For today’s open thread I have three questions to seed a discussion but please weigh in with anything you want. I will be in and out throughout the day. Thanks
1. Carrie Lam announced that the Hong Kong Legco elections will be delayed a year from their originally scheduled date of September 6. Lam blamed the pandemic for the delay. This move has been rumored for days and was presaged by the scheduling earlier this week of the next NPC Standing Committee meeting for August 8. The South China Morning Post has more details:
Lam said she was invoking the colonial-era Emergency Regulations Ordinance to push the elections back from September 6 this year to September 5 next year, and her decision was fully supported by the central government.
Under the city’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, each Legco term could only last for four years, the chief executive noted, and that would raise legal questions.
To resolve them, she had submitted an emergency report to the State Council in Beijing, which informed her that the central government would ask China’s top legislative body, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), to make a decision on the outstanding legal and constitutional issues.
This comes after the arrest of several kids for online posts and the disqualification of 12 opposition candidates earlier this week. Given how rigged the election already is, why would they need to delay it for a year? Or is the reason given-the pandemic-legitimate? How will the UK/US/EU et al governments react to this move? Should we expect the US to announce financial sanctions soon?
2. Assuming precedent holds Xi will disappear from public view in the next few days to head to Beidaihe, to reappear sometime in the third week of August. There is continuing debate about what really happens at Beidaihe, including whether they are more on vacation or having serious political meetings, how many leaders go and how long they stay, and what role retired senior officials still play. We know for example that if Li Zhanshu does go he will have to be back in Beijing for August 8-11 NPCSC meeting.
My understanding of Beidaihe in the Xi Era at least is that the influence of the elders has been dramatically undercut and that while there is some work at Beidaihe it tends to be meetings/seminars about high-level, strategic themes, like for example the US-China relationship. “Understanding” is perhaps too strong a term, as it is all whispers and rumors.
The announcement earlier this week of an October date for the 5th Plenum may indicate Xi will be having a relatively relaxed time at Beidaihe, with an emphasis on “relatively”. There has certainly been less apparent political fervent than there was this time in 2018, in spite of China’s difficult year so far (See Sinocism August 19, 2018).
There have been chatter (hopes?) from some quarters that there might be some sort of an “intervention” to push Xi to back off some of the policies that are causing friction with the US and other countries. I am not sure who would do the intervening and how they would do it and so tend to see that as wishful thinking. But there is no question that some senior officials, retired and current, may be very uncomfortable with the trajectory of US-China relations given some of their family members’ financial and in some cases personal interests with the US.
We all talk a lot about US-China decoupling, we should not forget that for some senior members of the CCP elite there may also need to be personal decoupling. That is an area where targeted US actions, rather than blanket measures against all CCP members, might both cause distress and also gain support from a lot of PRC citizens. In spite of the nationalism I would not expect many to feel bad for corrupt officials penalized for assets they shouldn’t have.
In the absence of anything more than speculation about Beidaihe, including mine above, what do we think happens at Beidaihe, and what, if any, outcomes may there be this year?
3. The other topic I am dying to learn more about is the saga at Arm China. The board discovered CEO Allen Wu engaged in all sorts of shady practices and fired him in June (FT). But he was able to take the official corporate chop and registration documents before the board got them under control, so he remains the legal representative and is able to say he is still the CEO. Wu is fighting attempts to have regulators in Shenzhen invalidate the seals and let the board make new ones.
In a statement released on Tuesday and signed by over 200 of its employees, Arm China said it “is a Chinese-controlled joint venture that should abide by the Chinese laws and fulfill the social responsibility in China. We plead with the government to pay attention to the turbulence Arm China is facing now, and intervene to protect this strategic asset.” The statement was posted on the company’s official WeChat account...
The statement further accuses Arm and Hopu Investment Management, one of Arm China’s investors, of “harassing” its employees and coercing clients in an attempt to replace Arm China’s chairman...
“Arm China is devoted to empowering the foundation of China’s semiconductor industry. This joint venture plays a strategic role in China’s chip industry in the past two years amid the dynamics of the international chip competition landscape,” it added…
Regarding the spat over the unit’s chairman, Arm China claimed that, “Hopu and some of Arm’s board of directors even started to send people frequently contacting the joint venture’s clients. They even threatened to revise or cancel the existing contracts with the joint venture. Moreover, some of the board of directors harassed and threatened employees at the joint venture.”
Hopu is a well-known Chinese venture capital firm. Arm’s other Chinese investors include state-backed entities such as the Silk Road Fund, sovereign wealth fund China Investment Corp. and Shenzhen government-owned conglomerate Shum Yip Group.
It is a bad look for the central government to allow this dispute to fester. Yes it is a foreign company, yes the fired-but-won’t-leave-or-return-the-chop CEO is an American citizen, but it is such a seemingly lawless situation that if senior policymakers really want to give foreign investors and investors confidence they should get it resolved.
I am scratching my head over the lack of resolution given that one of the big Arm China investors is the sovereign wealth fund CIC and another is Fang Fenglei’s Hopu Investment Management Company. Fang is a very savvy and connected person; Goldman Sachs would not have picked him as their partner for many years to hold their China JV license if he were not able to navigate the CCP political system at very high levels. So the fact that he so far appears unable to get the Shenzhen authorities to act against American citizen CEO Allen Wu is very interesting.
Whatever is going on, it is another grim reminder of the perils of doing business in China, even for very experienced investors and corporations.
Thanks, and of course feel free to weigh in with anything else you would like to discuss.
Reminder: The newsletter will be on holiday next week, returning to normal publication sometime during the week of August 10.
Scrolling down, some damning stuff about fake uyghur abuse stories/photos. No word. All I can say is that I m glad I dont habe to troll through the internet Like Bill has to do. And i hope that foreign policy makers have higher standards than some of these activists who seem no better than their abusers.
