Has Africa Become A Battleground For The New Cold War? It’s China Vs America In Mother Continent

Rich in resources and strategic opportunities, Africa has become the new hunting ground where China and the US are vying for influence. This rivalry, rooted mainly in economic ambitions rather than ideology, bears striking similarities to the old US-Soviet Cold War

BY PRABHASH K. DUTTA

From mining to road construction to fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs) to economic and political governance model training, China is ubiquitous in Africa. The West, espeically the US, today sees China as its principal challenger almost everywhere but despite the flare-ups in the Pacific particularly the South China Sea, the simmering tension is equally palpable in Africa.

The US-led West might have missed the trick but China’s Africa story begins in the 1950s, when Western powers rivalled, at times one another, to maintain their superiority in Africa. China — along with India — vouched for freedom and self-reliance of African countries through several channels and platforms including the most-famous Bandung conference hosted by Indonesia.

Soviet Russia, rivalled for hegemony. This time, the key players are not the United States and the Soviet Union, rather the US and China. Africa has emerged as a critical theatre in this geopolitical contest.

Incidentally, the new cold war, if we can call it so, involves post-Soviet rising communist power which like the former seeks to challenge the leading capitalist power on the globe. Back then, Asia was seen as the hunting ground for its known exploitable natural resources and manpower, Africa is now viewed as the new minefiled to dig prosperity and security from.

However, the crucial question remains: Is Africa really becoming the new battleground in this global power game?

How China has expanded its footprint in the Mother Continent

Africa is called the Mother Continent as the theory of evolution tells us that humanity sprang from the earlier branches of humans that shot from eastern African roots. In the post-War age of ideological expansion, China set its eyes on Africa as the USSR and the US-led West were involved at various points in Asia, East Europe and Central and Latin Americas.

China’s relationship with Africa has been building for decades. At the Bandung conference, representatives from 29 Asian and African countries gathered to voice their opposition to colonialism and to seek economic cooperation among the Global South —- back then called the “Third World”.

In early decades, China’s interest in Africa was primarily driven by a sense of solidarity with other nations that were also shaking off the chains of colonial rule.

Fast forward to post-Cold War, especially after the 2008 global meltdown, and China’s presence in Africa has grown immensely. The country has poured billions into the continent, building roads, railways, ports, and power plants.

China gradually in the middle years, and in recent years electrifyingly, overtaken the United States as Africa’s biggest trading partner, and its investments continue to shape the continent’s economic landscape. But these investments often come with strings attached, such as requiring African countries to use Chinese companies and materials for their infrastructure projects, further cementing Beijing’s influence.

This isn’t just about business — it’s also about strategy. Africa’s wealth of natural resources, from oil and minerals to fertile agricultural land, is vital to China’s booming economy. In return for access to these resources, China has offered financial aid, loans, and development assistance to African nations.

This hands-off approach made China a popular partner for many African leaders, even as it draws criticism from those who worry about the lack of transparency, environmental damage, and the support of authoritarian regimes.

China’s game in Africa has moved in phases — solidarity in early decades to investments and low-interest loans in middle years to complete domination in trade and now to political governance training, something that African leaders earlier accused the US and its allies of doing. China earlier policy of non-political interference helped it edge out the Western countries in developing cooperation with African countries.

According to the African Centre for Strategic Studies (ACSS), “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has escalated its training of African party and government officials as part of CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping’s ‘new model of party-to-party relations,’ particularly in the Global South.”

“An indication of this renewed emphasis is the Mwalimu Julius Nyerere Leadership School. Launched in 2022, the Nyerere School trains ruling party members from the Former Liberation Movements of Southern Africa (FLMSA) coalition—Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe,” it says.

However, political training by China is not new as they began this programme back in the 1960s. But the recent and rapid change is the emphasis on propagating the governance idea of Xi Jinping.

The Nyerere School is the first institute to be modeled after the CCP Central Party School, which trains China’s top cadres and leaders. It is also the first of its kind to cater to multiple African political parties.

“This school parallels the China-Africa Institute, a continental CCP initiative to train African party and government leaders. The Institute, which started in 2019, is based within the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing and the African Union (AU) in Addis Ababa [Ethiopia],” says ACSS.

Why America is concerned and how it responds

The US seems increasingly alarmed by China’s growing influence in Africa as Washington DC sees Beijing as a challenge to American interests on the continent. For a long time, the US has been used to calling the shots in Africa. Now, with China’s rise, that dominance has been seriously challenged. In several countries — from Ethiopia to Uganda to Angola — China has practically come to dictate market terms.

American leaders, though overtly critical of China’s action in the South China Sea, have been particularly concerned that China is exploiting Africa in ways that mirror the colonial powers of the past. There are fears that Chinese loans are leading African countries into a debt trap, potentially compromising their independence. The recent Kenya riots — following an economic crisis linked to Chinese debts — were seen as fitting similar patterns witnessed in countries like Sri Lanka.

The US has also accused China of propping up corrupt and authoritarian regimes, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, and undermining democratic institutions—all in pursuit of its own economic and strategic goals.

Of late, the US has also courted some of the African dictators to counter Chinese influence on the continent. For example, US President Joe Biden hosted President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea reportedly to fend off China’s efforts to build a naval base in that country.

The naval base would give China a new military foothold in the Atlantic Ocean on the Gulf of Guinea, off the coast of West Africa. Biden ignored America’s own complaints of human rights abuse against the regime led by the world’s longest-serving ruler.

Incidentally, Equatorial Guinea, too, is facing acute economic crisis and 82-year-old Obiang, who has been in power for 44 years, has appointed a former banker as the prime minister this week to fix economic woes of the country.

The US, on its part, has been trying hard to counter China’s influence with its own initiatives — including the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which aim to promote economic development and good governance in Africa.

Additionally, the US has expanded its military presence across the continent, establishing a network of bases and partnerships designed to combat terrorism and protect its strategic As America continues to influence Africa in the face of China’s relentless economic engagement, the cold war narrative looks only natural on the continent.

What Africa is doing to stave off two rival powers

While China and the US compete for influence, African nations are not just passive bystanders in the new geopolitical struggle. Several African leaders have become adept at playing both sides, using their relationships with China and the US to secure benefits for their countries. However, this balancing act is fraught with challenges, given their rivalry heats up over even a seemingly minor issue.

Africa’s home to some of the world’s fastest-growing economies — including Niger, Senegal, Libya, Rwanda, Ethiopia and the Gambia — and holds vast reserves of the natural resources that, in the first place, make both China and the US interested in the region.

Its rapidly growing population and increasing urbanisation makes Africa a massive future market for goods and services. At this junction, African countries usually take a middle path but that is also fraught with risks, given their sandwiched situation between Chinese money and America’s muscle.

How the new cold war may shape up Africa

It is a difficult proposition to predict the future of Africa in this new cold war as the post-Covid realities of the world are changing at a rapid rate. China’s economy is stagnating. The country is witnessing a flight of big companies as Beijing continues to antagonise the West, which is home to most of the top multinational firms.

However, there is another possibility that Africa may actually benefit tremendously from the increased attention and investment not only from rivals China and the US but also from emerging economic giants such as India and Brazil.

For Africa to emerge stronger from this geopolitical oneupmanship, its leaders look for ways to pass through these turbulent waters carefully. The sudden collapse of growing economies like Sri Lanka have driven home the point that too much dependence on opaque Chinese loans may endager their long-term prosperity.

Whether Africa can extract benefit from this China-US or communist-capitalist tug-of-war and build a secure future depends on how its current crop of leadership explores and chooses their options. For, the continent has to find solutions to its food, energy, environmental, and social crises that threaten to devastate not just Africa but potentially the entire world.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

I pushed For Press Freedom In Hong Kong. The Wall Street Journal Fired Me.

2019 Hong Kong Protests (Wikipedia)

BY SELENA CHENG

After 2019, as China tightened its grip on Hong Kong and mass protests gripped the city, police raided the Apple Daily and Stand News newsrooms and prosecuted their top editors with national security crimes. Several smaller media outlets shut down rather than risk similar treatment.

It was the beginning of a chill for journalists.

First as a local news reporter, and later at the Wall Street Journal, I witnessed the trials and sentencing of almost twenty journalists, citizen reporters, editors, and commentators.

Daily life for the remaining reporters fell into a new rhythm. Slow. Careful. Some reporters and editors from shuttered newsrooms started new media ventures, YouTube channels, and podcasts. Many steered clear of the city’s politics and focused instead on pop culture or lifestyle reporting.

Even at news publications, there were vastly fewer revelatory stories on sensitive political issues and investigations on abuses of public power. Journalists shifted uncomfortably in their seats when they heard story ideas they felt could touch a nerve in the government. I saw editors press for extra-solid sourcing in anticipation of government condemnation.

When Taiwan held a presidential election—a sensitive event in China, which covets the island—reporters murmured about how to handle sound bites and footage differently depending on whether Beijing’s preferred candidate won. (They didn’t.)

The Hong Kong Journalists Association became an important defense against the erosion of an effective press—and a frequent target for the ire of the Chinese government.

The association advocates the rights and interests of journalists—it issues a widely read annual index on the state of press freedom and works against legislation that would further erode it. It financially supports journalists who are in legal trouble. It is fifty-six years old, which makes it older than the government it so often critiques (which was formed in 1997 when the governance of Hong Kong was passed from Britain to China).

Despite the fact that members of press associations had been expelled from the country previously, the Journal wanted its reporters in Hong Kong to sign up for the HKJA—so they could be protected, and to have press cards that could help mitigate highly charged moments with police. During 2019, as other outlets followed suit, HKJA’s membership swelled.

I had been on its board for three years when, in May, I decided to run for its chair. I wanted to show reporters in the city that they could continue to report because someone was still willing to defend their rights.

Three weeks ago, my editor at the Wall Street Journal found out about my candidacy and immediately directed me to withdraw from the election. She said that the role would be incompatible with my job as a Journal reporter.

The Journal, she said, continues to report on incidents related to press freedom in the city, such as trials against the press, so having its employees advocating for press freedom publicly would create a conflict. The Journal, my supervisor said, did not want its reporters seen calling for greater freedoms—because, unlike in Western nations, it is not an established principle in Hong Kong.

Because I was the only candidate running for chair, my withdrawal would have meant that union operations were paralyzed. So when I won, I stayed on. For three weeks I existed in a kind of limbo. And then, on July 17, I was fired. The Journal told me it was restructuring. When two previous rounds of layoffs affected more than a dozen journalists and editors, I had been told my position was secure. But this round there was one layoff: me.

The Global Times, controlled by the Chinese state, said that the Journal’s decision was intended to distance it from our union, because we “wantonly defame[d]” the government.

​​My situation was not unique. I had fielded resignations from other board members who faced similar pressure from their employers. Journalists and employers who sought support from us are now understandably wary of potential backlash by association.

And I am without a job. A striking contrast sprang to mind. Over the past year the Journal rallied its entire staff to a campaign for the release of Evan Gershkovich, who was handed a sixteen-year sentence by a Russian court Friday, after a sham three-day trial and unlawful detention for more than a year.

The Journal’s staff in Hong Kong, myself included, participated in a “Run for Evan” event along Hong Kong’s harbor, which was initiated and organized by the company. The Journal also called for solidarity with Evan at the Society of Publishers in Asia Awards, held in Hong Kong.

If press groups like HKJA cease to exist, as the Chinese government—and perhaps foreign news outlets—would find convenient, there will be fewer protections for reporters doing the same job as Evan, in similar circumstances, here in Hong Kong.

Not to mention fewer communities for weary correspondents to recharge with a drink, find solace among peers, and regain the strength to keep on reporting against odds that only seem to grow steeper.

Selina Cheng is a former Wall Street Journal correspondent in Hong Kong.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

The Pitfalls Of Setting Global Goals

BY MICHAEL DAVIES-VENN

As poor children continue to die from starvation and diseases, and social conditions long absent in wealthier countries continue to plague and lay waste to innocent lives in poorer countries, rich and poor nations resort to tradition. In 2015, they converged at the General Assembly ‘at a time of immense challenges to sustainable development.’ With ‘unwavering commitment’, they then set a 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, complete with global goals to make right such historic social inequities as extreme poverty. It’s a tradition that allows wealthier countries to cleanse their consciences as they steadfastly try to legitimise geo-political and neo-liberal orders contributing to casting immense suffering in particularly poorer countries.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) they agreed on are the latest outcome in this tradition. Whether you are living in a poor or rich country, pursuits of these 17 global goals should remove such societal blights as death by starvation common in poorer countries. A fundamental aim of the SDGs is to transform our historically unsustainable world to sustainability, and thus realise equity in a world defined by profound inequities. With six years left to complete this tectonic transformation, it is time for global leaders to properly reflect on the usefulness and efficiency in setting global goals, seriously consider how this approach retards social, political and economic progress.

Failure due to contradictions

Such reflections would have not been necessary today if on returning from the General Assembly in September 2015, then US president Barack Obama, by executive order, would have created a government department to serve his citizens and support those in the developing world on implementing the SGDs. This hypothetical Department of Sustainable Development Goals would have 17 sub-departments, each with a cabinet secretary. All 17 secretaries must work coherently to reduce inequality within and among countries, end poverty and hunger, provide worldwide access to such basic services as education, healthcare, water and sanitation, housing, assure social protection, protect the environment, and promote peaceful and inclusive societies, worldwide – all SDG goals. The reality is that governments had no such insight.

A reason for that failure is that implementing global goals with such a holistic approach would reveal contradictions and incoherences that no country fancies to address, even for the greater good of humanity. Aside from the SDGs’ reputation of being ambitious, the reality is that its high aspirations are unrealistic and unfit for purpose. So, the 17 SDGs and their 169 targets and 231 indicators remain a dream today.

Of the 25 countries said to have recently cut poverty by half, none is in Africa, while ‘1.1 billion remain poor.’ Yet the correlation between economic growth and a decline in poverty isn’t lost in the minds of the most conservative of economists and politicians. But while Cambodia, China, Congo, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Serbia and Vietnam, halved poverty, it remains a blight in countries across Sub-Saharan Africa. Their access to funds to stimulate economic growth is based on political, economic and regulatory risks that lenders such as the World Bank use to assess capacity to repay. Economically poorer countries’ commitment to implementing SDGs is not part of the ‘conditions on which the Bank may guarantee or make loans.’ Such incoherence between the World Bank – a leading global institution for development – and the global commitment to transition to sustainable development, stymies progress on the SDGs.

It is a contradiction that as the world is committed to ensuring ‘access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all,’ a greater part of it remains without access to such technologies, while economic interests of those who own such technologies are being protected by trade rules enforced by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The world’s leading trade organisation maintains firm control over intellectual property rights to renewable energy technologies, mostly owned by some of its more affluent members, themselves tirelessly waxing lyrical about commitment to the SDGs. None of the WTO reports on the organisation’s ‘contribution to achieving the SDGs’ pertains to SDG 7 – to provide ‘modern energy for all’. While African countries are endowed with more solar radiation than they need to produce enough electricity to stimulate development, and less so with solar panels and energy storage technologies that can convert their endowment to electricity.

The problem with goal setting

A remarkable short 15 years to turn tide in human history from unsustainable development to sustainability is unrealistic and unsuitable in itself. First, by conservative estimations, the Industrial Revolution – a period that defined unsustainable development – lasted 60 years. So, the ambition now to ‘transform our world’ in just 15 years is a mug’s game. Second, failures on the SDG, since 2015, suggest that even if the goals are realised in the next five years, it is unlikely that governments would stay on sustainable pathways. This means goal-setting is unfit for purpose as countries will likely return to norm, reversing progress, after 2030 – the deadline for implementing SDGs. Some of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that preceded the SDGs in today ‘remain off-track.’ For example, it was a leading MDG to ‘eradicate extreme poverty and hunger’ between 1990 and 2015. Fifteen years later, it is still a leading SDG objective to do exactly the same, while hundreds of millions remain poor. Goal-setting creates a mindset that is fundamentally unsuitable for long-term permanent transformations necessary in all societies.

Eight years since implementing SDGs, ‘more than half the world’ is being left behind and ‘progress on more than 50 per cent of targets of the SDGs is weak and insufficient,’ in some instances, progress has ‘stalled or gone into reverse,’ concludes the UN. Such dismal assessments should not be surprising because contradictions, incoherence, unsuitable and unrealistic issues associated with setting global goals ought to have been known. That ‘developing countries are bearing the brunt of our collective failure to invest in the SDGs’ is further confirmation. Many of these countries, says UN Secretary General, António Guterres – in the latest SDG report – ‘face a huge financing gap and are buried under a mountain of debt.’ It is confounding that transition to sustainability – indeed to sustaining human life – is curtailed by money.

For global sustainability to proceed beyond a pipe dream, it needs coordination of global international institutions. Pouring money into economic systems is a half-way solution.

It should be obvious that we’re in dire need for new global economic and political structures all coherently aligned and focused on fostering economic and social development practices, informed by ideas of sustainability, not neo-liberal utopian ideals. Development banks, for example, must not consider a country’s ability to repay above its social and economic development. The UN needs to start such discussions in the General Assembly.

Rather than Sustainable Development Goals, a change to Social Development Agenda, may serve well in educating the general public on the scale and scope of dire and permanent societal transformations. No reasonable argument can be mounted against the need to end unnecessary deaths of children dying from hunger, provide vaccination for measles which has proven to save lives of more than half a million children and reduce the number of some 617 million children without minimum reading and maths skills. Such historic and persistent failures are incompatible with claims to human intelligence being superior and reveal fallacies of civilised beings living in civilised societies.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Military Violence In Myanmar Is Worsening Amid Fierce Resistance And International Ambivalence

BY THARAPHI THAN, NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

In the early days of a brutal 2021 military crackdown on anti-coup protesters in Myanmar, members of the nascent resistance movement began asking “how many dead bodies” it would take for the world community to act.

More than two years on from a coup that installed military rule in the Southeast Asian country, pro-democracy protesters say they have yet to receive an adequate answer.

On April 11, 2023, the country’s armed forces dropped multiple bombs on a gathering in Pazigyi, a village in Sagaing Region, killing around 100 people, it has been estimated, including many children.

As a scholar on Myanmar’s history, I would argue that the escalating violence can be attributed to two main factors, one internal and one external: a miscalculation by the military over the resistance of Myanmar’s people, and ambivalence from the international community.

From coup to civil war

Myanmar has witnessed killings by the military almost daily since generals seized control of the country in 2021. The coup ended the short period of democratic rule under Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy.

But there are, I believe, reasons to suggest that the Myanmar military grossly miscalculated the timing of the coup, and underestimated the sentiment of a people unwilling to give up the freedom and prosperity they experienced under democracy.

In this, the military may have been misled by the experience of their counterparts in neighboring Thailand. In 2014, generals in Thailand launched a coup ending months of political instability and promising a process back to democratic rule. That coup was met by sporadic protests, but no unified armed resistance emerged in response.

The Myanmar military similarly promised “free and fair elections” further down the line after its coup.

Unlike in Thailand, people in Myanmar – especially younger generations that came of age in the democratic decade after 2010 – fiercely resisted the army’s takeover and were skeptical of claims that it would restore democracy.

After peaceful protests following the coup were met with live ammunition, pro-democracy activists turned to armed resistance.

In the years since, many young people have undergone military training – often by armed ethnic groups that already existed along the country’s borders – and fought back under the umbrella resistance group, People’s Defense Forces.

Protracted counter-coup activities have humiliated the Myanmar army. The commander in chief, Min Aung Hlaing, recently conceded that two years after the coup, the military was still not in control of swaths of the country. He vowed to intensify a crackdown against people he branded “terrorists.”

The growing instability, Min Aung Hlaing said, meant that promised elections – after which the military was to hand over power to a civilian government – cannot be scheduled.

Uniting around a common enemy

Myanmar’s military leaders have vowed to annihilate resistance groups. Yet there are reasons to believe that the resistance is only getting stronger.

Despite slow initial progress to show a common front, the Bamar majority and minority ethic groups such as Karen, Chin, Kachin, Rakhine and Karenni appear to be unifying against military rule. And resistance fighters have widespread support throughout the country.

A lot will now depend on whether Myanmar soldiers lose the will to fight. Already there are signs of strain. The military is reportedly facing an acute shortage of new recruits, resulting in women being trained to fight in combat. People in the Bamar heartlands, including Sagaing where the April 11 massacre occurred, are refusing to let their sons join the Myanmar army.

In such circumstances, the Myanmar army is increasingly relying on guns and bombs rather than troop numbers.

But the longer the resistance lasts, the more humiliating it will be for a junta that has upped its annual spending on the military to an estimated US$2.7 billion – more than 25% of the national budget – largely to suppress its own population.

Leaving the oil and gas taps running

These internal dynamics have taken place largely in the absence of intense scrutiny from the international community, pro-democracy activists say.

The Ukraine war has seemingly pushed Myanmar down the list of international concerns. It has also exacerbated cracks among the global powers that would, otherwise, likely be on the same page over the worsening situation – prolonged violence and instability in Myanmar is not in any country’s strategic interests, not least China’s or the United States’.

Both the U.S. and the United Nations have made statements in support of democracy in Myanmar, and condemned killings.

But concrete action – which to date has been largely limited to sanctions on individuals and entities – falls well short of what human rights groups have demanded. There has, for example, been no comprehensive global arms embargo despite the use of weapons against civilians. Neither has Myanmar been shut off from foreign currency revenues. And the country is still able to purchase the jet fuel being used by bombers, despite calls for a global ban on such sales to accompany the recent sanctions imposed by some governments, including the U.S.

Moreover, sanctions have yet to bite Myanmar’s energy sector. Activist group Justice for Myanmar has identified 22 oil and gas companies from countries including the U.S. that have continued to provide revenue to Myanmar’s generals during the civil war. Indeed, U.S. oil companies including Chevron lobbied hard against broad sanctions against the Myanmar military.

The failure to shut off oil revenue allows Myanmar’s generals – for whom oil and gas is a major revenue source – to fund the military.

To many within the resistance movement, the reluctance of the international community to exert more pressure on the country’s military looks like global collusion. It also has the potential to prolong the violence by funding the military’s campaign.

Beware the tiger’s tail

A well-known Myanmar phrase warns against the dangers of “catching hold of a tiger’s tail” – once you do so there is no turning back; let go and you will be killed.

It aptly sums up the position now for Myanmar’s military rulers and the resistance fighters being drawn deeper into conflict with each atrocity. They are fighting for the past, present and the future and can’t let go now.

Rise of Asian Leads In Network TV Shows, Now ABC’s ‘Company’

BY TERRY TANG

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

This image released by ABC shows Catherine Haena Kim in a scene from "The Company You Keep." (Eric McCandless/ABC via AP)

In fourth grade, Catherine Haena Kim could not muster the courage to audition for the female lead of her school’s production of William Shakespeare’s “The Tempest.” But her teachers saw something in the way she held herself in the classroom.

“My teachers actually gave me the part because whenever I did speak up, I was very animated and expressive,” Kim said. “When I did this play, I honestly think it’s one of the first times I actually felt seen and special in a way that I think I really hadn’t before that.”

Kim’s teachers subverted a problem that has frustrated many Asian Americans’ career trajectories, whether on screen, in political office or in an executive suite: receiving praise for being reliable, hard workers, but never quite being perceived as leadership material.

Across industries, Asian Americans have long been held back by unquestioned biases rooted in racial stereotypes. Employers often paint Asians as passive, lacking in gravitas or not a “cultural fit,” said Justin Zhu, co-founder of the advocacy group Stand with Asian Americans.

An all grown-up Kim (“Ballers,” “Good Trouble”) is now reveling in the thrill and facing the pressure of being the lead on a much bigger stage: She stars opposite Milo Ventimiglia in the new ABC drama, “The Company You Keep,” which premieres Sunday. A remake of the Korean drama “My Fellow Citizens,” it centers on the hot and heavy romance between Kim’s CIA agent and Ventimiglia’s con artist.

Given network TV’s woeful record of failing to cast Asian actors as main characters — and increased competition from cable and streaming services — there is an extraordinary number of recent shows that are making change. Other recent broadcast series with Asian or Asian American leads include “Quantum Leap” (Raymond Lee), “Kung Fu” (Olivia Liang), “The Cleaning Lady” (Élodie Yung), “NCIS: Hawai’i” (Vanessa Lachey) and “Ghosts” (Utkarsh Ambudkar).

Advocates are mixed on whether this rise in visibility is a sign that Asian Americans are actually gaining wider, meaningful representation. Over the last decade, there have been ups and downs: For two years, ABC even had two sitcoms with all-Asian casts — “Fresh Off the Boat” and “Dr. Ken” — but the latter, starring Ken Jeong, was nixed after only two seasons.

In 2019, after “Crazy Rich Asians” became a box-office hit, things looked promising, said Milton Liu, interim executive director of the Asian American Media Alliance, which puts out a diversity “report card” rating the broadcast networks. That same year, six TV pilots with at least one Asian lead were ordered but only one — sitcom “Sunnyside” starring Kal Penn — went to series, and it was canceled after 11 episodes.

Liu concedes that the current crop of shows indicate things are “improving slowly.” A member of the Writers Guild of America, he tempered that assessment with a reminder of how difficult it is just to get a TV pilot made.

Also, most of these broadcast shows don’t showcase an Asian main couple or all-Asian ensemble. The conventional wisdom that many industry executives still hold firm to is that casting a white actor as the lead will make a series relatable to more viewers, so it will be more profitable. Liu said that demographics for network viewers are trained to older audiences, which skew predominantly white.

“We understand that,” he said. “But we also understand the importance of having shows like ‘Fresh Off the Boat’ so that we aren’t just marginalized.”

A Nielsen Company study found that two-thirds of Asian Americans feel there is not enough Asian representation on TV. More than half say the depictions that do exist are inaccurate.

It was “The Company You Keep” executive producer Jon M. Chu, the director of “Crazy Rich Asians,” who suggested that agent Emma Hill be Asian American — and have an on-screen family with a Korean American father and Chinese American mother. The Hill family is also a political dynasty.

The character of Kim’s on-camera father (James Saito) is loosely inspired by former Washington Gov. Gary Locke, the first Asian American governor on the mainland. The former U.S. ambassador to China has no direct involvement, but called the connection “awesome” in an interview with the AP.

In past political roles — which include serving as commerce secretary under former President Barack Obama — Locke never lacked confidence in his ability to lead. It was anti-Asian racism that colored how he was perceived by others that was the problem, he says.

In 2003, the FBI learned he was the target of an assassination plot by a white supremacist and anti-government extremist who “specifically said that there’s no way that an Asian American could be a legitimate governor of the state of Washington,” Locke recalled.

Zhu, of Stand with Asian Americans, said that underestimating Asian Americans goes back to the 1800s, when Chinese laborers built the U.S. railroads.

“Asian Americans, since we’ve gotten to this place from working on the railroad, we’ve been paid a fraction of what we deserve and have been seen as sort of workers but not leaders,” Zhu said.

Locke believes seeing Asians and Asian Americans taking charge on-screen does have an impact in real life.

“Just seeing more more Asian Americans in all walks of life — even if it’s fictitious — is important because that may be their (viewers’) only exposure to Asian Americans in roles that they’re not accustomed to,” Locke said.

Kim feels like a “lucky chosen one” because she has a seat at the proverbial table with her new, leading character status. Seeing her name at the top of the call sheet is a brand-new experience. Despite the confidence she now has, sometimes the insecurities that once dodged that timid fourth-grader persist.

“Most of the time, I’m just like ‘How does everybody do this?’ I feel my imposter syndrome blaring louder than ever,” Kim said. “But I keep going because it’s all mixed in with that feeling a little kid dreams of” — of being seen and recognized as special.

Terry Tang is a member of The Associated Press’ Race and Ethnicity team. Follow her on Twitter at @ttangAP.

Urbanization Of Asia, Africa Give Birth To epidemics

BY SURESH V. KUCHIPUDI

The coronavirus disease, known as COVID-19, is a frightening reminder of the imminent global threat posed by emerging infectious diseases.

Although epidemics have arisen during all of human history, they now seem to be on the rise. In just the past 20 years, coronaviruses alone have caused three major outbreaks worldwide. Even more troubling, the duration between these three pandemics has gotten shorter.

I am a virologist and associate director of the Animal Diagnostic Laboratory at Penn State University, and my laboratory studies zoonotic viruses, those that jump from animals and infect people. Most of the pandemics have at least one thing in common: They began their deadly work in Asia or Africa. The reasons why may surprise you.

On Explosion
An unprecedented shift in human population is one reason why more diseases originate in Asia and Africa. Rapid urbanization is happening throughout Asia and the Pacific regions, where 60% of the world already lives. According to the World Bank, almost 200 million people moved to urban areas in East Asia during the first decade of the 21st century. To put that into perspective, 200 million people could form the eighth most populous country in the world.

Migration on that scale means forest land is destroyed to create residential areas. Wild animals, forced to move closer to cities and towns, inevitably encounter domestic animals and the human population. Wild animals often harbor viruses; bats, for instance, can carry hundreds of them. And viruses, jumping species to species, can ultimately infect people.

Eventually, extreme urbanization becomes a vicious cycle: More people bring more deforestation, and human expansion and the loss of habitat ultimately kills off predators, including those that feed off rodents. With the predators gone — or at least with their numbers sharply diminished — the rodent population explodes. And as studies in Africa show, so does the risk of zoonotic disease.

The situation is only likely to get worse. A major proportion of East Asia’s population still lives in rural areas. Urbanization is expected to continue for decades.

Subsistence Agriculture
Tropical regions, rich in host biodiversity, already hold a large pool of pathogens, greatly increasing the chance that a novel pathogen will emerge. The farming system throughout Africa and Asia doesn’t help.

On both continents, many families depend on subsistence farming and a minuscule supply of livestock. Disease control, feed supplementation and housing for those animals is extremely limited. Cattle, chickens and pigs, which can carry endemic disease, are often in close contact with each other, a variety of non domestic animals and humans.

And not just on the farms: Live animal markets, commonplace throughout Asia and Africa, feature crowded conditions and the intimate mixing of multiple species, including humans. This too plays a key role in how a killer pathogen could emerge and spread between species.

Another risk: bush meat hunting and butchering, which is particularly widespread in sub-Saharan Africa. These activities, as they threaten animal species and irrevocably change ecosystems, also bring people and wild animals together. Bushmeat hunting is a clear and primary path for zoonotic disease transmission.

So is traditional Chinese medicine, which purports to provide remedies for a host of conditions like arthritis, epilepsy and erectile dysfunction. Although no scientific evidence exists to support most of the claims, Asia is an enormous consumer of traditional Chinese medicine products. Tigers, bears, rhinos, pangolins and other animal species are poached so their body parts can be mixed into these questionable medications.

This, too, is a major contributor to increasing animal-human interactions. What’s more, demand is likely to go up, as online marketing soars along with Asia’s relentless economic growth.
A matter of time

The viruses, thousands of them, continue to evolve. It’s just a matter of time before another major outbreak occurs in this region of the world. All the coronaviruses that caused recent epidemics, including the COVID-19, jumped from bats to another animal before infecting humans.

It’s difficult to predict precisely what chain of events cause a pandemic, but one thing is certain: these risks can be mitigated by developing strategies to minimize human effects which contribute to the ecological disturbances.

As the current outbreak has shown, an infectious disease that starts in one part of the world can spread globally in virtually no time whatsoever. There is an urgent need for constructive conservation strategies to prevent deforestation and reduce animal-human interactions.

And a comprehensive global surveillance system to monitor the emergence of these diseases — now missing — would be an indispensable tool in helping us fight these deadly and terrifying epidemics.

Dr. Suresh V. Kuchipudi is a clinical professor at Pennsylvania State University and serves as the Associate Director of the Animal Diagnostic Laboratory (ADL). Dr Kuchipudi is the head of microbiology, overseeing bacteriology, virology, serology and molecular diagnostic units of the ADL. He is an American College of Veterinary Microbiologists (ACVM) board certified specialist in virology and immunology. He receives funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

China Vows Countermeasures If US Deploys Missiles In Asia

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper

BY CHRISTOPHER BODEEN

BEIJING (AP) — China said Tuesday it “will not stand idly by” and will take countermeasures if the U.S. deploys intermediate-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific region, which it plans to do within months.

The statement from the director of the foreign ministry’s Arms Control Department, Fu Cong, follows the U.S.’s withdrawal last week from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a move Fu said would have a “direct negative impact on the global strategic stability” as well as security in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.

Fu said China was particularly concerned about announced plans to develop and test a land-based intermediate-range missile in the Asia-Pacific “sooner rather than later,” in the words of one U.S. official.

“China will not stand idly by and be forced to take countermeasures should the U.S. deploy intermediate-range ground-based missiles this part of the world,” Fu told reporters at a specially called briefing.

He also advised other nations, particularly South Korea, Japan and Australia, to “exercise prudence” and not allow the U.S. to deploy such weapons on their territory, saying that would “not serve the national security interests of these countries.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in Asia over the weekend that he wanted to deploy midrange conventional missiles in the Asia-Pacific within months. Australia previously said the locations for the bases were not yet known but it would not be one of them.

Fu also said China had no intention of joining nuclear weapons reduction talks with the U.S. and Russia, pointing to the huge gap in the size of China’s arsenal compared to those of the other two. China has an estimated 290 nuclear warheads deployed, compared to 1,600 for Russia and 1,750 for the U.S., according to the Federation of American Scientists.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called for urgent arms control talks to prevent a chaotic arms race following the treaty’s demise. He also said Monday that Russia would only deploy new intermediate-range missiles if the United States does.

China has already shown “maximum restraint” in developing its arsenal and stuck to its policy that it would not be the first to use a nuclear weapon in a conflict, Fu said.

“I don’t think it is reasonable or even fair to expect China to participate in an arms reduction negotiation at this stage,” Fu said, but added that China remained committed to multilateral efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles such as the U.N.’s Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, although it has yet to ratify that agreement.

Fu wouldn’t elaborate on what countermeasures China was considering taking against the U.S., saying only that “everything is on the table,” although he did say China has never and would never take part in a nuclear arms race.

Nor would he say how China might retaliate against countries that hosted U.S. land-based intermediate-range missiles, although China has in past used economic means to retaliate against South Korea over its deployment of a U.S. anti-missile defense system known as THAAD.

Fu dismissed U.S. arguments for leaving the INF as “pure pretext,” saying Washington was merely looking for an excuse to develop new weapons. If it truly believes Russia is cheating on the treaty, as it says, than the way forward is to negotiate rather than withdraw, Fu said.

Meanwhile, Washington’s argument that it is threatened by China because 80 percent or more of Chinese missiles fall into the intermediate-range category doesn’t hold up, since those missiles would be unable to reach the continental U.S.

“So the U.S. would be the least to worry if that is the case,” Fu said. “That shows that all of this is nothing but a pretext.”

They would have been banned under the INF Treaty signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1987. It expired Friday, with Washington saying it withdrew because of Russia’s alleged violations of the pact. Russia denies breaching the terms.

The end of the INF Treaty comes amid rising doubts about whether the two countries will extend an agreement on long-range nuclear weapons scheduled to expire in 2021 known as New START. President Donald Trump said he has been discussing a new agreement to reduce nuclear weapons with China and Russia.

“And I will tell you China was very, very excited about talking about it and so was Russia,” Trump told reporters. “So I think we’ll have a deal at some point.”

Asked about Trump’s comments, Fu said he didn’t wish to contradict Trump, but repeated that China “has no interest and, frankly, we don’t think we are even in a position to participate in a trilateral negotiation aimed at a nuclear arms reduction.”

Massive Protests Draw Apology From Hong Kong Leadership

Tens of thousands of protesters carry posters and banners march through the streets as they continue to protest an extradition bill, Sunday, June 16, 2019, in Hong Kong. Hong Kong residents were gathering Sunday for another mass protest over an unpopular extradition bill that has highlighted the territory's apprehension about relations with mainland China. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

BY CHRISTOPHER BODEEN, ELAINE KURTENBACH

HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong citizens marched for hours Sunday in a massive protest that drew a late-in-the-day apology from the city’s top leader for her handling of legislation that has stoked fears of expanding control from Beijing in this former British colony.

The demonstration looked likely to match in scale one a week earlier that brought as many as 1 million people out to express their concern over Hong Kong’s relations with mainland China in one of the toughest tests of the territory’s special status since China took control in a 1997 handover.

Well after dark, crowds gathered outside the police headquarters and Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s office. On Saturday Lam suspended her effort to force passage of the bill, which would allow some suspects to be sent for trial in mainland China.

The move did not appease Hong Kong residents angered over the plan who see it as one of many steps chipping away at Hong Kong’s freedoms and legal autonomy. Opponents worry the law could be used to send criminal suspects to China to potentially face vague political charges, possible torture and unfair trials.

Protesters are also angered over forceful tactics by police in quelling unrest at a June 12 demonstration.

Periodically, the shouts of the protesters standing shoulder-to-shoulder in front of the police headquarters would crescendo in a roar that reverberated through the narrow concrete canyons of the red-light district of Wanchai.

Smaller crowds stood chanting outside Lam’s office building.

The statement issued late Sunday mentioned the demonstrations and said the government “understands that these views have been made out of love and care for Hong Kong.”

“The chief executive apologized to the people of Hong Kong for this and pledged to adopt a most sincere and humble attitude to accept criticisms and make improvements in serving the public,” it said.

The marchers want Lam to scrap the extradition bill, which is supported by the communist leadership in Beijing, and to resign.

The crowds filled a wide thoroughfare and side streets paralleling the waterfront of Victoria Harbor as tourists and shoppers who drive much of the Asian financial hub’s economy looked on.

At the march’s end, hundreds sat wearily around the city government headquarters. Some were singing. Some listening to speeches. Some just resting.

“Our demands are simple. Carrie Lam must leave office, the extradition law must be withdrawn and the police must apologize for using extreme violence against their own people,” bank worker John Chow said as he marched with a group of his friends. “And we will continue.”

Protesters have mainly focused their anger on Lam, who had little choice but to carry through dictates issued by Beijing, where President Xi Jinping has enforced increasingly authoritarian rule.

Many here believe Hong Kong’s legal autonomy has been significantly diminished despite Beijing’s insistence that it is still honoring its promise, dubbed “one country, two systems,” that the territory can retain its own social, legal and political system for 50 years after the handover.

The rally drew marchers both young and old, some pushing strollers or carrying slumbering infants. Few wore face masks or seemed to be trying to hide their identities, in contrast with demonstrations Wednesday, when participants expressed worries over possible retribution from the authorities.

Protesters also are angry over the way police used tear gas, rubber bullets and other forceful measures as demonstrators broke through barricades outside the city government’s headquarters in that smaller but more aggressive protest.

The police presence Sunday was considerably more relaxed, with officers deployed mainly to direct traffic as the protesters wound their way through Hong Kong’s commercial center from a sprawling downtown park to government headquarters.

Farther down the parade route, mourners lined up to lay flowers and pay respects at a makeshift memorial for a man who fell to his death Saturday after hanging a protest banner that read in part, “Make Love, No Shoot” and “No Extradition to China.”

The man slipped from the grasp of rescuers after clinging for a time to scaffolding outside a shopping mall. He missed a large cushion set up to capture him, and was declared dead at a nearby hospital.

Many protesters wore ribbons on their shirts and carried placards showing protesters who had been beaten bloody last week.

Pro-democracy activists were calling for a general strike on Monday despite Lam’s decision to suspend work on the legislation. Some labor unions, teachers associations and other groups were planning boycotts of work and classes, demanding the Lam administration retire the proposed amendments and not bring them up again for passage at a later stage.

“We encourage all the public to carry on the campaign,” said Bonnie Leung, a leader of the pro-democracy group Civil Human Rights Front. “If any new violence takes place, it will be the responsibility of the police.”

The Communist Party-ruled mainland took control in 1997 with a promise not to interfere with the city’s civil liberties and courts. Many in Hong Kong fear the extradition bill would undermine freedoms enjoyed here but not elsewhere in China.

“China just wants to turn Hong Kong into another Chinese city,” said Alex To, 54, who runs a small business. “Carrie Lam is just a figurehead. Everything depends on the attitudes of the leaders in Beijing.”

After Lam announced she was suspending the legislation to avoid more violence and allow additional debate, Chinese government officials issued multiple statements backing that decision. Lam, however, made clear she was not withdrawing it.

She has sidestepped questions over whether she should quit and also defended how the police dealt with last week’s clashes with demonstrators.

Lam maintains that the extradition legislation is needed if Hong Kong is to uphold justice, meet its international obligations and not become a magnet for fugitives. The proposed bill would expand the scope of criminal suspect transfers to include Taiwan, Macau and mainland China.

The Long Road: Hong Kong's Democratic Struggles Since 1997

In this file photo taken Wednesday, June 12, 2019, protestors gather near the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. Hong Kong's leader Carrie Lam is pushing forward amendments to extradition laws which would allow people to be sent to mainland China to face charges. The proposed legislation has triggered in recent days the largest protests in Hong Kong in more than a decade, as some residents fear this will be their last chance to speak out publicly without threat of arrest at mainland authorities' request. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu, File)

BY YANANG WANG

BEIJING (AP) — On July 1, 1997, Tung Chee-Hwa, the first chief executive of Hong Kong, declared, “For the first time in history, we, the people of Hong Kong, will be master of our own destiny.”

It was the moment that Hong Kong, previously a British colony, was returned to China under the framework of “one country, two systems.” The “Basic Law” constitution guaranteed to protect, for the next 50 years, the democratic institutions that make Hong Kong distinct from Communist Party-ruled mainland China.

Despite that promise, Hong Kong’s agency has been tested, reinforced and challenged again in the succeeding years, most recently this week, which witnessed what may have been the largest protest since Hong Kong became Chinese territory again.

Here’s a look at key events in Hong Kong people’s fight to determine their future:

2003: NATIONAL SECURITY

The first major ripple came when Hong Kong’s leaders introduced legislation that would forbid acts of treason and subversion against the Chinese government. The bill resembled laws used to charge dissidents on the mainland, and also banned foreign political entities from conducting political activities and establishing relationships with political groups in Hong Kong.

It sparked one of the three largest protests of the post-1997 era. Organizers estimated that half a million people turned out against the bill, which they saw as an affront to Hong Kong’s autonomy and rule of law. As a result of the backlash, a member of the chief executive’s council resigned in protest and further action on the proposal was halted.

2010: DIRECT ELECTIONS

The Basic Law states that the ultimate aim is for Hong Kong voters to achieve a complete democracy, but 10 years after the handover, China decided in 2007 that universal suffrage in elections of the chief executive could not be implemented until 2017. Some lawmakers are chosen by business and trade groups, while others are elected by vote.

In a bid to accelerate a decision on universal suffrage, five lawmakers resigned. But this act was followed by the adoption of Beijing-backed electoral changes which expanded the chief executive’s selection committee and added more seats for lawmakers elected by direct vote. The legislation divided Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp, as some supported the reforms while others said it would only delay full democracy while reinforcing a structure that favors Beijing. It nevertheless marked the first changes to the electoral system since the handover.


2014: UMBRELLA REVOLUTION

Harking back to its promise to allow Hong Kong residents to vote for their leader in 2017, the Chinese government introduced a bill allowing that, but with one major caveat: the candidates must be approved by Beijing. “The Chief Executive shall be a person who loves the country (China) and loves Hong Kong,” read the decision by China’s National People’s Congress.

Pro-democracy lawmakers were incensed by the bill, which they called an example of “fake universal suffrage” and “fake democracy.”

The move triggered a massive protest of a different kind as crowds occupied some of Hong Kong’s most crowded districts for 70 days. The movement’s organizers called it “Occupy Central with Love and Peace,” but it came to be known around the world as the “Umbrella Revolution” for the yellow umbrellas that protesters used as shields against police pepper spray.

In June 2015, Hong Kong legislators formally rejected the bill, and electoral reform has been stalled since then. The current chief executive, Carrie Lam, widely seen as the Chinese Communist Party’s favored candidate, was hand-picked in 2017 by a 1,200-person committee dominated by pro-Beijing elites.

2019: THE EXTRADITION BILLS

Lam is pushing forward amendments to extradition laws that would allow people to be sent to mainland China to face charges. The proposed legislation triggered a huge protest on Sunday, with organizers putting the turnout at 1 million, and a standoff Wednesday that forced the legislature to postpone debate on the bills.

Unease has been growing following a series of events which pointed to Beijing’s growing influence on the region, and some residents say this may be their last chance to speak out publicly without threat of arrest at the request of mainland authorities.

Last year, a Hong Kong-based bookseller who had been released from prison in China was seized by Chinese agents while traveling on a train in January with Swedish diplomats. Gui Minhai, a Swedish citizen, sold gossipy books about Chinese leaders and was one of five Hong Kong booksellers who wound up in Chinese custody in 2015.

Then in September, Hong Kong banned the Hong Kong National Party, which advocates independence for the territory, on national security grounds. Shortly after, it denied a visa renewal for Hong Kong-based Financial Times editor Victor Mallet, who had introduced the leader of the party at a Foreign Correspondents’ Club event in August.

Lam says the bill will include safeguards to protect human rights, but opponents have decried its potential to erode Hong Kong’s rule of law and judicial independence.

Hong Kong Police Fire Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets At Protesters

Protestors gather near the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, Wednesday, June 12, 2019. Thousands of protesters blocked entry to Hong Kong's government headquarters Wednesday, delaying a legislative session on a proposed extradition bill that has heightened fears over greater Chinese control and erosion of civil liberties in the semiautonomous territory. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

BY CHRISTOPHER BODEEN

HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters who had massed outside government headquarters Wednesday in opposition to a proposed extradition bill that has become a lightning rod for concerns over greater Chinese control and erosion of civil liberties in the territory.

The afternoon violence marked a major escalation in the semi-autonomous Chinese city’s biggest political crisis in years. It came after protesters earlier in the day forced the delay of a legislative debate over the bill, which would allow criminal suspects in Hong Kong to be sent for trial in mainland China.

The overwhelmingly young crowd had overflowed onto a major downtown road as they overturned barriers and tussled with police outside the government building. But when some appeared to have breached the police cordon around the building, the police launched their response, which also included firing pepper spray and water hoses.

Earlier, a curt government statement said the legislative session scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. would be “changed to a later time.” Officials gave no indication of when that would be and Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam canceled a scheduled news briefing.

The delay appeared to have been at least a temporary victory for the bill’s opponents, whose protests are the largest since pro-democracy demonstrations closed down parts of the Asian financial center for more than three months in 2014. Some businesses closed for the day, and labor strikes and class boycotts were called.

The protests are a challenge to China’s ruling Communist Party and President Xi Jinping, who has in the past said he would not tolerate Hong Kong being used as a base to challenge the party’s authority. But they are also giving vent to young Hong Kongers alienated by a political process dominated by the territory’s economic elite.

At a brief news conference held as the chaos swirled just outside, Police Commissioner Stephen Lo Wai-chung called the demonstration a riot. That could mean long jail terms for anyone arrested, adding to concerns that Hong Kong’s government is using public disturbance laws to intimidate political protesters.

“We condemn such irresponsible behavior,” Lo said. “There’s no need to hurt innocent people to express your opinions,” he said, adding that people should not “do anything they will regret for the rest of their lives.”

Protesters were seen throwing rocks, bottles, metal barricades and other projectiles at police. Police spokesman Gong Weng Chun defended the decision to use tear gas and other non-lethal weapons, saying officers wouldn’t have had to do so if they weren’t facing a serious threat that could seriously injure or even kill them.

The state of the legislative process remained unclear following the violence, which had largely ended by about 5 p.m. after police herded demonstrators across a pedestrian bridge. Traffic in one of the busiest parts of the city remained blocked, however, and several hundred protesters seemed in no hurry to leave.

Earlier in the day, protesters said they hoped the blockade would persuade Lam’s administration to shelve the proposed amendments.

“We want the government to just set the legislation aside and not bring it back,” said a protester who gave only his first name, Marco, to avoid possible repercussions from authorities.

Another protester, who gave her name only as King, also out of fear of repercussions, said the protest was a watershed moment for Hong Kong’s young generation.

“We have to stand up for our rights or they will be taken away,” she said.

Dressed in black T-shirts and jeans, many protesters appeared undaunted by demands to disperse from police. The demonstrators also appeared mindful of Beijing’s growing use of electronic surveillance such as facial recognition technology to build dossiers on those it considers politically unreliable, with many donning surgical masks to hide their features, as well as to safeguard against tear gas.

Such protests are never tolerated in mainland China, and Hong Kong residents can face travel bans and other repercussions if they cross the border.

“Most of these protesters don’t expect the government to compromise. They just want to express their own opinions,” said Joseph Cheng, a long-time observer of Chinese and Hong Kong politics now retired from the City University of Hong Kong.

“The anger is still there and the anger will burst again at the next opportunity,” Cheng said.

Under its “one country, two systems” framework, Hong Kong was supposed to be guaranteed the right to retain its own social, legal and political systems for 50 years following its handover from British rule in 1997. However, China’s ruling Communist Party has been seen as increasingly reneging on that agreement by forcing through unpopular legal changes.

The government pushed ahead with plans to present the amendments to the legislature on Wednesday despite a weekend protest by hundreds of thousands of people that was the territory’s largest political demonstration in more than a decade.

Lam has consistently defended the legislation as necessary to close legal loopholes with other countries and territories. A vote is scheduled on June 20.

At regular briefing Wednesday, China’s Foreign Ministry repeated its support for the bill. Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang also denied Beijing has been interfering in the city’s affairs in a way that violates agreements made when Hong Kong was handed back to China.

“Hong Kong people’s rights and freedoms have been fully guaranteed in accordance with law,” he said.

The protests are widely seen as reflecting growing apprehension about relations with the Communist Party-ruled mainland, where Xi has said he has zero tolerance for those demanding greater self-rule for Hong Kong.

Critics believe the extradition legislation would put Hong Kong residents at risk of being entrapped in China’s judicial system, in which opponents of Communist Party rule have been charged with economic crimes or ill-defined national security offenses, and would not be guaranteed free trials.

Lam said the government has considered concerns from the private sector and altered the bill to improve human rights safeguards. She said without the changes, Hong Kong would risk becoming a haven for fugitives. She emphasized that extradition cases would be decided by Hong Kong courts.

Opponents of the proposed extradition amendments say the changes would significantly compromise Hong Kong’s legal independence, long viewed as one of the crucial differences between the territory and mainland China.

Hong Kong currently limits extraditions to jurisdictions with which it has existing agreements and to others on an individual basis. China has been excluded from those agreements because of concerns over its judicial independence and human rights record.

Associated Press journalists Raf Wober and Alice Fung in Hong Kong, Johnson Lai in Taipei, Taiwan and Sally Ho in Seattle contributed to this report.

Myanmar Frees Reuters Reporters Jailed For Secrecy Act Crime

Reuters journalists Wa Lone, left, and Kyaw She Oo wave as they walk out from Insein Prison after being released in Yangon, Myanmar Tuesday, May 7, 2019. The chief of the prison said two Reuters journalists who were imprisoned for breaking the country's Officials Secrets Act have been released. (AP Photo/Thein Zaw)
BY AUNG NAING SOE

YANGON, MYANMAR(AP) — Two Reuters journalists who were imprisoned for breaking Myanmar’s Official Secrets Act over reporting on security forces’ abuses of Rohingya Muslims were pardoned and released Tuesday.

The convictions of Wa Lone, 32, and Kyaw Soe Oo, 28, had drawn condemnation from rights groups, Western governments and press associations, and the two journalists had garnered several awards and other honors. In April, they shared with their Reuters colleagues the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting, one of journalism’s highest honors.

The two were freed after President Win Myint issued a blanket pardon for 6,520 prisoners, said Zaw Zaw, chief of Insein Prison in the country’s largest city, Yangon.
Myanmar’s Supreme Court on April 23 had rejected the journalists’ final appeal against their seven-year prison terms. Their convictions were related to reporting on security forces’ abuses of the Muslim Rohingya minority. The reporters contended they were framed because of official displeasure over their reporting.

“I want to say that I am very happy today,” Wa Lone said to reporters who had gathered in front of the prison. “I want to thank our friends and families who were trying for our freedom and also to those from all over the world who sympathized with us.”

“I am really excited to see my family and colleagues. I can’t wait to go to my newsroom,” he said.

Myanmar’s military launched a brutal counterinsurgency campaign in the western state of Rakhine in 2017, driving more than 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh.

U.N. officials and others charge the campaign amounted to ethnic cleansing, and even genocide. The military has said its actions in Rakhine state were a response to attacks by Rohingya guerrillas, and it did not have a policy violating human rights or the laws of war.

The Reuters reporters had worked on an investigation of the killings of 10 Rohingya villagers in Inn Din village, for which the government last year said seven soldiers were sentenced to up 10 years in prison with hard labor.

The two reporters were arrested in December 2017 and sentenced last September after being accused of illegally possessing official documents, a violation of the colonial-era Official Secrets Act.

“We are enormously pleased that Myanmar has released our courageous reporters, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo,” said a statement issued by Reuters Editor-in-Chief Stephen Adler. “Since their arrests 511 days ago, they have become symbols of the importance of press freedom around the world. We welcome their return.”

The case drew attention not only as a media freedom issue but also as an example of how democratic reforms in long-isolated Myanmar have stalled under Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s civilian government, which took power in 2016.

The military maintains control of key ministries including those handling security, but Suu Kyi wields executive power and her stance on the Rohingya crisis has disappointed many admirers and dampened hopes for greater democracy in the country.

The United Nations office in Myanmar said it welcomed the journalists’ release.

“The U.N. in Myanmar considers the release of Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo a step toward improving the freedom of the press and a sign of Government’s commitment to Myanmar’s transition to democracy,” it said in an emailed statement.

Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director of New York-based Human Rights Watch, also applauded the release, but noted Myanmar is prosecuting other bloggers and journalists for their reporting on the military and the government.

“Myanmar’s faltering respect for media freedom indicates the dire situation facing human rights and democracy as the country moves toward national elections in 2020,” he said in an emailed statement.

Family members of the two reporters were elated.

Chit Su Win, the wife of Kyaw Soe Oo, said just before their reunion that she doesn’t know how to express her feelings, but “Now the three of us can hug each other and we are so happy for that.”

Maung Saung Kha, director of “Athan”- Freedom of Expression Movement from Myanmar - said he still has concerns about freedom of expression in Myanmar, because there are still trials of journalists.

The online magazine The Irrawaddy and other media outlets have been sued by the army for their coverage of recent fighting between the government and the Arakan Army ethnic rebel group, which also operates in Rakhine state.

Sri Lanka Catholics Celebrate Mass Via TV Amid New Warnings

Sri Lankan naval soldiers engage is re construction work of the exploded St. Anthony's church in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Friday, May 3, 2019. Catholic services are being canceled for a second weekend in Sri Lanka's capital after the government warned of more possible attacks by the same Islamic State-linked group that carried out Easter suicide bombings. (AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena)

BY KRISHAN FRANCIS

COLOMBO, SRI LANKA (AP) — Sri Lankan Catholics celebrated Sunday Mass in their homes for a second week as churches remain closed amid fears of possible fresh attacks by Islamic extremists.

Cardinal Malcom Ranjith, the archbishop of Colombo, offered a televised Mass from his residence that was attended mostly by priests and nuns.

A letter from Pope Francis addressed to him was read out at the end of the service in which the pontiff said he prayed that “hearts hardened by hatred may yield to His will for peace and reconciliation among all his children.”

At St. Anthony’s Shrine in Colombo, one of the sites targeted by Easter suicide bombings that killed 257 people, a Mass was celebrated for a small group of children as a means for inner healing.


The Rev. Prasad Harshana said before the Mass that prayers will be offered not only for the victims of violence, survivors, Catholics and the country as a whole but also for “those suicide bombers and all those people who are involved in it.”

“Because they are also misled by the evil one, we need to pray for the conversion of those people. We pray for the conversion of the hearts of the terrorists, whoever they may be.”

“That is our faith ... we love them all,” said Harshana.

The coordinated bombings that targeted three churches and three luxury hotels were carried out by a group of Sri Lankan nationals with links to the Islamic State group.

Almost all churches remained closed with armed soldiers and police guarding them. Authorities canceled Sunday services after reports emerged that a Catholic church and lay institution could be targeted this weekend.

Catholic schools have also been closed until further notice.

However, all government schools are to reopen Monday for grade 6 and up. Police have announced they will search the premises of all schools Sunday.

On Thursday, the cardinal sent a letter to church officials saying he received “foreign information” that attempts would be made last week to attack a church and another church institution. The letter later appeared on social media.

Ranjith, an outspoken critic of the Sri Lankan government’s apparent failure to act on Indian government intelligence ahead of the Easter attacks, said in the letter that he was closing churches and Catholic schools throughout Sri Lanka and canceling public congregations for Mass “until further notice.”

“For your own good, we have decided to close down those institutions,” he wrote.

Sri Lanka Minister: Easter Bombings A Response To NZ Attacks

Sri Lankans pray during a three minute nationwide silence observe to pay homage to the victims of Easter Sunday's blasts outside St. Anthony's Shrine in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Tuesday, April 23, 2019. A state of emergency has taken effect giving the Sri Lankan military war-time powers not used since civil war ended in 2009. Police arrested 40 suspects, including the driver of a van allegedly used by suicide bombers involved in deadly Easter bombings. (AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena)

BY EMILY SCHMALL, KRISHAN FRANCIS

COLOMBO, SRI LANKA (AP) — A top Sri Lanka official on Tuesday called the Easter attack on churches, hotels and other sites “retaliation” for the shooting massacre by a white supremacist at two New Zealand mosques last month, as the Islamic State group sought to claim responsibility for the attack.

Ruwan Wijewardene, the state minister of defense, told Parliament the government possessed information that the bombings were carried out “by an Islamic fundamentalist group” in response to the Christchurch attacks. He also blamed “weakness” within Sri Lanka’s security apparatus for failing to prevent the nine bombings.

“By now it has been established that the intelligence units were aware of this attack and a group of responsible people were informed about the impending attack,” Wijewardene said. “However, this information has been circulated among only a few officials.”

Wijewardene’s comments came shortly before the Islamic State group asserted it was responsible for the bombings in and outside of Colombo that killed over 320 people. But neither Wijewardene nor IS provided evidence to immediately support their claims, and authorities previously blamed a little-known Islamic extremist group in the island nation for the attack.

The office of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern issued a statement responding to the Christchurch claim that described Sri Lanka’s investigation as “in its early stages.”

“New Zealand has not yet seen any intelligence upon which such an assessment might be based,” it said. An Australian white supremacist, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, livestreamed the March 15 shootings.

Authorities announced a nationwide curfew would begin at 9 p.m. Tuesday.

As Sri Lanka’s leaders wrangled with the implications of an apparent militant attack and massive intelligence failure, security was heightened Tuesday for a national day of mourning and the military was employing powers to make arrests it last used during a devastating civil war that ended in 2009.

The six near-simultaneous attacks on three churches and three luxury hotels and three related blasts later Sunday was Sri Lanka’s deadliest violence in a decade. Wijewardene said the death toll from the attack now stood at 321 people, with 500 wounded.

In some places, the violence struck entire families. On Easter Sunday, as they did every Sunday, Berlington Joseph Gomez and his wife, Chandrika Arumugam, went to church at Colombo’s St. Anthony’s Shrine. And as always, they brought their three sons: 9-year-old Bevon, 6-year-old Clavon and baby Avon, just 11 months old.

Two days later, they were all being mourned by dozens of neighbors gathered at the modest home of Berlington’s father, Joseph Gomez.

“All family, all generation, is lost,” Gomez said.

Word from international intelligence agencies that a local group was planning attacks apparently didn’t reach the prime minister’s office until after the massacre, exposing the continuing political turmoil in the highest levels of the Sri Lankan government.

On April 11, Priyalal Disanayaka, Sri Lanka’s deputy inspector general of police, signed a letter addressed to the directors of four Sri Lankan security agencies, warning them that a local group was planning a suicide attack in the country.


The intelligence report attached to his letter, which has circulated widely on social media, named the group allegedly plotting the attack, National Towheed Jamaar, identifying its leader as Zahran Hashmi, and said it was targeting “some important churches” in a suicide terrorist attack that was planned to take place “shortly.”

The report named six individuals likely to be involved in the plot, including someone it said had been building support for Zahran and was in hiding since the group clashed with another religious organization in March 2018.

On Monday, Sri Lanka’s health minister held up a copy of the intelligence report while describing its contents, spurring questions about what Sri Lanka police had done to protect the public from an attack.

It was not immediately clear what steps were taken by any of these security directors. Disanayaka did not answer calls or messages seeking comment.

Among the 40 people arrested on suspicion of links to the bombings were the driver of a van allegedly used by the suicide attackers and the owner of a house where some of them lived.

Heightened security was evident at an international airport outside the capital where security personnel walked explosive-sniffing dogs and checked car trunks and questioned drivers on roads nearby. Police also ordered that anyone leaving a parked car unattended on the street must put a note with their phone number on the windscreen, and postal workers were not accepting pre-wrapped parcels.

A block on most social media since the attacks has left a vacuum of information, fueling confusion and giving little reassurance the danger had passed. Even after an overnight curfew was lifted, the streets of central Colombo were mostly deserted Tuesday and shops closed as armed soldiers stood guard.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said he feared the massacre could unleash instability and he vowed to “vest all necessary powers with the defense forces” to act against those responsible.

Authorities said they knew where the group trained and had safe houses, but did not identify any of the seven suicide bombers, whose bodies were recovered, or the other suspects taken into custody. All seven bombers were Sri Lankans, but authorities said they strongly suspected foreign links.

Later Tuesday, the Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the Sri Lanka attack via its Aamaq news agency, but offered no photographs or videos of attackers pledging their loyalty to the group. Such material, often showing suicide bombers pledging loyalty before their assaults, offer credibility to their claims.

The group, which has lost all the territory it once held in Iraq and Syria, has made a series of unsupported claims of responsibility. It recently offered its first claim of an attack in Congo.

Also unclear in Sunday’s attack was the motive. The history of Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka, a country of 21 million including large Hindu, Muslim and Christian minorities, is rife with ethnic and sectarian conflict.

In the nation’s 26-year civil war, the Tamil Tigers, a powerful rebel army known for using suicide bombers, had little history of targeting Christians and was crushed by the government in 2009. Anti-Muslim bigotry fed by Buddhist nationalists has swept the country recently.

In March 2018, Buddhist mobs ransacked businesses and set houses on fire in Muslim neighborhoods around Kandy, a city in central Sri Lanka that is popular with tourists.

After the mob attacks, Sri Lanka’s government also blocked some social media sites, hoping to slow the spread of false information or threats that could incite more violence.

Sri Lanka, though, has no history of Islamic militancy. Its small Christian community has seen only scattered incidents of harassment.

Associated Press journalists Bharatha Mallawarachi, Jon Gambrell and Rishabh Jain in Colombo and Gemunu Amarasinghe in Negombo, Sri Lanka, contributed to this report.

Follow Emily Schmall on Twitter @emilyschmall