HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CHINA “SHOCKING” AND SAYS WARNINGS ABOUT HUAWEI FROM WASHINGTON SHOULD BE TAKEN “VERY VERY SERIOUSLY

https://auswahl.handelsblatt.com/50off/display/bottomlayer/a/?cx_te...

Staatsminister Niels Annen kritisiert Peking ungewöhnlich scharf

Der Außenstaatsminister spricht im Interview über den EU-China-Gipfel, die europäische Chinapolitik und die Gefahr einer neuen Blockkonfrontation.
13.09.2020 - 17:45 Uhr Kommentieren  
Der SPD-Politiker ist Staatsminister im Auswärtigen Amt. Quelle: imago images/photothek
Niels Annen

Der SPD-Politiker ist Staatsminister im Auswärtigen Amt.

(Foto: imago images/photothek)

Berlin Vor dem als Videokonferenz stattfindenden EU-China-Gipfel hat Niels Annen, Staatsminister im Auswärtigen Amt, das chinesische Regime in ungewöhnlicher Schärfe kritisiert: Berichte über Menschenrechtsverletzungen in China nannte er im Gespräch mit dem Handelsblatt „schockierend“. Es gebe eine „ganze Reihe von Entwicklungen, die man nicht ignorieren“ könne.

Dabei führte Annen auch das drakonische Sicherheitsgesetz für Hongkong und die provokanten chinesischen Militärmanöver im südchinesischen Meer auf. „Die Politik der Zurückhaltung unter Deng Xiaoping, der den wirtschaftlichen Aufstieg in den Mittelpunkt gerückt und territoriale, politische Konflikte hintenangestellt hat – diese Politik scheint unter Xi Jinping endgültig vorbei zu sein“, sagte Annen.

Mit einem Durchbruch bei den Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und China über ein Investitionsabkommen rechnet das Auswärtige Amt nicht. „China müsste noch weitreichende Zugeständnisse machen“, kritisierte Annen. „In Kernbereichen der Verhandlungen sind wir bislang zu wenig vorangekommen.“ Der SPD-Politiker rechtfertigte auch die Haltung des Außenministeriums, wonach chinesische Technologiekonzerne wie Huawei in Deutschland nicht als Ausrüster kritischer Infrastrukturen, etwa dem 5G-Netz, infrage kommen sollten.

„Ich glaube, dass wir die Argumente aus Washington gegenüber Huawei sehr, sehr ernst nehmen sollten“, sagte er. Es gebe zudem „ein wohlbegründetes Misstrauen gegenüber Chinas Umgang mit Big Data. Wir sehen ja, wie digitale Technologien in China und darüber hinaus zur Überwachung angewendet werden“, mahnte Annen.

Zugleich wandte sich der Staatsminister gegen die konfrontative Chinapolitik der USA. „Ich spreche mich auch gegen eine Dämonisierung von China aus“, betonte er. Die Sprache sei in der Diplomatie ein wichtiges Instrument, vielleicht sogar das wichtigste.

Man müsse im Dialog bleiben. Annen warnte vor Bestrebungen, den westlichen Wirtschaftsraum vom chinesischen abzukoppeln: Dies „würde eine völlig neue Logik in den Wirtschaftsbeziehungen einleiten, es wäre eine neue Form des Protektionismus: konkurrierende, sich gegenseitig ausschließende Systeme“.

Diese Entwicklung sei bereits im Gange. Annen sagte, er fühle sich teils an den Kalten Krieg erinnert: „Das ist nicht im Interesse eines Landes wie Deutschland, dessen Wirtschaftsmodell auf freiem Welthandel beruht.“

Lesen Sie hier das gesamte Interview: 

Herr Annen, das Gebaren Chinas trifft in Europa zunehmend auf Gegenwehr. Woran liegt das?
Das Chinabild der Europäer wandelt sich. Es hat sich gelohnt, dass wir uns in Vorbereitung auf die deutsche EU-Ratspräsidentschaft eng mit unseren Partnern abgestimmt haben. Auf seiner Europareise vergangene Woche hat der chinesische Außenminister Wang Yi in zentr... dieselben Botschaften gehört. Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass es darüber in Peking jetzt eine Diskussion gibt. Wir sehen eben doch eine ganze Reihe von Entwicklungen, die man nicht ignorieren kann. 

