KABUL: Afghanistan and the United States will issue a joint declaration to emphasise U.S. commitments for Afghanistan on Saturday, the day the U.S. and Taliban are scheduled to sign a deal in Doha. U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper and NATO chief Stoltenberg will come to Kabul tomorrow to announce the declaration with President Ghani, presidential spokesman Sediq Sediqqi has said.

A six-member delegation from the Afghan government, entirely chosen by President Ashraf Ghani, is expected to meet the Taliban in Doha right after the U.S.-Taliban deal scheduled to be signed on Saturday, sources said.

The Presidential Palace has called the team “a group to establish initial contacts” with the Taliban and they are meeting with the Taliban ‘at the request of the Taliban and the United States’. This meeting will be the first between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

Meanwhile, in an open letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, 22 U.S. Congress members have raised concerns over the potential agreement between Washington and the Taliban, saying: “The Taliban has a history of extracting concessions in exchange for false assurances”.

According to the letter, the Taliban will “accept nothing less” than a full-scale U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as the group seeks to establish their totalitarian “Islamic Emirate”.

The letter raises concerns that the U.S. military will involve the Taliban in counter-terrorism operations and that intelligence will be shared with the insurgent group.

Based on the letter, the Congress members want no commitment of a full U.S. withdrawal in the signed plan, among other demands.

The letter also states: “The Taliban is not a de facto counter-terrorism partner, and pretending they are ignores their long-time jihadist mission and action. They continue to be closely allied with al-Qaeda and fight alongside them”.

The Congress members have also suggested a set of demands which are as follows:

• Any deal between the U.S. and the Taliban will be public and not contain any secret annexes or side deals.
• The administration will not put American security at risk by pretending that the Taliban is a reliable counter-terrorism partner.
• There will be no intelligence sharing or “joint counter-terrorism” center established with the Taliban. This would be a farce and put American lives at risk.
• Decisions about U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan must be made based on U.S. national security requirements determined by conditions on the ground. Therefore, any deal must not contain a commitment for a full U.S. withdrawal at this point. Such a commitment would embolden America’s adversaries and undermine our allies, including the Afghan government.
• Any deal with the Taliban will include the requirement that the Taliban turn over all al-Qaeda leaders and operatives who are currently hiding in Taliban strongholds.
• There will be no uneven or premature release of Taliban prisoners.
• Current sanctions and designations against the al-Qaeda-allied Haqqani Network will remain in place regardless of any deal with the Taliban.

This comes as the U.S. and the Taliban are expected to finalise a peace deal on February 29, if the ongoing reduction in violence (RIV) period is concluded successfully.

US Representative Liz Cheney, a signatory of the letter, on Wednesday at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee asked Defense Secretary Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about any “side deals” or “secret annexes” in the planned U.S.-Taliban deal and wanted Gen. Milley to confirm that working with the Taliban in a counter-terrorism role was “lunacy”.

Both Esper and Milley expressed no specific knowledge about what Representative Cheney was referring to, with Esper saying: “Nothing comes to mind right now that you’re mentioning”. Both men reiterated that the deal is entirely “conditions-based” and the main priority is to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorists.

(By arrangement with Tolo News)

NEW DELHI: Amid the hoopla over Namastey Trump, the visit of a delegation from Crimea passed virtually unnoticed and for good reason: The head of that delegation Georgy Muradov has been sanctioned by the US. Muradov is a key figure in the territory which Russia annexed in March 2014.  He is both deputy chairman of the council of ministers (meaning cabinet) and the key official overseeing the merger with Russia.

So the visit was low-key, with Muradov meeting no officials, confining his interaction with businessmen, Russian language teachers and students. There were an estimated one thousand Indian students in Crimea studying medicine and other disciplines around the time of the annexation.  Their numbers may have come down but that remains unclear.

If there were no official meetings then why the visit?  South Block’s policy of balancing the US and Russia has been pretty obvious, and Muradov’s visit may have been intended to send a signal to Moscow.  Recall former NSA Shivshankar Menon indicating in a statement in 2014 that Russia’s annexation of Crimea (then a part of Ukraine) was driven by legitimate security interests that needed to be discussed.  But a media briefing was abruptly called off.