Interestingly enough, I was recently sent similar links claiming some of the damning stuff about Uyghur abuse being fake, see below. Does anyone know about thegrayzone.com and Adrian Zenz? You never know what's real what's not in today's environment. Note: the wordings below were sent together with the links and not mine
1. The Keriya Aitika Mosque that was claimed in 2018 to be demolished but the Mosque was intact.
3. Some pictures of Uyghurs in Chinese detention camps, including that of a crying child, are pictures edited from protests people rescued from human trafficking and Uyghurs protesting outside in 2009 as a result of a riot that killed 156 people
Thanks. As they say, the first casualty of war...the problem is that the ultimate victim of the propagandist is always him/herself. the human mind's grasp of reality is tenuous as it is (took 99,500 years for the concept of proof by experiement to emerge from that druggy foggy stoned brain of ours). Give it the high tech tailored tools to fool itself easily, quickly and cheaply, it s more than happy to go to hell.
@David, thanks for the link, very helpful. Going through the analysis, some questions below, would love to get your thoughts.
1. UN Report quoted was not a UN report (was it “certified” by UN?), but a number of reports by other parties like Zenz and CHRD submitted to and discussed during UN Sessions?
2. Zenz report heavily relied upon on this allegedly leaked PRC Gov. internal report (is that the source data you referred to as there is no other reference in the link regarding Zenz’s source data?), so credibility of Zenz report seems to depends on the authenticity of this leaked report? Any thoughts on Blumenthal’s credibility on claiming Zenz’s Prior remarks like “God’s mission against China” and Zenz’s background in general (eg anti LGBT), as well as Blumental’s claim that the source of leaked report, Istiqlal, is an biased group and affiliation with organizations associated with terrorists groups like ETIM?
3. CHRD report based on interview of 8 Uyghurs in Southern Xinjiang, which would imply Blumenthal correctly pointed out the small sample size? From statistical perspective, seems like the CHRD report is much less statistically significant vs. Zenz (if the leaked document is true).
4. Other sources like BBC, ASPI, AFP used ancillary evidence which potentially could imply good Correlation, but ones needs to think about the potential impact from things like regular prison facilities (not that these are better in any ways) vs “education” camp.
Obviously no precise answer is possible at the moment given lack of access to the area, but good to get a stronger sense of the data and analysis behind the headline news number. Thanks for the link again!
Jeeze you didn’t even read the links. You gotta do better man. I’ll just make one point—if you’re going to strongly come out against a position based on a ton of real world data, you at least need to make a modicum of effort to engage with that data. You said “there is no other reference in the link to Zenz’s source data” other than a single report lmfao. Dude, the report links to Zenz’s report directly, at the end of which, in normal academic style, he PUBLICLY LISTS 13 PAGES OF SOURCE DATA LINKS AND REFERENCES which looks like maybe around ONE THOUSAND. Do better my friend.
@David Thanks for following up though I'm a bit confused about your comments. On Paragraph 7-10 of the online article you sent, starting with "The First Estimate", is where Zenz's report being discussed, most of the discussion is based on this leaked report, except with reference to "his own research and on Radio Free Asia reporting". P13 described a bit about the RFA's work, and that it came from "cold calling".
Now going through the main article again, I noticed there are additional Links which I didn't go through the first time and in now in the process of going through them. However, most that's referenced seems to be other people's research and not Zenz's "source data". There is another link of Zenz's research toward the end, that were mostly budget number analysis, is that the "source data" you referred to?
I'm not sure how you came out with the idea that I didn't read your link (understand if you meant all the additional external reference in the article you sent) or "going to strongly come out against a position". We are here to share and learn. I'm hoping to learn more about the background so that decisions can be made with more conviction.
I guess we’ll have to do this though I suspect it’s a bad idea. To your various points...
1) you acknowledge that the UN is credible when you say that a U.N. report would be better than something said in a U.N. session. But the U.N. itself said the info it got in that session was “compelling.” Yet you still felt it was worth challenging what came out of that un session. So it would seem evidence that the UN finds compelling you yourself find worthy of the highest discrimination (meaning suspicion in this context). That’s logically contradictory as earlier in your comment you admitted a un report would be credible. That logical issue leads me to suspect you have ulterior motives in favor of disbelief. Hopefully I’m wrong.
2) Zenz got the leaked doc then cited 166 sources in support of what it found. So emphasizing the leaked doc rather than the 166 pieces of supporting evidence gives people the impression the info comes from only one source (read: FAKE NEWS), rather than 166 (plus other non Zenz sources). 166 is far greater than 1 (imo)
3) as the 167th source (since Zenz has 166, ie it’s a real academic paper), sure, cbrd is a sample size of only 8. But not noting it’s the 167th source again gives the misleading impression it’s the only source, not the 167th
4) the bbc et al relies on the 167 sources I just mentioned. As news outlets they aren’t always themselves The direct source, they rely on others in this case those 167.
Radio free Asia regularly cold calls ccp officials and reports on what they say, we could assume radio free asia is lying but then the issue is not “cold calling” (as you put it dismissively) but rather an ad hominem attack against rfa as a source. In fact they’re quite honorable journalists for the most part in my experience (just ask the eastern bloc citizens during the Cold War lol).
Not sure what you mean by budget data, perhaps the construction of re-education camps Zenz cites, if so I would disagree strongly with your assumption that public bids for construction of re-education camps does not imply... the existence of re-education camps lmao. Also for recruitment of re-education offices.
The issue seems to me to be one of critical thinking and logical contradiction and which sources to trust or how to evaluate them. Hope this was helpful and sorry if I was snarky but this is a marquee issue.
Nah, the sources are pretty overwhelming. Blumenthal was interviewed recently in a sort of faux intellectual style where he claimed they examined the “source data” Zenz used which sounds impressive but actually... Zenz’s source data is super comprehensive and publicly available. So the issue with grayzone is more, “why would you NOT examine the source data when you claimed you did?” Very funky vibe over there. Anyway here’s a good piece about it FYI: https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/features/where-did-one-million-figure-detentions-xinjiangs-camps-come
Thanks. well, if i were the UN, a priority Project would be the establishment of a totally neutral factual news and news checking organsation. Like the Red Cross. Convention of War exists for the Same reason. Otherwise the descent into a post-fact world surely would bring back the dark ages.
Not sure if you linked the right thing, this is a photo of the US diplomat meeting with the HK protest leaders 11 months ago, which we know about, they also met Senators too.
Did you mean to link off /r/Sino? It's a strictly pro-China sub I believe, and I'm sure has a lot of official and unofficial CCP involvement.