Was macht Ihnen besonders Sorgen?
Da ist die Menschenrechtslage, insbesondere gegenüber ethnischen Minderheiten wie den Uiguren in Xinjiang, da ist das Sicherheitsgesetz in Hongkong. Wir haben erlebt, wie die Chinesen im Schatten der Corona-Pandemie Militärmanöver im südchinesischen Meer in ungewohnter Intensität stattfinden ließen. Wegen solcher Entwicklungen erleben wir eine Neuorientierung in Europa. Es gibt aber auch den Willen, mit China im Dialog zu bleiben. Auch das hat Wangs Reise gezeigt. Also: klare Haltung, wenn es um Grundüberzeugungen der Europäer geht. Zugleich die Bereitschaft, mit China weiter zusammenzuarbeiten. Wir wollen eine Partnerschaft auf Augenhöhe. 

But where are the results? Hasn't the hope of negotiating an investment agreement between Europe and China long since been dashed? China would still have to make far-reaching concessions. We have not made enough progress in key areas of the negotiations so far. However, the fact that the videoconference is taking place also shows a difference in European and American foreign policy. We have been seeing massive political attacks on Beijing from Washington for months. There is a real campaign with coordinated speeches by senior US officials. The rhetoric is almost reminiscent of the Cold War.

Are the Americans not right to denounce grievances in China? German politics shares many of the criticisms at its core. I do not want to mince words: I am very concerned, for example, about the reports from Xinjiang. What goes out from there is shocking. However, we have our own sovereign European approach. A new global confrontation cannot be in our interest. That is why it is important to keep the channels of conversation open.

„Wahrscheinlich ist Xi der mächtigste Präsident seit Staatsgründer Mao.“ Quelle: imago images/Metodi Popow
Niels Annen

"Probably Xi is the most powerful president since state founder Mao."

(Photo: imago images/Metodi Popow)

Also for alibi events such as the human rights dialogue? I know this criticism and I do not share it. I can say that I do not know many countries that, like the Federal Republic, raise human rights issues at every high-level opportunity. If we in Europe could agree on a more uniform line on human rights issues, we would be heard much more strongly in Beijing.

However, China policy in particular is still predominantly pronounced at national level, including in Germany. Of course, there are also bilateral issues that each EU country pursues at national level. However, on all major issues – including transparency and market principles, the rule of law and human rights – we share common European interests and values. We are the most successful way to pursue these together. At our initiative, we have also succeeded in adopting a common EU line in response to the National Security Act in Hong Kong. When individual states come under pressure, such as the Czech Republic, we must show that we do not allow ourselves to be divided.

More than a dozen EU countries have signed separate memorandums of understanding with China on the new Silk Road project. This is not a show of unity, but of division. We are not happy about it, but there is no reason to panic. What we are hearing is that in many countries, people are now looking very soberly at the Chinese Silk Road Initiative. Many promises are not being fulfilled. In this respect, we have the opportunity to move closer together. Otherwise, we run the risk of under-ploughing our interests.

Would Europe send the right signal if it were to reward china, which is breaking standards, with an investment agreement? Our aim is to enable European companies in China to access the same market and investment conditions that Chinese companies in Europe receive. And, for all the criticism of China, we should acknowledge the enormous achievement of getting 400 to 500 million people out of poverty. There is no precedent for this in world history. But it is also true that the policy of restraint under Deng Xiaoping, who has put economic rise at the center and put territorial, political conflicts behind us– seems to be over for good under Xi Jinping.

The dictatorship has consolidated its power. We are experiencing a concentration of power. It is not, of course, that China was democratic before Xi, but there was some form of collective leadership. Xi is probably the most powerful president since Mao was the founder of the state. From the outside, it is sometimes difficult to judge how stable the regime actually is.

The Americans see the conflict with China as an ideological confrontation. Rightly so? Whether the Chinese leadership really pursues a Marxist-Leninist ideology, as is being spread by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, I have my doubts. Many years ago, I was able to follow discussions in the party school of the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. I was not impressed by the level of discussion. I think as a learned Stamokap-Juso I knew much more about Marxism than many of the party cadres present (laughs).

If that's What Pompeo knew ... China is certainly an example of how an authoritarian state with great innovation potential and growing economic strength is challenging values that we consider essential. The confrontation with China is of world-historical importance, which is not an exaggeration. It is a question of whether we succeed in defending our own convictions without throwing the world into a new cold war. That is why I am also opposed to the demonisation of China: language is already an important instrument in diplomacy, perhaps even the most important. So we are holding on to the point that there is no containment, no decoupling, like the United States. But what then?
Let me first point out what it would mean to build two completely separate, interdependent political and economic blocs. It would introduce a completely new logic in economic relations, it would be a new form of protectionism: competing, mutually exclusive systems. We can see that this is the way forward. This is not in the interests of a country like Germany, whose economic model is based on free world trade. Decoupling cannot be our strategy.