The Indian action did not pass totally unnoticed and US authorities reportedly voiced their concerns about the delegation’s visit even before the Trump-Modi meet. Despite sanctions, Muradov has been active.  Last year he offered to help Iran transport crude oil through Crimean ports.

Muradov’s visit underscore’s Delhi’s determination to enhance its interests with the US while at the same time ensuring it does not become dependent on a mercurial and unpredictable Trump. Russia, despite its perceived proximity to China (which renders unease here), remains a bet South Block will not overlook.

“The corrupt butcher has died without being held truly accountable for his crimes.”

Many Egyptians would concur with the sentiments of activist and journalist Hossam al-Hamalawy on the death of former president Hosni Mubarak at the age of 91. His last years were spent in the luxury of the Cairo suburb of Heliopolis and a villa in Sharm el-Sheikh. Of course, he spent some years in jail after being overthrown during the Arab Spring uprisings that swept his country in 2011, but some would say he spent too few years there to atone for his 30 years as president.

Not so Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whose condolences were possibly heartfelt, after all Mubarak had kept the Camp David Accords with Israel. “President Mubarak, my personal friend, was a leader who led his people to peace and security, to peace with Israel. I met with him many times. I was impressed by his commitment; we will continue to follow this common path.”

Mubarak’s legacy probably presents a dilemma for current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. He condoled Mubarak’s death quietly and then went on to laud Gamal Abdel Nasser, revered as a national hero. Sisi, a dictator of no mean calibre, is probably uncomfortably aware that if an entrenched Mubarak could be overthrown by his people, so could he.

Mubarak was popular as an air force chief, credited with using his fleet of Russian jets to attack Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. But his rise to the presidency was pure accident, rising to the top job after President Anwar el-Sadat was killed as he reviewed a military parade. Once in the saddle, Mubarak moved quickly to consolidate his position, assuming sweeping powers and suffocating his countrymen with tough internal security laws and a brutal police apparatus.

He cultivated ties with the Americans, portraying himself as the man who alone could keep Egypt stable and out of the grip of Islamic extremists. In return he got more than $2 billion every year in military and economic aid, although precious little filtered down to his unfortunate people.

He survived successive assassination attempts, the most famous was in 1995 during an African summit in Ethiopia. It was rumoured that his own personal bodyguards were involved although the authorities blamed Islamic extremists. In fact, Mubarak faced a constant challenge from the Gama’a al-Islamiyya, but for all his efforts, was never able to eliminate them completely.

His comeuppance came post 9/11, when US policy towards Egypt and the rest of the region underwent a drastic change. Authoritarian regimes were seen as a threat and the only solution lay in democracy. That saw the US reach out to organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood, in the belief they could be “transformed” and “moderated.”

The Arab Spring which saw huge demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, added to Mubarak’s troubles. There was widespread outrage over corruption, abuse of power and the state-ordered killing of opposition figures and activists. His overthrow was inevitable but typical of the man, during his trial, he refused to accept blame or voice any remorse over the deaths of hundreds of people at the hands of the security forces. For Egyptians, his death may matter little since they have to contend with Sisi who has proved as ruthless as Mubarak.

TRIBUTES

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

“His Excellency praised the stances of the late President in supporting the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian people, in achieving their rights to freedom and independence. He mourns the death with great sorrow,” said a statement from the official Palestinian news agency

Statement from the Egyptian presidency

“The Presidency mourns, with great sorrow, former President of the Republic, Mr. Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, for what he presented to his homeland as a leader and hero of the glorious October war…”

Former Atomic Energy Agency president, Mohamed El-Baradei

“May God have mercy on the former president … and grant his family patience and comfort.”

NEW DELHI: There were Trumpisms, sugar and spice, and a tiny spat as the U.S. President fielded questions from the Indian and American media here on Tuesday evening.

There was even a question on the coronavirus, probably because Trump is under attack back home for ostensibly not doing enough to check its outbreak in the United States.