Thanks. Anyway, i ve decided am better off relying on professional vetting. Faking combined with selectivity, one can 'prove' anything. What i dont get from such people on all sides is this, do they really think facts would change according to their wishes? Well, judging by some of the behaviours around the world regarding the virus, i guess they do.
About postponing the polls: the SCMP article quotes Lam in saying 'more than 60 countries had done so, while only 49 countries had gone ahead.'
About the 12 disqualifications: is it not true that those candidates were either calling for sanctions or pro-independence?
If the above is true, I'm not sure why this is a big surprise.
Maybe it'll end up being wise if voters have the time to see how the NSL will actually be implemented end2end. Could it end up like the handover period - a lot of fear of which very little became true?
#1 This seems to me to be a case of wringing maximum advantage from the situation. Either postponing or disqualification of candidates would probably have been enough on its own, but since there is the possibility of doing both, why not push harder? Who is going to stop them? Living in Hong Kong I feel extremely pessimistic and am preparing to move: I expect worse to come, basically anything the regime can get away with, they will do, there are no moderating pressures. I am curious to see what other readers make of things.
On #1 --- on HK alone, I realize this thought will go over like a leaden Trump tweat---but as almost everything the US touches these days turns to bloody boomerang, stay out of HK; it is now fully sovereignized by Beijing, rushed into the unvarnished red paint job by a romanticized movement that had no hope but fulfilled western fantasies/British regret (what was Mrs T to do--send her armada that barely held the Falklands?)... As the great NM reminds us: For now let us deal with the world as it is, rather than as we might like it to be....Bj will wait things out and let us hope the bilateral yo-yo's back up to only somewhat poisonous next year...This is my first and surely last blowhard contribution to this thread. I greatly respect you all but I simply have had a different view on the future, and have held it straight for the last 2 decades...
I live here and don't have any plans to ever move. I'd really appreciate the continued attention, not just from America but from as many nations as possible. I run in different circles than you, but in 8 years I don't think I've met anyone who trusts China to do the right thing with Hong Kong in the long run.
The US just announced sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Corps 新疆生产建设兵团。 As big as this sounds I hear it is just an "appetizer" compared to other planned sanctions https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1073
Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned one Chinese government entity and two current or former government officials in connection with serious rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). These designations include the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), Sun Jinlong, a former Political Commissar of the XPCC, and Peng Jiarui, the Deputy Party Secretary and Commander of the XPCC. The entity and officials are being designated for their connection to serious human rights abuse against ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, which reportedly include mass arbitrary detention and severe physical abuse, among other serious abuses targeting Uyghurs, a Turkic Muslim population indigenous to Xinjiang, and other ethnic minorities in the region.
We saw how methodical Xi was in his first years at consolidating power. I'd imagine that's the majority of the "why" for #1 - even if it's rigged, there's still enough local backlash about the NSL to show an embarrassing amount of resistance that only further tarnishes CCP's image there. Keeping everything "status quo" only allows more time for it to fade from the western news cycle and allow a now beefed up intelligence presence there to continue to monitor and round up democratic leaders
1. The Election pushback makes sense on every front. Regardless of how undemocratic we know it now to be, it would still be a big focal point to keep local protestors motivated and would garner a lot of international attention. Pushing it back a full year to cool down will:
-Get past US elections, much less political pressure to hit back
-Get past the news cycle
-Allow HK's economy to recover a bit, calming dissatisfaction
-Allow security forces more time to identify and remove dissent leadership
-Just allow people to forget about the theme, time heals all wounds
I think they would have done this anyway, but using the COVID spike is a great excuse.
2. Beidaihe has been a different affair every year under Xi from what I can tell. This year I would guess leans more toward relaxation than deep discussion/critique. Simply because thanks to COVID and the legislative calendar this year, Beijing has already had quite a lot of political knife fighting by this time of year, and these kinds of discussions have been ongoing pretty continuously. When they get back, there will be another busy session leading into the new Five Year Plan and October Plenum. So would imagine this session leans toward more of a "team building exercise" for Xi and his clique.
I don't expect any kind of intervention at Beidaihe. It's not like top leaders are unaware of the ongoing issues with US/China or US/Global relations. They've made it pretty clear the course of action will be maintained until the US elections at least, and that most of these individual sanctions issues are out of their control (probably correctly). They've also taken their foot off the gas of Wolf Warrior diplomacy, so that's a concession to the moderates. There's nobody really who can stage an intervention on Xi right now and "keep their heads"... so to speak.
Do you have any insight on Bill’s question as to whether sanctioning top officials’ USA holdings/families might cause any blowback for Xi? It seems to be more a question of when rather than if it simply becomes impossible for ccp leaders to have any ties at all to the west—and maybe for prc citizens as well. I would have thought the increasing certainty of that prospect would be very disquieting for huge numbers of people in the ccp and China—essentially, a China completely cut off from the outside world (except drpk, Iran etc just peanuts), no sports, no entertainment, no travel, no education, no exchange, no financial holdings, no business (over time as everyone foreign leaves over the next generation). That seems... not great
Also remember the scope of China. It's no DPRK or Iran. It contains 1/6 of the world's population and is massive. China has its own sports, entertainment, travel, education, and business already.
If anything, there are so many eyes and wallets in China that foreign forces are salivating to get access to them.
A cut off China is not nearly as grim as you're painting with DPRK and Iran comparisons, and even in those grim cases, cutting them off hasn't worked. DPRK is still going!
Fair enough, thanks for the comment. Btw I meant that only countries like drpk and Iran would still be accessible to China, not that China would somehow end up like them. Sorry I wasn’t clear on that. As to foreign forces salivating to get in, sure, but I feel like that’s about 10 years out of date tbh—it’s now clear that the price of doing business is political surrender (for instance, the nba would not have free speech rights even in the USA if they want to be in China), and that is evidently increasingly intolerable for western countries (just as China claims interference in its internal affairs is intolerable for it). And also in response to your comment below, sure other countries besides the USA currently have fewer restrictions but everyone is headed in the same direction (more restrictions) for the reason I mentioned and the same reason China acknowledges is legitimate—interference in ones domestic affairs. In the medium term the world be divisors into two camps—western allied and China—and its just very depressing and you have to feel there are many voices in China who realize it is Xi’s hard line policies which have caused it. From a practical standpoint sure maybe there’s not much many in China can do about it but it’s just sad that this one man (with a lot of support, but ultimately one man) can do that.
