Why on earth would ANY NATION TOLERATE THIS?? Especially in these times when the threat of WAR is all around us. THIS IS A SERIOUS BREECH OF SECURITY!! IT MUST BE ELIMINATED IMMEDIATELY!!! THIS IS NO JOKE!
How did they get here?? How are they moving about freely in our Country?? SO much for Homeland Security.
If you have not seen my original article on the Chinese Police in the USA, check it out below:
Chinese Police Establishing Presence in the USA? Are they hoisting the “Red” Flag?
spacer
China Has Opened Up Secret Police Stations in These Countries
Beijing’s law enforcement tactics beyond its borders are under scrutiny after a report revealed dozens of cities—including New York—were hosting Chinese overseas police stations.
A pilot program run by the public security bureaus of Fuzhou and Qingtian counties—of coastal Fujian and Zhejiang provinces, respectively—had established 54 “overseas police service centers” across five continents, 25 cities and 21 countries as of June 21, according to Spain-based NGO Safeguard Defenders.
The overseas service stations were created in the name of combating transnational crime, especially telecommunications fraud, which has already seen the arrest of a large number of Chinese nationals living abroad. Their stated tasks also include the provision of administrative services, such as the renewal of Chinese driver’s licenses, the report said.
Safeguard Defenders said China’s policing tactics were problematic as they targeted suspects without firmly establishing links to crime or adhering to due process in host countries, chiefly by coercing the family members of alleged fugitives as a means to “persuade” them to return on their own.
Between April 2021 and July 2022, Chinese authorities arrested 230,000 suspects this way, the majority from Southeast Asia, the NGO said.
In the United States, the report’s open-source data indicated one such service center in New York City. In Canada, three were established in Toronto. (how safe does it make you feel that this was not discovered by any of the multiple 3 Letter Agencies, or any of the thousands of “police” forces/departments but by a foreign NGO agency??)
In South America, there was one each in Quito and Guayaquil, Ecuador; Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, Brazil; Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Viña del Mar, Chile.
Most of the Chinese overseas police stations were located in Europe, including nine in Spain, the most of any country on the list: three in Madrid, three in Barcelona, two in Valencia and one in Santiago de Compostela.
Italy was hosting the second-most stations in Europe with four: Rome, Milan, Florence and Prato.
In France, three service centers were operating out of Paris. Portugal also hosted one each in Porto, Lisbon and Madeira. In United Kingdom, the report found two in London and one in Glasgow.
The Netherlands was hosting two such centers in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, respectively, while the Czech Republic had two in Prague. Budapest, Hungary, also had two, one for each of the Fuzhou and Qingtian police bureaus—a common phenomenon across Europe.
European countries each hosting only one Chinese police station included Dublin, Ireland; Bratislava, Slovakia; Frankfurt, Germany; Athens, Greece; Stockholm, Sweden; Vienna, Austria; Odessa, Ukraine; and Belgrade, Serbia.
In Africa, Benin City, Nigeria; Maseru, Lesotho; and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, each hosted one.
In Asia, at least one police center was operating out of Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia; Sirdaryo, Uzbekistan; Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei; Tokyo, Japan; and Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Safeguard Defenders’ September report, 110 Overseas, said the open-source figures represented a partial list of activities linked only to the two police bureaus, and that there were likely many more associated with the police of other major Chinese cities.
The overseas stations are often embedded in overseas Chinese community associations, the report said. The number 110 dials the police in China.
A more concerning factor of Chinese police operations on foreign soil, however, is Beijing’s targeting of political dissenters and others likely to be subject to persecution once “persuaded” to return home, said the NGO.
“Persuasion to return” allows the authorities to skip juridical protocol such as protecting the target’s right to a fair trial, it said.
“These operations eschew official bilateral police and judicial cooperation and violate the international rule of law, and may violate the territorial integrity of third countries involved in setting up a parallel policing mechanism using illegal methods,” the report said.
“Abandoning any pretext of due process or the consideration of suspects’ innocence until proven guilty, targeting suspects’ children and relatives in China as ‘guilty by association’ or ‘collateral damage,’ and using threats and intimidation to target suspects abroad, is now itself becoming an endemic problem,” it said.
“Whether the targets are dissidents, corrupt officials or low-level criminals, the problem remains the same: The use of irregular methods—often combining carrots with sticks—against the targeted individual or their family members in China undermines any due process and the most basic rights of suspects,” Safeguard Defenders concluded.
Earlier in October, Spanish newspaper El Correo corroborated some of the NGO’s concerns when it quoted an unnamed Chinese diplomat as saying: “The bilateral treaties are very cumbersome and Europe is reluctant to extradite to China. I don’t see what is wrong with pressuring criminals to face justice…”
In January, in response to another Safeguard Defenders report, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said: “China’s judicial and law enforcement authorities strictly abide by international rules, fully respect the judicial sovereignty of other countries.”
A spokesperson said the NGO’s findings were “rife with speculation and lies.”
A group of House Republicans expressed their “grave concern” over the report in a letter dated October 7 and addressed it to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Attorney General Merrick Garland.
“It is deeply troubling that the Chinese government could use these service stations as its long arm policing abroad,” they said.
The service centers “coerce purported Chinese fugitives abroad to return to China to face legal proceedings,” the letter read. “By doing so, China avoids scrutiny on its human rights record in relation to repatriating alleged fugitives overseas by eschewing formal international cooperation mechanisms.”
On the New York City branch in particular, the congressmen requested response to questions including whether the departments of State or Justice had approved the police presence.
“There should be no room for the Chinese government to exercise extraterritorial law enforcement unilaterally on U.S. soil,” they said.
The State Department and the office of New York City Mayor Eric Adams didn’t return Newsweek‘s request for comment before publication.
China’s secret police have invaded American shores: human rights advocate
China’s reported transnational policing will ‘escalate very quickly’ unless governments take action
VIDEO IS AVAILABLE TO VIEW BY CLICKING THE LINK BELOW:
China’s reported overseas police network shows Beijing is expanding its global reach
Laura Harth of Safeguard Defenders warns that China’s reported police service stations abroad are expanding the communist regime’s international footprint.
China’s reported overseas police service stations and their operations to persuade citizens to return to the homeland mark a dangerous expansion of the regime’s international reach, according to a human rights advocate.
Safeguard Defenders, a pan-Asian human rights organization, published an investigation last month detailing a Chinese campaign to combat “fraud and telecom fraud” crimes committed by its citizens living abroad. The report indicated that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has established at least 54 police stations across 30 different countries, including the U.S.
“I think it shows how brazen the CCP is getting and how little regard they have for other governments,” Laura Harth, Safeguard Defenders’ campaign manager, told Fox News. “It’s in violation of international law, it’s in violation of territorial sovereign.”
The police stations are mostly located in Western Europe, but four are in North America, including one in New York City, according to the report. They allow Chinese authorities to “carry out policing operations on foreign soil,” Hart said.
Through its “110 Overseas” campaign, the Chinese Foreign Ministry of Security has reportedly persuaded over 230,000 overseas Chinese suspects to return to the mainland and face criminal charges. (VCG/VCG via Getty Images)
“Obviously this shows how unaware, how naïve certain governments are, or choose to be at this stage,” Harth told Fox News. “European authorities are severely lacking in awareness and willingness to act on or even look into it.”
Since the campaign launched in April 2021, 230,000 Chinese nationals have been “persuaded to return” home to face criminal prosecution, according to the Ministry of Public Security in China.
“A big part of this transnational policing repression campaign is also aiming at silencing the community, silencing dissent, making sure that people are afraid enough,” Harth told Fox News.
Some reported tactics used to compel Chinese nationals to return include threatening and intimidating family members in China. A suspect’s children can be banned from attending school, and their family’s bank accounts can be frozen and their property confiscated.
US WARNS ABOUT FOREIGN EFFORTS TO SWAY AMERICAN VOTERS
Suspects in telecoms scams are brought back to China from Cambodia as the CCP cracks down on fraud committed by its citizens overseas. (Xinhua News Agency / Contributor)
“They will interrogate people, maybe detain people,” Harth said. “There’s also guilt by association. There are accounts of people being prosecuted or arrested for the presumed charges against their family members” abroad.
China will “do anything really to convince them to persuade their family members to come back,” she added. “Nothing seems to be too impressive or too harsh” for the CCP.
If those tactics fail, the CCP will deploy its international officers to directly approach the suspect as a means of “persuasion,” according to Harth.
“That’s a clear message to anyone seeking to leave China, already having left China, that you’re not safe anywhere,” she said.
