his opponent is obviously promoted by his most enthusiastic supporters. But the main purpose of the claim is to turn the democracy question into a tie. Maybe Trump has been a bad boy (January 6 and all that), the argument will go, but Biden has also threatened democracy. Since both candidates are authoritarians, we might as well vote for the one who will support our favorite domestic policies.

This version of the argument is especially attractive to conservatives who have locked themselves into an anti-Trump posture but wish to create a permission structure to support him as the lesser evil.

The most enthusiastic source of support for this argument is the anti-anti-Trump right at traditional conservative organs like The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the National Review. Rich Lowry, NRs editor-in-chief, has churned out a string of columns straining to make the case that Trumps opponents are just as much to blame for authoritarianism as he is. One recent Lowry column insists that if Biden really cared about democracy, hed quit the race. If Joe Biden were, as a matter of principle, devoted to defending democracy at all costs, he argues, obviously the first thing he would do would be to step aside for some younger, more capable, less radioactive Democrat with a much better chance of beating Trump. (Lowry does not entertain the obvious possibility that Biden genuinely, if perhaps erroneously, considers himself Trumps strongest opponent.) Instead, he argues that Biden doesnt really care much about saving democracy. So why should anybody else?

In another recent column, he concedes that Trumps critics are sincerely, and to some extent understandably, alarmed by his conduct after the 2020 election and how hes branded his political comeback as a revenge tour. But Lowry argues that they are therefore going to react to a potential Trump victory in undemocratic ways:

At least some portion of the Left will convince itself that only a color revolution can save the country.

Prior to the 2016 TrumpClinton contest, one school of Trump supporters posited that it was the Flight 93 election possibly the last chance to save the country. The consequences of failure were so awful that anything was justified to win. Now, thats the way the Left feels, except Trump won his Flight 93 election, and Joe Biden could well lose his.

If so, there will be much to fear from democracys self-styled defenders.

So, you see, this hypothetical future of left-wing behavior that mimics Trump just shows that Trump is no worse than his enemies. Suppose I steal Lowrys wallet, and when he calls me a thief, I point out that his angry rhetoric is a justification for stealing back my money what else would you do against a thief? I suppose he will agree that we are now moral equals with regard to theft.

George F. Will recently insisted in a column that Joe Biden is, like Trump, an authoritarian recidivist mostly stymied by courts and that alarmism over Trumps contempt for democracy distracts attention from the similarity of Trumps and Bidens disdain for legality.

What is the authoritarian offense of Bidens that renders him equal to Trump? I will let Will explain the despotic Biden actions that threaten the republic in all its bloody particulars:

Biden nominated Ann Carlson last March to be administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Two months later, when it was clear that the Senate would not confirm her, Biden withdrew the nomination. But less than five weeks after that, he named Carlson acting administrator. His impertinence would perhaps be limited, by the Vacancies Act, to 210 days, which would expire Dec. 26. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the act prohibits any person who has been nominated to fill any vacant office from performing that offices duties in an acting capacity.

Yes, you read that correctly. The equivalent of Trump openly threatening to lock up his enemies, use the military to crush protests, glorifying in violent attacks on his critics, deeming all elections he loses ipso facto stolen, and inciting a mob led by right-wing paramilitaries to storm the Capitol is Biden allowing Anne Carlson to serve as acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Now, look. We can agree that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, like other federal agencies, should have a Senate-confirmed leader. And we can further agree that a system that allows presidents to use acting appointees to circumvent Senate confirmation Will notes later in the column this problem has been ongoing since at least the 1990s is broken and in need of reform.

But the idea that this now-routine approach to running the bureaucracy is remotely comparable to the behavior of a man who transparently idolizes dictators is not remotely tenable. It is not a way to hold Democrats to account for the normal failings of politicians. It is a way of running interference for Trumps scheme to undermine the foundations of the republic. Its adherents should at least have the self-respect to stop posing as Trump critics and unmask themselves as water carriers for his own campaign message.

Irregular musings from the center left.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

See the rest here:
'Biden Against Democracy,' the Right's Favorite Trump Rationale - New York Magazine

Tags:

We are told that the case in which Israel is accused of genocide in Gaza, which has opened in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, could take years to reach a verdict.

So, let us save all of those 17 judges sitting in the ICJ and everybody else a lot of time and millions of euros. Israel is not guilty of committing genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza in its war of self-defence against the Islamic terrorists of Hamas.

In truth, Israel is guilty of being the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, and the only Jewish state on Earth. Defending those qualities has now caused Israel to be branded as uniquely criminal, not only by South Africa (which brought the ICJ case), but also across much of the world, including by many in Europe and the US.

To the shame of Europe, in the ancient Dutch city of The Hague, the United Nations highest court is now staging one of the most grotesque spectacles of political theatre seen in modern times.

The formal title is Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). A more fitting title might be Gaza Through the Looking Glass because the case before the ICJ has stood reality on its head and turned the truth inside out, in the fantastical manner of Lewis Carrolls Alice stories.

Israel stands accused of the crime of genocide, essentially because it is waging war on the Jew-hating, genocidal murderers of Hamas.

The case offers a thin legal faade for a political vendetta against Israel. Under the UN Genocide Convention, for a state to be found guilty of genocide there must be a proven intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. South Africas lawyers argued in court that Israels campaign in Gaza was intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, religious and ethnical group.

In reality, there has been no intent on Israels part to destroy the Palestinian population in Gaza. Quite the opposite; the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have done more than any other army in wartime to try to limit civilian casualties, including targeting attacks on Hamas bases and warning people to evacuate.

Of course, war is a brutal business and there have still been thousands of civilian casualties. Not least because Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza as human shields, and builds military bases in highly-populated areas, hospitals, and schools. But lets be clear: the only part of the Palestinian group that the IDF has shown proven intent to destroy is that part involved in Hamas Islamist jihad to destroy Israel and kill Jews. To accuse Israel of genocidal intent is effectively to say that war is genocideif you are on what the woke deem the wrong side of history.

In this conflict only Hamas has demonstrated its proven intent to commit genocide. The war began with the pogrom Hamas terrorists launched against Israel on October 7th that left more than 1,200 deadthe bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Nazi Holocaustwith some 240 taken hostage. Hamas didnt only butcher, brutalise, and rape Jewsit boasted about its antisemitic pogrom, in Gaza and across social media, in a way that even the Nazis never did.

Hamas is proudly guilty of genocidal intent, of killing Jews for being Jewishcondemned out of its own mouth. Yet that truth has been turned upside-down, so that the Israelis fighting to eliminate genocidal Islamists themselves stand accused of genocide. And many in the West seem to accept that inversion of reality.

Some might have expected the central role of South Africa to at least raise questions about this case. The post-apartheid Republic of South Africa is widely regarded as a failed state, wracked by violent crime, oppression, corruption, and poverty. Even the UN and other Israelophobic global agencies are forced to rank South Africa well below Israel in their league tables regarding democratic rights and civil liberties.

Most of the majority black population appears no better off under the autocratic ANC regime than under the racist apartheid state, while the few remaining white farmers are subject to a campaign of violence that last year prompted South Africa-born Elon Musk to express fears of a genocide of white people in his homeland.

Yet now, by fronting the genocide case at the ICJ, South Africa hopes to posture on the moral high ground of global politics, looking down in judgement on the apartheid state of Israel (you see what they did there?). It has been joined by many of the worst repressive regimes in the world, all queuing to back anti-Israel resolutions passed at the UN that do not mention the Hamas massacres. Once again, the one Jewish state on earth is held to different standards than the rest. Why ever could that be?

Surely more doubts about this attempted show trial should have been raised by the fact that Hamas itself enthusiastically supports South Africa bringing the case to court. In an official statement, Hamas looked forward to the judges of the ICJ delivering a decision that does justice to victims and which demands that Israel stop the aggression. One might almost imagine that Hamas were innocent victims of injustice, perhaps on a par with the persecuted UK sub-postmasters, rather than an Islamist death cult that has sworn to repeat its antisemitic aggression of October 7th again and again and again.

Yet despite all of that, many in Europe and the West have joined Hamas in demanding that the ICJ find Israel guilty of genocide. The crazed Islamoleft scream that Israel is, in the words of a leading UK leftist, a society possessed with murderous mania. And such manic Israel-bashing is no longer confined to the radical fringes.

Belgiums deputy prime minister, Petra de Sutter, quickly broke ranks with the likes of Germany and the UK to demand that Europe must join South Africas case against the threat of genocide in Gaza. Many other EU member states, from Spain to Ireland, have accused Israel of slaughtering civilians and demanded an immediate ceasefirewhich, as Democracy Watch has argued all along, amounts to demanding that Israel surrender.

A glance through the 80-odd pages of South Africas application to the ICJ confirms that this is a political witch-hunt dressed up as a legal indictment; an attempted show trial disguised as an appeal for justice.

Their documented case to prove Israels genocidal intent rests largely on rhetoric rather than evidence. They cite the bellicose rhetoric of selected Israeli figuressuch as the defence minister who, in the aftermath of the barbaric Hamas massacres of October 7th, said Israel was at war with human animals. And they counterpose this to the shrill rhetoric of UN and other aid agenciessome of which, as reported by The European Conservative, are heavily involved with the Hamas authoritiessimply declaring that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza.

One particularly surreal section that leapt out of the court application was the allegation that Israel is guilty of genocide because it is Imposing measures intended to prevent Palestinian births through something called reproductive violence. It cites the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls asserting that, the reproductive violence inflicted by Israel on Palestinian women, newborn babies, infants, and children could be qualified as acts of genocide.

No doubt women and childrenand perhaps especially pregnant womenare suffering the consequences of the war in Gaza. But the claim that Israel must thus be guilty of reproductive violence is bizarre. Yet it is in tune with much of the media coverage of the war, which highlights claims that Gaza has become a graveyard for children and death zone for babies.

In 40 years of following war reporting around the world, I have never before seen such an emphasis on the suffering of children and images of dead babies. (Though far less attention is paid to the Jewish children killed and kidnapped on October 7th.) It looks like a campaign to demonise the Israeli state as uniquely cruel. And doesnt it conjure up a modern version of the ancient blood libel about Jews supposedly slaughtering Christian children? Perhaps we should be grateful that nobody has (yet) gone full blood libel and alleged that the Israelis are using Palestinians babies blood to bake their bread

Let us step back from the clouds of legalese, and remember what is at stake here. Israelis are engaged in an existential war against enemies who want to wipe their state off the map and drive the Jews into the Mediterraneanthe real meaning of that from the river to the sea slogan so beloved of the Western Left. Israels war against the genocidal Islamists of Hamas is also the frontline of a wider conflict which we have defined from the start as one between civilisation and barbarism.

Yet even to say that today is to risk being accused of endorsing genocide. If you think I exaggerate, look at the legal document South Africas lawyers have set before the International Court of Justice. There you will find, presented as incontrovertible proof of Israels genocidal intent, a December quote from prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he dared to suggest that This is a battle not only of Israel against these barbarians, its a battle of civilisation against barbarism.

Several years ago, in a left-wing demonstration in Europe, I recall a banner declaring that Civilisation Is Genocide. That self-loathing sentiment now seems to have colonised the institutions of the West, everywhere from the UN and the ICJ to the universities and the mainstream media.

As a result Israel, a democratic state founded in response to the Holocaust, the worst genocide in human history, which is now fighting for its civilised life against genocidal antisemites, finds itself cast in the role of global villain. At a time when Islamism threatens world peace, we are invited instead to focus on the alleged crimes of the democratic Jewish state in the frontline of fighting against it.

If there is a crime on display in The Hague, it looks like global conspiracy to commit perjury against the Israel people.

Whatever the ICJ rules, the Israeli government has vowed to pursue its war against Hamas. But the attempt to brand Israel as guilty of genocide is an important part of the wider campaign to isolate the only democracy in the Middle East and legitimise global intervention against it. So let all who believe in true justice and democracy continue to make our case clear. We are guilty of standing with Israel against Islamism; of standing with the Jewish people against antisemitism, old and new; and, yes, we plead guilty to standing for civilisation against barbarism.

Excerpt from:
DEMOCRACY WATCH Israel Is Only 'Guilty' of Fighting Against Genocide - The European Conservative

Tags:

Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb warned that people need to take former President Trump seriously as a threat to democracy.