Thanks for your clarification. I speak to a lot of corporates and their lobbyists.... the salivation is as real today as it was 10 years ago. China's consumers are a lot richer today.
US corporates don't care as much about political surrender as their twitter accounts would have you believe. At the end of the day they care about profit. That's not to say any corporations want to harm their US client base either if they kowtow to China while the popular sentiment is so unfavorable.
Yes Xi has had a greater impact on China than any man since Deng, maybe even Mao. Ultimately he has executed the domestic strategies well enough that I see no end to this anytime soon.
Sure, no question on the nature of the corporates, right. But as you said, kowtowing to China is becoming increasingly untenable due to pressure on them in the USA. Since they’re not going anywhere, they will be forced into a less prc-focused strategy whether by public opinion or by direct govt sanction/law/policy. That will just be part of a larger alignment of the world into two blocs, no?
As primarily a finance/economics guy, i d say the two bloc scenario is almost impossible in trade/economics terms. To achieve it, the 'freedom bloc' has to take a sustained, multi election cycle, monumental, top-down and collectivist effort, which, to its credit, the bloc is unaccustomed to. To cut the argument short, i ll just put this forward: disengaging from China for real would necessitate a redistribution of wealth in advanced economies from the 0.1% (the majority of 1% is mere glorified clerks) and corporations to the majority rather quickly in order to forestall scoial or financial collapse during the long transition period. I dont see that happening given where power lies. The most likely scenario seems to be poorly conceived actions leading to deteriorating living standards and accute socioeconomic crisis.
I'm sure the leaders and families being sanctioned themselves don't feel good about it, but it's difficult to really bring up in political circles in China, as one's political rivals would quickly ask why you are so keen to leave glorious China, why so keep to own so much offshore assets? Etc.
Yes it will on some level add pressure for these leaders and Xi would be aware of that, but at the end of the day it's seen mostly as a necessary sacrifice the leaders and their families have to do for China. Eg, divest and lose access to things in the West. And as others have mentioned, there are still plenty of countries with fewer restrictions, from Canada to EU to other, more esoterically structured assets in Caymans and Switzerland.
And as a last point, it's really unclear what Xi can do about it. China does not acknowledge any wrongdoing in Xinjiang. If they do, are sanctions likely to be increased, or decreased? "Ah, thanks for opening the doors to your prison camps so we can see how bad it is. As long as you're sorry, we'll unwind all these sanctions."
No, they set their path long ago when they decided to enact these policies on HK/Xinjiang. Anything short of regime change is not going to get sanctions decreased.
Lastly, CCP would never set the precedence that US or any other country could affect domestic policy by this kind of external pressure. Which is understandable. If they roll back HK policies because their leaders are being sanctioned, US wouldn't stop with sanctions, but see what else they can get China to do.
Also one other question for you—appreciate your time on this forum!—would you be able to recommend some books about the nature of thinking and decision-making in communist regimes? I was thinking especially soviet, but also could be ccp (although I’m generally well read on the ccp and have ready very little about the sockets, thereby showing my age :)). Thank you!
Switzerland is an interesting example—I’ve been meaning to read up on Cold War history since we are now in Cold War 2.0, both to learn how a true communist state thinks, and how various countries reacted. Seems they were neutral during the Cold War and crucially gave the soviets access to their financial system, no? As for the rest of Europe, I cant agree, especially if Biden wins, as the one German ceo put it recently, better an imperfect democracy than a perfect autocracy, no? It’s really as simple as that, Europe can’t be non-aligned and continue to do business with China without sacrificing its core values. Especially for France (the revolution) and Germany (anti genocide/dictator, Merkel’s pro dictator policy notwithstanding as she’s a dinosaur on that issue—great otherwise—and soon gone) who set the tone for the eu, it seems a bad bet to assume their most intimate values could be abandoned just because they find the USA distasteful, no?
Yes and no. Trump really messed up with Europe. Europe is also very aware that all the disasters of the 20th century, how they emerged in Europe and ruined Europe (forever i d say). The style of Value/Identity based politics, which America is exporting around the world with some success, can just as easily break the EU and Europe apart. Maybe am oversensitive, but the language of value/identity politics today increasingly sounds as shrill and jarring as the language of ideals/class struggle, especially when the loudest person speaking in such terms tends to be the least qualified/worthy.
Overall in the last 2 weeks my feel (and what I've been hearing from unattributed sources) is that they have a little bit. It's probably not permanent or anything, and there are countries they specifically may want to keep aggressing (like Australia), and countries to at least let off a little (like the EU).
I don't get the feel it's as "pedal to the metal" as it was back in March/April, at least, to keep extending this metaphor.
Who is "our" that you're talking about? The US? Intelligence community?
CCP's decision-making process has definitely become more opaque under Xi, and has been steadily grinding more closed over the past decade. There's a lot of factors and it's hard to really point to what is the exact primary contributor.
1. Legitimately increasing nationalism among the members.
2. More corruption and security crackdowns on prominent members have made it clear that nobody is untouchable. Thus, even fairly secure members are going to be tight lipped and toe the line.
3. It's reciprocal, sure, but increasing views of western countries as meddling in internal affairs and as an enemy. Obviously ratcheted up to 10 with Trump Administration, then up to 12 with HK and COVID.
So far I wouldn't particularly say the consulate closure and reduced journalists have particularly had much impact on access to CCP decisionmaking, it's not like Lingling (WSJ) was invited to CCP meetings. It's a blow to her (previously excellent) coverage, sure, but there are other sources.
It’s pretty clear what is going on. The quote, “ ARM China is devoted to empowering the foundation of China’s semiconductor industry.” really means “ARM China is devoted to stealing foreign technology for the benefit of the Chinese semiconductor industry.” Mr. Wu, playing the nationalist card to perfection, has set up multiple manufacturing sites without the approval of the parent company, and opaque to the parent company, for the purpose of stealing ARM technology which he will soon pass of as Chinese. The local officials will not stop this because the import of this technology and the resultant jobs are what they very much want for the local economy. Was there really a need for ARM to set up this JV? They make cutting edge CPU which companies will buy no matter where they are made. I thought the Brits were smarter than this. How many times does this scam have to happen before foreign companies wake up? Fear and greed!
