- German coalition divided over Olympic boycott
- Lithuania-China conflict: will a new EU instrument help?
- Sinolytics.Radar: bigger role of national pride in consumerism
- Evergrande missed interest payment deadline
- China reaches milestone in wind power
- Profile: Stephan Orth – couchsurfer and travel journalist
Occasionally, strange “coincidences” can occur in geopolitics. For instance, Lithuania has just disappeared from China’s customs system for a few days. Curiously, trade is interrupted with the same country that recently turned to Taiwan and thus stood up to the People’s Republic. There was talk of a technical error. It is so thinly veiled that it can only be read as a message to Vilnius. Amelie Richter took a closer look at the conflict between the Baltic EU nation and China. Beijing provides a prime example of the potential use of the EU’s new instrument against economic coercion.
Whether any “technical errors” will also occur in the diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics by the US, in other words, whether the US will have to fear severe consequences, remains to be seen. However, Beijing has already announced “firm countermeasures”. Felix Lee reports about the reactions to the boycott from Beijing and political Berlin. In Germany, there is sympathy for a boycott among the Greens, but the coalition partners SPD and FDP are far more cautious.
Nico Beckert
Feature
US boycott forces hand of traffic lights coalition
To engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval – that is the definition of the term “boycott”. It goes back to the British landowner Charles Cunningham Boycott, who was known for charging usurious rates of interest to his tenants and for victimizing his employees. They all resigned and took to the streets to protest him. Villagers joined the protest and were boycotting all trade with him. Even mail was no longer delivered to him. The boycott as a form of protest was born.
The US has now announced a boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing. And a “diplomatic” one at that. Due to the ongoing human rights violations against the Muslim Uyghurs, among others, Washington will not send any government representatives to the Games, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki announced. When asked why the US government refrained from a full boycott of the Games, Psaki replied that the intention was not to punish the athletes who had trained hard for the Games.
Now one might think: So what? Whether representatives of the US government will be sitting in the stands at the opening ceremony doesn’t really affect the Games. China’s rigid Covid measures do not provide for an audience from abroad anyway. In his first reaction to the decision, the spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington said on Twitter that the boycott would have no impact on the Games. “No one would care about whether these people come or not”. China’s state-run Global Times first tried to play down the conflict on Twitter: “To be honest, Chinese are relieved to hear the news, because the fewer US officials come, the fewer viruses will be brought in”
Continue reading now
Get 30 days of free access to the Decision Brief to read these and more quality news every day.
Are you already a guest at the China.Table? Log in now