HK completes local amendments for election overhaul, moving into ‘fast & smooth’ track for upcoming elections by Chen Qingqing May 27 2021

With the Legislative Council (LegCo) completing the review of a number of amendments as part of the improvement of the Hong Kong electoral system on Thursday, Hong Kong has been accelerating the process of ushering in a proper governance system in which only patriots run for public office, saving the city from rioting, citywide rampages, endless filibustering tactics from the radical opposition and the risk of color revolutions.

http://enapp.globaltimes.cn/#/article/1224655

During the voting process, 40 lawmakers voted for the amendment bill, two voted against it. After three readings of the bill, relevant regulations will be signed by the chief executive of the HKSAR government and published in the Government Gazette before taking effect.

In took less than two months for Hong Kong’s legislative body to finalize the local law amendments, including the amendment of eight main body articles and 24 auxiliary articles, laying out details for electing the Hong Kong chief executive and the formation of the LegCo.

This was also the fastest local law amendment process in Hong Kong, because with virtually no radical opposition in the local legislature, no one appeared to challenge the will and determination of the central government in safeguarding the national security and constitutional order of Hong Kong under the national security law and through the electoral reform in the city, observers said.

“Also, it’s not something that started from zero. The top legislature has already laid out the fundamentals for the overhaul. What the local legislative body has to do is localize them as soon as possible,” Tang Fei, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, told the Global Times.

Highlights of NPC decision to improve Hong Kong electoral system Graphic: Jin Jianyu and Xu Zihe/GT

The milestone reform in closing the loopholes in the city’s governance structure is widely considered as another significant step following the enactment of the national security law for Hong Kong in restoring the social order and rooting out the risks of color revolutions incited by external forces and their political proxies in Hong Kong and helping the city shake off endless political disputes and pressure from radical forces.

Some of the major changes involve the distribution of seats in LegCo, which now include 40 seats from the Election Committee, 30 from functional constituencies and 20 which are directly elected, with the number of seats increasing from 70 to 90.

The current seats of super district councillors have been scrapped, while newly added seats include HKSAR deputies to the NPC and HKSAR members of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) – the top political advisory body – as well as representatives of Hong Kong members of relevant national organizations.

Also, a new section of 300 members has been added to the Hong Kong Election Committee, taking the total number of seats from 1,200 to 1,500. This section is comprised of HKSAR deputies to the NPC and HKSAR members of the National Committee of the CPPCC.

Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the local law amendments, laying out the system fundamentals for the upcoming three elections – the election for the Election Committee on September 19, the election for LegCo on December 19 and the election for Hong Kong’s chief executive on March 27, 2022. With radical opposition forces being continuously swept out of the local governance structure, the city has been moving into a fast and smooth track in advancing its political agendas in the coming months, observers said.

Senior officials in the HKSAR government vowed to work “day and night” to accelerate the law amendments and make sure that the upcoming elections go smoothly under the overhaul of the electoral system. With the reform helping sweep out radical lawmakers who had previously obstructed LegCo meetings with filibustering tactics, the LegCo has also become much more efficient in handling draft bills and livelihood-related proposals, Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, president of LegCo, told the Global Times in an exclusive interview earlier this month.

“For example, recently when LegCo reviewed the Appropriation Bill, some lawmakers used to extend the meetings by filibustering. We spent hundreds of hours to review the bill. But this year, from the resumption of the second reading of the bill to the third reading to finish the review, we only took about eight hours,” he said.

It has also become obvious that the political environment in Hong Kong has been changing rapidly under the national security law and the election overhaul over the past year, especially after China’s top legislature disqualified four LegCo lawmakers last November who had notorious records for making trouble and being unpatriotic by inciting secessionism and colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security.

Also, in February, dozens of anti-government figures including some anti-government lawmakers and scholars were charged with subversion for being involved in organizing and planning the illegal primaries in 2020. One of the most symbolic cases is that of Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai, which underscored the government’s unswerving determination to bring political life in Hong Kong back to the right track by eliminating the radical forces that advocate “Hong Kong independence”, undermine China’s sovereignty and seek the help of foreign forces in pressuring the central government by playing the Hong Kong card.

“The upcoming election agenda will also take place smoothly, as no one will challenge Hong Kong’s political agenda led by the top authority,” Tang said.

Video: 台灣省長蔡英文在過去一年半面對全球新冠病毒祇攪政治聯合西方帝國妖魔化中國拒絕醫療科學今天自作自受全民埋單,還要人民賠上多少條性命 During the past 18 months, Taiwan Provincial Governor Tsai Ing-Wen ignored COVID19, ignoring medical advice and science, consumes all her time energy working with Western Empires and US to demonize her motherland. Now her people is paying the ultimate price, COVID19 out of control and people are dying.
https://vimeo.com/555635697
https://youtu.be/HzaRcW_9nxw
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/499627057927291/?d=n

Reuters: Myanmar is learning a BIG lesson. Never to do business with Anglo-saxons where they break contracts and refuse to pay. China will never interfere with a sovereign country’s internal affairs. 緬甸正在吸取教訓。 千萬不要與盎格魯撒克遜人(西人)做生意，因為他們會違反合同並拒絕付款。 中國將永遠不會干涉一個主權國家的內政
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/total-chevron-suspend-payments-myanmar-junta-gas-project-2021-05-27/

Video: Who Can Bring Peace To The Middle East in 2021? 誰能在2021年為中東帶來和平？In ancient China, most insurgents packed their revolting ambitions with religions. The most famous civil war between Qing Dynasty and the theocratic Taiping Rebellion from 1850 to 1864 was a good example. No one, including the Chinese missionary who enlightened the rebellion leader with a Christian brochure, believed a hybrid religion could lead to the biggest massacre ever in history. It is believed that during the 14 years of civil war, more than 50 million Chinese people lost their lives. 在中國古代，大多數叛亂分子用宗教來包裝他們的反抗野心。 在1850年至1864年清朝與神權主義的太平天國之間最著名的內戰就是一個很好的例子。 包括中國宣教士在內的所有人，沒有一本基督教小冊子對啟蒙運動領袖進行啟迪的人，都認為混合宗教可能導致歷史上最大規模的屠殺。 據信，在內戰的14年中，超過5000萬中國人喪生. Many people wonder why China banned Falun Gong in China Mainland. The main reason is that the cult was used to initiate a regime change in China. The leader of Falun Gong is living in the United States, and it is still being paid by some countries’ taxpayers to undermine China. 許多人想知道為什麼中國在中國大陸禁止法輪功。 主要原因是該邪教組織曾在中國發起政權更替。 法輪功的領導人目前居住在美國，某些國家的納稅人仍在向其報酬以破壞中國. https://vimeo.com/555528848
https://youtu.be/NZtv8WGYLbE
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/499479677942029/?d=n

Video: After I arrived in China 17 years ago, I found out China is not what Western fake news medias have promoted. It is a free and dynamic country. 我不是老外｜來華17年　這名加拿大音樂人寫歌唱出「中國心」！大公文匯全媒體記者盧靜怡廣州報道：「When I 吃飯, I only 吃 with 筷子；When I 看書, I read 老子 and 孔子；Because I 喜歡、愛上 everything 中國」。這段又中又西的奇特歌詞，出自一首歌曲《The 中國est 老外 in all 天下》，作者是生活在廣州的80後加拿大音樂人戴偉(David Clink)，整首歌表達着他對中國文化的深切喜愛。來中國17年的他，一邊從事英語教學工作，一邊進行他熱愛的音樂製作。來中國之前，戴偉原以為「中國社會可能有點壓抑」，但僅僅生活一兩天他就知道那是西方媒體營造的刻板印象。作為在華17年的外國人，戴偉眼裏的中國充滿多元價值，風氣自由，同時非常安全，衣食住行都十分便捷，一部手機就能「走天下」，各種中國傳統文化和風俗習慣也令戴偉驚奇和着迷。如今，戴偉已經完全融入中國生活，發自內心地熱愛他生活的這個國家，「能真切地感受中國，真是特別好的體驗！」
https://vimeo.com/555508005
https://youtu.be/tQUsUikVJYY
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/499446114612052/?d=n

Battling behind the scenes: US pressuring WHO on coronavirus origins tracing by Leng Shumei, Zhang Hui and Chen Qingqing May 26 2021

Photo taken on Jan. 22, 2020 shows an exterior view of the headquarters of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland.

Upholding the true spirit of science, valuing facts and advocating for solidarity rather than confrontation in face of the pandemic should be a major lesson learned from the past year and shared at the ongoing 74th World Health Assembly (WHA), however, the US, exploiting its return to the WHO under the Biden administration, is turning the pivotal meeting, supposed to summarize the virus-fight experiences, into a battleground between science and politics.

By hyping the extremely unlikely hypothesis about the origins of COVID-19, misquoting preeminent experts in origins studies and coming up with groundless reports that have been refuted by Chinese officials and experts repeatedly, the Western media, along with some US politicians and government agencies, are now putting scientists in an awkward and embarrassing position, as some have been struggling to find more facts about the virus in a highly politicized environment, according to people familiar with the matter.

Washington has called for a new round of studies to be conducted with independent and international experts at the WHA on Tuesday as Andy Slavitt, White House senior adviser for the COVID-19 response, was quoted as saying in the Wall Street Journal that “we need to get to the bottom of this and we need a completely transparent process from China. We need the WHO to assist in that matter. We don’t feel like we have that now.”

It is no surprise to some observers that the US delegation brought up again a request to return to China to conduct origins studies, given it was one of the tricks of the former US president Donald Trump in shifting the blame to China for his own failed pandemic handling, and blaming China on the question of the virus origins is one way to reach this goal.

Just hours before this year’s WHA began on Monday, the WSJ ran a story citing an undisclosed US intelligence report that indicated three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in November 2019, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses, fueling the debate about the origins.

Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans, a member of the WHO-China joint team on the origins study earlier this year in Wuhan, Central China’s Hubei Province, said a follow-up trip could be helpful to gather additional research on the origins of the disease, comments made after the US called for a new round of studies, according to Reuters.

Koopmans said the team would be eager to carry out additional research in China in a number of areas and it was awaiting the outcome of WHO discussions, Reuters said.

While some observers wonder whether the latest remarks of the scientist, who took part in the earlier origins study in Wuhan would be taken by some Western media and officials as backtracking on her words and even an implication about the interference of the Chinese government in their earlier field studies, the Global Times learned from some people familiar with the matter that both Chinese and foreign scientists who took part in the study have been facing growing political pressure in recent months.

Battle behind the scene

Koopmans clarified in an email to the Global Times on Wednesday the follow-up studies on the coronavirus origins she called for should be a combination of studies that start where the WHO-China joint team left off, so that means studies in China and outside of China.

The studies should look at regions outside China that have reported “viral sequences very early, in 2019, like Northern Italy,” as recommendations in the joint study report called for studies in regions where viruses are almost identical to the first detected viruses from Wuhan, Koopmans said.

She also said there is also a need for more surveys of bats, particularly in China’s neighboring countries.

The suggestion is in line with a joint WHO-China report following the studies in Wuhan, which further suggests that animals in livestock farms in Southeast Asia could be “linked to early human cases” and that further study on these farms is needed.

An expert from the China-WHO joint team acknowledged to the Global Times on Monday that the latest WSJ report about the Wuhan lab is purely political, which echoed US government’s attempts to further smear China’s efforts in the anti-epidemic fight and continuing its “shift-the-blame” strategy.

As early as March before the report of the investigation in China was released, Chinese experts involved in the issue reached by the Global Times said that they felt palpable “political pressure” on the international experts. A Chinese expert from the joint team told the Global Times in an earlier interview that the Chinese side did not know “exactly who is putting pressure on the international experts,” which could be coming from several countries.

The invisible “pressure” formed following the US’ signal of their return to the WHO in January after the Biden administration took office and later in February, it announced it would pay the millions of dollars it owed to the WHO, a Chinese professor on US studies who preferred not to be identified, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

Subsequently, there were unexpected “interludes” that kept occurring between China and WHO cooperation, which used to move smoothly in 2020 during the US’ absence in the organization, he said.

It was not only the experts from the joint team feeling the pressure from the outside, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO chief, also made some comments about the matter that aroused discontent from the Chinese side.

After Tedros commented earlier in April that further investigation is needed on the hypothesis of a “lab leak” being the origins of the COVID-19, a theory that has already been determined by the WHO-China joint expert team as being extremely unlikely, an anonymous Chinese expert on the WHO-China joint team told the Hubei Daily that he was “surprised and unsatisfied” by Tedros’ comment, calling his comment “irresponsible.”

China has called for the return of the US to the World Health Organization (WHO) with a “serious, earnest, transparent and responsible” attitude to contribute to international cooperation against the pandemic, but the US seemingly is making the issue more complex and a political struggle as “the US and China are split” over the origins and “experts call for new research in China” made the headlines in Western media on Wednesday following the assembly’s discussion over the investigation into the origins of the virus the day before.

In the past two months following these moves, international cooperation in tracing pandemic origins had grown into a game between politics and science, a source close to the issue told the Global Times under the condition of anonymity, noting that he can understand that some foreign experts and WHO officials showed change in their expressions and attitude to China over affairs related to the trace to the origins of the virus, as it is hard to strike a balance in this game.

What’s next?

In a reply to the Global Times inquiry on Wednesday, the WHO said it is reviewing the recommendations from the virus origins studies report at the technical level.

“The technical teams will prepare a proposal for the next studies that will need to be carried out, and will present that to the Director-General for his consideration,” read the reply.

Feng Zijian, Deputy Director-General of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China’s CDC) who is also an expert on the WHO joint team, told an earlier briefing on March 26 that the source-tracing work of the WHO-China joint team in Wuhan, part of the global work of studying the virus origins, has been finalized with a consensus that this scientific work cannot be done overnight.

He emphasized that the WHO-led origins-tracing work requires efforts on a global scale, of which China is just a part, and that is the consensus of the Chinese and the foreign experts on the joint team.

With more evidence of early cases emerging in other countries, including the US, Spain, Italy, France, Brazil and India, some even earlier than the cases reported in Wuhan, several preeminent Chinese public health experts have called for the WHO to follow the evidence trail and continue carrying out global field studies in the coming months.

According to the clues, reports and researches, the COVID-19 pandemic was spotted in various places around the world early in the second half of 2019, Zhao Lijian, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian told a routine press conference on Wednesday.

China takes the origins-tracing work seriously with a responsible attitude, and has made positive contributions that are widely recognized. If the US side truly demands a completely transparent investigation, it should follow China’s lead to invite the WHO experts to the US, open Fort Detrick and biolabs overseas to the rest of the world, and disclose the detailed data and information on the unexplained outbreaks of respiratory disease in northern Virginia in July, 2019 and the EVALI outbreak in Wisconsin, the official noted.

“We urge the US and other relevant countries to cooperate with the WHO in a scientific, open and transparent manner,” Zhao said.

Jack London wrote of exterminating Chinese, the genocide of “lesser breeds,” and the supremacy of the white race. Sep 20, 2017

Acclaimed novelist Jack London was a white supremacist who advocated for the genocide of “the lesser breeds.” Credits: Photo by Darryl Barnes

In 1951, Jack London Square officially became Jack London Square. The famed author spent much of his childhood along Oakland’s bustling waterfront, working as an oyster pirate and sailor before venturing off to new lands. He would go on to write The Call of the Wild, White Fang, and The Sea Wolf — classics you were surely forced to read in high school. Those books also do little to paint a full picture of the man behind them.

One of Oakland’s Most Historic Figures Was Also Horribly Racist

London’s other works, however, reveal his complexity: He advocated for the assassination of political leaders, fought for socialism, and, ultimately, was full of hypocrisies. They also depict someone who was undoubtedly, openly, and horribly racist.

One of the best examples is “The Unparalleled Invasion,” his science-fiction short story published in 1910. The story begins in China, where society has prospered and the population has exploded — so much so that there are more Chinese people in the world than Anglo-Saxon. To that news, London wrote, “the world shivered.”

In response to a rise in Chinese immigration, the United States and other Western countries conducted mass biological warfare, sending scores of deadly diseases to China and destroying its population — an act that London described as though it were a heroic feat. A year later, the West arrived, sentencing any remaining survivor to death and creating a glorious colony for white people: “the sanitation of China.” The end.

His 1911 novel Adventure includes a white man who “rode pick-a-back on a woolly-headed, black-skinned savage.” Enough said.

Perhaps the most blatant, though, was his 1901 essay “The Salt of the Earth,” in which he establishes that “the salt of the Earth” are English-speaking Anglo-Saxons, “a race of mastery and achievement.” He goes on to say that white people murdering those of other races is purely natural selection — non-whites are destroyed once they come into contact “with superior civilization,” he wrote. In the face of population growth, he advocated for genocide of “the lesser breeds.”

Maybe folks weren’t familiar with the breadth of London’s work beyond seafaring adventures and triumphant dog tales back in 1951 at the time of Jack London Square’s naming, but they certainly should have been aware by the ’90s. Yet the life-size bronze statue of London, sitting at the foot of Broadway overlooking the water, wasn’t erected until 1996.

It’s still a noted highlight of any tour of the Jack London district. Little bronze paw prints lead visitors there, as well as to a replica of a cabin London graced with his presence next to Heinhold’s First and Last Chance Saloon, where London was also purportedly a regular. The Oakland tourism website is chock-full of references to London, who gets mentioned in the same breath as Gertrude Stein and Tom Hanks as Oakland’s most notable former residents.

Perhaps, given his upbringing and the times, London’s views were inevitable. In 2010’s Wolf: The Lives of Jack London, biographer James L. Haley details how London’s mother was a crazed racist who found it humiliating to live near Black people.

And that was in Oakland, California, USA

Court of Arbitration for Sport fails again in Sun Yang case 體育仲裁法院在孫陽案中再次失敗 by Rick Sterling May 26 2021 @ricksterling99 rsterling1@protonmail.com

The deck is stacked – Although Sun Yang has a strong case and much evidence to support his defence, he will have to overcome a panel that could be considered as influenced by pervasive and growing anti-China propaganda. By selecting a Panel which is entirely European and American educated, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has failed a basic test of fairness. 結果早已被內定-儘管孫楊有很強的辯護力和足夠的證據來支持他的辯護，但他將不得不克服一個小組，該小組可能被認為受到反中宣傳的廣泛和不斷增長的影響。 通過選擇一個完全由歐洲和美國教育的專家小組，體育仲裁法院未能通過公平的基本檢驗.

Court of Arbitration for Sport fails again in Sun Yang case

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will hold its second hearing into a case involving the Chinese swimmer Sun Yang Sports this week, from 25-27 May. The ruling of the first Panel was overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court (Swiss Federal Tribunal) because it was conclusively demonstrated the President of the first hearing was biased. The case will be followed closely in the sporting world and can be seen as laden with geopolitical ramifications. For background on the case see here and here and here.

If an American swimmer was having a controversial case adjudicated by a panel of three judges, would you consider it fair if none of the judges spoke English? Would it seem biased if all of the judges were from Asia?

That is the situation facing Chinese swimmer Sun Yang in this second hearing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). According to its own website, there are numerous qualified adjudicators who speak Chinese. Yet it has again chosen to NOT have a Chinese speaker on the hearing team. They have again chosen a panel which is exclusively European and this time, where every panelist is associated with the United States.

More than Racist Tweets

Franco Frattini…
The previous CAS decision was overturned by the Swiss Federal Tribunal because the Chairman of the panel, Franco Frattini, published tweets considered racist. It was embarrassing to have a CAS Adjudicator lashing out on Twitter about a ‘yellow faced Chinese monster’. It was also embarrassing that he quietly mocked Sun Yang’s mother.

But these revelations were only the tip of the iceberg. The first Panel was biased against China in a geopolitical sense. Frattini was formerly Italy’s foreign minister, supporting both controversial military action in Iraq and the overthrow of the Libyan government. This is evidence of an attitude in favor of western aggression. In 2004, the UN Secretary General said the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to the UN Charter.

Another member of the panel openly supported the US campaign to overthrow the government of Venezuela. This evidences a similar attitude in favor of US aggression. The third panelist was the counsel for The Philippines in a dispute with China. It is not hard to see how this could also be construed as suggesting bias.

The new panel appears similarly biased. The jurists in the new CAS panel are:

• Jan Paulsson from France. He studied at Harvard and Yale and taught at the University of Miami. He has served as counsel for numerous oil corporations in their court fights against countries seeking damages, e.g., Chevron vs. Ecuador, Conoco Philips vs. Venezuela, Total vs. Argentina. Always on the side of the oil corporation. This suggests possible pro-corporatist bias against populist governments, such as China.

• Bernhard Harotiau from Belgium. He studied and was a visiting scholar at Columbia University in the US. He is former vice chairman of the Center for American and International Law in Dallas Texas.

• Hans Nater from Switzerland. He studied at Harvard and practiced law in New York.

Studying in the US means an Arbitrator is likely to have friends and contacts in the US. It also means they are likely to be influenced by US media and sentiments. Of course there are exceptions to this, but there is strong possibility of subtle or not so subtle bias. Would CAS have selected a panel entirely educated in Russia?

Politicisation of sport in the USA
One might ask: What difference does it make if they all worked in the USA? This is hugely significant because the US government has politicised sports to an incredible degree.

Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov…
In 2020, the US Congress passed the ‘Rodchenkov Act’. With this law, the US now claims extraterritorial rights to punish anyone in any country deemed to be involved in doping and harming a US athlete. The US will be prosecutor, judge, and executioner.

What could go wrong? Even the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has expressed alarm at this power grab. It warns, ‘No nation has ever before asserted criminal jurisdiction over doping offences that occurred outside its national borders – and for good reason’.

The Congressional act is named after the Russian doping expert, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, who was transformed from villain to hero when he moved from Russia to the USA. Of course, the passage of the Rodchenkov Act doesn’t automatically signal bias against China. But many are suspicious about the US’s attempts to become the world’s anti-doping police, especially since its own professional sports are not held to the same standards as those set by WADA.

As another example of the politicisation of sports and anti-China hysteria, political leader Nancy Pelosi has called for a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China. She suggests it is a “moral” imperative. Another US Democratic Party leader is calling for postponement of the games so they can be moved to another country. This illustrates a US political bias against China and Chinese sport in particular.

The US establishment seems desperate to stop China’s rise; hence the effort to prevent China holding a successful Olympic Games. In this context, it is naïve to expect an impartial hearing for a Chinese athlete before a US-centric Panel.

WADA vs. FINA
It is seldom mentioned that this hearing is not just against Sun Yang. It is also against the international swimming federation, FINA. The reason is because FINA held a hearing to review the controversy and determined that Sun Yang was NOT guilty of an anti-doping rule violation. The FINA panel agreed (PDF below) that the test team was not properly accredited. They also determined the Doping Control Officer (DCO) failed to give an appropriate warning to Sun Yang as required. This is necessary because an anti-doping rule violation can be life altering and career ending. In Sun Yang’s case, this did not occur.

The World Anti-Doping Agency, based in Canada, did not like the FINA panel decision in support of Sun Yang. Hence the long and expensive case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The deck is stacked
Although Sun Yang has a strong case and much evidence to support his defence, he will have to overcome a panel that could be considered as influenced by pervasive and growing anti-China propaganda. By selecting a Panel which is entirely European and American educated, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has failed a basic test of fairness.

Court of Arbitration for Sport fails again in Sun Yang case 體育仲裁法院在孫陽案中再次失敗 by Rick Sterling May 26 2021 @ricksterling99 rsterling1@protonmail.com

The deck is stacked – Although Sun Yang has a strong case and much evidence to support his defence, he will have to overcome a panel that could be considered as influenced by pervasive and growing anti-China propaganda. By selecting a Panel which is entirely European and American educated, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has failed a basic test of fairness. 結果早已被內定-儘管孫楊有很強的辯護力和足夠的證據來支持他的辯護，但他將不得不克服一個小組，該小組可能被認為受到反中宣傳的廣泛和不斷增長的影響。 通過選擇一個完全由歐洲和美國教育的專家小組，體育仲裁法院未能通過公平的基本檢驗.

Court of Arbitration for Sport fails again in Sun Yang case

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will hold its second hearing into a case involving the Chinese swimmer Sun Yang Sports this week, from 25-27 May. The ruling of the first Panel was overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court (Swiss Federal Tribunal) because it was conclusively demonstrated the President of the first hearing was biased. The case will be followed closely in the sporting world and can be seen as laden with geopolitical ramifications. For background on the case see here and here and here.

If an American swimmer was having a controversial case adjudicated by a panel of three judges, would you consider it fair if none of the judges spoke English? Would it seem biased if all of the judges were from Asia?

That is the situation facing Chinese swimmer Sun Yang in this second hearing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). According to its own website, there are numerous qualified adjudicators who speak Chinese. Yet it has again chosen to NOT have a Chinese speaker on the hearing team. They have again chosen a panel which is exclusively European and this time, where every panelist is associated with the United States.

More than Racist Tweets

Franco Frattini…
The previous CAS decision was overturned by the Swiss Federal Tribunal because the Chairman of the panel, Franco Frattini, published tweets considered racist. It was embarrassing to have a CAS Adjudicator lashing out on Twitter about a ‘yellow faced Chinese monster’. It was also embarrassing that he quietly mocked Sun Yang’s mother.

But these revelations were only the tip of the iceberg. The first Panel was biased against China in a geopolitical sense. Frattini was formerly Italy’s foreign minister, supporting both controversial military action in Iraq and the overthrow of the Libyan government. This is evidence of an attitude in favor of western aggression. In 2004, the UN Secretary General said the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to the UN Charter.

Another member of the panel openly supported the US campaign to overthrow the government of Venezuela. This evidences a similar attitude in favor of US aggression. The third panelist was the counsel for The Philippines in a dispute with China. It is not hard to see how this could also be construed as suggesting bias.

The new panel appears similarly biased. The jurists in the new CAS panel are:

• Jan Paulsson from France. He studied at Harvard and Yale and taught at the University of Miami. He has served as counsel for numerous oil corporations in their court fights against countries seeking damages, e.g., Chevron vs. Ecuador, Conoco Philips vs. Venezuela, Total vs. Argentina. Always on the side of the oil corporation. This suggests possible pro-corporatist bias against populist governments, such as China.

• Bernhard Harotiau from Belgium. He studied and was a visiting scholar at Columbia University in the US. He is former vice chairman of the Center for American and International Law in Dallas Texas.

• Hans Nater from Switzerland. He studied at Harvard and practiced law in New York.

Studying in the US means an Arbitrator is likely to have friends and contacts in the US. It also means they are likely to be influenced by US media and sentiments. Of course there are exceptions to this, but there is strong possibility of subtle or not so subtle bias. Would CAS have selected a panel entirely educated in Russia?

Politicisation of sport in the USA
One might ask: What difference does it make if they all worked in the USA? This is hugely significant because the US government has politicised sports to an incredible degree.

Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov…
In 2020, the US Congress passed the ‘Rodchenkov Act’. With this law, the US now claims extraterritorial rights to punish anyone in any country deemed to be involved in doping and harming a US athlete. The US will be prosecutor, judge, and executioner.

What could go wrong? Even the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has expressed alarm at this power grab. It warns, ‘No nation has ever before asserted criminal jurisdiction over doping offences that occurred outside its national borders – and for good reason’.

The Congressional act is named after the Russian doping expert, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, who was transformed from villain to hero when he moved from Russia to the USA. Of course, the passage of the Rodchenkov Act doesn’t automatically signal bias against China. But many are suspicious about the US’s attempts to become the world’s anti-doping police, especially since its own professional sports are not held to the same standards as those set by WADA.

As another example of the politicisation of sports and anti-China hysteria, political leader Nancy Pelosi has called for a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China. She suggests it is a “moral” imperative. Another US Democratic Party leader is calling for postponement of the games so they can be moved to another country. This illustrates a US political bias against China and Chinese sport in particular.

The US establishment seems desperate to stop China’s rise; hence the effort to prevent China holding a successful Olympic Games. In this context, it is naïve to expect an impartial hearing for a Chinese athlete before a US-centric Panel.

WADA vs. FINA
It is seldom mentioned that this hearing is not just against Sun Yang. It is also against the international swimming federation, FINA. The reason is because FINA held a hearing to review the controversy and determined that Sun Yang was NOT guilty of an anti-doping rule violation. The FINA panel agreed (PDF below) that the test team was not properly accredited. They also determined the Doping Control Officer (DCO) failed to give an appropriate warning to Sun Yang as required. This is necessary because an anti-doping rule violation can be life altering and career ending. In Sun Yang’s case, this did not occur.

The World Anti-Doping Agency, based in Canada, did not like the FINA panel decision in support of Sun Yang. Hence the long and expensive case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The deck is stacked
Although Sun Yang has a strong case and much evidence to support his defence, he will have to overcome a panel that could be considered as influenced by pervasive and growing anti-China propaganda. By selecting a Panel which is entirely European and American educated, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has failed a basic test of fairness.

Video: Fort Detrick Coronavirus Conspiracy 2021 UPDATE. More evidence has surfaced. When will we get a proper investigation? 美國德里特里克堡冠狀病毒陰謀2021年更新。 更多的證據浮出水面。 我們什麼時候可以進行適當的調查？https://vimeo.com/555137285
https://youtu.be/cdKI5qOF_a8