That’s not reall Arm’s business model. They license the ARM architecture and IP to other chip designers who want to build off their designs - they don’t really have any manufacturing nor need for it.
According to FT, Wu runs an investment fund called Alphatecture and was offering ARM China customers discounts on chip designs if they would invest in the companies under his fund’s umbrella.
Or maybe he’s is selling the designs to sanctioned parties or for cut rate prices. Whatever the case, he has set himself against the U.K. parent and does not seem too worried about it.
Yes. And I corrected myself below the original post. But if that is the case, why is Mr Wu setting up satellite facilities that are opaque to the U.K. parent? I think he has access to the Arm IP and was able to cobble together enough manufacturing talent to start producing IC on his own.
No real need for 北京 to intervene, relations b/n China and U.K. are a bit strained right now anyway. I wonder if the Chinese see this as partial payback for all the opium the Brits sold.
WRT Hong Kong’s postponement of the LEGCO elections, the claim that the decision came because of the C-19 surge seems plausible. Of course, most observers have concluded that the surge came about because of unwise exemptions (allowing certain individuals entering Hong Kong to do so without being tested for C-19).
Either way, it’s yet another indication (if any were needed) that “the jig is up” for Hong Kong.
I recognize that the Hong Kong election delay was probably a plan in the works for some time, but is there any chance they made the announcement today because of Trump's tweet yesterday about delaying the US elections? As in, they saw and took the opening of the US president talking about delaying elections to announce their own delay and hope they can neutralize some of the international criticism?
I highly doubt since the earlier than expected August NPCSC meeting was announced before the Trump tweet, and there had been rumors in the HK press earlier this week
Tell me what Beidaihe
looks like these days? My picture from
Old novels..
Guys, probably obbious to you. How much of the Info on this page is true? Just got sent this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/cnnlup/julie_eadeh_a_us_diplomat_in_hong_kong_was_caught/
Scrolling down, some damning stuff about fake uyghur abuse stories/photos. No word. All I can say is that I m glad I dont habe to troll through the internet Like Bill has to do. And i hope that foreign policy makers have higher standards than some of these activists who seem no better than their abusers.
Interestingly enough, I was recently sent similar links claiming some of the damning stuff about Uyghur abuse being fake, see below. Does anyone know about thegrayzone.com and Adrian Zenz? You never know what's real what's not in today's environment. Note: the wordings below were sent together with the links and not mine
1. The Keriya Aitika Mosque that was claimed in 2018 to be demolished but the Mosque was intact.
https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/the-case-of-the-keriya-aitika-mosque-efa29e456339
2. The original “evidence” for 1 million Uyghurs being sent to concentration camps original sterms from US propaganda outlets.
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/
3. Some pictures of Uyghurs in Chinese detention camps, including that of a crying child, are pictures edited from protests people rescued from human trafficking and Uyghurs protesting outside in 2009 as a result of a riot that killed 156 people
https://factcheck.afp.com/these-photos-show-protests-istanbul-and-xinjiang-and-migrant-shelter-thailand
Thanks. As they say, the first casualty of war...the problem is that the ultimate victim of the propagandist is always him/herself. the human mind's grasp of reality is tenuous as it is (took 99,500 years for the concept of proof by experiement to emerge from that druggy foggy stoned brain of ours). Give it the high tech tailored tools to fool itself easily, quickly and cheaply, it s more than happy to go to hell.
@David, thanks for the link, very helpful. Going through the analysis, some questions below, would love to get your thoughts.
1. UN Report quoted was not a UN report (was it “certified” by UN?), but a number of reports by other parties like Zenz and CHRD submitted to and discussed during UN Sessions?
2. Zenz report heavily relied upon on this allegedly leaked PRC Gov. internal report (is that the source data you referred to as there is no other reference in the link regarding Zenz’s source data?), so credibility of Zenz report seems to depends on the authenticity of this leaked report? Any thoughts on Blumenthal’s credibility on claiming Zenz’s Prior remarks like “God’s mission against China” and Zenz’s background in general (eg anti LGBT), as well as Blumental’s claim that the source of leaked report, Istiqlal, is an biased group and affiliation with organizations associated with terrorists groups like ETIM?
3. CHRD report based on interview of 8 Uyghurs in Southern Xinjiang, which would imply Blumenthal correctly pointed out the small sample size? From statistical perspective, seems like the CHRD report is much less statistically significant vs. Zenz (if the leaked document is true).
4. Other sources like BBC, ASPI, AFP used ancillary evidence which potentially could imply good Correlation, but ones needs to think about the potential impact from things like regular prison facilities (not that these are better in any ways) vs “education” camp.
Obviously no precise answer is possible at the moment given lack of access to the area, but good to get a stronger sense of the data and analysis behind the headline news number. Thanks for the link again!
Jeeze you didn’t even read the links. You gotta do better man. I’ll just make one point—if you’re going to strongly come out against a position based on a ton of real world data, you at least need to make a modicum of effort to engage with that data. You said “there is no other reference in the link to Zenz’s source data” other than a single report lmfao. Dude, the report links to Zenz’s report directly, at the end of which, in normal academic style, he PUBLICLY LISTS 13 PAGES OF SOURCE DATA LINKS AND REFERENCES which looks like maybe around ONE THOUSAND. Do better my friend.
@David, as Bill reminds us: 'be civil'. ;)
@David Thanks for following up though I'm a bit confused about your comments. On Paragraph 7-10 of the online article you sent, starting with "The First Estimate", is where Zenz's report being discussed, most of the discussion is based on this leaked report, except with reference to "his own research and on Radio Free Asia reporting". P13 described a bit about the RFA's work, and that it came from "cold calling".
Now going through the main article again, I noticed there are additional Links which I didn't go through the first time and in now in the process of going through them. However, most that's referenced seems to be other people's research and not Zenz's "source data". There is another link of Zenz's research toward the end, that were mostly budget number analysis, is that the "source data" you referred to?
I'm not sure how you came out with the idea that I didn't read your link (understand if you meant all the additional external reference in the article you sent) or "going to strongly come out against a position". We are here to share and learn. I'm hoping to learn more about the background so that decisions can be made with more conviction.
Zenz’s report was an academic paper and it lists I think 166 direct sources on pages 35-42 I believe (the end). Here’s the link to his actual paper: https://www.academia.edu/37353916/NEW_Sept_2018_Thoroughly_Reforming_Them_Towards_a_Healthy_Heart_Attitude_-_Chinas_Political_Re-Education_Campaign_in_Xinjiang
I guess we’ll have to do this though I suspect it’s a bad idea. To your various points...
1) you acknowledge that the UN is credible when you say that a U.N. report would be better than something said in a U.N. session. But the U.N. itself said the info it got in that session was “compelling.” Yet you still felt it was worth challenging what came out of that un session. So it would seem evidence that the UN finds compelling you yourself find worthy of the highest discrimination (meaning suspicion in this context). That’s logically contradictory as earlier in your comment you admitted a un report would be credible. That logical issue leads me to suspect you have ulterior motives in favor of disbelief. Hopefully I’m wrong.
2) Zenz got the leaked doc then cited 166 sources in support of what it found. So emphasizing the leaked doc rather than the 166 pieces of supporting evidence gives people the impression the info comes from only one source (read: FAKE NEWS), rather than 166 (plus other non Zenz sources). 166 is far greater than 1 (imo)
3) as the 167th source (since Zenz has 166, ie it’s a real academic paper), sure, cbrd is a sample size of only 8. But not noting it’s the 167th source again gives the misleading impression it’s the only source, not the 167th
4) the bbc et al relies on the 167 sources I just mentioned. As news outlets they aren’t always themselves The direct source, they rely on others in this case those 167.
Radio free Asia regularly cold calls ccp officials and reports on what they say, we could assume radio free asia is lying but then the issue is not “cold calling” (as you put it dismissively) but rather an ad hominem attack against rfa as a source. In fact they’re quite honorable journalists for the most part in my experience (just ask the eastern bloc citizens during the Cold War lol).
Not sure what you mean by budget data, perhaps the construction of re-education camps Zenz cites, if so I would disagree strongly with your assumption that public bids for construction of re-education camps does not imply... the existence of re-education camps lmao. Also for recruitment of re-education offices.
The issue seems to me to be one of critical thinking and logical contradiction and which sources to trust or how to evaluate them. Hope this was helpful and sorry if I was snarky but this is a marquee issue.
Nah, the sources are pretty overwhelming. Blumenthal was interviewed recently in a sort of faux intellectual style where he claimed they examined the “source data” Zenz used which sounds impressive but actually... Zenz’s source data is super comprehensive and publicly available. So the issue with grayzone is more, “why would you NOT examine the source data when you claimed you did?” Very funky vibe over there. Anyway here’s a good piece about it FYI: https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/features/where-did-one-million-figure-detentions-xinjiangs-camps-come
Thanks. well, if i were the UN, a priority Project would be the establishment of a totally neutral factual news and news checking organsation. Like the Red Cross. Convention of War exists for the Same reason. Otherwise the descent into a post-fact world surely would bring back the dark ages.
Not sure if you linked the right thing, this is a photo of the US diplomat meeting with the HK protest leaders 11 months ago, which we know about, they also met Senators too.
Did you mean to link off /r/Sino? It's a strictly pro-China sub I believe, and I'm sure has a lot of official and unofficial CCP involvement.
Thanks. Anyway, i ve decided am better off relying on professional vetting. Faking combined with selectivity, one can 'prove' anything. What i dont get from such people on all sides is this, do they really think facts would change according to their wishes? Well, judging by some of the behaviours around the world regarding the virus, i guess they do.
About postponing the polls: the SCMP article quotes Lam in saying 'more than 60 countries had done so, while only 49 countries had gone ahead.'
About the 12 disqualifications: is it not true that those candidates were either calling for sanctions or pro-independence?
If the above is true, I'm not sure why this is a big surprise.
Maybe it'll end up being wise if voters have the time to see how the NSL will actually be implemented end2end. Could it end up like the handover period - a lot of fear of which very little became true?
#1 This seems to me to be a case of wringing maximum advantage from the situation. Either postponing or disqualification of candidates would probably have been enough on its own, but since there is the possibility of doing both, why not push harder? Who is going to stop them? Living in Hong Kong I feel extremely pessimistic and am preparing to move: I expect worse to come, basically anything the regime can get away with, they will do, there are no moderating pressures. I am curious to see what other readers make of things.
That's not unreasonable.
The fear of sanctions and the still-pretty-free press are moderating pressures.
On #1 --- on HK alone, I realize this thought will go over like a leaden Trump tweat---but as almost everything the US touches these days turns to bloody boomerang, stay out of HK; it is now fully sovereignized by Beijing, rushed into the unvarnished red paint job by a romanticized movement that had no hope but fulfilled western fantasies/British regret (what was Mrs T to do--send her armada that barely held the Falklands?)... As the great NM reminds us: For now let us deal with the world as it is, rather than as we might like it to be....Bj will wait things out and let us hope the bilateral yo-yo's back up to only somewhat poisonous next year...This is my first and surely last blowhard contribution to this thread. I greatly respect you all but I simply have had a different view on the future, and have held it straight for the last 2 decades...
I live here and don't have any plans to ever move. I'd really appreciate the continued attention, not just from America but from as many nations as possible. I run in different circles than you, but in 8 years I don't think I've met anyone who trusts China to do the right thing with Hong Kong in the long run.
which I respect and concur with
The possible Nvidia purchase of Arm would certainly sharpen the contradictions, as it were. https://on.ft.com/31bXGMa
The US just announced sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Corps 新疆生产建设兵团。 As big as this sounds I hear it is just an "appetizer" compared to other planned sanctions https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1073
Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned one Chinese government entity and two current or former government officials in connection with serious rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). These designations include the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), Sun Jinlong, a former Political Commissar of the XPCC, and Peng Jiarui, the Deputy Party Secretary and Commander of the XPCC. The entity and officials are being designated for their connection to serious human rights abuse against ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, which reportedly include mass arbitrary detention and severe physical abuse, among other serious abuses targeting Uyghurs, a Turkic Muslim population indigenous to Xinjiang, and other ethnic minorities in the region.
We saw how methodical Xi was in his first years at consolidating power. I'd imagine that's the majority of the "why" for #1 - even if it's rigged, there's still enough local backlash about the NSL to show an embarrassing amount of resistance that only further tarnishes CCP's image there. Keeping everything "status quo" only allows more time for it to fade from the western news cycle and allow a now beefed up intelligence presence there to continue to monitor and round up democratic leaders
1. The Election pushback makes sense on every front. Regardless of how undemocratic we know it now to be, it would still be a big focal point to keep local protestors motivated and would garner a lot of international attention. Pushing it back a full year to cool down will:
-Get past US elections, much less political pressure to hit back
-Get past the news cycle
-Allow HK's economy to recover a bit, calming dissatisfaction
-Allow security forces more time to identify and remove dissent leadership
-Just allow people to forget about the theme, time heals all wounds
I think they would have done this anyway, but using the COVID spike is a great excuse.
2. Beidaihe has been a different affair every year under Xi from what I can tell. This year I would guess leans more toward relaxation than deep discussion/critique. Simply because thanks to COVID and the legislative calendar this year, Beijing has already had quite a lot of political knife fighting by this time of year, and these kinds of discussions have been ongoing pretty continuously. When they get back, there will be another busy session leading into the new Five Year Plan and October Plenum. So would imagine this session leans toward more of a "team building exercise" for Xi and his clique.
I don't expect any kind of intervention at Beidaihe. It's not like top leaders are unaware of the ongoing issues with US/China or US/Global relations. They've made it pretty clear the course of action will be maintained until the US elections at least, and that most of these individual sanctions issues are out of their control (probably correctly). They've also taken their foot off the gas of Wolf Warrior diplomacy, so that's a concession to the moderates. There's nobody really who can stage an intervention on Xi right now and "keep their heads"... so to speak.
3. I have no insight on this issue.
Do you have any insight on Bill’s question as to whether sanctioning top officials’ USA holdings/families might cause any blowback for Xi? It seems to be more a question of when rather than if it simply becomes impossible for ccp leaders to have any ties at all to the west—and maybe for prc citizens as well. I would have thought the increasing certainty of that prospect would be very disquieting for huge numbers of people in the ccp and China—essentially, a China completely cut off from the outside world (except drpk, Iran etc just peanuts), no sports, no entertainment, no travel, no education, no exchange, no financial holdings, no business (over time as everyone foreign leaves over the next generation). That seems... not great
Also remember the scope of China. It's no DPRK or Iran. It contains 1/6 of the world's population and is massive. China has its own sports, entertainment, travel, education, and business already.
If anything, there are so many eyes and wallets in China that foreign forces are salivating to get access to them.
A cut off China is not nearly as grim as you're painting with DPRK and Iran comparisons, and even in those grim cases, cutting them off hasn't worked. DPRK is still going!
This is off topic, but is there a serious domestic professional or amateur sports sector in China?
Fair enough, thanks for the comment. Btw I meant that only countries like drpk and Iran would still be accessible to China, not that China would somehow end up like them. Sorry I wasn’t clear on that. As to foreign forces salivating to get in, sure, but I feel like that’s about 10 years out of date tbh—it’s now clear that the price of doing business is political surrender (for instance, the nba would not have free speech rights even in the USA if they want to be in China), and that is evidently increasingly intolerable for western countries (just as China claims interference in its internal affairs is intolerable for it). And also in response to your comment below, sure other countries besides the USA currently have fewer restrictions but everyone is headed in the same direction (more restrictions) for the reason I mentioned and the same reason China acknowledges is legitimate—interference in ones domestic affairs. In the medium term the world be divisors into two camps—western allied and China—and its just very depressing and you have to feel there are many voices in China who realize it is Xi’s hard line policies which have caused it. From a practical standpoint sure maybe there’s not much many in China can do about it but it’s just sad that this one man (with a lot of support, but ultimately one man) can do that.
Thanks for your clarification. I speak to a lot of corporates and their lobbyists.... the salivation is as real today as it was 10 years ago. China's consumers are a lot richer today.
US corporates don't care as much about political surrender as their twitter accounts would have you believe. At the end of the day they care about profit. That's not to say any corporations want to harm their US client base either if they kowtow to China while the popular sentiment is so unfavorable.
Yes Xi has had a greater impact on China than any man since Deng, maybe even Mao. Ultimately he has executed the domestic strategies well enough that I see no end to this anytime soon.
Sure, no question on the nature of the corporates, right. But as you said, kowtowing to China is becoming increasingly untenable due to pressure on them in the USA. Since they’re not going anywhere, they will be forced into a less prc-focused strategy whether by public opinion or by direct govt sanction/law/policy. That will just be part of a larger alignment of the world into two blocs, no?
As primarily a finance/economics guy, i d say the two bloc scenario is almost impossible in trade/economics terms. To achieve it, the 'freedom bloc' has to take a sustained, multi election cycle, monumental, top-down and collectivist effort, which, to its credit, the bloc is unaccustomed to. To cut the argument short, i ll just put this forward: disengaging from China for real would necessitate a redistribution of wealth in advanced economies from the 0.1% (the majority of 1% is mere glorified clerks) and corporations to the majority rather quickly in order to forestall scoial or financial collapse during the long transition period. I dont see that happening given where power lies. The most likely scenario seems to be poorly conceived actions leading to deteriorating living standards and accute socioeconomic crisis.
I'm sure the leaders and families being sanctioned themselves don't feel good about it, but it's difficult to really bring up in political circles in China, as one's political rivals would quickly ask why you are so keen to leave glorious China, why so keep to own so much offshore assets? Etc.
Yes it will on some level add pressure for these leaders and Xi would be aware of that, but at the end of the day it's seen mostly as a necessary sacrifice the leaders and their families have to do for China. Eg, divest and lose access to things in the West. And as others have mentioned, there are still plenty of countries with fewer restrictions, from Canada to EU to other, more esoterically structured assets in Caymans and Switzerland.
And as a last point, it's really unclear what Xi can do about it. China does not acknowledge any wrongdoing in Xinjiang. If they do, are sanctions likely to be increased, or decreased? "Ah, thanks for opening the doors to your prison camps so we can see how bad it is. As long as you're sorry, we'll unwind all these sanctions."
No, they set their path long ago when they decided to enact these policies on HK/Xinjiang. Anything short of regime change is not going to get sanctions decreased.