CHINA STILL BENEFITS FROM RUSSIA RELATIONSHIP, EVEN WITH INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION AT RISK: EXPERTS
China’s reported extradition missions operate without knowledge or approval from the local government, Harth told Fox News.
China’s reported overseas police stations are located across 30 countries, including one in New York City. (Xinhua News Agency / Contributor)
“This is obviously completely illegal. This is no regular international police cooperation,” she said. “These have been set up without any knowledge of local authorities, without any requests.”
The Chinese government has claimed that the stations provide services to its citizens living abroad, like renewing IDs and driver’s licenses, the Chinese embassy told The Irish Times. While that may be true in part, Harth said, the stations are largely used to enhance China’s overseas law enforcement capabilities.
“We know that they’re building on an existing network of United Front work organizations,” Harth said. “This may escalate very quickly, if not stopped right at the beginning.”
Teny Sahakian is an Associate Producer/Writer for Fox News. Follow Teny on Twitter at @tenysahakian.
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
spacer
TCS WIRE
TCS WIREOctober 24, 2022ADD TO BOOKMARKS
The DOJ announced espionage-related charges against multiple Chinese spies on Monday and hinted at more actions, leading to speculation that it will remove all Chinese “police” stations in the US – like the three in Toronto.
“In three separate cases in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey,” their website reads, “the Justice Department has charged 13 individuals, including members of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) security and intelligence apparatus and their agents, for alleged efforts to unlawfully exert influence in the United States for the benefit of the government of the PRC.”
One incident involves Chinese spies intimidating and harassing an expat to return home to China.
Additionally, two spies remain at large but have been charged with attempting to obstruct a criminal prosecution in Eastern New York.
“The defendants believed they had recruited a US employee as an asset. But in fact, the individual they recruited was actually a double agent working on behalf of the FBI.”
“This was an egregious attempt by PRC intelligence officers.”
Other charges were for Chinese spies “masquerading” as professors who tried to steal sensitive documents.
“These cases highlight the threat the PRC government poses to our institutions and the rights of people in the United States,” the DOJ stated.
The DOJ further suggested more actions will come, leading to speculation that Chinese “police” stations (as in multiple stations they already know exist) in the US will be shut down.
Last month, Fox News reported that China has 54 different “police” stations in 34 countries, including Canada and the US.
Earlier this month, The Counter Signal reported on Chinese dissidents in Canada demanding the Canadian government take action against the police stations.
Co-founder and trustee of Hong Kong Watch, Aileen Calverley, said she’s “frightened” because there are Chinese police where she lives in Milton, Ontario.
Witness testifies on Chinese police stations operating in Canada:
“They are openly doing that because there is no legislation, nothing to deter them, nothing to punish them. They can intimidate people like us. I’ve been living in Canada for many decades. Now, I feel frightened.” https://t.co/r1U4ltqlYs pic.twitter.com/X4xViwd3Ig
— The Real Andy Lee Show (@RealAndyLeeShow) October 5, 2022
“There’s no legislation,” Calverley stated. “There’s nothing to deter them. Nothing to punish them.”
“So I think Canada really needs to look into this. Because they are Chinese police. So they should be considered as agents.” (spies)
spacer
The communist dictatorship of China has now reportedly set up “overseas police service stations,” including in the United States, to monitor Chinese citizens living abroad. One such location is in New York City, and three in Toronto, Canada.
“As these operations continue to develop, and new mechanisms are set up, it is evident that countries governed by the standards set by universal human rights and the rule of law urgently need to investigate these practices to identify the (local) actors at work, mitigate the risks and effectively protect the growing number of those targeted,” the report concludes.
Chinese Secret Police Targeted US Army Vet on American Soil, Attempted to Interfere in Election: DOJ
Chinese secret police and their agents are stalking, harassing, intimidating, and conspiring to commit violence against pro-democracy activists and Chinese dissidents on U.S. soil, according to three new criminal cases unsealed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on March 16.
The efforts include a plot to interfere in a Congressional election, covert attempts to arrest enemies of the Chinese Communist Party, and surveillance operations to spy on anti-communist activists.
“These cases expose attempts by the government of the People’s Republic of China [PRC] to suppress dissenting voices within the United States,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Matthew Olsen during a press conference, referring to the Chinese regime’s official name.
“They demonstrate how the PRC seeks to stalk, intimidate, and silence those who oppose them.”
Five individuals were charged in relation to schemes to harass and spy on ethnic Chinese in the United States critical of the communist regime.
An Alleged Plot Against a Congressional Candidate
In one of the cases, federal prosecutors said that Lin Qiming, an alleged Chinese agent, contracted a private investigator (PI) in New York to manufacture a political scandal in the hopes of undermining the Congressional campaign of Yan Xiong, who is currently seeking the Democratic nomination to run for Congress representing a district in Long Island.
Yan is a naturalized American citizen and Army veteran who served two tours in Iraq. He has long been a target of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for his participation as a student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and for his later support of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
Lin’s arrest warrant details his efforts to use a private investigator to implicate Yan in prostitution, tax evasion, and possession of child pornography. Failing that, Lin encouraged the PI to physically harm Yan by either beating him or forcing him into a car accident.
“If you don’t find anything after following him for a few weeks, can we manufacture something,” Lin said in one recorded call, according to the court document.
“But in the end, violence would be fine too,” Lin said in a voice message. “Beat him. Beat him until he cannot run for election.”
The warrant said Lin was a retired Chinese intelligence agent who continued to perform work for the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS), the regime’s top intelligence agency.
Lin also suggested that the PI hire an attractive woman to become a volunteer for Yan and then implicate him in prostitution. When the PI told Lin it would cost $40,000 to carry out the job, Lin responded, “No problem. The money is not a problem.”
Lin further encouraged the PI to use “cops, or lawyers, or the courts” to put pressure on Yan and said, “We will have a lot more of this in the future,” according to the court filing. He added, “Right now we don’t want him to be elected.”
Despite assuring the PI that money was not an issue, however, the CCP’s bureaucracy apparently interfered with the effort, and Lin later told the PI he couldn’t get the $40,000, the court document said.
“Because the Communist Party, as you know,” Lin said, “it’s not just one person who can call the shots.”
Targeting Chinese Dissidents
In another case, spanning from January 2021 to March 2022, Liu Fan, Matthew Ziburis, and Sun Qiang allegedly conducted a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Chinese dissidents and pro-democracy activists living in America, according to the Justice Department.
The campaign involved gathering derogatory information on dissidents in order to humiliate or otherwise discredit them in the eyes of the public.
Like the Lin case, those involved allegedly relied on private investigators whom they hired to stalk, surveil, and intimidate ethnic Chinese living in America, ultimately spending over $100,000 in the process.
The scheme, the DOJ said, included attempted bribes to Internal Revenue Service officials in order to obtain dissidents’ tax information, and a conspiracy to destroy a sculpture that depicted Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping as a coronavirus molecule.
In one instance, the defendants conspired to use Liu’s business, a New York-based media corporation, to gain access to interviews with tags while posing as journalists, according to court documents.
In one message, Liu told the others to say they were employed by “a very rich Jewish man [and] head of [the] Jewish community,” the court filing said, and told them to imply that this fictitious Jewish man was a large donor to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s political campaigns.
The DOJ’s third case alleged that Wang Shujun, a naturalized U.S. citizen and former visiting scholar, compiled information on pro-democracy activists and Chinese dissidents living in the United States and disseminated it to the MSS.
According to the case file, Wang, 73, was a long-time member of the Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang Memorial Foundation, a pro-democracy group based in Queens, New York.
From January 2016 through August 2021, however, Wang is alleged to have secretly operated as a CCP agent, using his position in the foundation to collect private information on activists which he then delivered to his handlers in the Chinese regime.
At least one person whose information Wang gave to the MSS was later arrested by the CCP when traveling to Hong Kong, according to prosecutors.
‘Transnational Repression’
The three cases come just a month after the Biden Administration’s decision to terminate the Trump-era “China Initiative,” an anti-espionage campaign that critics accused of racially profiling Chinese Americans.
Olsen said that the new cases were part of the Justice Department’s new nation-state-oriented approach, and that the department would defend the nation against repressive efforts by the Chinese communist regime to violate America’s sovereignty.
“For the Justice Department, defending American institutions and values against these threats is a national security imperative,” Olsen said. “Transnational repression is part of the range of tactics that our adversaries employ to try to undermine our democracy, our economy, and our institutions.
“This activity is antithetical to American values. We will not tolerate such repression here when it violates our laws.”
