An agreement had been meant to be adopted following a plenary session earlier on Wednesday, but the source said it had been delayed after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi introduced new admission criteria.
Asked about the delay, an Indian official aware of the details of the talks told Reuters late on Wednesday that the discussion were continuing.
"Yesterday ... India pushed for consensus on criteria as well as the issue of (candidate) names. There was a broad understanding," he said.
The BRICS country official said that admission criteria India's Modi proposed included requiring members not be the target of international sanctions, ruling out potential candidates Iran and Venezuela.
Modi was also pushing for a minimum per capital GDP requirement.
"These are the things Modi brought in today," the official said. "So they are becoming a little bit of a spoiler."
Unfortunately, a co-founder of the Beijing LGBT Center, Wan Yanhai, had ties to the NED, which the government has been cracking down on more recently. Yanhai had a fellowship with them. He was also one of the signatories of the Charter 08 manifesto, which called for the end of CCP rule and privatization of all state-owned enterprises. Also doesn’t really help that there are still some out of touch socially conservative boomers in the government, who believe LGBT activism to be a western plot. China is still overall making progress in LGBT rights, especially with younger Chinese being generally very supportive, but there are still occasional setbacks along the way like this.
China has been trying to maintain good relations with Ukraine, even throughout the war. A recent statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202209/t20220924_10770931.html
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba after meeting China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi:
My counterpart reaffirmed China’s respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as its rejection of the use of force as a means of resolving differences
According to Zelensky back in May regarding the war:
China has chosen the policy of staying away. At the moment, Ukraine is satisfied with this policy. It is better than helping the Russian Federation in any case. And I want to believe that China will not pursue another policy. We are satisfied with this status quo, to be honest
China has also been Ukraine's top trading partner and largest recipient of Ukrainian weapons in recent years. Ukraine was second only to Russia as an arms exporter to China. Before the war, Ukraine was China's top corn supplier and China was also the top importer of Ukrainian iron ore, barley, vegetable oils, and jet turbine engines.
Ukraine joined the BRI and was expected to become a key partner. China still has large infrastructure projects underway in Ukraine. Zelensky said that he hoped that Ukraine would become “a bridge to Europe for Chinese business.”
It normalized its relations with Burma, and established diplomatic relations with non-communist countries: Malaysia (1974), the Philippines (June 1975), and Thailand (July 1975), all of which had been regarded as “lackeys of American imperialism” in the past.[28] In the context of confronting the Soviet Union and rapprochement with the United States, China adjusted its attitude towards these Third World countries. Meanwhile, China pursued a “dual-track” policy: it still provided a certain degree of support to anti-government left-wing parties.[29] Geng Biao used Sino-Burmese relations as an example: “We have diplomatic relations with Burma. [Prime Minister] Ne Win comes, and we have to welcome him. But the Burmese Communist Party conducts armed struggle, and we strongly support it. However, we can’t sever diplomatic relations with the Burmese government just because we support the Burmese Communist Party.”
Although the CCP claimed it strongly supported the armed rebel groups, this support inevitably grew weaker because it needed to maintain relations with their governments. In May 1974, China and Malaysia formally established diplomatic relations. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdul Razak Hussein, in his meeting with Mao Zedong, repeatedly asked the latter to promise that the CCP would not have any relations with militant communists in Malaysia. Mao refused to sever the CCP’s relations with the Malaysian communists, but he compromised that “it is your internal affairs; we can’t intervene.” When Abdul Razak claimed he would “use troops and police to kill them,” Mao still said “it is your policy”; “we don’t intervene in your internal affairs.”[30] Later in July 1975, Mao told the Prime Minister of Thailand Kukrit Pramoj: “Someone asked me not to have relations with the communists in their country (Mao meant the rightest governments). I said no. How can communists not support other communists?... As for how you deal with the communists (in your country), we don’t intervene. Nothing more than condemning, fighting and killing. We don’t and are unable to manage it. (We) can’t intervene in other countries’ internal affairs. ”[31] By reiterating “we don’t intervene,” Mao implied his declining endorsement to the communist rebellions in Southeast Asia, although he didn’t completely abandon them.
Geng’s speech also illustrated the subtle change of Mao’s foreign policy. “We should not intervene in their internal affairs,” said Geng Biao. “Each countries’ Marxist-Leninist parties’ guidelines, policies, and strategies can only be made by themselves and through the integration of Marxist-Leninist principles and their practical situations. No matter how correct you are, if you don’t understand their situations, it will be very dangerous to command them. In the past, the Soviet revisionists always wanted to command us, but we didn’t listen to them.” Geng’s talk justified China’s declining support to the fraternal communists in Southeast Asia by referencing Mao’s philosophy, “integrating the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the particular situations.” The CCP wanted neither to participate in other communist parties’ conferences nor to invite other parties’ members to join CCP events. “The meetings we hold are to solve our own problems. What happens if they disagree with us when we are giving a report? If they invite us to attend a conference, we cannot keep silent about what is wrong. The moment we speak, we will disagree with them and quarrel with them. They are the hosts, and we are the guests. It’s not good to quarrel with them on their own turf.” China was also reluctant to train military personnel for its communist brothers. “We should tell them that fighting is not a big issue; they can learn when they fight. Some always ask to send military cadres to come here to study. We should tell them there is no need to do so,” said Geng Biao.
