Is Xi Jinping’s China on a path to war? Mehdi Hasan & Victor Gao | Head to Head

From Ukraine to Gaza, the world seems more divided and uncertain than it has been for years. Global powers and Western alliances have been put to the test, and amid the turmoil, China is rising to challenge the world order. Chinese President Xi Jinping, now in his third term in office, has high ambitions. Territorial disputes have sparked fears of a larger conflict that could have regional and global implications. You have approached the waters near China, including in the contested waters of the South China Sea, your curves leave and keep F over, and in Taiwan, where the

threat of a Chinese military invasion looms larger. Meanwhile, at home, attacks on basic freedoms and human rights have become more severe, like in Xinjiang, where China continues to commit serious human rights abuses—some say a genocide against the Uyghur Muslims. So how far will China's autocratic vision reach, and will long-simmering tensions with the West hit a boiling point? I'm M. Hassen, and I've come here to London's legendary Conway Hall to go head-to-head with Victor Gao. He's the vice president of the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing, former interpreter for the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping,

and a proud defender of the People's Republic. I'll ask him about China's global ambitions and its aggressive crackdown on human rights and civil liberties. Tonight, I'll also be joined by three experts: Steven Chan, a professor at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies; Rahan Assad, a human rights lawyer of Weier Heritage; and Martin Jacques, author of the bestseller "When China Rules the World" and a political commentator on China. Victor Gao, thank you so much for joining me on Head to Head this evening here in London. Thank you for having me. China has

upped its military spending; it's expanding its nuclear arsenal. It now has the biggest navy in the world. Chinese President Xi Jinping has said that the country's military should be capable of "fighting and winning wars" and told the military to focus all your energy on fighting and improve your capability to win. Victor, who do you want to fight and who do you want to win against? First of all, the Chinese military spending is the second largest in the world, but it is only a fraction of that of the United States. China has a very difficult geopolitical

situation; China has 14 land neighbors and six maritime nations. Therefore, China's defense is defensive in nature and is not for fighting anyone except those who want to invade China or to launch a war against China. China's military spending is for peace rather than war, and war will be forced upon China, and China needs to fight back. You say it's for peace, but your neighbors don't agree. Your neighbors are pretty worried about you. If you go through the list, Japan has sounded the alarm, saying your military buildup is a very serious concern to them. India is

worried about China on its border, and the Philippines' president has warned that China is becoming a more pronounced and worrisome threat. He says those are the elected governments of countries representing over 1.6 billion people in Asia. This is not the United States; this is not the West. This is Asia's neighbors saying we're worried about China. You mentioned three of the neighboring countries of China. Let's talk about one of them, each of them, very quickly. Japan unconditionally surrendered not only to the United States but also to China in 1945, and if you read very carefully the

unconditional surrender document that Japan signed, then you will know how Japan needs to conduct its foreign affairs as well as its military troops with China and with all those countries that Japan unconditionally surrendered to. As for India, it is a great nation, and there is a territorial dispute between China and India, but that dispute was not created by China, nor was it created by India; it was created or left behind by the British Indian government. That's a great history lesson, but right now, China's defense spending is going up by 7%, the most in five years.

You've had 29 consecutive years of military expenditure growth, the most of any country in the world. Since 2022, China has increased military drills around Taiwan; it's escalated since the new Taiwanese president was inaugurated in May. China is not a fan of him. Since then, there's been almost daily activity involving China's warships, drones, and cyber attacks against Taiwan. China is getting ready to invade Taiwan, isn't it? There is only one China; Taiwan is part of China, and the government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government for the totality of China. The exact

status between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is the unfinished civil war from back in 1949. Since the beginning of the 1980s, China does not want to use war to solve this unification problem. You don’t want to use war, but you’re surrounding it with ships, drones, and cyber attacks, making lots of threats. Each time the separatists in Taiwan want to push the edge of the envelope, they will come across more and more demonstrations of the commitment of the Chinese nation to eventually achieve peaceful reunification or otherwise. Your defense minister said anyone who dares to

pursue independence for Taiwan will be crushed into pieces and face destruction. Sounds like a truly peaceful guy. That’s a real statement, because if the separatists really want to push the edge of the envelope, with the aid of some big country, for example, which wants to use Taiwan as a proxy in its own geopolitical rivalry against China, then wait until you see what will happen. Reunification will be achieved, and China is... The only permanent member of the United Nations Security Council that has not yet achieved a complete reunification is China. I’m always amused by this phrase,

"reunification," because if it's "one China," then clearly it's not one China. By definition, if you need to reunify, they are doing their own thing. Why this obsession with Taiwan? You are a country of 3.7 million square miles, a population 60 times that of Taiwan, an economy 20 times the size of Taiwan. Why are you obsessed with Taiwan? Why not just leave them be? In terms of defending China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, any inch of land is not one inch too much; any one single person is not one person too many. So, we need to achieve

reunification, even though they don’t want to be part of your country. Only 12% of the people of Taiwan say they want to reunify with China. You can't get more unpopular than that. It’s not up to the people in Taiwan to decide about the "one China" policy. You're very blunt in your disregard for people's views, freedoms, and dignity. You say that you don't care about what they think. You also said in an interview with the French newspaper *Le Monde*, "Once we get the island back, we'll have to ask everyone's origins. Those who have Japanese ancestry, who

you basically say constitute 10% of the population, will have to pledge loyalty to reunification in writing. Otherwise, we'll have to help them leave." You're basically calling for the ethnic cleansing of 2.3 million people in Taiwan. Now, do you remember back in 1945 when Japan unconditionally surrendered? A lot of people in Taiwan who originally came from Japan—the rulers of Taiwan at the time—stayed behind because of the magnanimity of the Chinese nation. Now, several decades later, they account for about 10% of the local population in Taiwan. If you really do your homework, you will realize that those

die-hard Taiwanese separatists include many of these Japanese. But okay, you would get rid of them. You would get rid of 2.3 million people. No, after the reunification, everyone in Taiwan needs to make a pledge acknowledging that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China. If they don't make that pledge, those who pledge for the "one China" policy— By the way, you didn't say everyone; you said those of Japanese descent. That is literally ethnic discrimination. You're picking people by their ethnic heritage, making them do a loyalty test; otherwise, they have to get

out of the country. There is not a loyalty test here. For example, in Britain, if you are a British citizen, you need to support the monarchy. You cannot say, "No, I'm standing in Britain; I don't support the monarchy; I don't like King Charles." No, you cannot say that. I literally just said it. You cannot take any action to oppose the monarchy system. But I don't have to sign a pledge saying I support King Charles. Well, each country is different. We are talking about China. China is very particular, and China has one policy, which is part

of the Constitution. This involves people in Taiwan who don't want to be part of your country. Let's bring in our panel, who are waiting to come in and join. Let's see what they think. I'm joined by Steven Chan, a professor at the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies. If you’re in Taiwan today, how worried are you about a looming invasion? I'm not in Taiwan today; I'm going to be visiting next year. I've been there five times, and in all the great cities of Taiwan, what I've noticed most conspicuously is that nobody I've

talked to wants to rejoin or reunify with China because of their sense of freedom and their sense of self-determination. So I think that if you're going to say our sovereignty matters more than your desire for your own self-determination and freedom, then you're doing something that will not make you popular in Taiwan, and you won't win the argument for Chinese sovereignty over the island. Martin Jakes is here with us, author of the bestselling book *When China Rules the World*. Martin, you've said in the past that China cannot, and should not, be seen through a solely Western

lens. I agree with you, and there's issues there. But I began the show by asking Victor about Japan and India and the Philippines, separate from Taiwan, just the issues in the region. Do you think China is responsible for some of those issues, all of those issues, or none of those issues? Well, China is obviously involved in, inevitably, all of those issues. I think that, actually, if you look at the rise of China over the last 30 or 40 years—spectacular. It's the biggest change we've ever seen in history, really. Inevitably, that is changing everything in the

region and the world. But the remarkable thing I’d say, Med, about China’s rise is how you quoted the military figures and so on. But China has not fought any wars since 1979. If you compare that with America, Europe, and Japan at the same stage of development, they were extremely aggressive. Let's talk human rights. Victor, you've called Uyghurs in China's Xinjiang Province your brothers and sisters. How do you feel about the fact that at least half a million—some say more—of your brothers and sisters are being detained in camps by the Chinese government? That's about 5% of

the adult Uyghur population, one of the highest imprisonment and detention rates in the world. Med, the Uyghurs are a proud ethnic group, one of the 56 ethnic nationalities in China. Wiggles, as far as I'm concerned, are my true brothers and sisters. I know many of them; I travel to Shin Jang regularly and I talk to many other wigos. Now, if anyone is serious about accusing China of practicing mass injustice against the weagles, give me the evidence. I think just did Human Rights Watch say half a million people detained over the years? In recent years, you

keep quoting Human Rights Watch, and I tell you—do you know where they got those numbers from? I don't know. Can I tell you? I don't know. I thought you were the expert. You've been to Shin Jang; you've spoken to wegers. You've never heard these numbers? I do not know. Where did they get the source? Their source is the Shin Jang High People's Procuratorate, which has published its own statistics. It's an official body in Shin Jang, which says it convicted 54,826 people prosecuted in the region since 2017. The United Nations Office for Human Rights looked at

satellite footage; they say 10 to 20% of the population. Amnesty estimates a million people in camps; half a million is a conservative number. Many, if you called that organization, please be assured that that organization has been completely discredited for the false information they've provided. So, this—I love this game we're playing. You give me a source, I give you a source. They're discredited; they've said falsehoods. How can—let me ask you a question—how many people are in detention in Shin Jang? You give me a number. Listen, if you look at— You give me a number! If you

look— I do not have the number. Why not? Yeah, hold on. You can't say it's not half a million and then say you don't have a number. I have a number; I have sources. How many people do you think are in detention? Let me give you my reason— No! I go to Shin Jang a lot. I travel— Your brothers and sisters, you go there a lot, but you can't tell me how many people are in detention? Listen, they are happier; they enjoy their life, they enjoy their Muslim practice and traditions. Listen, how many people are

in detention, Victor? Many— Let me be philosophical. No! Don't be philosophical; be numerical! How many people are in detention? You said not to— No, to half a million! How about—okay—let's say a quarter of a million. Let me finish my point! Nope! If you answer the question, you can't filibuster, Victor. On the show, anyone who thinks independence will be dealt with—how many of them are in court and how many in detention? The very small minority. So you don't have a number? You say they're all happy, but you won't let independent investigators in, you won't let journalists

go there. Why not? I will be happy to escort you to Shin Jang! Really, I can make that promise. I will speak to the Chinese government. Here's the problem— I don't want an escort; I don't want minders. I want to go freely. Will you allow that? I do not make that decision. Oh, a moment ago you were going to make all sorts of interruptions. Suddenly I said, let me go freely and speak to wegers freely. Can I do that with no minders, no Chinese government escort? I will be happy to make your case. Oh, just

now you said you'd organize it! Now we're about to make a case? You can't guarantee— Rahan Assad is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council International Human Rights Lawyer. You are a weager, whose brother has been held in an internment camp in Shin Jang since 2016. I believe, Rahan, tell us what happened to your brother and what is your response to Victor, to what you've heard, and what is the latest on your brother, if you don't mind sharing with us? Yeah, my brother, Akbar Assad, is a prominent tech entrepreneur. In fact, your own media outlet

called him a bright star in the tech world right before his detention. He was invited to a state gala dinner and then he disappeared. How could you explain? Now, again, in China we have about 20 Muslim ethnic groups. You need to ask one question: why has extremism existed mostly among the wigo communities? Because there are extremists among the wigo community who want to separate Shin Jang away from— Has your brother been convicted of any crime, supported by the CIA and other Western organizations? That's the real truth. Hold on, talk to the Hazaks; they don't support—

Has your brother been convicted of a crime? According to the UN, there's no trial that has taken place; he just forcibly disappeared—actually, it amounts to enforced disappearance. But according to the Chinese government, he committed a crime of inciting ethnic discrimination while he is systematically oppressed. When I challenged that decision, because under the Chinese law, if you're convicted of the alleged crime, you have a three-year sentence, but he got 15 years. How do you justify that? Then they switched the crime. So how do you even explain—this is a rule of law system. You mentioned that if

people are not pro-independence, then they're fine in Shin Jang. My brother, by no means, is pro-independence. In fact, your media outlet sees daily media invited him to exchange information. Did he split the country when he visited Beijing? Are you okay with the treatment of your brother? In front of this very august body, let me make several very brief points. The real crime involved by some of the wigo people agitating for Shin Jang independence—they violate the One China policy. Now, separate from that, you know different communities may find their own different problems which need to be

sorted out in the... Because of law, and I hope, but our brother's been detained for eight years. Well, I did not know the case. I hope I can help you to really look at the case and the accusations against him. I hope your brother is not guilty of inciting separatism in Xinjiang. If that is the case, then let the law take its course. Well, your media out there called him a model citizen who is a promoter of ethnic unity in Xinjiang. Have you been able to speak to your brother or not at all? Like, you

know, for eight years he's been forcibly disappeared. Up until last month, for the first time, my parents saw him. What kind of justice system is that? You're making a mockery. You're not just detaining them, Victor; they're being tortured. Numerous testimonies the UN has collected—are you okay with that? When you talk about torture, think about Guantanamo Bay prison. Oh my word, rather than in Xinjiang. Xinjiang is a place of great peace and stability. Hold on, Victor. The accounts of detainees include being beaten with batons, electric batons, while strapped in a So-Cal tiger chair, being subjected to

interrogation with water poured on their faces, prolonged solitary confinement, and forced to sit motionless on stools for long periods. You're okay with this? This is the proud China? Probably you are reading the case in Iraq committed by the American soldiers. I'm reading the UN report from August 2022 from detainees who came out of camps in Xinjiang. Your brothers and sisters, but these brothers and sisters you don't seem to give a damn about. How do you know any torture happened in Iraq, out of interest? I know for sure how: I talked to the Iraqi Ambassador in

Beijing. Okay, he wept in front of me, and I'm sure Ran's parents have wept, and you don't seem to care. I hope you will tell your brother to be a staunch supporter of the One China Policy, to be a proud Chinese. She can't tell him because she can't speak to him because you deny access. Victor, Victor, she can't speak to him. Are you going to arrange it? Are you going to arrange a visit now? I'd be happy to help you make a phone call. There are a lot of promises being made here, guys. You should

follow up on this. You are all witnesses. We are witnesses indeed. Let me bring in Martin. Jake, Martin, when you hear people say basically there's no torture, everyone's making it up, there's nobody in detention—come on, that's ridiculous, is it not? Martin, well, I mean, I don't know all the details of the situation in Xinjiang, but clearly there's been a big problem for a long time in Xinjiang in terms of the relationship between the Uyghur and the Han, and that came to a head in 2009 when there was a demonstration and 200 people were killed by

the Uyghurs. Then the Chinese inflicted the same kind of damage on the Uyghurs. This is not a simple problem in my view, and it's not easily passed up. There's no other problem in China of this kind. Yeah, but people consider that's a pretty big problem. It's a very big problem for them. Yeah, and the other thing I’d say is that the point being made about separatism is true. I think that what the 30 million Muslims in China—the Han is the biggest single minority—they are completely integrated, but the problem is clearly that Xinjiang is the issue

of separatism. Stephen, let me ask you this question: Victor's making a lot of promises tonight about me going to Xinjiang and Ran going to Xinjiang, and everyone's going to be fine. How safe are you with visiting China? How free do you think you are when you go to China? When I go to China, and I haven't been for some time, I'm watched almost 24/7. There's always someone I can spot trailing me, so I know when my hotel room is upgraded suddenly to a spacious suite that I’m now in a place that is bugged. So someone

who’s a mild critic and a scholarly critic like me doesn’t feel safe in China. By contrast, I feel safer in Taiwan. Victor, when you hear Steven say he doesn't feel that safe going to China and prefers going to Taiwan—when we talk about freedom of speech, for example, in China, I live in the United States of America where I can say that Donald Trump is, I don't know, hypothetically an orange-faced narcissist. I also live here in the UK; I'm British. Here you have Rishi Sunak, the former Prime Minister, who was called a pint-sized loser by a

Labour politician. No one in China has that kind of freedom to talk about their government, to talk about President Xi Jinping in that way. You can't say anything like that. You wouldn't dare say anything like that because you know what will happen to you when you go home—you know what will happen to your family. That's what China is. If you do anything, write anything, email, or chat to your friends about taking any action against, let's say, the Prime Minister of Britain or the President of the United States, you'll be dealt with swiftly. Victor, you're a

master of dodging. What I said was, 'called a pint-sized loser.' Would you call Xi Jinping a pint-sized loser? Many—each country has different sensitivities. In the UK, so you're admitting you can't criticize the Chinese government? No, no, no, you can criticize the government if you are positive about it. You can criticize the government if you're positive. Is that the case? New philosophy? No. If you can come up with your own, you’ve got to come up with nice insults. No? What then? Constructive advice. Constructive advice! For example, in dealing with an aging population, what should the government

do? What should this governor do? But you can't say the president's lied; he's a liar. Nothing you say will be dealt with very swiftly in China. You cannot say that. That is the most honest thing you've said tonight. Uh, Victor Gal, we're going to take a break. That's part one of head-to-head with our guest, Victor Gal. In part two, we'll be talking about President Xi Jinping. We'll be talking about the issue of dictatorship, and we'll hear from our very patient audience here in London's Conway Hall. [Music] [Applause] Welcome back to head-to-head on Al Jazeera English.

My guest this week is Victor Gal, former interpreter to the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing, and an ardent promoter of the People's Republic. We're also joined by an expert panel here in London's Conway Hall and a live audience, whom we're going to hear from shortly. Victor, before we get to the audience, in 2019, on this very show, I asked the question: Is Xi Jinping gearing up to be president for life? Dictator-in-chief? I mean, he’s the most powerful leader of China since Mao. He’s abolished presidential

term limits; he’s now in his third five-year term as president. So I'll ask again tonight: Is he now president for life? A true dictator? For the record, first of all, Chinese President Xi Jinping will never be president for life. There will be a time limit when it will be handled according to the Chinese legal system and Constitution. Secondly, there is no dictator in China. Why? Because dictatorship simply doesn’t work. Democracy means modernization, and how can you explain the profound transformation of China over the past 45 years if you have dictatorship or authoritarian rule? No! Every

leader in China will be put into a team, and teamwork will be much more important than individualism. Victor, maybe previous presidents did—maybe Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao. Everyone knows Xi Jinping has centralized power, consolidated power, and got rid of term limits. You say there’s a way to get rid of him, but there isn’t actually a legal way to get rid of him. He's in power for life, and he likes being a dictator. Why are we pretending? Let me remind you, the Communist Party of China, which is the ruling party of China, has a membership of

up to 100 million people. It’s well-structured; every province, every state-owned enterprise, etc., will have a party cell. There’s no division or debate within the Chinese Communist Party. Listen to me! No single person in China can dictate to a population of 1.4 billion people and 100 million membership in the Communist Party of China. Okay, let’s test that. That’s a mission impossible! Let’s test that proposition. The president won a vote last year—won a vote! I’ll put that in air quotes. Do you know the tally of last year’s presidential vote in favor of Xi Jinping by the National

People’s Congress, part of that structure you just advertised to us? What was the vote? Can you tell our audience here? I think it’s up to about 100%. That doesn’t—2,952 to zero? Yes, that’s exactly what I said! Could you not find a few people just to make it look a little even? One or two? Many! It’s not surprising. It’s not surprising—2,952 to zero! One! The Chinese system—everyone supports the Chinese president! That’s what you just told us ten seconds ago. There’s this huge system, a big party, one guy, and then you’re like, “Oh, no, but everyone supports

him.” Zero votes against him! One person out of 3,000 couldn’t say, “Xi Jinping, not my guy”? What if he is the guy for all of the Communist Party of China? You never know! Well, if that’s the case, then your entire first answer is redundant, because it doesn’t matter if there are 100 million people—they all have to follow the leader. No, he does command huge respect among the Chinese people. As well as you say respect, I say fear. Do you know how many names were on the ballot papers that were given in 2013? How many names

were on the ballot paper when they went to choose the president? Can you tell our audience? I think there was only one candidate. Yeah, there were no other names! That’s a real secure leader—a guy who knows he has the confidence of his people. You get to vote, but only for me! And none of you can actually vote against me! Would you not want to end up in a situation with six prime ministers in eight years? Yeah, so you prefer a dictatorship? No! We prefer a system that works for the benefit of the Chinese people. I

have not said a word about what works or not. You got great economic growth! Look at the dictatorship! There is no dictatorship! You just admitted that there’s no name on the ballot paper, no votes against him, and they all just follow him! That’s the dictatorship! When you have a say by name multiple times after, but it’s a dictator! How many candidates are there on the ballot paper? How many? What? King? Queen? When the king succeeds the queen, how many candidates are there on the ballot paper? How many? How many does that make Britain not a

democracy? Well, you’re asking the wrong guy! I’m a republican, so I think we should be a full democracy and get rid of the monarchy. And I can say that here. You can’t say that in China! "Cannot take any action against that? Yes, I can. Actually, I can go out on the street; I can hold up a placard and say, 'Let's get rid of King Charles.' I can create a whole protest outside Buckingham Palace. You can't do that in China. You can't even put one other person's name on a ballot paper. That's how insecure your leader

is. I'm a lawyer, and in my capacity as a lawyer, I can give you a long list of things that you cannot do regarding the monarchy here. I'm not debating that; I'm saying that we have an elected government. We get to choose. We get to swap six prime ministers, God help us, but we get to pick. Everyone in this room who is a citizen gets to pick. Listen, you end up with your mini-budget, which bankrupts the whole country. That's an honest answer, Victor. But Victor, I admire that because that's an honest answer. Your answer is,

'It's a dictatorship that works.' At least say that! No, no, no; you can't! You keep dodging! One minute you say it's not a dictatorship, then I show you it is. You say, 'But it's working; we've got growth.' Pick one! If that is your point, I will seriously urge you to do more homework about how the Chinese system works. Okay, let's talk about the Chinese system because I did a little bit of homework. A little bit of homework. Did you know that Xi Jinping put his name in the Constitution? That's weird! Well, the leader of the

country put his own name in the Constitution while he's president. No one has done that since Mao. None of the other Chinese presidents— not Hu Jintao, not your old boss Deng Xiaoping—none of them did it, did they? Or am I wrong? It's wrong! The Chinese Constitution has been most frequently amended compared with any other country. Am I wrong about what I just said? Xi's name was put into the Constitution while he was president, and Jiang's name was put in not while they were sitting presidents. You know that! Tell our crowd here: not while they were

president! They didn't do it themselves. According to my recollection, each of their names were put into the Constitution while the leaders were still alive. Okay, so I’m right—not while they were president. I love the little slip! Even Donald Trump, one of the great narcissists of our time, has not proposed yet putting his name into the U.S. Constitution. If you are the president of China, you're elected without any opponents. No names on the ballot paper—zero votes against you. You put your name in the Constitution! Six-year-olds are taught about Xi Jinping Thought in primary school. That is

not just a dictatorship; that is a cult of personality! I don't think China believes in personal… so why are six-year-olds learning about Xi Jinping Thought? I'm pretty sure no six-year-olds learned about Liz Truss's mini-budget. Victor, the Chinese system is such that once you orient the country in one direction, everyone follows suit. Do they follow, or are they ordered to follow? They don't follow out of choice! No! It's like a vehicle with four wheels. Here, you have four wheels aligned in different directions. In China, the four wheels of a car are all lined up in one

direction—they're going forward! They don't? Victor, let me give you an example. Former foreign minister Qin Gang was removed from his post and has not been seen in public since June 2023. A few months later, China's defense minister General Li Shangfu disappeared from public view for months and has now been expelled from the party, accused of corruption. That's at least two ministers that disappeared just in the last year! With apologies to Oscar Wilde: to lose one minister might be unfortunate; to lose two is careless, is it not? Do you know the point I want to make?

This means China is really merciless in dealing with corruption of all kinds, even among the foreign minister and defense minister! Imagine if Anthony Blinken and Lloyd Austin just disappeared tomorrow. We don’t know where they are; we’ve never seen them again! That’s not normal! Victor, listen, corruption is rampant. How do we know they’re corrupt? They just disappeared! Where’s the trial? Finish my point: corruption of all kinds in China needs to be dealt with. So where's the trial? Mercilessness! So where's the trial? Where's the trial for the former foreign minister? We don't even know where he is!

Many of those things you don't know doesn't mean they don't happen! Where is the trial for this man? You're just accusing him of corruption. Qin was my good friend for more than 20 years! Where is he then? He is involved in corruption. Where is he? He is dealt with very swiftly! Where is he? Victor, regardless of your good friend, you don't know where he is. Regardless, where is the former foreign minister of China? This is not a hard question! We're not asking where Ran's brother in the middle of Xinjiang is, that you can dodge! Where

is the former foreign minister of China who disappeared? And by the way, he wasn’t accused of corruption! The spokesman came out and said he has health reasons; then corruption came later! By the way, where did he go? Your friend? That means there is a process, and the process starts with one lie that he’s ill, and then the next lie is he’s corrupt. He may be ill; you never know. I mean, he’s probably ill after being in a Chinese prison. He may be ill now; you never know! But at least Qin lost his job because of

his corruption." "Question, that's the point. Where is he? He's somewhere in China. You will never see him; he is among the 1.4 billion people. No, it's not just him; there are many other people who have disappeared. The previous defense minister disappeared, the ministry of industry and technology disappeared, the former Interpol president disappeared. In China, you just disappear if they don't like you; that's the rule of law in China. I'm so happy they disappear because if they keep doing their job, they will bring greater dis—be careful what you wish for, ’cause everyone's watching this show. And

if you get something wrong tonight, maybe you disappear. If I disappear, I hope you will bail me out! I’d have to find you first, and China is apparently a big country. Um, I want to bring in Stephen Chan, professor at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies. Stephen, Xi Jinping's policies, his crackdown on dissidents—I mean, China was never a democracy. Other presidents were also dictatorial, but can we agree that Xi Jinping is on a different level when it comes to repression at home? The consolidation of power—I assume you disagree with Victor's description

of him as part of a, I don't know, four-wheeled car all driving in the same direction. Happily, he certainly consolidated his power; he is a very, very strong president. And I think that the real test of all of this is how China has treated Hong Kong, with the increasing clampdown on dissent and free expression of opinion when they were meant to have a degree of freedom in a one-country, two-systems way of approaching life. We can't see any evidence of vibrant debate in China, and I note that one of the great disappointments of my life is

when I read Chinese academic works—everyone toes a party line; no one does independent research to publish, as it were, anything critical of, for instance, not just Xi Jinping, anything critical about Chinese foreign policy—or they might disappear, they might not get promoted. In any case, Rahan Asat is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council of International Human Rights Law. Rahan, in part one, we talked in depth about the repression against the Uyghurs and your own personal situation. In 2014, Xi Jinping privately called for an all-out struggle, quote, against terrorism, and to show absolutely no mercy after

a visit to Xinjiang. How much do you believe Xi Jinping is driving what's happening in Xinjiang? How much do you think he's responsible for the repression in China? Well, the matter of fact is that all of it happened under the current administration, right? So many scholars attribute it to him. It happened under his reign; he's the one who said absolutely no mercy—stamping out the roots and branches of the Uyghurs, breaking out their connection—and these are the policies implemented under his leadership. So it's very hard to separate Xi Jinping from the current policies. Martin Jacques, author

of the bestselling book *When China Rules the World*, you heard Victor talk about, "Well, we can't be a dictatorship because we're doing so well. The economy is doing amazing; we don't have Liz Truss mini-budgets," etc. But then you get into the debate about whether dictatorship and growth can coexist. Do you need to have democracy to go alongside that? And I think about the pandemic, Martin, and I think about China's reaction to the pandemic. Is that where the dictatorship, the lack of transparency, the disappearances caught up with China? Because of course there was a black hole

in China in terms of China's censorship methods, its draconian policies, the zero-COVID policy, the crackdown—which led some people to say to over a million, two million deaths. We saw protests in buildings; people screaming. Was that a moment where China actually collided with reality and said, "This system—it can't survive long term"? Well, I beg to differ on the question of the pandemic because actually for two years, 2020 and 2021, China did, under the circumstances, extremely well and well outperformed the West. The reasons for it are quite complicated; you've got to take into a very different kind

of system. Now, one of the problems with the discussion, I think, so far on this question is that it sounds as if the country doesn't work if you say 'dictator,' 'despot,' all these things. But if—and you say not you personally—but one says there's no discussion, this I think is absolutely untrue. So what we're presenting here is not an accurate picture. It's not about an accurate picture; it's about balance, right? So I don't deny what you're saying, but you're British. You would think it was a political earthquake if the foreign secretary and the defense secretary disappeared

in the space of six months—not arrested, disappeared, surely? Yeah, yeah, and there is something—look, Qing Gong was a friend of mine as well, and I don't know what's happened to him. And I think it is odd. Certainly to our eyes, it's weird that this can happen. But I think that the thing is that we've got to try and get beyond cardboard cutouts when we're talking about China and understand how it really works. Okay, um, let's bring in our audience who've been waiting here in London's Conway Hall. I'm going to go to the—yes, the lady there

on the fourth row. Yes, you. My question is, as a dissident from Hong Kong, knowing that I cannot express freely in Hong Kong or in the UK without risking other people in trouble, I also know that you just now made claims about there's free speech in China and it's possible to criticize the..." Chinese government just now again, can you please demonstrate that free speech and tell us what are Xi Jinping's two worst mistakes in the past five years? Great question. If you can demonstrate to us that it's okay to criticize Xi Jinping, the Chinese government,

and China, or even just say he kind of resembles Winnie the Pooh, that will be good enough for me. Thank you. Victor, do you want to take that question? Well, thank you. I would say, uh, China needs to take more prompt actions in dealing with the dramatic aging population in China and the dramatic demographic decline. Do you think Xi Jinping's to blame for not being fast enough on aging? No, I think the whole Chinese government, including the Central Committee, State Council, and local government, need to take actions quickly to reverse that dramatic aging population problem

and demographic decline. We're not going to get a criticism out of Victor. Let's go back to the audience. Let's go to the gentleman here in the tie. Yes, you! Yeah, Alex—sorry, Alex Vin from Chatham House. My question is, debt. There have been very bad riots, for example, it has been in the news in Kenya. Some of that debt that's causing the problem is owed to China. So the question is: how is China going to handle the increasing pressures for debt cancellation? At least 17 African countries are particularly distressed this year. Thank you. I understand the

Chinese debt in these large-scale connectivity projects is only a small portion of the overall national debt because they owe debt to the United States, to Britain, to international financing institutions, etc. They not only owe debt to China but to many other countries—that's the reality. Secondly, there is an accusation about the debt trap, which is completely wrong and false. Because if you want to do connectivity projects, major project financing, you need to have equity as well as debt; debt is an indispensable part of the package. Okay, let's go back to the audience. I say this gentleman

at the time, then go to the back, then we'll go to that gentleman there; you’re next after this one. My name is Sonam Frazzi. I would like to ask you a question on Tibet. I was born in Tibet before the Chinese invasion. Unfortunately, 1.2 million Tibetans have died since, and we have been made refugees. My question is: Tibet, after 74 years of Chinese rule, is still under lockdown. No journalists, no individual tourists, not even Tibetans are allowed to see their families. What is China afraid of to keep Tibet under such tight control, and Tibetans in

such an inhuman existence in our own country? Sir, ever since the Yuan Dynasty, if not even earlier, Tibet has been part of China through different dynasties and different historical periods. I can assure you that during your lifetime and mine, Tibet will always be part of China. Why are you so insistent on ruling places that don't want to be ruled by China? No, Tibet—we've been through Tibet, Taiwan, they're not happy in Xinjiang. Tibet being part of China doesn't depend on whether you like it or not. It's a mega trend of our time, a mega trend, and

you need to accept that before you will feel free to go back to China and visit Tibet. You sound like you're threatening the man. No, I'm not! He said you have to accept that before you can go back. He's from that place. You live in peace in Britain—that’s good—but he's a refugee. But if you want to go back to Tibet, acknowledge Tibet is part of China, period. And what if he doesn't? He can't go back to his home. You cannot go back because China doesn't want to see anyone advocating for the independence of Tibet. Why

can't? No way—that will never happen. Victor, why can't China rest on its own merits? Why the bullying and the threats? We're going to break you to pieces! Taiwan, you can't go back until you sign this document or that declaration. Why the insecurity? The second biggest economy in the world, major power—you sound so insecure. China's security rests on the principle that there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of China; Tibet is part of China, and Xinjiang is part of China, period. And even if the people there don't want to be part of it, you

don't give a damn. The majority of the people live happily as Chinese citizens. Did you do a vote? I will go with you. We're going to go to Tibet, and we're going to talk to all the Tibetans. I can go to Tibet, but the guy who's from there can't go there. You sound ludicrous when you say this stuff, I'm sorry to say. Let us go back to the audience—gentleman at the back, and then this gentleman here. My name is Isa Alun. I am a British Uyghur, and my question for many in the Uyghur diaspora is:

we have not been allowed contact with our families at home visiting the Uyghur Autonomous Region since 2017 when the Chinese government started detaining more than 3 million plus Uyghurs in their high-tech surveillance concentration camps. My question to you, sir: what’s the Chinese government trying to hide from us? Second, why can't we not talk freely with our families? Okay, another yet another Uyghur? So many Uyghurs, the same story, the same questions. I'm always very happy to see, wherever I go, a Uyghur person because I do consider the Uyghurs as my brothers and sisters. On one condition:

part of me is starting to feel sorry for your actual brothers and sisters, I'll be honest. One condition, though: Wiggles need to acknowledge that Shin Jang is part of China. That's a big precondition. If you do not accept that precondition, you are not my brother or sister. Hold on, so that's fine—you don't have to be brothers and sisters—but can he not talk to his family? It depends on where your family is. There are indeed separatists who want to promote the separation of Wiggle Turn. What about the people who are not separatists? Just disappear? Turn Shin

Jang into East Turkistan? This will never happen. Listen to this: call your friends to stick to the One China policy. He just wants to talk on the phone to a family member. Years—I didn't speak to my mother; I want to speak to my mother. I am British; I want to speak to my mother. Do you understand? Literally support the One China policy; support being part of China, Victor. Period. Do you have no heart to see this man who can't speak to his 82-year-old mother? Separatists? I wish your mother were here in this hall talking to

you. And why did you let her go? Maybe she could, but then on one condition: in China, zero tolerance for any separatist movement. An 82-year-old woman is a threat to China? What does that say about China? I hope she's not a separatist, but if she is, she will be dealt with by law. Period. Victor, before we finish, I have one question for you. We're in the UK. We're in Conway Hall, a historic Free Speech Society. Could we do a show like this? Could I interview you like this? Could Rahan come be on a panel like

this in Beijing, say at the Beijing International Convention Center? Can we do a show like this where audience members freely ask questions? You take questions from everyone; no one's vetted, no one's threatened. Could we do this in Beijing? If you ask me to line up all the support, you will do that? Really? I can assure you that a show where every audience member gets to speak freely—no one turns up at their house afterward. For many European countries, you do not need a visa to go to China. Pick up your luggage, buy a ticket, ask. I'm

not asking foreigners, Victor. I'm asking whether a Chinese audience could turn up and ask whatever they want: criticize Xi Jinping, criticize the government, ask you questions, talk about Xinjiang. Could you do it in Beijing? In China, don't criticize our president, so we couldn't do this unless you have a positive, constructive proposal to make. Criticism from the horse's mouth—don't criticize unless it's positive. Criticism with constructive purposes will promote free speech; free speech is the goal we cherish on this show. I'm glad to have offered you a platform for free speech. I wish you could offer me

one back, Victor Gao. Thank you for your time, thank you to the audience in Conway Hall, and thank you to everyone at home for watching this episode of Head 10. [Music] [Applause]