Likewise, Breon Peace, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, noted that each of the new cases dealt with efforts by the Chinese regime to explicitly target supporters of democracy, and especially ethnic Chinese who were critical of the communist regime that currently rules the mainland.
“All of these victims were targeted because of their pro-democracy views, because they chose to exercise their freedom of speech here in the United States,” Peace said.
“The complaints unsealed today reveal the outrageous and dangerous lengths to which the PRC government’s secret police and these defendants have gone to attack the rule of law and freedom in New York City and elsewhere in the United States.”
Three of the defendants were arrested over the past two days, while Sun and Lin remain at large.
By Isabel Vincent
October 8, 2022 1:02pm
Updated
A Chinese police station set up to spy on the country’s nationals in Lower Manhattan is run by a US charity that is on an IRS blacklist, The Post has learned.
The non-profit America ChangLe Association NY Inc. owns and operates the “service station” located above a noodle shop on the third floor of 107 East Broadway on the Lower East Side, according to public filings.
In May, the IRS yanked the group’s tax-exempt status for its failure to submit tax filings for three straight years, according to public records.
The non-profit, which was incorporated in New York in 2013 and listed its charitable mission as a “social gathering place for Fujianese people,” paid $1.3 million three years later for the suite of offices that houses the Fuzhou Police Overseas Chinese Affairs bureau, filings show. (SO, in operation since 2013, official POLICE STATION as of 2016)
The Manhattan station is part of a web of more than 100 such law enforcement offices set up around the world by the People’s Republic of China, ostensibly to help Chinese nationals renew their government-issued identification and drivers’ licenses.
But the stations have more “sinister” purposes, such as spying on the Chinese diaspora for the Chinese Communist Party, according to a recent whistle-blower report.
“Openly labeled as overseas police service stations … they contribute to ‘resolutely cracking down on all kinds of illegal and criminal activities involving overseas Chinese,’” according to a September report by Safeguard Defenders, a Madrid-based human rights group that documents Chinese repression around the world.
The stations also participate in “intimidation, harassment, detention or imprisonment” to spy on dissenters and return migrants, according to the report.
In addition to New York, Safeguard Defenders found two Chinese police stations in Paris, three in Toronto, two in London and five scattered in the Spanish cities of Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia. The report accuses these stations of involvement in forcibly “returning” more than 200,000 overseas nationals to China.
The news of the Manhattan-based Chinese police station was greeted with outrage from Republican lawmakers Friday, who sent a letter to US Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, according to a report.
“The Department of Justice and State Department must explain why the Biden administration has allowed CCP police to set up an office on US soil,” said Republican Study Committee chairman Jim Banks of Indiana in a statement to Fox News.
A spokeswoman for Safeguard Defenders called the overseas stations a violation of international law and territorial sovereignty Friday.
“I think it shows how brazen the CCP is getting and how little regard they have for other governments,” Laura Harth, Safeguard Defenders’ campaign manager, told Fox News.
A US government watchdog condemned the use of the Manhattan non-profit as what it framed as a front for the police station.
“The use of an off-the-books cultural non-profit is a cynical ploy that weaponizes American values of community and cultural identity to covertly attack and harass innocent people is something all of our elected officials need to focus on and allocate resources to put an end to,” said Tom Anderson, director of the Government Integrity Project at the National Legal and Policy Center, a Virginia-based government watchdog group.
Calls to America ChangLe Association NY Inc’s president Harry Lu were not returned this week.
The non-profit listed donations of $135,950 and total assets of $1.1 million on its 2018 filing to the IRS — the last one it apparently filed.
In order to keep a better watch on Chinese nationals living abroad, Chinese government authorities have opened an “overseas police service station” in New York City, as first reported by the human rights organization Safeguard Defenders.
Officially, the branch in New York City was established by the Public Security Bureau in Fuzhou, the capital city of the Fujian province. Other provincial governments in China have organized police branches in numerous foreign cities.
In a report entitled “110 Overseas: Chinese Transnational Policing Gone Wild,” Safeguard Defenders took a deep dive into the specifics of the initiative, discovering that the plan began with stations being set up by 10 “pilot provinces” in 2018. These stations also are called 110 Overseas, 110 being the Chinese equivalent of 911.
“These operations eschew official bilateral police and judicial cooperation and violate the international rule of law, and may violate the territorial integrity in third countries involved in setting up a parallel policing mechanism using illegal methods,” the Spain-based NGO writes in its report.
For its part, Safeguard Defenders knows firsthand about the power of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Safeguard Defenders’ predecessor, China Action, was forced to close in 2016 after Chinese authorities targeted it in a violent crackdown resulting in the detainment, death, and disappearance of many of the group’s key staff members.
The CCP-affiliated police station set up in Manhattan was one of the “first batch” of 30 overseas police service stations established in 21 countries, with operations beginning on February 15, according to Chinese news reports controlled by the Fujian government. The office in New York City is officially called the Fuzhou Police Overseas Service Station and is physically located on Broadway, sharing space with American ChangLe Association (ACA), a separate NGO, itself affiliated closely with the CCP.
As remarkable as it sounds, given that this police station is located literally within the territory of the United States, how many such stations might be operating within the United States is unknown.
“There is no complete list of such ‘110 Overseas’ police service stations available, the Safeguard Defenders report reveals. “The number is undoubtedly larger and such stations more widespread.”
As for ACA, it began in 1998 and is aimed at influencing the government of the United States to officially recognize Taiwan as part of a unified China.
The ACA in Manhattan is merely a grassroots front for the Chinese communist regime and is in reality a powerful piece of the CCP’s “united front” system. The “united front” is an umbrella term for the thousands of branches set up by the Chinese government to lobby for CCP interests and to exert influence over the foreign policy of countries where the regime has extended its physical reach. Of course, the unspoken but undeniable purpose for the “united front,” the ACA, and the New York City-based police force is to identify and suppress Chinese dissidents living overseas, including those living in the United States of America.
A secondary, but equally important and invasive purpose is the gathering of intelligence and the transfer of technology.The strength of the ties of the ACA to the CCP is not hidden by the group. In fact, on the ACA website, there is a letter from the Chinese consulate recognizing the work of ACA in facilitating the visit of Xi Jinping to New York City in 2015.
Of course, officially the CCP line is that all of the overseas police stations — including the one in New York City — exist solely for the purpose of helping Chinese nationals living abroad to feel the “care and love” of their homeland, as asserted by ACA Chairman Lu Jianshun in an interview with Chinese outlet, Dongnan News. Of interest in the story is that Lu is named as a member of the staff working at the Manhattan station.
“Care” and “love” are not two words typically associated with the CCP specifically or the ruling regime in general. In August, a report revealed that the Chinese government’s “arbitrary and discriminatory detention” of Uyghurs and other Muslims in its Xinjiang region may constitute crimes against humanity. In other words, same old, same old.
As for the particular policies being surreptitiously carried out by the Chinese police presence in New York City, the Safeguard Defenders report points to a purpose other than the “care and love” of Chinese nationals living abroad.
The hidden agenda of these CCP-affiliated police stations is to “resolutely [crack] down on all kinds of illegal and criminal activities involving overseas Chinese,” the report reveals. There are stories of other stations being “implicated in collaborating with Chinese police in carrying out policing operations on foreign soil,” the group said.
Of course, this sort of personal intimidation by Chinese police on American soil is reprehensible. The Safeguard Defenders exposé additionally claims that the stations exist to persuade Chinese nationals to return home to their families.
“These methods allow the CCP and their security organs to circumvent normal bilateral mechanisms of police and judicial cooperation, thereby severely undermining the international rule of law and territorial integrity of the third countries involved,” the report reveals.
“It leaves legal Chinese residents abroad fully exposed to extra-legal targeting by the Chinese police, with little to none of the protection theoretically ensured under both national and international law.”
This circumvention of international law by the Chinese Communist regime must not be tolerated, particularly within the territory of the United States. Furthermore, the activities of the ACA and the Chinese police stations should be immediately exposed and all officials working with these groups should be expelled by the Biden administration.
To that end, Representatives Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) and Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), along with Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks of Indiana, have reportedly sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding to know how the Fuzhou police were able to open a branch of that force in New York City.
Banks said in a statement to Fox News Digital that “the Department of Justice and State Department must explain why the Biden administration has allowed CCP (Chinese Communist Party) police to set up an office on US soil.” He continued, “When Republicans take back the House, we will hold the Biden administration accountable for their continued efforts to aid and abet the Chinese Communist Party,” as reported by Fox News.