On the other hand, the dogma of change has been overtaken by trade. There was a period in the West's China policy when there was too much belief that economic liberalization would automatically lead to political freedom. That has not been confirmed, quite the contrary. But I would like to warn that we are looking at China like a shock stare and have the impression that we cannot help ourselves other than resort to Cold War concepts.

But? We say: more meetings, more commitment, in China, but above all with the neighbours in the region. This strategy was presented by the Federal Government with the Indo-Pacific Guidelines. We are not targeting China, but we want to diversify our relations. We want to be more active in the region in order to protect and strengthen our interests, principles and values. We see this, for example, in the intensity of relations with Vietnam or in Singapore's great interest in cooperation.

There is a lot of controversy in the cabinet about the Supply Supply Supply Act: it is intended to encourage companies to pay attention to human rights protections for their foreign business partners as well. If this law comes as the SPD demands, wouldn't it mean the start of decoupling? First of all, I very much hope that we can enforce this law against the opposition of the CDU. Decoupling is not the goal. However, Chinese suppliers must comply with certain rules and guarantees.

The Americans want to rid Western data networks of Chinese technology. Beijing is now countering with a "Data Security Initiative" and offering itself to Europeans as a partner in the fight for data protection. Do you take this proposal seriously? We should look at it. But there is a well-founded distrust of China's handling of big data. We are seeing how digital technologies are being used for surveillance in China and beyond. We are fully aware that part of geopolitics today is being fought over the control and standardisation of new technologies. Overall, we would be much better off if we not only coordinated our China policy more closely in Europe, but also coordinated such steps more closely with the US side.

What significance does the US election have for German China policy? Democrats are also very critical of China. There is also a contest in the election campaign over who is tougher on Beijing. I therefore do not expect to say goodbye to a policy of confrontation. But I would like us to intensify the transatlantic dialogue on China. We see that the renunciation of acting as a West, or even thinking in this category, weakens us.

But do the Americans expect Germany to move – and exclude Chinese technology providers from the German 5G network? The vote within the Federal Government is ongoing. I have been sufficiently critical of the style of American China policy. But I believe that we should take the arguments from Washington against Huawei very, very seriously.

Mr Annen, thank you very much for the interview.

More: Thanks to massive government investment, China will be the only maj...

Views: 14

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

"Destroying the New World Order"

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

Latest Activity

Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post Was Sabotage or Terrorism used in the Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge?
"Perfect for destroying the supply chain. It could well have been intentional."
12 hours ago
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post Was Sabotage or Terrorism used in the Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge?
12 hours ago
Doc Vega posted blog posts
14 hours ago
rlionhearted_3 posted photos
17 hours ago
rlionhearted_3 favorited Doc Vega's photo
17 hours ago
tjdavis posted a video

Alabama’s Biggest Secret - Operation Paperclip 🇺🇸

In the north of Alabama is the city of Huntsville. It's here where German scientists built NASA in secrecy after World War II. Operation Paperclip is still s...
21 hours ago
tjdavis posted a photo
22 hours ago
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Americans You’re Being Squeezed Out!
"Cheeki kea always nice to her you chime in and you're damn right! "
yesterday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Americans You’re Being Squeezed Out!
"Les Prone thanks for your support Dude! "
yesterday
Doc Vega posted a photo

The inconvenient truth

Trump spells it out!
yesterday
Sandy posted a photo
Wednesday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post What Made the Founding Fathers of America so Brilliant?
Tuesday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post Why didn't the Archeological World Announce Proof that Jesus Lived?
"Motives of Joe, to shit in the well by showing totally irrelevant proof?"
Tuesday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Why didn't the Archeological World Announce Proof that Jesus Lived?
"Less, Motives of Wyatt or Joe? What archeologist wouldn't want proof of Jesus as part of his…"
Tuesday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Why didn't the Archeological World Announce Proof that Jesus Lived?
"Less Prone, Considering Joe Rogan to be the gatekeeper of anything is just short of ridiculous the…"
Tuesday
Doc Vega posted a blog post
Tuesday
MAC posted a video

Don't Go To Hong Kong Now (Even on Connecting Flights)

Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code laowhy86 for an extra 3 months free at https://Surfshark.deals/laowhy86Article 23 in Hong Kong is real,...
Tuesday
cheeki kea commented on cheeki kea's video
Thumbnail

Terrorist Attack on Moscow - Ukraine Committing Suicide? | Larry C. Johnson

"...And I guess I'll just park this you tube here also for something to ponder from last year.…"
Tuesday
tjdavis posted photos
Tuesday
Less Prone posted a video

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) NL

Deze nieuwe documentaire van de Britse filmmaker Martin Durkin toont aan dat klimaatalarm een verzonnen doembeeld is zonder enige wetenschappelijke basis. He...
Monday

© 2024   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted