關於 communist terrorism ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#Opinion by Tom Rogan｜”Two new reports this week outlined the great lengths the Chinese Communist Party has gone to in order to purge Islam from Xinjiang province.

This campaign of eradication is not, as the Communists claim, simply focused on counter-terrorism or counter-extremism…”

Read: https://bit.ly/3ydHwkN
__________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP

#AppleDailyENG

‼️Breaking‼️突發‼️

美國財政部周四按《全球馬格尼茨基人權問責法》（The Global Magnitsky Act），宣佈制裁4名中國人及新疆公安局，其中包括新疆黨委書記陳全國、前政法委書記朱海侖、新疆維吾爾自治區政府副主席王明山，以及現任新疆維吾爾自治區公安廳黨委書記霍留軍，指他們涉及嚴重侵犯新疆少數民族的人權。

“Treasury Sanctions Chinese Entity and Officials Pursuant to Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act...

‼️Breaking‼️突發‼️

美國財政部周四按《全球馬格尼茨基人權問責法》（The Global Magnitsky Act），宣佈制裁4名中國人及新疆公安局，其中包括新疆黨委書記陳全國、前政法委書記朱海侖、新疆維吾爾自治區政府副主席王明山，以及現任新疆維吾爾自治區公安廳黨委書記霍留軍，指他們涉及嚴重侵犯新疆少數民族的人權。

“Treasury Sanctions Chinese Entity and Officials Pursuant to Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act
July 9, 2020

Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned one Chinese government entity and four current or former government officials in connection with serious rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). These designations include Chen Quanguo, the Communist Party Secretary of XUAR, and Zhu Hailun, a former Deputy Party Secretary of the XUAR. Also designated today is the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (XPSB), as well as the current Director and Communist Party Secretary of the XPSB, Wang Mingshan, and the former Party Secretary of the XPSB, Huo Liujun. The entity and officials are being designated for their connection to serious human rights abuse against ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, which reportedly include mass arbitrary detention and severe physical abuse, among other serious abuses targeting Uyghurs, a Turkic Muslim population indigenous to Xinjiang, and other ethnic minorities in the region.

“The United States is committed to using the full breadth of its financial powers to hold human rights abusers accountable in Xinjiang and across the world,” said Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin.

This action is being taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13818, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption,” which builds upon and implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.

These designations are the latest U.S. government actions in an ongoing effort to deter human rights abuses in the Xinjiang region. On July 1, 2020, the U.S. Department of State, along with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, issued the Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory, advising businesses with potential supply chain exposure to Xinjiang to consider the reputational, economic, and legal risks of involvement with entities that engage in human rights abuses in Xinjiang, such as forced labor. On May 22, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce added nine PRC entities related to human rights abuses in the Xinjiang region to the Commerce Entity List; this action complemented the October 2019 addition to the Commerce Entity List of 28 entities engaged in the PRC repression campaign in the Xinjiang region. Also, in October 2019, the U.S. Department of State announced a visa restriction policy under section 212 (a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for PRC and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials responsible for, or complicit in, human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

CHEN QUANGUO AND ZHU HAILUN

The Xinjiang region in western China is home to Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, ethnic Kyrgyz, and other traditionally Muslim minority groups. XUAR is the regional government of Xinjiang and falls under the governance of the PRC. Chen Quanguo (Chen) is the Party Secretary of the XUAR, a position he was appointed to in 2016, following Chen’s notorious history of intensifying security operations in the Tibetan Autonomous Region to tighten control over the Tibetan ethnic minorities. While Chen was already known for his ability to control “ethnic unrest,” when he got to Xinjiang, he had a deputy who understood the Xinjiang region, Zhu Hailun (Zhu), who for the past few decades had held several positions in the Chinese Communist Party, prior to holding the position of Party Secretary of the Xinjiang Political and Legal Committee (XPLC) from 2016 to 2019. In this role, Zhu was responsible for maintaining internal security and law enforcement in the XUAR; while Zhu left this role in 2019, he still currently serves as the Deputy Secretary of Xinjiang’s People’s Congress, a regional legislative body. Following his arrival to the region, Chen began implementing a comprehensive surveillance, detention, and indoctrination program in Xinjiang, targeting Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities through the XPSB.

As a part of Chen’s plans, the large-scale construction of mass detention camps, labelled “training centers,” greatly escalated in 2017, and as the Party Secretary of the XPLC, Zhu established the policies and procedures for managing these detention camps with the purported goal of using the camps to fight terrorism and maintain stability. Zhu’s policies outlined how the detention camps would operate, to include not allowing “escapes” and “abnormal deaths.” At the same time, former detainees of these detention camps report that deaths occurred among fellow detainees after torture and abuse at the hands of the security officials. A large focus of these detention camps was constant surveillance, even while detainees remain totally cut off from the outside world.

Chen is being designated for being a foreign person who is or has been a leader or official of an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in serious human rights abuse relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure, and Zhu is being designated for being a foreign person who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse.

REPRESSION IN THE XUAR: XINJIANG PUBLIC SECURITY BUREAU, HUO LIUJUN, AND WANG MINGSHAN

Since at least late 2016, repressive tactics have been used by the XPSB against the Uyghurs and members of other ethnic minority groups in the region, including mass detentions and surveillance. The PRC’s surveillance has targeted members of religious and ethnic minority groups, as the Chinese government treats almost all expressions of faith as a sign of religious “extremism” or ethnic separatism. Targets of this surveillance are often detained and reportedly subjected to various methods of torture and “political reeducation.” According to press reporting, since at least 2017, more than one million Muslims have been held in these camps.

Under the command of Huo Liujun (Huo), leader of the XPSB from at least March 2017 to 2018, and Wang Mingshan (Wang), leader of the XPSB since at least May 2018, the XPSB has deployed the “Integrated Joint Operations Platform” (IJOP), an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted computer system that created biometric records for millions of Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region. The XPSB, through the IJOP, uses digital surveillance systems to track Uyghurs’ movements and activities, to include surveilling who they interact with and what they read. In turn, IJOP uses this data to determine which persons could be potential threats; according to reports, some of these individuals are subsequently detained and sent to detention camps, being held indefinitely without charges or trial. The IJOP AI platform is one of the first examples of governments using AI for racial profiling. According to press reporting, the IJOP technology looks exclusively for Uyghurs, based on their appearance, and keeps records of their movements. The mass detention of Uyghurs is part of an effort by PRC authorities to use detentions and data-driven surveillance to create a police state in the Xinjiang region.

The XPSB is being designated for being a foreign person responsible for, or complicit in, or that has directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse. Huo and Wang are each being designated for being a foreign person who is or has been a leader or official of an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13818 as a result of activities related to the leaders’ or officials’ tenure.

SANCTIONS IMPLICATIONS

As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the entity and individuals named above, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or otherwise exempt, OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons. The prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services from any such person.

GLOBAL MAGNITSKY

Building upon the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, the President signed E.O. 13818 on December 20, 2017, in which the President found that the prevalence of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, had reached such scope and gravity that it threatens the stability of international political and economic systems. Human rights abuse and corruption undermine the values that form an essential foundation of stable, secure, and functioning societies; have devastating impacts on individuals; weaken democratic institutions; degrade the rule of law; perpetuate violent conflicts; facilitate the activities of dangerous persons; and undermine economic markets. The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those who commit serious human rights abuse or engage in corruption, as well as to protect the financial system of the United States from abuse by these same persons.”

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1055

Don’t get overawed (Lee Yee)

On the day that the National Security Law was passed by the National People’s Congress, I got a message of a friend from afar: “Are you secure?” I answered without even giving it a thought: ”No one is secure in a secure country.”

When maximal authority of a country is realized, individual rights are so minimal that no one is secure. Even in China where the plebs would answer with a big NO, are people in power secure? Was Liu Shaoqi, the late Chairman of the People’s Republic of China persecuted to death during the Cultural Revolution, secure? In the past 70 years, have most of the people in power of different levels been secure in view of the miseries they have encountered? Was and is Jiang Zemin, the former General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party(CCP), secure? Is Xi Jinping secure?

The befalling of the National Security Law is likened to “the second handover of Hong Kong”. An online article points out “the difference between the first and second handover” is that “the people who resent the CCP in 2020 is countless times more than those in 1997, and in terms of reputation, conduct and calibre, the people who espouse the second handover in 2020 are not even comparable to those who espouse the first handover in 1997”. Another says that “Hong Kongers belonging to no country before handover used to live in peace and work with contentment”, and asks “where their homes are when they belong to a nation”? In China, even the movers and shakers evacuate their relatives by fair means or foul from their country to a strange place they call home in the West.

The Articles of the Hong Kong version of National Security Law was not announced until it took effect, so that Carrie Lam was unable to utter a word about the details of it on the day of implementation of the Law. Legislation as such is preposterous. The full text of it is awash with equivocal meanings of unfinished wordings, which is so jaw-dropping that even a layman would ask: What kind of legal document is that? Zhao Sile, a journalist from China, said online: “The Law is typically from China because the laws of China have always been ambiguous and ill-defined”. She continued, “How are they enforced? Arbitrary and flexible provisions are made by different administrative departments which then inflate in power unceasingly.”

Regarding the abovementioned, it is almost pointless to delve into every Article of it for clarifying under what circumstances does one offend and not offend the Law, and where the grey areas are. Take those dubbed the “four ringleaders of Hong Kong independence” and “gang of four that jeopardizes Hong Kong” by Chinese media as an example. While they are known to be opposed to Hong Kong independence and even anti-localist, and did not advocate the protest last year, China deems them to be guilty of all of the above by dismissing the actuality. Subsequently, some budding political groups disbanded in no time. However, if the CCP decides to recriminate, on no account can they escape. That being said, it is possible that China will sit on the issue of Hong Kong independence provisionally in an attempt to dilute the sanctions against it from overseas. With the arbitrariness and flexibility of laws of China and its enforcement, no one is secure, nor one is doomed to committing a crime. Falling into a trap is simply akin to running into a car accident.

Looking at the National Security Law, Hong Kongers, who are accustomed to living under the rule of law, will naturally get frightened and anxiety-ridden, and try to wash their hands of sensitive issues. They think they will stay secure by stopping short of slogans with content of “secession of state” or disbanding a political group. In reality, if the CCP wants to get you in trouble, it does not have to leverage the National Security Law. Manipulated by the CCP, the SAR government can do and will do whatever stipulated by the National Security Law. Is the Law retroactive? Wasn’t the disqualification sentence for Leung Chunghang and Yau Waiching, former Legislative Council members, retroactive? And the judge that brought in the verdict based on retroactivity was Andrew Cheung Kuinung, the next Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to-be. Does it make sense to contemplate upon the situation differently before and after the enactment of the National Security Law?

Now that the CCP can do whatever it wants. Is the enactment of the National Security Law an unnecessary move? As Chinese officials said, the Law, like a sword dangling above Hong Kongers, is to get them overawed and frightened.

Scared? Surely. Yet, one should have been scared much earlier on. If one had been scared, one would have arranged for fleeing from Hong Kong. Those who choose to stay should not let fear take control of them.

I have always remembered what British writer Salman Rushdie wrote after September 11 attacks in 2001: “Amid the conflict between liberty and security, we should always opt to stand with liberty without remorse even though we make a wrong choice. How do we beat terrorism? Don’t get overawed and don’t let fear take control of you even though you are scared.”

The late U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” If we let fear take control of us, we give up liberty.