As of the time of writing this story, neither the White House nor any of the Biden administration agencies have commented on the physical presence of a Chinese-regime affiliated police station in the United States.
spacer
Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital it is “mind-boggling that we are allowing China’s Fuzhou police to operate on American soil.
“The Chinese Communist Party uses these stations to go after political dissidents abroad, while also endangering the national security of the United States,” Waltz said in a statement. “We must protect the American people and Chinese freedom activists from the CCP’s gross abuse of the American justice system,” he added.
Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., in a statement warned that the Chinese Communist Party “has used Fuzhou overseas police service stations to push propaganda and spy on Chinese citizens abroad.”
“The presence of one of these stations in New York City not only raises serious human rights concerns, but also raises concerns about whether the United States is allowing a hostile foreign adversary to conduct its own law enforcement activities within our borders,” he said.
“The State Department must divulge the extent of their knowledge of this station, its actions against American-Chinese citizens and communities, and the threat it may pose to our national security,” he added.
The IRS in May pulled the group’s tax-exempt status for its failure to submit tax filings for three years, according to public records.
ChangeLe Association NY Inc., which was incorporated in New York in 2013, paid $1.3 million three years later for the suite of offices that houses the Fuzhou Police Overseas Chinese Affairs bureau, the New York Post reported.
Chinese ‘police stations’ in Canada under investigation
China has denied accusations of illegal activity
Canadian federal police said Thursday they are investigating reports that China has set up illegal police stations in the North American nation and harassed Chinese expatriates.
Several local media, citing Spain-based human rights group Safeguard Defenders, reported this week that the police posts in a residential home, a single-storey commercial building and a convenience store in the Toronto area are among 54 worldwide.
China, however, denied accusations of illegal activity, saying the locations simply offer services – such as driver’s license renewals – to Chinese nationals abroad.
In an email to AFP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said it was “investigating reports of criminal activity in relation to the so-called ‘police’ stations.”
“The RCMP takes threats to the security of individuals living in Canada very seriously and is aware that foreign states may seek to intimidate or harm communities or individuals within Canada,” it added.
The Netherlands has launched a similar probe.
According to Safeguard Defenders, the police stations have been used by Chinese police to carry out policing operations on foreign soil, and pressure Chinese nationals to return to China to face criminal charges.
In a September report, the NGO said the stations “serve a far more sinister and wholly illegal purpose“ than Beijing has acknowledged, including tracking and pursuing targets.
It said a total 230,000 Chinese nationals were returned to China, mostly from countries in Asia, through these methods, which included “threats and harassment to family members back home or directly to the target abroad,” between April 2021 and July 2022.
A recently unsealed indictment in the United States in a case of foreign interference against seven Chinese nationals described an example of a person accused of embezzlement and living in Canada who was in 2018 pressed into returning to China, and eventually went “despite initially not wanting to go back.”
The Chinese government coordinated some of the US operation from Toronto, it is alleged in the court documents.
Canada’s public broadcaster, meanwhile, said a journalist and rights activist who moved to Canada from China in 1989 claimed to have been repeatedly targeted by Chinese officials online.
“Now the Chinese police station (is) here, just a few kilometres from me, so I am asking myself, where else I can escape to,” the activist, Sheng Xue, told CBC.
China’s foreign ministry said the reports were “completely false”. Spokeswoman Mao Ning added that its public security agencies “strictly abide by international law and fully respect the judicial sovereignty of other countries”.
China’s embassy in Ottawa said these offices are staffed by “local volunteers, and not Chinese police officers,” who assist with eye exams for their driver’s license renewal, for example.
“They are not involved in any criminal investigation or relevant activity,” it said in a statement.
230,000 prisoners returned to China through these stations, against their will.
spacer
China has illegally opened at least two “police stations” in the Netherlands since 2018 in an attempt to pressure Chinese dissidents, RTL Nieuws and Follow the Money revealed Tuesday.
The so-called overseas service stations offer diplomatic services to Chinese Dutch citizens, such as renewing their driving licenses — but they also attempt to silence Chinese dissidents in Europe, the media outlets reported, citing a Chinese victim named Wang Jingyu.
Wang told Dutch journalists his story, saying that he fled to the Netherlands after he was followed by police in China for criticizing the regime on social media. But when he arrived, the Chinese police station in Rotterdam asked him “to go back to China to solve my problems,” adding that he should also consider his family.
“These agencies are illegal,” a spokesman from the Dutch foreign ministry said, adding that the government is going to investigate and take “appropriate actions.”
While the Chinese embassy told reporters that they are not aware of the existence of the stations in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the Dutch media outlets point to Chinese reports according to which a senior embassy official was present at a meeting where the establishment of the Amsterdam outpost was discussed.
The revelations come after a Spanish human rights organization — Safeguard Defenders — released a report in September on Chinese police stations abroad.
According to the report, Chinese authorities have “established a series of overseas police ‘service stations’ across five continents, but mainly in Europe. These provide administrative services, but have also been active in ‘covert and illegal policing,’” the organization stated.
Wilhelmine Preussen / www.politico.eu
spacer
spacer
With Acquisition of California Port, China Broadens Influence on US Commerce
We know the country aims to subvert our world power and economic dominance. We must not let them.
spacer
|
The UAE purchase of American port facilities Who owns the United States ports? – NBC News |
Before the UAE controversy erupted, most Americans probably did not know that many US ports are already owned or run by private corporations, some of which are owned by foreign governments. According to the New York Times, foreign-based companies own and/or manage over 30% of US port terminals. According to Time Magazine, over 80% of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign-owned companies, including the government of Singapore. In fact, APL Limited, controlled by the Singapore government, operates ports in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Chinese government-owned companies control terminals in the Port of Los Angeles and other West Coast ports, as well as both ends of the Panama Canal.
You don’t have to be an economic nationalist to think that certain strategic infrastructure should not be owned by foreign companies, particularly those owned by foreign governments. Ports certainly fit into that category. Other examples include airports, railroads, and nuclear power plants. If we’re going to sell off strategic facilities to foreign companies and governments, why not sell off the FAA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, or the New York City Police? (I’m sure some Saudi or Chinese security personnel know how to crack heads better than New York’s finest.)
Senators Clinton and Menendez have announced that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. But they should go one step further. Profit-making corporations, foreign or domestic, should not be allowed to own key strategic infrastructure. Corporation’s responsibility is to their shareholders, not to the nation. If there’s a conflict between security and profits, profits will come first. Strategic infrastructure should be owned and controlled by institutions that put the interests of the American people above profits. This could take the form of government ownership, or more likely ownership by non-profit joint government/private entities.
In the end, the issue comes down to the Bush Administration’s ideology of privatizing everything from social security to port ownership.
The Democrats, if they’re not too timid, should expand congressional hearings on the UAE deal to include the larger issues of port security and the ownership and control of America’s strategic infrastructure. They should make clear that while Bush may sacrifice constitutional liberties in the name of national security, he will sacrifice national security to further the interests of the global business elite.
spacer
Critics of the Dubai Ports World deal have suggested that U.S. ports should be run by U.S. companies. But the vast majority of port terminals are leased and run by foreign companies and that’s unlikely to change.
DON GONYEA, host:
With Democratic and Republican politicians challenging a Bush Administration plan to hire a company from Dubai to manage terminals at six American ports, the company this weekend said it was willing to wait 45 days to allow for a more extensive security investigation, that according to the Associated Press.
Several politicians have suggested that no foreign company should manage operations at United States ports. NPR’s Adam Davidson looked into how many American port terminals are managed by foreign companies, and what it would take to ensure that only American companies manage American ports.
ADAM DAVIDSON reporting:
There are about 15 major ports in the U.S. Each is divided into a handful of separately operated terminals. That makes roughly 100 terminals.
SSA Marine is the single biggest U.S.-owned terminal operator.
Mr. BOB WATERS (Vice President, SSA Marine): We operate seven of those terminals.
DAVIDSON: Bob Waters is SSA Vice President. And let me repeat what he just said: the biggest U.S.-owned terminal operator manages seven terminals. The next biggest? That’s Maher Terminals, in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They manage one terminal. Waters says about a dozen are managed by city or state governments.
Mr. WATERS: Other than that, the rest of the terminals, which comprises about 80 percent of those terminals we’re talking about, are operated by foreign entities, primarily shipping lines.
DAVIDSON: So United States companies have eight, foreign companies have 80. Those companies managing U.S. terminals are all over the world, in China, Denmark, Singapore, South Korea.
Could SSA Marine, the nation’s biggest terminal manager, take over a significant number of those foreign managed ports?
Mr. WATERS: Well, it would be an interesting challenge.
DAVIDSON: It wouldn’t be a challenge, says Peter Tirschwell, publisher of the Journal of Commerce, it would be nearly impossible.
Mr. PETER TIRSCHWELL (Publisher, Journal of Commerce): It would be an extraordinary upheaval, so large as to be difficult to even contemplate it.
DAVIDSON: Imagine that Congress does mandate that only United States companies can operate terminals in U.S. ports, Tirschwell says. There would be two options, and neither is good.
The first is for the handful of existing U.S.-owned companies to take over all foreign owned terminals. That, he says, is simply inconceivable. These companies would have to instantly grow to ten times their current size.
The other option is for U.S. companies in other industries to start offering terminal operation services. That’s equally hard to imagine, Tirschwell says.
Mr. TIRSCHWELL: It’s a very complex business, and the companies that do it, they all do it on the basis of years of management and expertise, you know, literally refined over decades. It’s not the type of business that outsiders traditionally enter.
DAVIDSON: Tirschwell says this isn’t just an issue for people who happen to work at ports. The U.S. way of life, our economy, is based on the fast and free flow of internationally traded goods.
A dramatic transformation of the U.S. port system would all but certainly disrupt that trade, he says, and hurt the U.S. economy.
Joe King, former chief of the Terrorism Unit at U.S. Customs, says government has to secure our ports, even if it comes at a cost.
Mr. JOE KING (Former Chief, U.S. Customs Terrorism Unit): There is always a debate in the U.S. government between trade and security. For the last 20 years, trade is winning it.
DAVIDSON: Even King says that foreign ownership is inevitable. Too much security could cause real pain.
Mr. KING: You’d have containers backed up that you could walk across the Pacific Ocean on, they’d be so tightly packed.
DAVIDSON: Some, like Senator Hillary Clinton, have suggested that the U.S. should allow foreign companies to run U.S. terminals, but forbid companies owned by foreign governments. That’s almost equally impossible, says Tirschwell, of the Journal of Commerce.
He points out that foreign governments have interests in many U.S. ports. The government of Singapore owns most of a company that operates terminals in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Two Chinese companies, both with close ties to the Chinese government, manage terminals in New York, Long Beach, and other places. And the government of Venezuela owns all or part of marine terminal management at ports in Pennsylvania and Maine.
Adam Davidson, NPR News, New York.
spacer
As the world’s largest economy and a major global trade hub, China owns a number of shipping ports across the globe. But does China own a shipping port in the United States? The answer is no. While China does have a number of investments in U.S. ports, including the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, it does not own any outright. However, that doesn’t mean that China doesn’t have a major presence in U.S. ports. In fact, Chinese shipping companies account for a significant portion of the containers that move through U.S. ports each year. And as China continues to grow its economy and expand its trade reach, it’s likely that its presence in U.S. ports will only increase in the years to come.
There have been numerous canceled sailings, stuck vessels, and warehouse prices, demonstrating how hard it is to run a U.S. port. MarineTraffic has reported an increase in the number of vessels anchored off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. More complications are expected at East Coast ports as a result of the Felixstowe strike. Container bookings have decreased as a result of the retreat in manufacturing orders, owing to the congestion at the ports, but the impact of this decline has been skewed by the port congestion. Carriers are increasing the number of blank sailings to prevent the rapid decline in Trans-Pacific spot rates. The strike at Felixstowe has resulted in a $4.7 billion reduction in trade. If the ten percent pay demand is not met, the union Unite has warned that the port disruption could last until Christmas. Amazon, General Mills, Loreal, GSK, Bacardi, Kellogg, Mars Foods, Diageo, and many other businesses use the port to transport their products. This strike will have an impact on U.S. businesses and industries that export to the United Kingdom.
Because the vast majority of shipping companies in the United States are foreign-owned, most U.S. port terminals are operated by foreign companies. According to Flynn, these companies want to build their own terminals to ensure that their ships can discharge and receive new cargo as soon as possible.
The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over navigable waters in the country. Governance is a federal government function carried out by 18 departments and agencies. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are the primary authorities.
Which U.S. Ports Are Owned By China?
State-owned Chinese companies own stakes in five U.S. ports. CMPort, a French firm, owns a minority stake in two Miami and Houston terminals, as does COSCO, which has established joint ventures in Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Seattle.
Ports America operates a marine terminal in North America that handles 13.4 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) each year, making it the largest terminal operator in the region. The company’s operations have been criticized as inefficient due to its long-term debt load. Could CPP Investments, a large pension fund, take over Ports America and improve its operations?
China’s Takeover Of American Ports
Ports America is the largest marine terminal operator in North America, handling 13.4 million twenty-foot equivalent units annually. Under a definitive agreement, Canada Pension Plan Investments (CPP) has agreed to acquire North America’s largest marine terminal operator. CPP Investments will become the largest shareholder in Ports America with a majority stake, making it the first foreign investor in the company. China now owns 96 ports around the world, making it the world’s leading maritime power. According to a recent opinion piece published by the Daily Mail, China’s port development is creating a new era of Chinese maritime hegemony. The piece, which was written by former British Defense and International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox and former U.S. National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, was published Long Beach Container Terminal is the latest Chinese purchase of an U.S. port, following the acquisition of the Port of Los Angeles. There are currently six major container ports in the United States, and the sale of the Port of Long Beach will almost certainly result in the closure of others. Concerns about the future of U.S. ports and the impact of Chinese investment on the American economy are raised as a result of the sale of the Long Beach Container Terminal. In addition to being important for the transportation of goods, ports in the United States are important for the jobs they support. Because of the sale of the Long Beach Container Terminal, several smaller U.S. ports may close, and what replaces them may not be known.
How Many Shipping Ports Does China Own?
There is no definitive answer to this question as the ownership of shipping ports in China is constantly changing. However, according to a recent estimate, China owns approximately 30 shipping ports. These ports are used for both domestic and international shipping purposes, and play a vital role in the Chinese economy.
China is a major shipping and industrial hub in East Asia, with a population of over 1 billion people. The country’s coastline is dotted with numerous small ports and harbors that handle international trade, fishing, containerized goods, ores and minerals, automobiles, and agricultural produce. As a general rule, the top ten ports in China are those with a million tons of cargo and one million TEUs of cargo (see below for an example of the top ten ports). Yangshan is one of the world’s largest automated ports, with a significant portion of its traffic handled by container vessels. Shenzhen is ranked second in the United States and third in the world in terms of cargo thoroughfares. As a feeder port, it serves more than 50 different shipping lines, connects over 130 international routes, and provides nearly 10,000 vessels with transportation. Shenzhen, with over 250 kilometers of coastline, is one of the busiest ports in China.
The sale of Long Beach’s port demonstrates the city’s importance to the global economy. The terminal is one of the busiest container ports on the West Coast, and it is a major import port for the United States. As a result of the sale, the port of Los Angeles continues to decline.
The port of Long Beach has been a significant contributor to the growth of the U.S. economy.
China’s 100+ Ports In 63 Countries
China, as the world’s second-largest economy and a major global maritime power, is eager to acquire and operate strategic ports around the world. China currently owns and operates over 100 ports in more than 63 countries, making it the world’s largest port owner. China has been a player in the shipping industry since its massive accumulation of domestic shipping infrastructure, and its ownership of the seven busiest ports in the world demonstrates its commitment to the industry. China has long been involved in port development projects in Africa, which is not surprising given that it has been involved in this endeavor for a long time. Bata is set to become Equatorial Guinea’s first permanent military presence on West Africa’s coast, making it an important tool for China in its efforts to strengthen its influence throughout West Africa. Because of its strategic location, the port is expected to be a powerful economic tool.
Who Owns The U.S. Ports?
There is no single answer to this question as ports are owned by a variety of entities, including local governments, private companies, and port authorities. In the United States, ports are typically operated by public entities, such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, or by private companies under contract with a public entity.
With the $6.8 billion deal, New York ports, Philadelphia ports, Baltimore ports, New Orleans ports, and Miami ports will be consolidated. These ports have already been run by a British company. P.O was acquired by Dubai Ports World, a subsidiary of the United Arab Emirates. This agreement is responsible for the shipping of 40 percent of Army equipment overseas as a result of World’s purchase of U.S. ports. Legislators requesting that Bush Administration spell out the security concerns and why the deal is not at risk. Despite Secretary Chertoff’s claims of safeguards in place, she would not specify them.
With this acquisition, CPP Investments has expanded its presence in the U.S. logistics market and improved its competitive position in the industry. CPP Investments operates the world’s largest private port and the second largest in the United States. There are sixteen ports in the United States where the company operates terminals, including New York, New Orleans, and Miami. Furthermore, James A. Roche, president and CEO of the American Logistics Association, stated that the acquisition of Ports America by CPP Investments is a logical step that will further strengthen the company’s position in the U.S. The announcement is a positive sign for the industry as well as for U.S. businesses that rely on ocean transportation for the delivery of their goods. The transaction is also a win for the U.S. economy because it expands CPP Investments’ footprint and strengthens its competitive position in an increasingly competitive logistics sector. The U.S. ports sector has been a driver of economic growth for the last few years, and this deal will ensure that it continues to do so in the future.
Which U.s. Ports Does China Own
Although China does not own any U.S. ports, it does have a major investment in the Port of Long Beach, which is one of the busiest ports in the United States. China’s investment in the port began in 2008, when the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) purchased a majority stake in the port’s operations. COSCO’s investment has helped to improve the efficiency of the port and has made it a major hub for Chinese trade.
In 2018 alone, China acquired over 20 deep water and air ports from several countries around the world.
China was able to do so by lending those countries massive amounts of money they can never repay.
The country is accused of leveraging massive loans it holds over small states worldwide to snatch assets and increase its military footprint.
Developing countries from Pakistan to Djibouti, the Maldives to Fiji, all owe huge amounts to China. Already there are examples of defaulters being pressured into surrendering control of assets or allowing military bases on their land.
Some are calling it “debt-trap diplomacy” or “debt colonialism” – offering enticing loans to countries unable to repay, and then demanding concessions when they default.
Many of these projects are linked to the “Belt and Road” initiative – a bold project to create trade route. The initiative is being pushed by China as a grand plan to connect Asia with other parts of the world through massive infrastructural projects. Under the initiative, over 70 countries appear to benefit from multimillion-dollar soft loans from China for the construction of roads, bridges, airports, deep water ports and other infrastructure.
So far, the Belt and Road Initiative has left a trail of failed projects, which furthers nations’ dependence on China. Cambodia joins nations like Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
Yet, the Government of Guyana recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU) with the People’s Republic of China to join the Initiative.
Now, China has ports in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East.
John Gallagher
Testifying at a recent congressional hearing in Washington on China’s Maritime Silk Road initiative, Carolyn Bartholomew, chair of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said China can use its financial control at foreign ports to create markets through which it can strengthen its trade relationships.
“By owning and/or operating a network of logistical nodes across Asia, Europe and Africa, China can control a significant portion of its inbound supply chain for essential commodities and outbound trade routes for its exports,” Bartholomew said during the Oct. 17 hearing. “In the event of conflict, China could use its control over these and other ports to hinder trade access to other countries.”
Bartholomew cited data revealing that at least two-thirds of the world’s top 50 container ports are owned by the Chinese or supported by Chinese investments, up from roughly 20% a decade ago. Those investments include terminals at major U.S. container ports in Los Angeles and Seattle.
Officials at the Chinese state-owned COSCO, among the world’s largest container shipping lines, acknowledged in 2018 that the company had connected its shipping routes along its Maritime Silk Road with emerging regional markets in West Africa, Northern Europe, the Caribbean and the U.S. “to form a more comprehensive and balanced globalized network layout.”
U.S. ports’ reliance on Chinese manufacturers for container gantry cranes is part of the investment concern, according to Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-Calif., whose district includes the Port of Long Beach. Lowenthal pointed out during the hearing that because of that reliance, U.S. ports have pleaded with the Trump administration to exempt gantry cranes from Chinese tariffs.
“I think having us dependent on any one source is a problem, especially when that source is a country that doesn’t necessarily see us as a friend,” Bartholomew warned. “We have certainly seen them use economic leverage in the tariff wars that are taking place.” She added that China could use that leverage to achieve diplomatic and political gains and potentially “shut down our ports.”
The economic threat can also affect military readiness, testified Lt. General Giovanni Tuck, director for logistics with the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“There was a time when all we needed to do was look at physical port security, something the U.S. Coast Guard is very equipped to do,” Tuck said. “But now we’re talking about the resiliency of a port and the cyber threat that can go with that, including with these mega cranes.” Tuck said that as the person responsible for moving American military forces to U.S. ports prior to an overseas mission, “the last thing you want is to have something happen at that port whereby they can’t actually leave.”
Chad Sbragia, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for China, added that at a strategic level, “it’s important to make sure you’re measuring the cost and implications of these kind of issues, and in the past we haven’t. That’s something we have to do earlier.”
John Garamendi, D-Calif., used the opportunity to try to muster support for a bill he’s sponsoring that would require a certain minimum amount of U.S. oil and liquefied natural gas exports be moved on U.S.-built and U.S.-flagged ships – a proposal he wants to see tied to a U.S.-China trade deal.
By promoting growth in U.S.-flag shipping, the legislation could also help reduce reliance on Chinese vessels to fuel American warships, Garamendi said.
“You’ve got a serious problem – you don’t have American ships under American control to fuel the U.S. Navy,” he told Tuck. But having the Department of Defense support his legislation, Garamendi said, could “lead to the construction of maybe 50 U.S.-flagged, -owned and -built vessels, thereby solving part of the problem.”
At the outset of the hearing, Sean Maloney (D-New York), noted that, in contrast to China’s Maritime Silk Road plans, neither of the last two U.S. presidential administrations had created a legislatively mandated National Maritime Strategy. “Perhaps today’s hearing will prompt MarAd [the U.S. Maritime Administration] to meet the latest statutory deadline” of the plan by February next year, he said.
Responding to a request for comment, a MarAd official told FreightWaves that the agency “is working towards meeting the February 2020 deadline set by Congress.”
September 13, 2021 3:49 PM
Earlier this month, operations at Israel’s port of Haifa, one of the largest maritime transport hubs in Mediterranean, were handed over to China’s state-run Shanghai International Port Group to run for the next 25 years.
Another gigantic Chinese shipping company, COSCO Shipping, is poised to expand its footprint in Europe by taking a stake in the port of Hamburg. Negotiations have been reportedly going well, and a deal is expected soon.
If COSCO succeeds, it would be the company’s eighth port investment in Europe.
The state-owned company’s previous investment involves the acquisition of Greece’s Port of Piraeus, one of the world’s most important shipping centers located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa. COSCO bought 51% of the port’s operating company in 2016. After a Greek court gave the go-ahead last month, COSCO now can raise its stake in Piraeus to 67%.
The Chinese government does not have an official platform summarizing the overall data for China’s overseas port projects, but publicly available information shows that Beijing now has a foothold in at least 100 ports in 63 countries.
According to data published on the COSCO official website, as of June this year, the group has operated and managed 357 terminals in 36 ports around the world. Its port portfolio has stretched from Southeast Asia to the Middle East, Europe and the Mediterranean.
In addition, China Merchants Group, another major port developer and operator in China, says on its website that the company completed “equity acquisition of eight high-quality ports in Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean last year alone, expanding the group’s global port layout to 27 countries, 68 ports.”
THEY ARE PAINTING THE NATIONS RED!!
In a recent opinion piece published by the Daily Mail, former British Defense and International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox and former U.S. National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane noted that China now owns 96 ports around the world. Some of these are at key locations for maritime trade, “giving Beijing strategic dominance without having to deploy a single soldier, ship or weapon.”
In 2013, China for the first time surpassed the United States to become the world’s largest trading nation. That same year, Chinese president Xi Jinping proposed a strategic framework of what has been dubbed the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (MSR) – the sea route part of the broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
The specific trade route of MSR connects China to Southeast Asia, Africa, and even Europe by sea. Chinese companies are now owners of all of the major ports along the route.
Dr. Sam Beatson of Nottingham University Business School says it makes sense for China to be engaging in these deals given the volume of containers China continues to deliver at accelerating rates of growth. “China’s ports, shipping and maritime trade industry is strategic in part because of its massive size and global role, not only the huge numbers it employs and its role as a national industry that has championed the growth of many of China’s largest coastal cities,” he told VOA.
The most Mahanian country
Over a century ago Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, one of the most influential American writers of his day, designated seaports as one of three pillars of sea power. His writing argued that Britain’s control of the seas was critical for its emergence as a dominant global power. The view heavily influenced American policymakers.
Reports by official Chinese media in recent years show that since 2013, Chinese president Xi Jinping has visited a port almost every year, including the visit to the port of Piraeus in 2019, where China’s MSR and BRI connect and a project that Xi personally pushed for with Greek leaders multiple times, according to China’s official Xinhua News Agency.
China experts believe that establishing ports in geo-strategically important countries, including those that are located near maritime chokepoints, are central to Beijing’s global strategy. “These port linkages allow Beijing to exert political influence not only in the country hosting the port, but in many cases the surrounding countries as well,” Craig Singleton, a China expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told VOA.
Holmes, a former U.S. Navy officer, noted prosperity is the top priority for any government. And Beijing’s port investments mean it can hold a large portion of a country’s prosperity hostage, compelling its leadership to take political stances agreeable to the Chinese Communist Party. “So, seaports are a critical enabler for China’s bid for commercial, diplomatic, and military influence.”
As commercial ports could be used for military purposes, analysts have long been concerned about the security implications of ports controlled by Beijing.
China’s first overseas military base was established at the port of Djibouti situated at the entrance to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. “China’s militarization of its port project in Djibouti serves as a warning vis-à-vis Beijing’s port interests in other countries, such as Tanzania, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Burma, among others,” said Singleton.
One of the thorniest issues between the U.S. and Israel in recent years has been the Chinese takeover of Haifa Port, place where the Sixth Fleet of the US Navy docks. Washington feared that the port would provide an opportunity for Chinese surveillance.
Dr. Eyal Pinko, a former Israeli intelligence officer pointed out that the port can easily be used to collect naval intelligence. “You can track the whereabouts of ships and communications. Once you own and operate the port site, these are very easy to do. You can do whatever you want. You are the landlord there,” he told VOA in a telephone interview.
Editor’s note: This article was updated to clarify that Dr. Sam Beatson works at Nottingham University Business School and lectures in the department of risk, finance and banking.
spacer
It’s probably not a good idea for a country you’re fighting in a trade war to control one of your biggest ports. That’s a situation that was set to happen because of COSCO Shipping’s deal to buy Orient Overseas International Limited (OOIL) back in 2017 and President Trump starting a battle of escalating tariff hikes with China in 2018.
OOIL owns the Long Beach Container Terminal. That’s the company that operates the Long Beach Container Terminal at the Port of Long Beach. Yes, the company shares the same name as the terminal, rather than OOIL using an Orient Overseas moniker.
COSCO shipping is a Chinese state-owned company. Taking over its Hong Kong based rival OOIL means COSCO would take over Long Beach Container Terminal. You can connect those dots with the transitive property.
While the topic didn’t get much press, probably because this is the generally thought of as dull topic of international shipping we’re talking about here, the Trump Administration obviously didn’t like the idea of the Chinese government controlling the operations at one of America’s most important ports. Yes, this could fairly be classified as a national security issue.
Therefore, the U.S. government required OOIL to sell the Long Beach Container Terminal. It took some time for OOIL to find a buyer and the sale to get approval, but things are moving forward with the transaction. Though that isn’t to say the process of regulatory approval is complete.
Back in April, Chester Yung reported in the Wall Street Journal:
Orient Overseas (International) Ltd. said Tuesday that it would sell the Long Beach Container Terminal business in Southern California to a consortium led by Macquarie Infrastructure Partners for $1.78 billion.
The sale by the unit of China-based Cosco Shipping Holdings Co. is being undertaken pursuant to the National Security Agreement entered into by Orient Overseas, fellow Cosco Shipping unit Faulkner Global Holdings Ltd., the U.S. Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Justice Department last July. Under that agreement, Orient Overseas had committed to divest itself of ownership of the Long Beach Container Terminal business.
Then last month, Samantha Mehlinger reported in the Long Beach Business Journal:
The Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners on September 9 approved an agreement transferring the lease to operate Long Beach Container Terminal from Orient Overseas International Line (OOIL) to Macquarie Infrastructure Partners (MIP).
Foreign investments in such important things to national security and the U.S. economy as ports is a serious thing. However, it is outside the consciousness of most citizens and not something talked about much in the press.
What suddenly seems to have garnered some attention to this story is a Judicial Watch article on the topic. A few people emailed me the article, asking for a blog on the topic.
I am glad the article was sent to me even though Judicial Watch is a bit too politically slanted for my taste (however, what isn’t at this point?), with one section reading:
It all started with a 40-year container terminal lease between the Port of Long Beach in southern California and Hong Kong. The Obama administration proudly signed the agreement in 2012 giving China control of America’s second-largest container port behind the nearby Port of Los Angeles. One of the Trump administration’s first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach.
The article is hyperbolic, but it is not completely wrong either. China is buying up shipping assets and port terminals around the world. Take Europe for example. An article from NPR, which is politically slanted in a very different direction than is Judicial Watch, states:
In the past decade, Chinese companies have acquired stakes in 13 ports in Europe, including in Greece, Spain and, most recently, Belgium, according to a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Those ports handle about 10 percent of Europe’s shipping container capacity.
China’s increased control in ports also increases the country’s influence over other nations. It also gives them strategic advantages should conflict arise.
It should also be noted that on top of gaining operational control in ports around the world, 6 of the world’s 10 busiest ports last year were in China itself, according to South China Morning Post. I doubt China is relinquishing control of those ports to other countries.
There’s a certain global dominance China is striving for in international shipping and global business. The U.S. should be wary of giving China that dominance at the ports.
spacer
How much of the United States does China really own?
China has slowly been buying big in America, dominating the global supply chain in an array of industries
The coronavirus pandemic may have shed light on China’s influence in America over the supply chain, including life-saving medicines, technology and equipment.
But some analysts believe the ongoing crisis lays bare the inroads China has made on U.S. soil.
The American Security Institute recently released a report and launched a campaign, featuring a billboard in Times Square, to draw further attention to the extensive array of sectors the Chinese government and its partners have invested into. But, exactly how much does the nation own?
Times Square billboard endeavors to warn of creeping Chinese influence. (ChinaOwnsUs campaign)
Medicine:
China produces 97 percent of U.S. antibiotics and about 80 percent of active pharmaceutical ingredients used in American drugs, giving the Chinese Communist Party absolute control of potentially life-saving medicine. For example, Chinese pharmaceutical companies supply 70 percent of the world’s acetaminophen, commonly used in Tylenol.
Food:
In 2017, the United States imported $4.6 billion in agricultural goods from China, which is also responsible for much of the global supply of soy and pea proteins that are found in nutritional supplements and synthetic meats. A Chinese firm has also purchased Smithfield, the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer.
(Smithfield said in a later statement pertaining to their ownership structure that they are “a U.S. company that provides more than 40,000 American jobs and partners with thousands of American farmers. The company was founded in Smithfield, Virginia, in 1936 and was acquired by Hong Kong-based WH Group in 2013. WH Group is a publicly-traded company with shareholders around the world. Anyone anywhere can purchase shares of WH Group on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. WH Group’s shareholders include many large U.S.-based financial institutions.”
Education:
The Chinese government’s theft of intellectual property has been an open secret for decades. More recently, U.S. authorities have discovered China is funding American university researchers, who don’t always disclose those contributions.
US PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AIMS TO WREST SOME DRUG PRODUCTION BACK FROM CHINA
Technology:
The manufacturing of smartphones and other household items is heavily reliant on China, which controls most of the rare earth minerals that make those items work. Additionally, China is seeking to build 5G networks in the United States and other Western countries, which could potentially feed personal information and sensitive data to the Chinese Communist Party.
Media:
Chinese firms have bought AMC Entertainment, Legendary Entertainment, and other media companies. Control of 8,000-plus of American theater screens and other media platforms allows China to project “soft power” and block unflattering depictions of the Chinese government from being presented, both in terms of creative production and mass distribution.
Citing the nonpartisan economic think-tank Paulson Institute, the American Security Institute report underscores that “Chinese firms and investors own a controlling majority in nearly 2,400 U.S. companies.”
These include: AMC Entertainment (entertainment), Cirrus Wind Energy (energy), Complete Genomics (health care), First International Oil (energy), G.E. Appliances (technology), IBM—P.C. division (technology), Legendary Entertainment Group (entertainment), Motorola Mobility (technology), Nexteer Automotive (automotive), Riot Games (entertainment), Smithfield Foods (food), Teledyne Continental Motors and Mattituck Services (aerospace), Terex Corp. (machinery), Triple H Coal (mining), Zonare Medical Systems (health care).
“Under China’s Communist Party dictatorship, private companies are forced to bend to the government’s will,” the report states.
“A recently passed law in China requires companies to share data with Chinese communist spy agencies if requested. [U]nder Xi Jinping, the Communist party has returned to being the ultimate authority in business,” writes The Guardian. And Human Rights Watch has written that China is an ‘existential threat’ to human rights.”
And while the U.S. grants China permission to buy its companies, China does not allow U.S. companies to operate the same way on their soil.
“The first priority is to reclaim our critical supply chains so that we can become self-secure instead of reliant on the Chinese government,” Will Coggin, managing director of the American Security Institute, told Fox News.
The extent of Chinese investment in recent years has also raised red flags around U.S. national security, particularly in the realm of rare earth minerals. These are especially vital not only for high-technology products such as smartphones and electric vehicles but for U.S. frontline weapons including the F-35 fighter, which requires 920 pounds of rare earth minerals.
“In 2017, the United States produced zero rare earth minerals. China, on the other hand, accounted for more than 80 percent of the world’s supply,” the report stated.
SWINE FLU STRAIN WITH ‘HUMAN PANDEMIC POTENTIAL’ FOUND IN MORE CHINESE PIGS, SCIENTISTS SAY
“The Chinese have a strong foothold here in the U.S., and Chinese firms have access to what seems like infinite government lending, and because the country’s goal of world dominance is ingrained into the minds of their business leaders,” explained Paul Murad, president of Nevada-based real estate firm Metroplex. “It means our U.S. directors have a hard task on their hands when it comes to negotiation.”
Milos Maricic, an international affairs expert and World Economic Forum contributor, concurred that while China owns close to $150 billion in U.S. companies – not particularly huge in comparison to the U.S. economy – there is a lot about the available figure that we simply do not know.
“The number is very difficult to gauge correctly due to complicated ownership structures that the Chinese sometimes employ. It could be bigger,” he surmised.
Some U.S. lawmakers are pushing back amid the coronavirus fallout, which ignited an initial panic over concerns of critical medical shortages and Beijing’s threats to withhold the needed goods.
In late May, the Senate unanimously passed the bipartisan Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act in a bid to force foreign companies – with China at the likely forefront – to adhere to U.S. securities law, and compel some to be removed from American stock exchanges. The bill, which is yet to move through the House, would necessitate that “an issuer must make this certification if the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is unable to audit specified reports because the issuer has retained a foreign public accounting firm not subject to inspection by the board.
More than 200 foreign firms – mostly Chinese with a combined market capitalization of almost $2 trillion – are said to not be meeting this standard; so their stocks are traded, but U.S. investors have limited insight into what is going on internally with the companies. Subsequently, China and other international players would be obligated to accede to an audit that can be reviewed by the nonprofit Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which oversees audits of all U.S. companies that endeavor to raise money in public markets.
“Chinese companies have been carrying out unchecked reverse mergers for years now, and the media (influence) has been going under the radar for years now,” Murad added. “Under President Trump, the U.S. was the first to recognize their nonstop deceits, and now the rest of the world has a clearer picture of China’s ambition.”
By Charles Couger | Fox News / Sep 22, 2022
Chinese communists are quietly dominating countries around the world. In this shocking episode, Tucker travels to Brazil to see how China is replacing America as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere.
U.S. military leaders are deeply concerned about a surge in Chinese-owned ports in Latin America and the Caribbean that “could benefit its military,” according to a report by the U.S.-China Commission (USCC).
“Why would China need to build naval bases around the world?” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “They’ll have visiting rights to basically nationalize and operationalize any port they control in the world in a time of conflict, if necessary, and there won’t be anything we can do about it.”
Chinese state-owned companies are involved in the construction of roughly 40 ports on both sides of the Panama Canal, according to the report. The Chinese military already has been running a space tracking station in Argentina.
In Brazil, South America’s largest and richest country, Chinese state-owned companies are building or leasing ports along Brazil’s massive Atlantic coast. The investments have positioned “China to further increase its military presence in the future,” according to the USCC report.
U.S. DESTROYER AND CANADIAN FRIGATE TRANSIT TAIWAN STRAIT AMID TENSIONS WITH CHINA
In April, China’s biggest state-owned food processor secured a long-term lease for a terminal at Brazil’s largest port near São Paulo. Other Chinese state-owned firms control ports on the northern coast and near Rio de Janeiro.
“Every company in China, no matter how private they claim to be, is controlled by the Communist Party because they wouldn’t exist if the Communist Party didn’t want them to exist,” Rubio said.
China has spent more than $2.25 trillion on foreign investment and construction since 2005, according to a website maintained by American Enterprise Institute.
That includes more than $73 billion on projects in resource-rich Brazil. The investments and construction projects largely involve core infrastructure projects like electrical grids, shipping ports and mass transit systems. Chinese state media also have made agreements with Brazil’s largest television company to co-produce soap operas and other content.
A container ship arrives in the Port of Long Beach, California. (Stock, File)
LANTERNFLIES FROM CHINA CAUSING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DAMAGE TO US AGRICULTURE: EXPERT
Those infrastructure projects are the focus of the latest episode of “Tucker Carlson Originals,” titled “The China Takeover: Brazil.” The episode is available now on Fox Nation.
China’s rising influence and the United States’ declining influence in the region has been well-documented.
China displaced the United States as Brazil’s top trading partner in 2009. Brazil exports massive amounts of agricultural products and raw commodities, including iron ore and oil, to China.
BIDEN SAYS US WOULD DEFEND TAIWAN IF CHINA LAUNCHES AN ‘UNPRECEDENTED ATTACK’
“It’s very clear that they think about Brazil as a source of food and other things. They need to keep the machinery going on,” Martins said.
Chinese Communist Party-aligned companies have controlled significant parts of Brazil’s power grid and power generation facilities, in addition to ports and mass transit projects.
China’s ascent in the region fueled the rise of Bolsonaro, a political outsider who made countering China a central tenet of his 2018 presidential campaign.
After his election, Bolsonaro fought the introduction of Chinese vaccines. He has opposed legislation that would make it easier for Chinese firms to buy Brazilian resources.
“We tried to do things differently. Go ahead with privatization, yes, but with some kind of guarantee to ensure that whatever was being privatized would not become the property of a third-party country,” Bolsonaro told Tucker Carlson in an interview featured in the documentary.
TIKTOK IS A CHINESE ‘PIECE OF MALWARE’ CORRUPTING AMERICAN YOUTH: DOUGLAS MURRAY
Some of Bolsonaro’s relatives and senior cabinet members have attacked China on social media, prompting harsh condemnations from the Chinese ambassador to Brazil.
Bolsonaro, a right-wing populist often compared to former President Donald Trump, said he’s tried to attract more investment from the United States.
“I would very much like the Americans to also take part in more investments in Brazil,” he told Carlson. “Ever since I was a young child, the United States were seen as an example.”
U.S. officials have repeatedly rejected outreach from Bolsonaro, who said President Joe Biden snubbed him at a G20 summit and called him only once during his first year in the White House. In July, a group of 23 House Democrats sent a letter to Biden condemning Bolsonaro.
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro speaks during a news conference in Brasília in December 2021. (Andressa Anholete/Getty Images, File)
Next month, Bolsonaro is set to face off against popular former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has praised “the Chinese model” in speeches.
“I think China is an example of development for the world,” he said in a video on China-Brazil relations.
The “Tucker Carlson Originals” episode, “The China Takeover: Brazil,” is available now on Fox Nation.
spacer
Here are most posts related to this topic:
CHINA / USA
The following information ought to make you shudder. I don’t think there are very many Americans that are fully aware of the reality of China’s Control over our nation. There is so much more to the story than I can fit into this post. I have no doubt that I am pushing the limits of … Click Here to Read More
China vs USA
END OF THE UNITED NATIONS AS WE KNOW IT, BUT WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN STORE? They are steering us toward their goal. The UN is useless. But, what they are planning to replace it with is a nightmare. I am scratching my head here. Wasn’t the United Nations created to resolve issues around the … Click Here to Read More
CHINA CONTROLS OUR MEDS?? – THAT IS INSANE!!
Are we totally insane? I know we like to save money whenever possible. It is bad enough that just about everything we purchase today comes from China. From kids toys to the clothes on our backs, from plasticware to power tools. BUT, for heavens sake, do we really trust China enough to be buying our … Click Here to Read More
CHINA INVASION? Has TRUMP been making secret strategic moves to save the USA?
Here is an article from Christopher Green of AMTV. He presents some important data that I have not seen anywhere else. He also raises some very interesting questions regarding current events in California. Events that tie to the Fires, Blackouts and HAM Radio issues. I thought you ought to have an opportunity to consider these. … Click Here to Read More
spacer