But as far as India was concerned, Trump tread carefully and, indeed, set the tone for the press interaction at the outset by saying he would not be controversial “because I don’t want to blow the two days plus the two days of travel.” And that he would be “conservative in my answers”.

The only time the gloves appeared to come off was on the trade deficit with India. Declaring “I know what the problems are. The
previous administrations had no clue,” Trump then proceeded to say “India
charges a high amount of tariff.” He then went on to mention the Harley
Davidson motorbikes (for the umpteenth time) as an example of the high-tariffs
India levies.

“It has to be reciprocal. The U.S. has to be treated fairly. We’ve had a tremendous deficit with India,” said Trump. The deficit while down to $24 billion from the previous $30 billion shouldn’t be there, he continued. He also said that “if the deal (on trade) happens with India, it would be towards the end of this year.”

This should prove helpful for the American leader in what is an election year for him.

He neatly sidestepped questions on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) saying “I didn’t discuss the CAA with PM Modi, it is up to India. I don’t want to say anything on CAA. I hope India will take the right decision for its people. I want to leave that to India and hopefully they will make the right decision for their people.”

As for the riots rocking the country’s capital, the President said they are “an individual incident and it’s up to India to handle it.” Asked about religious freedom in India, the President said: “We specifically discussed Muslims and Christians and I got a very powerful response from him. We talked about religious liberty for a very long time.”

The President further said the PM told him that the population of Muslims which was “14 million a short while ago” is now 200 million! And that the PM also told him that “we’re working very closely with the Muslim community”.

The President offered to mediate between India and Pakistan on Kashmir as he’s done more than once in the past. “Anything I can do to
mediate on Kashmir, I will do. Kashmir has been a thorn in both sides for a long time. There are two sides to every story…”, he said, maintaining that he has a “very good relationship with Pakistan and we talked (he and the PM) about it (Pakistan) at length”.

Asked about the Afghan peace deal, the President said, “India would like to see it happen. We’re pretty close to it… there’s been tremendous praise for the fact that we’re doing it.”

The President got into an argument with CNN correspondent Jim Acosta when he was asked if he would pledge not to take foreign election assistance. Trump lashed out saying, “Your record on telling the truth is so bad, you ought to be ashamed.” But his observation drew a swift response from Acosta who retorted: “Our record on delivering the truth is a lot better than yours.”

And yes, there was the matter of the President constantly referring to one gentleman by the name of Patel. He was actually referring to tycoon Lakshmi Niwas Mittal. That’s Trump for you.

NEW DELHI: “This relationship is the most important partnership of the 21^st century.” With that flourish, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that India and the U.S. were now at the level of a “comprehensive global strategic partnership”.

He underscored that increasing defence and security cooperation “is a very important aspect of our strategic partnership. Cooperation in ultra-modern defence equipment and platforms will enhance India’s defence capabilities. Our defence manufacturers are becoming part of each other’s supply chains.”

It was a point also taken up by President Trump. “We expanded our defence cooperation with agreements for India to purchase $3 billion of advanced American military equipment including Apache and MH-60 Romeo military helicopters. These deals will enhance our joint defence capabilities as our militaries continue to train and operate side-by-side.”

They sounded a common note on terrorism, agreeing on a “new mechanism to fight drug trafficking, narco-terrorism and organised crime”. Trump added that his country was working “productively with Pakistan to confront terrorists who operate on its soil.”

The Quad is being revitalised, Trump noted and referred to the first Quad ministerial meeting and expanded cooperation on cyber terrorism, cyber security and maritime cooperation to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific. Modi was less specific, referring to “our common democratic values in the Indo-Pacific and the global commons”.

He was more eloquent on energy cooperation, pointing out that in the last four years “our total energy trade volume is about $20 billion. The U.S. has become a very important oil and gas source for India.”

Which brings us to the Big T—trade. “Over the last three years, our bilateral trade has witnessed double digit growth and it has also become more balanced,” Modi noted. He underscored that four sectors alone—energy, civil aircraft, defence and education—had contributed $70 billion to the bilateral relationship.

He indicated that the commerce ministers of the two counties had reached an understanding and the go-ahead had been given for a legal framework. This package will cover some trade issues between the two but negotiations on a bigger deal, probably a free trade area, are expected to start soon.

Trump was more forthcoming. “Our teams have made tremendous progress on a comprehensive trade agreement and I am confident we can reach a deal to the benefit of both countries.”

The US International Development Finance Corporation will establish a permanent office in India, Trump announced.

He touched on the delicate issue of 5G, saying “We discussed the importance of a secure 5G network and the need for this emerging technology to be a tool for freedom, progress and prosperity – not to do anything where it could be conceived as a conduit for suppression and censorship.”

Modi avoided the issue given that 5G trials are due to be held sometime in March-April with Chinese company Huawei taking part. But he joined Trump in lauding the “Blue Dot” network, which will provide private sector led, sustainable funding for high quality infrastructure.

He also appealed to Trump to finalise a totalisation agreement that would ensure Indian techies who are in the U.S. on short-term work visas do not end up paying for social security. This is a long-standing Indian grouse but there’s been little movement so far.

KABUL: Former President Hamid Karzai and former mujahideen leader Abdul Rab Rasoul Sayyaf met with National Unity Government leaders on Monday as tensions continue to rise between electoral campaign teams.

President Ashraf Ghani has created a special commission for the ceremony of his swearing-in and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah has also set up a separate commission for a separate oath ceremony to swear himself in as president.

NATO Senior Civilian Representative for Afghanistan Nicolas Kay has called upon all parties to prioritize national unity and the peace process. “Calm, dialogue and compromise by all political leaders needed. NATO senior civilian representative urges all parties to priorities the peace process and national unity. NATO does not support actions by any party that increase tensions or the risk of violence,” Kay tweeted.

Meanwhile, a number of electoral campaign teams said that Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. special envoy for peace in Afghanistan, is also working to dispel the tensions arising from the presidential election and has met with a number of political figures.

“Mr Khalilzad’s efforts are in the direction to prevent the peace process from being harmed from the ongoing political crisis,” said Fazl Hadi Wazeen, Hekmatyar’s running mate for first vice president.

“We use effective and practical measures that can bring the process back to normal,” said Fazl Ahmad Manawi, a member of Abdullah’s team.

Khalilzad has had meetings with former president Hamid Karzai, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Abdul Rab Rasoul Sayyaf, General Dostum and a number of other politicians over the past week and has been consulting on the outcome of the political crisis arising out of the election result.

“The internal conflicts that currently exist must be resolved,” said Mamor Ahmadzai, a parliament member. “Peace is not meaningful if there is no united government,” said Ghulam Ali Afghan, another parliament member.

On the other hand, Abdullah Abdullah’s campaign has “appointed new governors” in the provinces along with making preparations for the parallel oath ceremony of Abdullah. “All preparations for the inauguration are under review and practical work has begun,” said Fraidoon Khwazoon, a spokesman for Abdullah’s campaign team.

“The election process formally ended and the Afghan people have elected Mr Ghani as their President-elect by the constitution, and are expected to hold an inauguration in the coming days and it will be attended by Afghan politicians and people,” said Sediq Sediqqi, Ghani’s spokesman.

It is expected that the oath ceremony for the President will be held on Thursday but Abdullah considers himself the winner of the presidential election and insists that he will establish an inclusive government.

(By arrangement with Tolo News)

NEW DELHI: ‘Namastey Trump’ played to a sellout crowd at Ahmedabad’s Motera Stadium on Monday, the first day of the Trump visit. As an estimated one lakh plus watched and cheered, Narendra Modi and his guest the President of the United States hugged, held hands and lavished praise on each other. And although it wasn’t an election rally, from the tone and the speeches one could be forgiven for thinking it was one.

The abhinandan (felicitation) of Donald Trump was typical of the kind of spectacle one has come to associate with Modi’s events: high on optics, mounted on a scale to dazzle even the most cynical and it came with great emotion, Modi style.

Sample these Modi quotes:

• “India US relations are not just a great partnership, it is a far greater and closer relationship”
• “There is much that we share, shared values, shared hopes and aspirations”
• “The whole world is watching us today and after this is over, there is much we will talk about”

Not one to be cast in the shade, Trump referred to the 8000 miles he and family had flown to be in Ahmedabad. “You have done a great honour to the American people. Melania and my family will always remember this remarkable hospitality,” he said. But the man, who calls himself the world’s greatest deal-maker, underscored the need for deals that could make him look good back home.

“The U.S. looks forward to providing India with some of the best and most feared military equipment on the planet,” he said adding that “the U.S. should be India’s premier defence partner and that’s the way it’s working out.”

And in an unmistakable dig at China, he said “Together we will defend our sovereignty, security and protect a free and open Indo-Pacific region for our children and for many more generations to come.”

He echoed a Modi line on terrorism: “The United States and India are firmly united in our ironclad resolve to defend our citizens from radical Islamic terrorism. Both of our countries have been hurt by the pain and turmoil of terrorism.”

Of course, the reference to working with Pakistan to curb terrorism may not have gone down too well, and no doubt South Block will carefully weigh his other words: “We are hopeful of reduced tensions, greater stability and a future of harmony for all the nations of South Asia. India has an important leadership role to play in promoting peace throughout this incredible region.”

Typically, Trump would not let Modi off the hook on trade: “We’re in the early stages of agreement on an incredible trade agreement to reduce the barriers of investment between the U.S. and India. And I’m optimistic that working together the prime minister and I can reach a fantastic deal … except that he’s a very tough negotiator.”

So some positive, some not so negative but food for thought for the future underscored by fulsome praise (on either side) and extravagant displays of affection. Tuesday is of course another day.

As we end, a reminder about how the event may have sorely tested Trump’s linguistic abilities: So ‘chaiwallah’ became ‘cheewallah’; he got completely lost with Swami Vivekananda, said Vestas for the Vedas and mangled Sachin (Tendulkar) to Suuchin! But that’s Trump. Over to tomorrow. (Super Tuesday?)

The Trump-Modi phenomenon has created a new kind of populism in world politics. This populism is based on creating spectacles, which transcend foreign policy. It goes into economic policy and everything else that they do. The narrative for both is common – you create a great event and ensure the psyche of the leadership and the population around them is based on the same narrative.

It’s very interesting to note that President Trump for instance is intrigued by the fact that after former US president Eisenhower he will get the largest number of people in the stadium. Such a realisation makes it look as if he is campaigning in India for the NRI vote in the US. This is not being done at the level of strategy, but at the level of rhetoric and I think rhetoric has now become the new norm in foreign policy.

The two leaders are shrewd enough to realise this because they are combining rhetoric and ideology to create a different kind of relationship between the US and India. For Prime Minister Modi, the spectacle serves a different kind of narrative, he is now seeking to convey through it that it puts Trump and himself on an equal footing. In that sense then he is our first NRI prime minister. So, to a certain extent, India is portraying an image of a superpower under Trump’s encouragement.

The image that the prime minister has created is very different from the one that other leaders have done in the past. When Indira Gandhi used to swoop down in her helicopter at rallies, her target was the poor and her image was socialism. Prime Minister Modi’s image is based on populism, and populism and socialism are two very different things.

So, when Indira Gandhi uses a helicopter and Modi uses a helicopter, there are two very different kinds of helicopters. Under Prime Minister Modi the image is that of an aspirational class and he makes no bones about it. For him, Davos is more important than anything else and the message that he wants to convey is that it’s time that India is taken seriously as a military, scientific and economic power and that he is the vanguard of it.

The other thing to note is that the image Trump and Modi convey are constructs, they are not real. The first two metaphors that one associate with Prime Minister Modi is the mask and the hologram, used in the Gujarat elections, and this combined with spectacle makes him a mass image. It works on specific constituencies in three ways – first the Indian NRI is deliriously happy with the prime minister; second, the Indian elite especially the middle class believe they are getting a certain importance under Modi; third the poor end up feeling that this is a good Bollywood movie.

It has to be said that the Modi narrative is a relatively new phenomenon in Indian politics. The Trump phenomenon can work in the US because they have a more homogenous society that can consume the US president in the same way.

In India, we do not have a similar tradition. Take for instance the image of Gandhi. Gandhi has been consumed by the people of India through myth, fables, and storytelling which comes out through the various proverbs attributed to him. In this prime minister, there is no such narrative of storytelling so that is why you have to keep inventing new Modis – his new forms of dress, new expressions of his thoughts through shows like Mann Ki Baat, how hard he works, how he hobnobs with the world leaders in Davos. So, he cannot, like Gandhi, be turned into a cottage industry, his image will remain expensive and aspirational and thus the Modi image will continue to remain a mass spectacle.

— As told to Ashwin Ahmad

The author is an eminent social scientist

NEW DELHI: Popular discontent and dissatisfaction with Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) simmering since March 2018 erupted into overt public criticism from the end of January 2020, prompted by news of the Wuhan virus epidemic becoming public. There is presently little indication of it abating till at least the epidemic begins to peter out. By then it would have palpably dented, if not damaged, the credibility and image of Chinese President Xi Jinping and the CCP.

The immediate provocation for this outburst has been the mishandling of the ‘Wuhan virus’, or ‘2019-Codiv’, by the Chinese authorities. China’s social media has been awash with angry posts criticising the excessive secrecy of the system and tardy response of the authorities, reluctance to admit to the epidemic and its spread and the absence of transparency. Interesting was a report in the authoritative, official news agency Xinhua on February 10, which revealed that Beijing’s Ditan Hospital was treating coronavirus patients as early as January 12, more than 10 days before the city’s first cases were publicly announced at another hospital in the Daxing district and Chinese epidemiologist Zhong Nanshan confirmed that the disease was being transmitted from person-to-person! Video clips being posted on China’s social media show that preparations to tackle the epidemic were inadequate with overcrowded hospitals and medical personnel pleading for medicines and medical supplies. The death of the 34-year old doctor and ‘whistle-blower’ on February 7, gave a fillip to the criticism and sharp condemnations. Xi Jinping’s disappearance from the official media and public functions from January 29 till February 10 were commented upon. The spate of public criticism has questioned the system of governance, the CCP’s legitimacy and undermined Xi Jinping’s credibility.

Criticism has been unusually blunt. People posted criticisms on their personal accounts despite the certain personal risk. Critics include at least two prominent Chinese intellectuals and academics and a Judge of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. A prominent Chinese civil rights activist and former lecturer at the Beijing University of Post and Telecommunications, 46-year-old Xu Zhiyong, posted an article on social media on February 3, urging Xi Jinping to step down for his “inability to handle major crises”. He cited several examples, including the China-U.S. trade war, the anti-government protests in Hong Kong and the coronavirus outbreak. He called Xi Jinping’s political ideology “confusing”, his governance model “outdated” and said he had ruined China with “exhaustive social stability maintenance measures”. Xu Zhiyong said: “Seven years ago, I appealed to you to lead China to become a nation that respects democracy and the constitution, but in return I was thrown in jail for four years. And now, your men are still looking for me trying to throw me back in jail again. I don’t think you are a villain, just someone who is not very smart. For the public’s sake, I’m asking you again: Step down, Mr Xi Jinping.”

Reputed Tsinghua University Professor Xu Zhangrun, on February 5, posted a scathing 6246-character criticism of Xi Jinping and the Chinese authorities captioned ‘Angry People No Longer Fear’, which went viral on China’s social media. The article accused the authorities in Zhongnanhai and specifically Xi Jinping of being out of touch with the peoples’ needs and perpetuating an elite with so-called ‘Red Genes’. It accused Xi Jinping and a “small circle of leaders” of creating a “state within a state and engaging in “big data terrorism”. He charged that “the political system has collapsed under the tyranny, and a governance system [made up] of bureaucrats, which has taken [the party] more than 30 years to build has floundered”. He accused the authorities of spending the “taxpayers’ hard-earned money for feeding the massive Internet police to monitor every word and deed of nationals”. Xu Zhangrun said they have not only “stifled public discussion of all ideas of life, but also stifled social communication and early warning mechanisms that existed originally” and blamed this for the failure of the authorities in Hubei to take precautions to control the epidemic. The article, which called Xi Jinping a “political tyrant”, declared “the people no longer fear” and “the Sun will eventually come to this land of freedom!” Another major 10,000-character article published by Xu Zhangrun on July 24, 2018, had ricocheted across China creating a stir among Chinese academics and students. He was suspended from his post, banned from leaving China and not allowed to publish his writings freely in China.

Pertinent is that though both Xu Zhiyong and Xu Zhangrun have been penalised and prohibited from writing, yet they have been able to post their articles on China’s social media.

Unprecedented is the lengthy article posted on February 13 on the public social media account of Duan Zhanjiang, a Judge of China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate. The article on the account criticised the shortcomings in governance, not allowing civil society to have a larger role, suppression of free speech, prediction of a far serious fallout for the Chinese economy etc. It referred also to Tsinghua University Professor Xu Zhangrun’s recent lengthy article. The article is a clear indictment of Chinese President Xi Jinping. The article did, though, end with the curious disclaimer that these are not the personal views of the Judge.

Surprising was the instigation via a Twitter account calling on the people of Wuhan to protest “the communist government’s suppression of freedom of speech and its hiding of information”. It urged the people to protest from their homes from 8 pm to 8:30 pm on February 14, 2020 by: turning off the lights for one minute at 8 pm; simultaneously knocking on pans and shouting “Protest”; the slogans “Cheers, Wuhan People!”; “Wuhan People, Save Ourselves!”; “Release Chen Qiushi!” and “Release Fang Bin!” (both arrested for revealing the truth about the epidemic situation in Wuhan); singing China’s National Anthem; throwing flyers and other pieces of paper from their homes; and doing a live broadcast or recording short videos to spread on the Internet.

But dissatisfaction with Xi Jinping and the regime has been simmering since at least 2018. The economic slowdown, unemployment, rising cost of living and consumer inflation at a near six-year high have all contributed to the discontent. Accentuated by the U.S.-China trade war, the economic slowdown resulted in the closure of factories and restaurants and lay-offs of millions of workers. The relentless campaign against corruption, which has felled hundreds of senior Party, Military and Government cadres along with millions of Party members, added to the pools of popular discontent. The negative sentiments would have got accentuated as people met relatives in their hometowns and villages during the annual Chinese New Year holidays in end January. Onset of the epidemic and quarantine regulations will have compelled many to extend their stays.

Clear indication of discontent were the sharp reactions to the proposal mooted at the National People’s Congress (NPC) in March 2018 to abolish term limits on the posts of China’s President and Vice President. Senior prominent academics, students and others reacted negatively to the proposal saying they did not want a return to Mao’s ‘one-man rule’ and asked Deputies to the National People’s Congress (NPC) to reject it. Many Party members, including in the CCP Central Committee, still retain unpleasant memories of the Cultural Revolution. Popular resentment has mounted since then.

Popular discontent was further heightened by the imposition of controls and Party ideology on academia. Party cadres have been posted in classrooms since 2018 to monitor the content of lectures, libraries were inspected and books deemed to contain ‘liberal’ western thought were weeded out. ‘Student spies’ were recruited to monitor the utterances of University professors within and outside the classrooms. The effort to strengthen the Communist Party’s leadership in universities included, for example, the removal of “freedom of thought” as a core value from the charter of the prestigious Fudan University in Shanghai and its replacement with references strengthening the Communist Party’s leadership. Students at Fudan protested with sit-ins and demonstrations on December 18, 2019 and sang Fudan University’s anthem, which specifically mentions “independent thinking.” Lu Xiaoping, Vice President of the literature school at Nanjing University, whose charter was similarly rewritten, posted a comment on Weibo on December 18—which was later deleted—saying “If we do not speak out today about such a blatant challenge to the bottom line of education and academic ethics, I am afraid we will never have the chance!”

The increasingly intrusive and strict security and ‘social stability’ measures being enforced over the past few years have upset the people. Numerous reports in the official Chinese media refer to implementation of the ‘social credit management’ programme in a growing number of cities across China. Often they indirectly point to the inconvenience caused. This was brought out by Tsinghua University Professor Lao Dongyan on October 31, 2019, who expressed her worries about facial recognition technology. In a 2900-word post on her public Wechat account she wrote: “I cannot accept this type of kindness… We must know that in our society, any personal data, as long as it is controlled by enterprises or other institutions, is also controlled by the government. Because this huge organisation is run by specific people, this is equivalent to saying that all personal data, including highly recognisable biometric data, are controlled by a few people in that group… The people who control our data are obviously not God. They have their own selfish desires and weak points. Therefore, it is unknown how they will use our personal data and how they will manipulate our lives. Not to mention, such data may be leaked or hacked due to improper storage, leading to harmful results that may be exploited by criminals.” Interestingly, Professor Lao Dongyan was one of nearly 300 faculty and students at Tsinghua who signed a letter in support of Tsinghua Professor Xu Zhangrun, suspended for criticisms of the Communist Party.

A BBC report (in Chinese) on December 6, 2019 reflected the public sentiment about the usage of security controls and facial recognition software. Commenting on a new Chinese government initiative requiring Chinese people to undergo facial scanning while registering their new mobile phone numbers, it referred to an online survey on facial recognition done by a research centre affiliated to the Guangzhou-based official Southern Metropolis Daily. Among the respondents, 57 per cent were worried that their personal whereabouts were recorded while nearly 50 per cent were worried that criminals may use fake information to perform fraud or theft. Nearly 84 per cent of the respondents wanted operators of the facial recognition system to provide them with a channel to view or delete facial data. 74 per cent of respondents wanted to choose whether to use facial recognition or traditional methods. However, the survey also showed that about 60 per cent to 70 per cent of respondents believe that facial recognition makes public places safer.

In addition to the poor economy and imposition of security and ideological controls, Chinese President Xi Jinping is viewed as responsible for the set-backs in China’s foreign policy, namely the U.S.-China trade war, situation in Hong Kong and recent victory of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan. Some Chinese strategists and academics have said the China-U.S. relationship was mishandled due to arrogance and overconfidence. According to them, China is not powerful enough to challenge the U.S. and Xi Jinping’s declaration at the 19th Party Congress in October 2017 of the ‘China Dream’-2021, ‘Made in China-2025’ and China reaching the level of the world’s advanced global powers by 2049, challenged U.S. primacy. They assess the U.S.-China trade war has placed China in a difficult situation, is isolating it and could delay it realising its ambitions. Chinese academics have suggested that Beijing revert to its earlier policy of ‘biding one’s time’.

The situation in Hong Kong is directly linked to Xi Jinping’s ‘China Dream’, which includes reunification of China. By not acting swiftly, Xi Jinping has allowed the situation in Hong Kong—which reverted to China’s rule 23 years ago—to slip into the control of the protesters for almost 10 months and provide an example to others, like Taiwan, of a successful challenge to Beijing’s rule. While Chinese analysts say that Xi Jinping did not want a repeat of the Tiananmen ‘event’ or to shed Chinese blood, the indecision points also to differences within the Politburo that possibly hamper a consensus. The inaction despite concerns about a ‘colour revolution’, being voiced by Xi Jinping at a Politburo Standing Committee meeting and other Directors of Provincial Public Security bureaus, is inexplicable. It is only on January 4 that Xi Jinping took steps to apparently demonstrate he is taking charge and replaced the head of the Liaison Office in Hong Kong with 65-year-old former Shanxi Province Party Secretary Luo Huining. But till the Hong Kong issue is resolved, the matter of Taiwan’s reunification with mainland China will stay in limbo and Xi Jinping’s ‘China Dream’ will not be achieved.

A lot is at stake for Xi Jinping and the CCP. Unless the economy picks up, unemployment is checked and gains made in foreign policy and the ‘China Dream’, the CCP and Xi Jinping risk their legitimacy being seriously dented. In the event of there being no substantive visible improvement Chinese President Xi Jinping, who has consistently pushed ideology and nationalism since coming to office in 2012, might be coerced by the Party and its veterans to share power in the run-up to the upcoming 20th Party Congress and not continue thereafter.

(The author is a former Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India and is presently President of the Centre for China Analysis and Strategy. Views expressed in this article are personal.)