The CCP emphasized the role of “political support” - “political support is primary; economic support is secondary,” according to Geng. But in fact, this political support was also decreasing. Propaganda support was one of Beijing’s traditional means of political endorsement for the fraternal parties. The left-wing parties’ armed struggles were often the focal point in the Chinese media. In the middle of the 1970s, when China had improved its relations with Burma, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, Chinese media gradually reduced its reporting on the revolutionary insurgencies in these countries. It also avoided criticizing the Southeast Asian leaders by name. Additionally, in the past, the Chinese media had underscored the importance of Mao’s approach of armed struggles in the countryside when reporting the insurgencies in Southeast Asia, while in the middle of the 1970s, the reporting had to admit the complexity in Southeast Asia and encourage political movements in cities.[32] Three China-based clandestine radio stations—the Voice of the People of Thailand, the Voice of the Malayan Revolution, and the Voice of the People of Burma—were still able to pursue different lines from Beijing’s media. They continued carrying anti-government propaganda. But, Chinese media references to these clandestine stations became less frequent as the 1970s progressed.[33] The above demonstrated a dimming in Chinese zeal to spread revolution.
Mao Zedong himself was reluctant to give up revolutionary ideals, as well as the endorsement to fraternal parties, but he had no better option. He realized other communist parties did not live up to his expectations because they achieved little and were unable to overthrow their governments. He had to compromise and placate those foreign government leaders.[34] Revolutionary ideology declined in Chinese foreign policy in the 1970s.
China unfortunately also supported the two-state solution under Mao with their support for the UN Resolution in 1974 on the Two-State solution. Vietnam and Cuba also support the two-state solution sadly and even Maduro reportedly expressed a desire to reestablish relations with Israel back in 2017 (Chavez had cut off all diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009 and expelled the Israeli ambassador). Vietnam is also increasingly becoming a major trading partner with Israel unfortunately. Cuba, China, Vietnam, and Venezuela still do continually condemn Israel's actions against Palestinians though and China still does materially support Palestinians including provision of water desalination projects, solar power generation in Gaza, and covid-19 vaccination aid. I believe Laos also supports the two-state solution. The DPRK is really the only AES state left that I'm aware of that still has a great position on the Israel-Palestine conflict:
Israeli–North Korean relations are hostile.[1] North Korea does not recognise Israel, denouncing it as an "imperialist satellite".[2] Since 1988 it recognises the sovereignty of the State of Palestine over all of Israel, except for the occupied region of the Golan Heights, which is internationally recognised as part of Syria. Israel considers North Korea and its nuclear missile program as a major threat to global security. It has called for international action on the issue. At times, Israel has been the subject of fiery threats from North Korean state media.
Unfortunately not too surprising considering China still naively supports the antiquated two-state solution (which will never work) and trades with both. China still does materially support Palestinians including provision of water desalination projects and solar power generation in Gaza, but then also does cringe shit like trading with Israel. Vietnam and Cuba also support the two-state solution sadly and even Maduro reportedly expressed a desire to reestablish relations with Israel back in 2017 (Chavez had cut off all diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009 and expelled the Israeli ambassador). Vietnam is also increasingly becoming a major trading partner with Israel unfortunately. Cuba, China, Vietnam, and Venezuela still do continually condemn Israel's actions against Palestinians though. The DPRK is really the only AES state left that I'm aware of that still has a great position on the Israel-Palestine conflict:
Israeli–North Korean relations are hostile.[1] North Korea does not recognise Israel, denouncing it as an "imperialist satellite".[2] Since 1988 it recognises the sovereignty of the State of Palestine over all of Israel, except for the occupied region of the Golan Heights, which is internationally recognised as part of Syria. Israel considers North Korea and its nuclear missile program as a major threat to global security. It has called for international action on the issue. At times, Israel has been the subject of fiery threats from North Korean state media.
A Sixth Tone (a CPC media outlet) article on this:
“I feel numb to such news,” said Cui Le, a PhD student at the University of Auckland’s Faculty of Education and Social Work, who researches queer issues in China’s education system. “It’s just another example of Chinese authorities reinforcing a traditional gender ideology, emphasizing men should be so-called ‘masculine’ and devaluing them for being feminine.”
Tiffany Yu, a postdoctoral fellow researching gender and the media in China at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, told Sixth Tone the country’s obsession with masculinity is a reflection of the anxiety that the future generation won’t be able to protect it. She added that a common conspiracy theory is that the softening of masculine values is a way for “foreign forces” to weaken the country’s defenses.
But why do sections of Chinese society and officialdom want to confine men to the traditional definition of masculinity?
Cui from the University of Auckland believes it’s related to associations with nationalism. At a time when China is at loggerheads with several countries, he said that many think the idea of gender diversity is “increasingly being shaped into a Western ideology,” which authorities believe requires both vigilance and resistance.
There was a recent "anti-extremist" regulation against long unkempt Salafi-style beards passed by the Xinjiang People's Congress that seems to have been modeled off of Tajikistan's (Tajikistan is a Muslim-majority country that began making restrictions against long Salafi beards in their response to recent rising Salafi jihadism in Central Asia). It's definitely one of the dumber and more draconian anti-Salafi extremism measures out there where they pressure men to trim/shave "abnormal" beards, although there doesn't appear to be any credible evidence of anyone actually being pressured into de-radicalization programs based exclusively on having a long unkempt beard. So, if you go to to Xinjiang, you'll still see Muslim men with beards, but you'll be unlikely to see a long Salafi-style beard now. Despite long Salafi/Wahhabi-style beards not being considered part of traditional Uyghur culture, this kind of restriction (even when Muslim countries like Tajikistan or Uzbekistan do it) is still overzealous and ridiculous imo.
And of course the source for this is Talk East Turkestan, which is run by overseas Salafi separatist Arslan Hidayat, who is notorious for pumping out deceptively edited videos and disinformation. A little more background on Arslan/Talk East Turkestan and his history of manufacturing sinister fake stories in his viral videos from completely unrelated footage:
https://threader.app/thread/1182726991675625472
This is a video that also gives more background on Arslan's separatist goals for Xinjiang and his support for ethnic cleansing in the region to establish an ethnostate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32huiOc9ruo
Some other Xinjiang atrocity propaganda/fake videos:
This is a decent article on the "Russian imperialism" question. The West desperately wants regime change in Russia to install another neoliberal puppet (Navalny in particular) for Western capital and finish off what Yeltsin started in privatization for Western plunder. This would be a return to the neoliberal hellscape of 90s Russia. Like in Ukraine, the most reactionary fascist elements would also likely be unleashed to establish a Western puppet state. Russia contains about 30% of the world's natural resources valued at about $75 trillion. It's the second largest exporter of petroleum. Russia has the largest proven natural gas reserves in the world and is the largest exporter of natural gas. Oil and gas account for over a third of its federal budget revenues (which are essential for funding public services/education/healthcare and the large-scale privatization that the West wants critically threatens this). It's also the third largest arms exporter in the world. While obviously not being a socialist country, it still retains a high degree of state ownership for a capitalist country with the state controlling over half of banking, almost half of the oil and gas sector, and over a third of the utility sector. State-owned enterprises account for almost 40% of the capitalization on the Russian stock market.
Russia also plays a large role in undermining Western regime efforts against other countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. According to neocon ghoul Elliott Abrams:
We underestimated the importance of the Cuban and Russian support for the [Venezuelan] regime, which has proved I think to be the two most important pillars of support for the regime and without which it wouldn’t be there, it wouldn’t be in power.
Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of the Russian parliament, on Cuban relations:
We did make huge mistakes in the 1990s while turning our backs on Cuba. That time is definitely over, and I'm absolutely sure that our relations deserve better attention from Russia.
They deserve more investments from Russia both in terms of finances and equipment of course, but also human resources. And definitely we should assist, we should help, Cuba; we should support Cuba as long as it's discriminated against, as long as it's sanctioned, as long as it's blockaded by the United States."
In 2014, Putin forgave about 90% of Cuba's debt that it had accumulated from the Soviet era. In 2019, Russia had sent Cuba 1,000 minibuses, 50 locomotives, tens of thousands of tourists, and a promise to upgrade the island's power grid with a multi-million dollar improvement plan. Russia is currently building 4 power plants in Cuba and pledging over $1 billion to revitalize Cuba's railroad system.
In Nicaragua, Russia is heavily arming Nicaragua's socialist government, distributing food aid, working to improve Nicaragua's public transportation, and helping the country's ability to manufacture vaccines.
Russia and Belarus serve as buffer zones against the West and NATO for Vietnam, China, DPRK, and Laos.
So, yeah, Putin obviously isn't a comrade and he certainly opposes socialism at home as it threatens his own power and the Russian oligarchs that support him, but the current Russian government nevertheless plays a crucial role in establishing the multipolar world order that socialism desperately needs to survive. Putin's current shitty oligarchy also still manages to be far better for Russians than what neoliberal Western sellouts like Yeltsin ever was (a low bar I know).
Modi apparently played a last-minute spoiler role:
Looks like he ultimately conceded on Iran.