CNN anchor Erin Burnett asked Cobb about an argument from Trump’s legal team Tuesday that suggested a president directing SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent is covered by presidential immunity. She pointed out Trump’s past comments praising Chinese President Xi Jinping, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin and asked Cobb whether people should take Trump literally.

“I think you have to take Trump seriously, because he poses the gravest threat to democracy that we’ve ever seen,” Cobb said on “Erin Burnett OutFront.”

Trump’s lawyers argued in front of a three-judge panel that former presidents can only face prosecution if they are first impeached and convicted by the Senate. His legal team is claiming Trump has presidential immunity from charges stemming from efforts to overturn the 2020 election — an argument the three judges appeared skeptical of Tuesday. 

Trump, who was in the courtroom for the hearing, is facing four charges from special prosecutor Jack Smith related to efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. His legal team Tuesday answered hypothetical questions as to how far a former president could go and remain shielded from prosecution under their argument.

Trump attorney John Sauer answered with a “qualified yes” when asked if a former president would be barred from prosecution even if he ordered SEAL Team Six to take out a political rival. 

“He would have to be impeached and convicted,” Sauer said.

Cobb pushed back on this argument, saying the legal team is just hoping to delay the case. Trump’s trial regarding 2020 election interference — the first of his four criminal cases — is currently scheduled for March 4.

“On the other hand, I think his legal arguments are interposed solely for delay,” Cobb said, suggesting that “it would be very scary if there’s no accountability” when someone attempts to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

“I think the, you know, lack of accountability that he desires — which Putin has, the ayatollah has, Xi has — as you as you alluded to, you know, I think that he may want an America that is like that,” Cobb said.

Cobb also noted that the founders of the U.S. wanted to ensure “this was not going to be a country where we had a king. This was going to be a country where we had an accountable executive.”

See the original post:
Ty Cobb says Trump poses gravest threat to democracy weve ever seen - The Hill

Tags:

Author: Chris Morris, ANU

2024 promises to be a busy year for Indonesian democracy. Voters will elect a new president, 20,462 national and regional legislators and, later, some 548 regional heads. These are the provincial governors, district heads and municipal mayors responsible for delivering many basic services under Indonesias system of decentralised governance.

As Indonesias democratic transition has stagnated and shown increasing signs of regression, direct election of regional heads remains popular among voters even as some elites have again soured on the idea. Well-known shortcomings including widespread vote-buying and civil service involvement in politics will all likely feature again in this election cycle. But there are additional factors that may either strengthen or further undermine the quality of Indonesian democracy in 2024.

2024 marks the first time that all regions nationwide will hold regional head elections in the same year and on the same day. This will align national and regional development planning cycles, confine campaign disruptions to roughly one year out of five and theoretically drive efficiencies of scale in election administration.

In order to synchronise differing regional election cycles, regional leaders whose five-year terms expired in 2022 and 2023 have been replaced by acting regional heads, drawn from the ranks of senior civil servants through a selection process widely criticised for lacking transparency. This means that almost half of all regions those that last held regional head elections in 2017 and 2018 will have been without an elected incumbent for at least a year at the time the 2024 elections are held.

While acting regional heads cannot stand for election while remaining active in that capacity, there appears to be nothing stopping them from resigning and then running as a candidate, having used their time in office to strengthen their political base. A more insidious and likely prospect is that President Joko Widodos (Jokowis) administration is using its influence over acting regional heads to further its own political interests.

A recent significant development is the governments manoeuvring to bring the date of the regional head elections forward from November to September 2024. The official explanation for this move is to eliminate the need to extend the appointment of acting regional heads (and appoint new ones in regions where terms end in 2024) if there are delays in finalising election results and enable the simultaneous inauguration of new regional heads on 1 January 2025. But the real reason is likely a belated realisation by political elites that an earlier poll date better serves their interests.

The November election date was originally set through a 2016 amendment to the Regional Head Elections Law at the beginning of Jokowis first term. In 2021, during deliberations to set the date of the 2024 presidential election, February was chosen after April was dismissed for pushing a possible second-round presidential poll too close to the regional head elections in November. Bringing forward the regional head elections to September will have precisely the same effect.

This presents a significant logistical challenge for the General Elections Commission and its regional equivalents. It may also require shortening the campaign period for regional head elections to only 30 days instead of the typical 7080 days, potentially favouring incumbents over newcomers.

But for Jokowi, a September election would mean that he is still in power and better able to promote his preferred candidates, including members of his own family. His youngest son Kaesang Pangarep, initially slated to contest the 2024 Depok mayoral election on the southern outskirts of Jakarta, suddenly finds himself chairman of Jokowi-aligned Partai Solidaritas Indonesia and being floated as a potential candidate in the Jakarta gubernatorial election. And his son-in-law Bobby Nasution, currently mayor of Medan, is widely anticipated to run for governor of North Sumatra.

Allegations have emerged of subtle interference by state security agencies to thwart the campaign activities of presidential candidates Ganjar Pranowo and Anies Baswedan, to the benefit of third-time presidential contender Prabowo Subianto and his running mate Jokowis eldest son Gibran Rakabuming Raka. Remaining in power until regional head elections are held would maximise the potential for similar interference strategies in regional campaigns.

Most political parties are also in favour of the change because of the opening it creates for legislators with executive aspirations to have their cake and eat it too.

The Regional Head Elections Law requires that sitting legislators resign their position to contest regional head elections. This has meant that if a recently elected legislator subsequently ran for regional head but was unsuccessful, they would be left empty-handed. But if legislators elected in 2024 are not sworn in until October, as per the schedule for the national parliament, a September election would mean that legislators-elect could run for regional head without giving up their seats.

Both the government and parliament were initially reluctant to be seen as pushing a change to the election date, suggesting an awareness that the official reasons for it are unconvincing. But after abandoning an earlier proposal that the executive change the date using an emergency method of law-making, it is now agreed that the parliament will do so by making limited amendments to the Regional Head Elections Law.

This episode demonstrates that Jokowi is not limiting his self-acknowledged electoral meddling to only the presidential contest. More broadly, it suggests that even though direct elections for regional heads are safe for now, they remain vulnerable to the forces that are gradually eroding the quality of Indonesias democracy.

Chris Morris is a PhD candidate at the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs at The Australian National University.

Continue reading here:
Will 2024s regional head elections strengthen or undermine Indonesian democracy? - East Asia Forum

Tags:

The Hong Kong trial of prominent pro-democracy activist and media mogulJimmy Lai has garnered widespread attention globally. Lai, a 76-year-old British citizen and high-profile critic of Beijing, faces national security charges, and his trial is expected to take months.

Lai is a prominent figure in Hong Kongs pro-democracy movement. His detention and subsequent trial exemplify the challenges to freedoms of expression and association in the region under ChinasNational Security Law. Lais case also sheds light on the broader implications of the law, as more than 250 activists, protesters, and lawmakers have been detained under its provisions.

TheUKs involvementin Lais case stems from his status as a British citizen. His prosecution has prompted responses from both the UK andUS governments, calling for his release and the repeal of Hong Kongs National Security Law. Last month, Foreign Secretary David Cameronhighlightedthe erosion of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong and expressed grave concern over the prosecution of Lai and others under the law. Similarly, Human Rights Watch and the US State Departmentcondemnedthe charges against Lai, emphasising the impact on press freedom and democratic institutions in Hong Kong. The Chinese embassy in the UK, however,criticisedthe UKs involvement in the case as interference in judicial proceedings.

To learn more, JURIST Managing Editor for Interviews James Joseph spoke with Mark Sabah, the UK and EU Director at the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation (CFHK) about the case. Sabahs perspective is particularly nuanced given his ties with another former political prisoner, Sergey Magnitsky. A Russian lawyer and auditor, Magnitsky uncovered a large-scale tax fraud scheme, but was subsequently arrested, tortured, and died in custody in 2009, leading to the international adoption of the Magnitsky Act sanctions targeting human rights abusers. At the time of his arrest, Magnitsky was working at Hermitage Capital Management, where Sabah also previously worked. After Magnitskys death, Sabah devoted years to lobbying for justice for his deceased colleague through international sanctions packages. In addition to his advocacy work related to global Magnitsky-related legislation, Sabah helped establish the Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards.

For additional context on the case, see our related interview with the founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, Luke de Pulford.

JURIST:Could you give me a comment from the Committee for Freedom of Hong Kong on the case against Jimmy Lai and your perspective on it?

Mark Sabah: So first of all, this is a show trial. Its a sham, and its not a real legal trial. Its predetermined; everybody knows the outcome. The CCP is barely hiding the fact that it knows what the outcome is. Theyve already made statements saying that Jimmy Lai needs to be punished, and therefore, what kind of independent trial can we expect? Secondly, the National Security Law trials have a 100 percent conviction rate, which doesnt lend itself to showing that the courts are legitimate, legal and independent. So chances are Jimmy Lai is going to be sentenced under the National Security Law. Theyll find him guilty. In fact, I would go further, he has to be found guilty. The Hong Kong authorities need him to be guilty. They need to show other Hong Kongers that there is no point in standing up and fighting for freedom. They have to make the point that if Jimmy goes down, all of you have to keep quiet, and the truth is, its worked. People dont trust the authorities. Hundreds of thousands have left to the UK and other countries around the world. None of that shows that Hong Kong is a credible, stable, free city any longer. The fact that the Hong Kong authorities invest millions in PR campaigns: the Hello Hong Kong campaign, for example, free flights from Cathay Pacific, and advertising on the BBC website to Come to Hong Kong, all of those are not signs that the citys doing well. So I would say that the trial of Jimmy Lai is not about Jimmy Lai. Its about freedom and democracy. Its about the fact that the CCP is imposing itself on the city. Its nothing to do with justice. Its nothing to do with any crimes. Its purely about the CCP showing that its in control in certain cities. And I think the West happens to recognise that Hong Kong is now just another city like any other on mainland China, no different than Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Harbin, its just another tiny city. And as soon as Western businesses, banks, investment firms, hedge funds, and so on, realise that they are playing with fire by standing in Hong Kong, the better it will be for those people, those businesses, and their investors. So the trial is obviously devastating to those of us who are campaigning for Jimmy Li, but its an absolute death knell for the other 1,500 political prisoners because if Jimmy Lai, the most famous and the richest of Hong Kong people, cant lawyer his way legally out of it, then what hope does some 18-year-old who was arrested on some charge for waving a flag or lighting a candle, who doesnt have the influence and the connections around the world to convey to them. Its actually a very, very sad period in Hong Kongs history. I think were seeing the slow death of Hong Kong come to its conclusion. We can speculate about what would have happened if the 50-year Sino-British Declaration had reached its conclusion but instead, weve seen in a short period of three years, the slow death of Hong Kong right in front of our eyes, a slow motion, disruption of a city, however you want to describe it, and its incredibly sad.

JURIST: Do you think that in any way this is to make an example of him, being a UK national, and of the UKs rule over the territory, and China exploiting this to be a show-trial as an example to the West?

Mark Sabah: So I would say yes, to the extent that the CCP, China loves telling everyone dont interfere in our internal affairs, but it absolutely loves interfering in everyone elses affairs. China loves telling anyone thats our business, butt out. It loves interfering and telling others what they can and cannot do. The fact that Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, they just dont care, because as far as theyre concerned, hes not a British citizen, hes a Chinese man.

I think the British government has also acted appallingly in this case, they have not from the very beginning, stood up and shouted and defended a British citizen, they are only now talking about trying to get consular access when they should have demanded consular access the minute he was arrested. The fact that its taken three prime ministers and four foreign secretaries before anyone would meet Jimmy Lis son. The fact that he took David Cameron until December, although hes the new foreign secretary, to say Jimmy Lai is a British citizen and he should be immediately released. We had members of the foreign office saying hes a dual citizenship citizen, which is Beijings talking point, although Beijing, of course, doesnt recognise dual citizenship. So you could argue that its punishing the British, but its certainly them spitting in the eye of the British and saying We just dont care what you think. We just dont care. And the truth is, that has done nothing about it, they just rolled over and said, Dont worry, were still gonna send ministers to talk about trade and investments. Its astonishing that any British Minister or MP should step foot in Hong Kong in an official capacity given that there is a British citizen in jail. The first thing that should have happened is that Prime Minister Johnson and then Truss, and then Sunak, should have immediately said, There are no more official visits to Hong Kong. There will be no bilateral meetings with Hong Kongers. Instead, we invited them to London, we invited them to attend the Kings Coronation, and were sending ministers to Hong Kong. Its just simply mind-boggling.

JURIST: What do you think about the UK reaction to China and other states who have shown?

Mark Sabah: I spent six years working at Hermitage Capital with Bill Browder and weve lobbied successfully for the Magnitsky Law, and it was a huge success, and its a game-changing piece of human rights legislation. The astonishing thing is that for six years I went to parliament around the world and said, Wake up. Putin is trying to take over our institutions and is destabilising our democracy. Hes spreading disinformation. He wants to take over countries in Eastern Europe. Please wake up. And we were told theres money, theres businesses, football clubs and restaurant chains, theyre buying big houses, theyre buying yachts and thats great for British trains; and we couldnt do more to bend backwards, that our politicians, many of whom are exactly the same politicians as five years ago, will simply stand up and say Im having deja vu again, and say We need China investment for climate change Whats climate change got to do with a British citizen being in prison?

JURIST: What are you asking for, in the UKs involvement in China, and also on Jimmy Lai?

Mark Sabah: James Cleverly, when he was Foreign Secretary, loved prefacing every comment he made on China with, There are those who want us to disengage and decouple from China. Well, I wont do that. Who ever said this? No one has ever said that. But what we are saying is that having a trade relationship with China does not mean doing whatever they want whenever they want and accepting it. In any other world, if a Chinese diplomat drives a man into his consulate property and participates in a beating on camera, that diplomat would be expelled within 24 hours. Instead, when Bog Chan got beaten in Manchester, absolutely nothing happened. Apparently, the political officer was called into the Foreign Office, not even the ambassador. And then eventually, he was withdrawn and reposted somewhere else in December of last year. But that was to save face with the Chinese. So no rebuke, no punishment, whereas it should have been an immediate expulsion. Thats the kind of behaviour that allows me to keep going, exactly what happened with the Russians. How many people needed to be poisoned and killed in the UK before somebody said, Russia, youre out? Thats it, were done. And instead, what do we do here? Why not invest in our nuclear power? Or our infrastructure? Why not have your cameras in our government buildings? Why not invest hundreds of millions into educational systems, specifically, dual-use technology, nuclear research, etc, etc? Why not have the most Confucius Institutes of any country in Europe? We just keep allowing it by choice because were afraid of China. They send out a threat: we capitulate. How about once in a while, we put out a threat and let them worry about it? Why does it always have to be the other way around?

JURIST: Given the above, is our current approach to China fit for purpose?

Our approach to China is economic weakness and economic greed, its political weakness; and its also Foreign Office arrogance. We dont have a foreign office thats fit for purpose for the 21st century, we dont have a foreign office that knows how to deal with the rise of authoritarian states. And its not just China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Hungary, all these countries are going down the authoritarian route. Theyre all working together. Theyre all meeting and sharing information and data and theyre all passing political prisoners from one to the other than all avoiding sanctions together, and were still playing cricket while theyre MMA fighting. Its just unbelievable that we have a foreign office that is no longer fit for 21st-century diplomacy. We need to be more muscular. We need to be a little bit more confident. We need to be a little bit willing to lose a bit of business but to gain credibility and strength on the world stage. We can do it by standing up to China on minor things like expelling a diplomat when he beats up a citizen who has the right to protest. We can do it when theres transnational repression. We can do it on minor things like that. But if were not willing to, why on earth would we expect the government to stand up for a British citizen? My final point on that would be, that the Jimmy Lai case should send a shiver of terror across the spines of hundreds, if not thousands, of British people around the world. Because what the Foreign Office is effectively saying is, If you get in trouble, we are not coming to help you if theres a trade deal in the pipeline, or if they have our gas or oil, or if they are producing something that we need, you are going to sit in jail and languish. We are not coming to help you. Were very good at handing out new passports to Brits abroad in Magaluf. But when it actually comes to standing up for British citizens abroad, the Jimmy Lai trial shows that the British government will not help British citizens in trouble and we are showing that Chinas calling the shots. It is determining our foreign policy. It is determining our trade policy, and we are simply following behind in their wake.

Its an offshoot of the trade department. The fact that its called the FCDO, instead of just being the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, by managing it with development, we effectively had to align our policies with international trade. And the FCDO is really good, posting pictures on their Twitter accounts and so on, and junior diplomats with a poster saying Britain is great look at our sphere in Nairobi at a trade fair. And here we are in Bogota, Colombia, speaking to local businesses. Thats not what we need our Foreign Office for. Thats the trade department. Why is our foreign office doing that instead of creating an office for hostage retrieval, like the Americans have? Why havent they created that? Why dont we have one of those? Alicia Kearns, our foreign affairs committee chairman is demanding that we have one. The whole committee has written a report saying we need one. The fact that there are so many British hostages held abroad, and we are doing nothing to get them out is astonishing while the Americans are creating a whole department to get people out. As authoritarians hold more and more American citizens, while the United Kingdom and dancing around and doing Welcome to Britain campaigns, and so on. And the other failure by the Foreign Office and simply this: there are no China experts. Theres no one who speaks Mandarin. They rotate people for six months or a year. So some 22 years and finishes fast track is put on the Hong Kong desk. They listen and learn, and they nod their heads no world experience whatsoever. And then six months later, one year later, they move to the Nigeria desk. So you have to start all over again every single time. So if youre me, and youre campaigning for Jimmy Lai, you know, I have to keep going back to a new class and say, This is who Jimmy Lai is. Oh, thats interesting. Oh, thats terrible. Let me see what I can do. And then in nine months time, Hi, can I speak to Sarah? Oh, Sarah has moved on to the Venezuela thing. But Jonathans just started, why dont you come in and talk to him. Its just ludicrous the way our Foreign Service works. Its got to the point now where you never speak to the same person twice. Its gotten to the point now where the foreign office just regurgitates line after line after line and doesnt actually do anything. So its terrible.

JURIST: So how should the FCDO keep tabs on conditions in China?

Mark Sabah: The fact is, what if tomorrow the Prime Minister is going to China, who does he call in to brief him about whats going on? He calls banks, investment firms, businessmen.

They immediately call the British Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. Brief us on how life is in Hong Kong. Its fantastic. We have great business deals lined up. Why arent you talking to the people who actually know China? The first people you should be calling is us, Hong Kong Watch, IPAC. What should we be saying? What should we be demanding? Of course, you should talk to your chamber of commerce and your local consul generals, but their job is dependent on being positive about their relationship with a country or they wouldnt have the job. You cant have a consul general who is saying, Oh, God, its awful. Of course, hes not going to say that. So if you really want to hear whats going on, hear from the people who work there or who had to flee from there.

China has also been really good and doing something which other countries dont do. If you speak ill of China, they revoke your visa. So weve had a politician that we met recently, who literally said, I dont want to have a photograph taken for you, and I dont want any notes of this meeting because Id like to visit China. Its remarkable. China does it with academia. You cant criticise China in academia. Youve got fantastic people who are China experts, but they wont criticise China overtly. Theyll say, Well, its not great. But theres also lots of good, to keep being invited back for research and so on. And when you have politicians saying I dont want a picture with you, because they may stop me from visiting China, we know that theres a bigger problem and China has been really good at yielding its carrot and stick.

So everyone capitulates. Instead of Britain saying, You know what? Thats it. Done. No politicians. In fact, China has sanctioned five British politicians because of their criticism of China. That basis on its own should exclude British parliamentarians from accepting any trips to China until thats those sanctions have been lifted. They werent sanctioned for corruption. They werent sanctioned for human rights abuse. They werent sanctioned for theft or for criminal activity. There were sanctions for speaking out against something the country did. On that basis alone, there should be no delegation of elected officials to China or Hong Kong. There should be no official visits, and it should be the number one talking point. Remove the sanctions on our Parliamentarians. Thats it.

More here:
Trial of Jimmy Lai: 'It's About Freedom and Democracy,' Says Hong Kong Freedom Committee Director - JURIST

Tags: