Ambassador, how do you judge the recent sanctions against Beijing adopted by the United States and the European Union?

In terms of international law, these are illegitimate sanctions because they are unilateral as they have not been decreed by a body such as the United Nations Security Council. They are a manifestation of the cold war declared by the United States to a country, the Chna People's Republic, which due to its economic weight legitimately aspires to occupy its place in the world. The US empire - the only indispensable nation, according to the pathological lexicon of Bill Clinton (1999) - intends to continue to dominate the world by hook or by crook, just think that it has installed 800 military bases in 75 countries.

Today, however, the empire is in trouble. Its economy is less essential than it once was in the face of the emergence of other nations, while its credibility is in free fall, amidst illegitimate conflicts and systematic violations of human rights. Other than Xinjiang and Hong Kong: 600,000 dead in Iraq, 250,000 in Syria, at least 20,000 in Libya and thousands more in Yemen and Afghanistan (leaving out injured and displaced). And then Guantanamo, the torture in Abu Graib, immigrant parents separated from their children (Trump), a ban on entry to Muslims, or even the persecution against the journalist Julian Assange, and so on.

In essence, human rights as a pretext for imposing sanctions on China can only be taken seriously by the unwary, since it is difficult to imagine that the US deep state (including the CIA) cares about Turkmen Muslims. All this must not be understood as an acquittal for the shortcomings of the Chinese system in Xinjiang, of which, however, only information is available from NGOs and individuals financed by the US.

It remains clear that China must deal with the issue of freedom and political participation, but it challenges the claim of universal US domination and therefore works for a deserving political, economic and cultural pluralism, which is a guarantee of peace much more than the US militarist unilateralism.

After the sanctions against Russia, with serious economic damage to the member states, the EU has also adopted sanctions against China, which is its second trading partner.

The European Union (which does not coincide with Europe, but which, to simplify, we assume here as such) does not have a government or a real Parliament. Indeed, not even a real Central Bank, which on paper would be independent, but in fact responds to the Nordic German-centric oligarchies. Europe has been occupied militarily by US troops for 76 years. The first form of independence, Machiavelli claimed, is the military one. Under these conditions, the EU cannot therefore consider itself truly independent, not even economically, given the intertwining with American-centric globalist finance.
That said, it is clear that, despite strong ties with China (of which Germany is the leading trading partner with an exchange of 200 billion euros, 50% of the EU's total with Beijing), Berlin certainly cannot ignore directives from Washington. And since decisions within the EU are taken by Berlin, it's not hard to guess what happened.

The sanctions were officially motivated by Xinjiang, is the situation really that bad in this region?

The information that reaches us is from Western sources (ie USA) and therefore manipulated. In Xinjiang, there are 24,800 religious sites, mosques, churches, temples and Taoist abbeys (one mosque for every 530 Muslims, with 29,300 employees). Islamic studies degree programs are open to everyone and everyone has access to the Quran and the collection of Sahih al-Buhari. It is true, however, that these rights can be enjoyed under specific conditions, according to Beijing, that is, without prejudice to stability, solidarity between ethnic groups and the interests of the majority (the Han), national security and public order. It should also be added that in recent years the terrorist attacks by the Uyghur have caused 192 victims and over 1000 injured. In short, on the situation it would be necessary to have information from a third source. In any case, talking about genocide is totally out of place, given that from 1978 to 2018 the Uyghur population increased from 5.5 to 11.9 million.

Another much discussed issue is Honk Kong ...

Don't forget that Hong Kong is Chinese territory. The demonstrations in recent years have generated apprehension because, according to Beijing, they were manipulated by the Americans, an accusation that is not unlikely in fact, in light of the anti-Chinese strategy of the US empire we have spoken about. That said, it is clear that the Chinese Communist Party, a Marxist-Leninist party, could not tolerate the election of a Chief Executive and a Legislative Council of an anti-Chinese (or if you want anti-communist) political character in Hong Kong. .

It is therefore for this reason that the National People’s Assembly has approved changes to the Hong Kong constitution that make this hypothesis almost impossible to come true. However, it should be noted that prior to Hong Kong's return to China, political demonstrations of any kind were certainly not allowed; the Governor was appointed by London without consulting anyone, least of all the local population, and the Legislative Council was a mere consultative body, since decisions were always and only taken by the Governor. It should also be noted that in the two years of demonstrations against the government there was not even one victim in Hong Kong (it would be enough to compare the carnage of the US police against blacks or even with the violence of the French police against yellow vests) .

What will be the effects of Chinese growth on the global order?

China is a multipolar actor and therefore its entry into the international political scene is very beneficial. This claim strongly irritates the US imperial posture. In this regard, it should be borne in mind the difference between the economic systems of the two powers, the US dominated by private corporatism (which causes conflicts of all kinds and impoverishes peoples and nations) and the Chinese one centered on the class of state (Party, bureaucracy and public companies ), which has been able to generate extraordinary wealth for 1.4 billion people, defeating poverty and representing a model for countries that want to get out of underdevelopment. This is yet another source of irritation for the United States.

So the Sino-American confrontation also has a symbolic, cultural value?

The challenge between the United States and China is played on three spheres: geopolitics, economics and ideology. The two countries are rivals, competitors or enemies, depending on the context. However, it is the United States that wants to impose its cultural grammar on the world, and therefore also on China.

For the moment, the People's Republic aims only to occupy the place it deems appropriate to its political and economic dimension. The greatest risks to peace on the planet therefore come not from a fascist or communist regime, but from so-called American democracy (in fact a militarized financial oligarchy), which is also our main ally-master. The looming dangers (nuclear war, destruction of the natural environment and abnormal concentration of wealth in the 1% of the world) are aggravated by the increase in the use of violence by the United States, increasingly angered by a multilateralism that threatens enormous privileges they have enjoyed so far