Med Bo Xilais afgang er den politiske magtkamp brudt ud i lys lue. Det er den største ideologiske kamp i Kina i to årtier, der handler om den politiske og økonomiske kurs for Kina i de kommende år, og hvem der skal stå i spidsen for landet i det næste årti. Du kan læse alle tidligere artikler om magtkampen og Bo Xilai her.
New York Times skriver, at Storbritannien nu igen presser Kina for flere informationer i sagen om Neil Heywood.
After months of soft-pedaling by British diplomats in the case of a British businessman believed to have been murdered in China, Prime Minister David Cameron and his government abruptly changed course on Tuesday, going to Parliament with a blunt demand that China “expose the truth behind this tragic case” and do so in a manner that “is free from political interference.”
On a day when Mr. Cameron met with China’s de facto propaganda chief at 10 Downing Street and pressed the case of Neil Heywood, the 41-year-old businessman found dead in his hotel in the southern city of Chongqing on Nov. 15, Foreign Secretary William Hague faced a barrage of angry questions from opposition lawmakers concerned that Britain had played down suspicions about the death as part of a push for a larger foothold in China’s booming economy.
Setting out a chronology of Britain’s involvement in a case that has become enmeshed in a shadowy power struggle over China’s next generation of leaders, Mr. Hague revealed that British diplomats in China had waited for several weeks before he ordered them on Feb. 7 to raise suspicions about the death with Chinese authorities. Those suspicions had first been put to the British Embassy in Beijing by “the British expatriate community in China” on Jan. 18, he said. He acted, Mr. Hague acknowledged, after receiving information about the death that was relayed to Britain separately by American diplomats.
New York Times skriver også, hvordan der er ved at komme stadigt flere detaljer frem om, hvad der foregik på det amerikanske konsulat i Chengdu, da Wang Lijun søgte om politisk asyl der i februar, og hvilken rolle USA har spillet. NYT har dog haltet bagefter Reuters, Financiel Times og især Wall Street Journal, og der er heller ikke meget nyt i artiklen, men den er ok opsummering.
On the evening of Feb. 6, a vice mayor of a major Chinese city who had a reputation as a crime fighter turned up at the American Consulate in Chengdu in an agitated state, wearing a disguise and telling a tale of corruption and murder that has ensnared the Obama administration in a scandal it wants nothing to do with.
The official, Wang Lijun, sought asylum, fearing for his life even as Chinese security forces quickly surrounded the building and asked the American diplomats inside to turn him over.
Instead, after a frantic debate that reached the White House, Mr. Wang stayed until he could arrange for an official in the ministry of public safety in Beijing to come 36 hours later and escort him past the security cordon outside to safety — or, more likely, custody. He has not been heard from since, and is now under investigation for divulging internal Chinese affairs to the Americans. If charged with and convicted of treason, he could face a death sentence.
The information Mr. Wang possessed involved Bo Xilai, who was the Communist Party chief in Chongqing until last month and Mr. Wang’s onetime patron before a falling-out led Mr. Wang to seek refuge in the consulate, according to administration officials, Congressional aides, diplomats and others briefed on what had happened.
According to the officials’ version, the American diplomats who oversaw his brief, bizarre stay pre-empted any formal application for asylum because of the difficulties of spiriting him out of the country and questions about his eligibility. Instead, they said, the State Department shielded him from almost certain arrest by police officers loyal to Mr. Bo and ensured he could make his accusations in Beijing.
Telegraph fortæller, hvordan Bo Xilai opbyggede et rødt regime af frygt i Chongqing, hvor embedsmænd for eksempel begik selvmord.
The 62-year-old Mr Bo, the scion of one of China’s most powerful political families, always cultivated an image as a man of the people.
But in the wake of the alleged murder of Neil Heywood, a British businessman, and the purge of Mr Bo’s from China’s top leadership, unsettling details have begun to emerge about his rule in Chongqing.
Xie Dajun, a midlevel official in the city’s science and technology department, was the first to commit suicide, in September 2009.
After a quiet dinner with his friends, he drove to one of the colossal bridges over the Yangtze river, carefully parked his car – turning on his safety lights to alert other motorists to the hazard – and threw himself into the muddy waters below.
His friends said Mr Xie had been driven to desperation by Mr Bo’s “Red Songs” campaign, when residents in Chongqing were ordered to sing songs from China’s revolutionary days.
Reuters citerer en anonym kilde for, at Bo Xilai i første omgang gik med til en undersøgelse af hans hustru, der var mistænkt for mord.
The sources’ account gives new details of the dramatic breakdown in relations between Bo, an ambitious leader who cast himself as the crime-fighting boss of Chongqing, China’s biggest municipality, and his once trusted police chief, Wang Lijun.
Reuters reported on Monday that Briton Neil Heywood was poisoned last November after he threatened to expose a plan by Bo’s wife, Gu Kailai, to move money abroad.
The scandal is potentially the most divisive the Communist Party has faced since Zhao Ziyang was sacked as Party chief in 1989 for opposing the brutal army crackdown on student-led demonstrations for democracy centered on Tiananmen Square in Beijing that year.
Before his fall, Bo, 62, was widely seen as a contender for a post in China’s top leadership committee, which will be decided later this year.
In a tense meeting on or about January 18, Wang confronted Bo with evidence implicating Gu in the death of Heywood, a former friend of the Bo family, said two sources with knowledge of police and government information on the case.
Bo was so angry he ordered Wang out of the office, but after composing himself he told Wang to return and signaled that he would let the inquiry proceed, the sources added.
Two or three days later, Bo backflipped and shunted aside Wang in an apparent bid to quash the inquiry and protect his wife and his career, the sources said.
Wall Street Journal har en analyse af Minxin Pei, der stiller tre spørgsmål om, hvad Bo Xilais fiasko betyder for kinesisk politik. Seks af Politbureauets Stående Udvalgs medlemmer har tidligere haft officielle besøg i Chongqing, og dermed signaleret opbakning til Bo og hans neo-maoistiske og populistiske politik. Så hvor står de i dag? Minxin Pei stiller tre spørgsmål, og her er det første.
First, how was an individual with such known flaws entrusted with so much power with so little constraint? Mr. Bo’s rise was almost as stunning as his fall. Until he was promoted to the Politburo and made the party chief of Chongqing, Mr. Bo had accumulated a mediocre record as the governor of Liaoning province and the minister of commerce. His family’s questionable financial dealings, now coming to light, could not have escaped the attention of the party’s anticorruption watchdog, the Central Discipline and Inspection Commission.
Most worryingly, after Mr. Bo became Chongqing’s party chief, he abused his power by arresting and incarcerating thousands of individuals in a so-called “smashing black” campaign, with little regard for the legal process. He cynically manipulated public opinion using the symbols of radical Maoist rule, flaunting a political ideology that represented an alternative to the party’s current policies.
Yet, instead of reining in Mr. Bo, Beijing did nothing. Worse still, it allowed him to bask in the media limelight. Six of the nine members of the Politburo Standing Committee paid homage to Chongqing, implicitly endorsing the now-discredited “Chongqing Model.”
Now that Mr. Bo is gone, the party seems to be patting itself on the back for cashiering him just in time. But the truth is plain: The party’s process of selecting its leaders is deeply flawed. Instead of picking the most capable and upright, the current system favors those with powerful patrons, little talent and no scruples.