Lastly, CCP would never set the precedence that US or any other country could affect domestic policy by this kind of external pressure. Which is understandable. If they roll back HK policies because their leaders are being sanctioned, US wouldn't stop with sanctions, but see what else they can get China to do.
Also one other question for you—appreciate your time on this forum!—would you be able to recommend some books about the nature of thinking and decision-making in communist regimes? I was thinking especially soviet, but also could be ccp (although I’m generally well read on the ccp and have ready very little about the sockets, thereby showing my age :)). Thank you!
I don't think Europe would join for what it s worth. Certainly not Switzerland. Unless chicom really messes up with the EU.
Switzerland is an interesting example—I’ve been meaning to read up on Cold War history since we are now in Cold War 2.0, both to learn how a true communist state thinks, and how various countries reacted. Seems they were neutral during the Cold War and crucially gave the soviets access to their financial system, no? As for the rest of Europe, I cant agree, especially if Biden wins, as the one German ceo put it recently, better an imperfect democracy than a perfect autocracy, no? It’s really as simple as that, Europe can’t be non-aligned and continue to do business with China without sacrificing its core values. Especially for France (the revolution) and Germany (anti genocide/dictator, Merkel’s pro dictator policy notwithstanding as she’s a dinosaur on that issue—great otherwise—and soon gone) who set the tone for the eu, it seems a bad bet to assume their most intimate values could be abandoned just because they find the USA distasteful, no?
Yes and no. Trump really messed up with Europe. Europe is also very aware that all the disasters of the 20th century, how they emerged in Europe and ruined Europe (forever i d say). The style of Value/Identity based politics, which America is exporting around the world with some success, can just as easily break the EU and Europe apart. Maybe am oversensitive, but the language of value/identity politics today increasingly sounds as shrill and jarring as the language of ideals/class struggle, especially when the loudest person speaking in such terms tends to be the least qualified/worthy.
The idea that identity politics might affect Europe in that way isn’t something I’d thought of and is interesting.
Then it s a matter of US scantioning European institutions for breaking sanctions?
thanks, makes sense. but have they really taken the gas off wolf warrior diplomacy?
Overall in the last 2 weeks my feel (and what I've been hearing from unattributed sources) is that they have a little bit. It's probably not permanent or anything, and there are countries they specifically may want to keep aggressing (like Australia), and countries to at least let off a little (like the EU).
I don't get the feel it's as "pedal to the metal" as it was back in March/April, at least, to keep extending this metaphor.
BTW, here is the Tuesday statement by ARM China 安谋中国团队公开信 https://tech.sina.com.cn/roll/2020-07-30/doc-iivhuipn5806838.shtml
compared to, lets say 5 years ago, what is our visibility into CCPs decisions? embassies closed, journalists sent out (goes both ways)...
Who is "our" that you're talking about? The US? Intelligence community?
CCP's decision-making process has definitely become more opaque under Xi, and has been steadily grinding more closed over the past decade. There's a lot of factors and it's hard to really point to what is the exact primary contributor.
1. Legitimately increasing nationalism among the members.
2. More corruption and security crackdowns on prominent members have made it clear that nobody is untouchable. Thus, even fairly secure members are going to be tight lipped and toe the line.
3. It's reciprocal, sure, but increasing views of western countries as meddling in internal affairs and as an enemy. Obviously ratcheted up to 10 with Trump Administration, then up to 12 with HK and COVID.
So far I wouldn't particularly say the consulate closure and reduced journalists have particularly had much impact on access to CCP decisionmaking, it's not like Lingling (WSJ) was invited to CCP meetings. It's a blow to her (previously excellent) coverage, sure, but there are other sources.
It’s pretty clear what is going on. The quote, “ ARM China is devoted to empowering the foundation of China’s semiconductor industry.” really means “ARM China is devoted to stealing foreign technology for the benefit of the Chinese semiconductor industry.” Mr. Wu, playing the nationalist card to perfection, has set up multiple manufacturing sites without the approval of the parent company, and opaque to the parent company, for the purpose of stealing ARM technology which he will soon pass of as Chinese. The local officials will not stop this because the import of this technology and the resultant jobs are what they very much want for the local economy. Was there really a need for ARM to set up this JV? They make cutting edge CPU which companies will buy no matter where they are made. I thought the Brits were smarter than this. How many times does this scam have to happen before foreign companies wake up? Fear and greed!
That’s not reall Arm’s business model. They license the ARM architecture and IP to other chip designers who want to build off their designs - they don’t really have any manufacturing nor need for it.
According to FT, Wu runs an investment fund called Alphatecture and was offering ARM China customers discounts on chip designs if they would invest in the companies under his fund’s umbrella.
Or maybe he’s is selling the designs to sanctioned parties or for cut rate prices. Whatever the case, he has set himself against the U.K. parent and does not seem too worried about it.
Yes. And I corrected myself below the original post. But if that is the case, why is Mr Wu setting up satellite facilities that are opaque to the U.K. parent? I think he has access to the Arm IP and was able to cobble together enough manufacturing talent to start producing IC on his own.
Great question. Good luck, Tesla
that would be bad, if very conceivable
No real need for 北京 to intervene, relations b/n China and U.K. are a bit strained right now anyway. I wonder if the Chinese see this as partial payback for all the opium the Brits sold.
Bad for ARM, not for China. Which is always the final calculus. Is it not?
I should say ARM designs cutting edge CPU. They are a fabless IC design house.
WRT Hong Kong’s postponement of the LEGCO elections, the claim that the decision came because of the C-19 surge seems plausible. Of course, most observers have concluded that the surge came about because of unwise exemptions (allowing certain individuals entering Hong Kong to do so without being tested for C-19).
Either way, it’s yet another indication (if any were needed) that “the jig is up” for Hong Kong.
I recognize that the Hong Kong election delay was probably a plan in the works for some time, but is there any chance they made the announcement today because of Trump's tweet yesterday about delaying the US elections? As in, they saw and took the opening of the US president talking about delaying elections to announce their own delay and hope they can neutralize some of the international criticism?
I highly doubt since the earlier than expected August NPCSC meeting was announced before the Trump tweet, and there had been rumors in the HK press earlier this week
Agreed, nothing to do with Trump's theatrics.
A nice story from long ago...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/30/world/asia/china-1950s-echoed-today.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage