Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

14 July 2026

L’Assemblée populaire nationale chinoise dispose d’un cadre juridique pour des séances à huis clos. Le monde devrait y prêter attention.



Pour de nombreux observateurs extérieurs à la Chine, l’Assemblée populaire nationale (APN) est souvent considérée comme une assemblée législative purement cérémonielle. Pourtant, un aspect négligé de son cadre juridique mérite une attention internationale bien plus grande : l’APN est explicitement autorisée à tenir des séances à huis clos, tout en faisant simultanément passer ses documents de séance à un système électronique.

Pris séparément, aucun de ces dispositifs n’a rien d’exceptionnel. De nombreuses assemblées législatives dans le monde disposent de procédures pour traiter des informations classifiées. Toutefois, le système politique chinois diffère sur un point crucial : l’APN fonctionne au sein d’un État à parti unique dans lequel le Parti communiste chinois (PCC) exerce une direction sur le système politique, l’armée et le processus législatif. Ce contexte institutionnel modifie fondamentalement les implications, en matière de transparence et de responsabilité, des délibérations législatives secrètes.

Les séances à huis clos sont explicitement autorisées

L’article 19 du Règlement intérieur de l’Assemblée populaire nationale prévoit que l’APN peut convoquer des séances à huis clos « lorsque cela est nécessaire ». La décision est prise selon des procédures internes impliquant le Présidium, après consultation des chefs de délégation.

Cela signifie que le plus haut organe législatif de l’État chinois dispose d’un mécanisme juridique formel permettant que les délibérations se déroulent hors du regard du public.



Les documents législatifs sont en cours de numérisation complète

L’article 22 du même Règlement encourage la numérisation des documents de séance grâce aux technologies modernes de l’information.

Pris ensemble, ces dispositifs créent la possibilité que les documents liés aux séances à huis clos — y compris les ordres du jour, les rapports, les projets de décision, les notes d’information, les amendements et les documents internes de délibération — existent et circulent principalement sous forme électronique plutôt que sous la forme d’une documentation imprimée abondante.

La numérisation offre incontestablement des gains d’efficacité administrative. Toutefois, lorsqu’elle est combinée à des séances à huis clos légalement autorisées, elle peut aussi réduire la quantité de preuves documentaires accessibles au public pour les recherches historiques ultérieures, la vérification indépendante ou le contrôle institutionnel.

L’armée est directement représentée au sein de la législature

Une autre caractéristique distinctive de l’APN est l’existence d’une délégation distincte composée de représentants en service actif de l’Armée populaire de libération (APL).

Contrairement à de nombreuses législatures démocratiques où les forces armées ne participent pas au parlement en tant que bloc de vote, la délégation de l’APL constitue un élément institutionnel de l’APN elle-même.

Cela devient particulièrement pertinent chaque fois que la législation ou les décisions de l’État concernent la défense nationale, les affaires militaires, la sécurité nationale ou la mobilisation en temps de guerre.

Le secret est renforcé par le système chinois des secrets d’État

Le cadre juridique chinois comprend également un vaste régime des secrets d’État.

Si des informations discutées lors d’une séance à huis clos de l’APN sont classées comme secret d’État en vertu du droit chinois, leur divulgation non autorisée peut entraîner des responsabilités administratives, disciplinaires ou pénales.

Du point de vue des autorités chinoises, cela vise à protéger la sécurité nationale.

Du point de vue des observateurs extérieurs, cela signifie toutefois que la vérification indépendante de délibérations législatives importantes peut devenir extrêmement difficile.

Pourquoi cela importe au-delà de la Chine

L’importance internationale ne réside pas dans la simple existence de procédures législatives secrètes.

Elle réside plutôt dans la combinaison de plusieurs caractéristiques institutionnelles :

  • Une législature légalement autorisée à tenir des séances à huis clos.
  • Une dépendance croissante à l’égard d’une documentation législative exclusivement numérique.
  • Une délégation dédiée de représentants militaires en service actif participant au sein de la législature.
  • Un cadre juridique complet régissant les secrets d’État et les divulgations non autorisées.

Pris ensemble, ces éléments peuvent réduire la transparence du processus décisionnel législatif sur des questions susceptibles d’affecter non seulement la gouvernance intérieure de la Chine, mais aussi la sécurité régionale, la politique militaire, la concurrence technologique, la régulation économique et les relations internationales.

La transparence est un enjeu de sécurité mondiale

À mesure que l’influence de la Chine s’étend, les décisions prises par ses institutions législatives ont de plus en plus de conséquences bien au-delà de ses frontières.

Pour cette raison, les chercheurs, les journalistes, les décideurs publics, les archivistes et les organisations de défense des droits humains devraient accorder une attention plus soutenue non seulement aux résultats des décisions de l’APN, mais aussi aux processus institutionnels par lesquels ces décisions sont prises.

Comprendre ces processus — y compris l’autorisation légale des séances à huis clos, la numérisation des archives législatives et l’interaction entre le secret législatif et le système chinois des secrets d’État — est essentiel pour évaluer la transparence, la responsabilité et la gouvernance dans l’un des systèmes politiques les plus déterminants au monde.

La question n’est pas de savoir si chaque séance à huis clos dissimule une faute. La question est de savoir qu’une opacité institutionnelle limite le contrôle indépendant précisément au moment où les décisions peuvent avoir la plus grande portée publique.

Pour les gouvernements, les chercheurs et la société civile du monde entier, il s’agit là d’un défi en matière de transparence qui mérite une attention soutenue.

06 July 2026

How China’s Military Cyber Elites and a Hidden Party Control Loop Subvert Civil Justice


An investigative analysis of Chinese state corporate filings, statutory codes, and official prosecutorial archives has exposed a highly institutionalized "military-procuratorial-corporate" apparatus operating from the highest echelons of power in Beijing.

The findings map out a seamless command chain that ties the suppression of domestic speech and international hostage diplomacy directly to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) core leadership, utilizing state-sponsored tech giants and active-duty military personnel to systematically manipulate China's civil prosecution system.

The Shadow Control of "Private" Tech Giants

For years, conglomerates like Huawei Technologies have claimed autonomy from the Chinese state, presenting themselves as employee-owned cooperatives. However, corporate financial ledgers and statutory laws reveal a definitive state ownership pipeline.

Under Huawei’s official registry, more than 99% of its shares are held by the Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. Trade Union Committee. Under the Trade Union Law of the People's Republic of China and the official Statutes of Chinese Trade Unions, all grassroots trade unions in China lack independent legal autonomy and are strictly subordinate to the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) through a highly centralized, vertical leadership structure.

ACFTU’s official annual budgetary and accounting reports explicitly state that the federation operates under the absolute leadership of, and answers directly to, the Secretariat of the CCP Central Committee.

Armed Parliamentarians and the Subversion of Civil Procuratorates

The investigation further highlights how this political-corporate nexus weaponizes China's state prosecution apparatus. Under the PRC Constitution, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP)—the nation’s highest civil prosecution agency—is mandated to report annually to the National People’s Congress (NPC).

However, the NPC includes a powerful, insular bloc of over 260 active-duty military delegates from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the People’s Armed Police. This institutional structure subjects civil prosecutors to intense military oversight, forcing the state procuratorate to align its policies with the strategic and commercial interests of the defense apparatus under CCP's Central Military Commission.





This institutional capture was formalized in a series of top-level national directives. In January 2017 and April 2020, the SPP and the CCP Central Military Commission Political and Legal Affairs Commission jointly issued national mandates, including the Opinions on Strengthening Collaboration between Military and Local Procuratorial Organs in Public Interest Litigation. These directives formally ordered local civil procuratorates to implement an "integrated, unified mechanism" with military procurators to safeguard "national defense interests" and the "reputation and image of the military."

The Technocratic Enforcers: From "Remote Erasure" to International Hostages

Archival records from the SPP reveal how these mandates translate into executive action. Active-duty military cyber elites, such as Professor Zhang Xiongwei of the PLA Army Engineering University's Cyberspace Security Department(中国人民解放军陆军工程大学指挥控制工程学院教授张雄伟), routinely leverage their dual status as NPC representatives to descend upon provincial procuratorates, supervising local dockets.



This mechanism has driven high-profile domestic crackdowns, including the landmark prosecution of internet personality "Labixiaoqiu or “辣笔小球”案" (Qiu Ziming "仇子明"), which the SPP explicitly heralded as a triumph of military-civil judicial collaboration in "defending the reputation of martyrs."

Crucially, this permanent infrastructure for "joint operations, joint command centers, and information-platform integration" provides the exact operational framework for international political warfare. Experts note that when the overseas "defense interests" of the Secretariat's tech subsidiaries are disrupted, this joint military-procuratorial network is seamlessly mobilized. The formal indictments of Canadian citizens Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor by municipal procuratorates in Beijing and Dandong perfectly mirrored the institutional flow and joint-coordination mechanisms established under the 2017 and 2020 military-procuratorial pacts.

Implication for International Law and Sanctions

What international observers and foreign policy analysts frequently overlook is the structural anomaly inherent to China’s legal anatomy—a distortion that directly enables this military infiltration. In any standard constitutional democracy, a prosecutor functions strictly as the "prosecuting party" (the state’s attorney), standing on equal procedural footing with the defense before an independent, neutral judge. 

However, under the PRC statutory framework, the Procuratorate is concurrently designated as the state's sovereign "Legal Supervisory Organ" (法律监督机关). This dual identity creates a dystopian paradox: the entity bringing the charges is textually empowered to "supervise" the very civil judges presiding over the case, wielding the administrative authority to audit proceedings and issue formal reprimands under the guise of procedural oversight. 

When the Central Military Commission (CMC) Political and Legal Affairs Commission interlocked its operations with the SPP via the 2017 and 2020 joint pacts, it did not merely ally with a branch of prosecutors; it hijacked a system of "paramilitary overseers" who hold a permanent institutional knife to the throats of local courts. For military cyber-technocrats like Professor Zhang Xiongwei, the procuratorate is the ultimate tactical weapon: an agency that can unilaterally orchestrate targeted arrests, suppress domestic speech, and fulfill transnational political mandates, all while using its "supervisory" status to immunize its operations from any check by the civilian judiciary.

This comprehensive paper trail offers international legal bodies, sovereign courts, and trade regulators an unassailable framework to bypass standard "sovereign immunity" defenses.

By utilizing the Chinese government’s own corporate registries, statutory laws, and official gazettes, international litigators can demonstrate that China’s civil procuratorates are not independent judicial actors, but highly integrated arms of a single, unified state enterprise acting under the direct command of the CCP Secretariat and the Central Military Commission.


#Democracy #Christ #Peace #Freedom #Liberty #Humanrights #人权 #法治 #宪政 #独立审计 #司法独立 #独立自治

04 July 2026

从444号决议到1776精神的回归:美国两党共识下的对中共共产主义列宁式组织的文明决战与历史总清算



长期以来,中文舆论场与跨国政论圈都深陷一个巨大的认知误区:他们习惯于将美中之间波涛汹涌的对抗,矮化为“川普个人的极端言论”或“MAGA运动的激进修辞”,将其娱乐化、戏剧化。甚至许多人天真地寄希望于通过“换个总统”或“等待某次中期选举”,就能让华盛顿重温旧梦。

这种浅薄的观察,完全忽略了美国整个国家机器——尤其是国会两党——在制度和法案层面的“深水静流”与彻底转向。

2026年的这个夏天,当美国迎来独立宣言250周年的历史性时刻,两场看似独立却内在逻辑高度统一的政治风暴正在华盛顿全面收网。一场是总统川普在总统山发表标志性演说,正式将“1776精神”拉升为清除共产主义的最高国家总动员战略;另一场则是美国参议院以全票一致的压倒性姿态,通过了由里克·斯科特(Rick Scott)发起的第444号决议(S.Res.444)


这绝非一场关于关税或地缘排序的“修昔底德陷阱”争霸,而是一场跨越美国两党、结合国防建制(NDAA)与文明信仰的制度围堵和历史总清算。两代美国外交精英在经历了半个世纪被耍弄的痛苦后,终于将对华战车的方向盘彻底焊死。

一、 被耍弄的半个世纪:民主党“接触政策”的战略破产

要理解今天华盛顿那种两党内卷、不留退路的狠辣,就必须翻开冷战以来的外交账本。

历史上,正是美国民主党的建制派精英(从克林顿到奥巴马),极力推进了对华“接触政策”(Core Engagement)。然而到了2026年的今天,面对重返白宫并大打关税战的共和党政府,在野的民主党反而表现得更加歇斯底里——他们正在国会联合两党鹰派,利用更加精准的技术合规、金融审计和供应链防火墙,筑起阻击威权机器的“暗线防线”。

这种反差的背后,是民主党外交建制派历经半个世纪被耍弄后的战略清醒与制度性狂怒。

1. 朝鲜与越南:被选择性咽下的血债与列宁式的暴力基因

翻开《全国人大常委会公报》里第七届全国人大解放军代表团的官方履历,西方那些天真的外交官就会明白自己当年错得有多离谱:

  • 在那个负责审批国家决算和财政报告的立法代表团里,堂而皇之地坐着柴云振(中华人民共和国中央人民政府在朝鲜半岛从事侵略并与联合国军交战的特等功臣)、秦基伟上将(中华人民共和国中央人民政府在朝鲜半岛从事侵略并与联合国军交战的上甘岭战役指挥官)、迟浩田上将(中华人民共和国中央人民政府在朝鲜半岛从事侵略并与联合国军交战的长津湖战役立功者)。

这构成了历史与法理的冰冷交织。1950年代的朝鲜战争,数万美军阵亡,中共在战后从未对其在朝鲜半岛从事侵略并与联合国军交战对抗美国做出过任何道歉;越南战场,北京高层亲自审查战役方案,更秘密派遣了超过32万中国军队(防空兵、工程兵)直接对美军作战。其中就包括当年在越南秘密拨付1000万美元和3个师装备消灭法军、从不道歉认错的韦国清上将。

当年以尼克松为代表的美国共和党现实主义政府为了地缘政治上“联华抗苏”的巨大实用主义利益,硬生生把这两口气咽了下去。华盛顿大度地选择历史“向前看”,却被列宁式组织视为“资产阶级纸老虎的软弱”——在这种纵容下,这个体制毫无顾忌地把这群“开枪者、花钱者、财政预算决算审批者三位一体”的幕后军头,堂而皇之地送上了自己全国人大的最高立法席位。

2. WTO与玫瑰园的完美出千:从“天真图章”到“暴力合规”

2001年,克林顿全力推动中国加入世贸组织(WTO),天真地认为经济自由必然带来政治民主;2015年,奥巴马在白宫玫瑰园听取了北京关于“南海绝不搞军事化”的公开承诺。

结果是毁灭性的。中共不仅反水将南海彻底军事化,更将这种“制度性欺骗”合法化地写进了地方和全国人大的最高议事程序中。

根据中共2026年3月主动公开的官方公告,新疆第十四届人大代表团里堂而皇之地坐着32名服从中央军委指挥的驻疆PLA和武警部队枪杆子人大代表。他们中既有代表全体新疆人去北京开会的内蒙古00后大兵丁晓杰,也有在2024年直接穿着军装高坐人大主席团、握有提案生杀大权与文官罢免权的军区司令员柳林中将。

这种“枪杆子卡死程序闸门”的真实面貌,直接让民主党的外交精英彻底抽醒:

  • 在这个体制的字典里没有契约,只有兵不诈伪的拖延。当财政部监管局局长李若云等世俗文官,必须战战兢兢地跑去向握有空军通信权的米合伦沙·阿不都和境外押解警察赵金龙等全国人大代表“跪求认可”时,这就不是现代国家的预算审计,而是用暴力机器对文官系统执行“持枪合规”。

二、 参议院444号决议:全景式的罪状定性与道德海啸

2026年6月16日通过的第444号决议,其篇幅之长、细节之具体,堪称是一份对列宁式极权体制的“全面起诉书”。它不再使用温和的外交辞令,而是通过一长串冰冷的指控,彻底剥离了中共体制在西方眼中的合法性:

  • 人道与公共卫生债: 决议直接将超过100万美国人因新冠疫情丧生的生命损失,归咎于中共初期的欺骗与隐瞒;同时痛斥其屡次跳票打击芬太尼的承诺,导致每年数万美国人死于毒品危机。

  • 黑帮化的供应链: 决议甚至细致到了消费品安全领域,直接点名其违规使用人类排泄物作为肥料生产的“污水大蒜(sewage garlic)”及有毒消费品,向大众揭示其“在贸易中作弊”的骄傲传统。

  • 踩碎文明底线的系统性性暴力: 最令国际社会震惊的,是决议首次在官方文本中使用了“东突厥斯坦(East Turkistan)”这一具有强烈政治历史意味的称谓,并盖棺定论地将其在当地实施的“结对认亲”政策定性为现代种族灭绝与危害人类罪。决议极其严肃地指控:国家力量在无限期关押维吾尔男子后,强迫留守的维吾尔人妻子与国家分配的男子同居、同床

这种利用绝对行政权力剥夺女性身体自主权、用制度化手段摧毁家庭伦理的行径,彻底点燃了全美上下不分党派的道德怒火。

当维吾尔人的“民意”,被内蒙古00后大兵和立功警官‘代表’

当自由世界还在为参议院444号决议中揭露的“新疆结对认亲、强迫同床”感到文明世界彻骨的惊悚时,如果你翻开《新疆人大常委会公报》和官方新闻,就会发现这个体制在演戏方面的讽刺艺术已经达到了人类幽默史的巅峰。

在这里,“代表2000多万新疆人民”的政治皮影戏,已经连最起码的穿针引线都懒得做了。

根据2023年开启的第十四届新疆人大代表名单审计,代表团里堂而皇之地坐着32名服从中共中央军委指挥的驻疆解放军和武警部队“枪杆子代表”,以及核试验马兰基地所处的巴音郭楞蒙古自治州选出的30名代表。正是这群人在2023年1月18日举行的新疆人大第一次会议上,投票“选举”出了60名代表新疆的第十四届全国人大代表。

换句话说,在现代政治学上,所谓的“新疆民意代表”,其出生纸不仅需要中共党组织的审批,还必须经过中央军委指挥的现役军人用刺刀投出的赞成票。

到了2026年3月25日,新疆人大常委会更是发了一份“老实交待”的官方公告,对人大代表中枪杆子代表的来源供认不讳:宋伟军、丁晓杰、侯法武由新疆军区军人代表大会选出,闫倩由武警新疆总队军人代表大会选出。

这群由军人代表大会选出的立法者,天然背负着暴力机器的基因。比如代表新疆的丁晓杰,是一位2001年出生于内蒙古的00后中国人民解放军士兵,2019年成为喀什军分区电台值班见习员。按照宪法赋予人大代表的权力,这位00后现役战士在步入人民大会堂的那一刻,就合法变身为拥有修宪权、立法权和监督权的最高权力机关成员。一个在军营里参加比武竞赛的年轻士兵,在法理上成了决定2000多万新疆人乃至全中国十四亿人命运的“法定立法者”。


当西方和台湾的小清新还在用“橡皮图章”这种天真的词汇自我安慰,将人大主席台上的军装身影视为走过场的礼仪摆设时,中共自己的法律和议事规则早就把一记响亮的耳光甩在了他们的脸上。

如果严格按照《中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会议事规则》以及地方各级《人大组织法》中关于“主席团”的程序规定去审计,这群穿着军装、剃着平头高坐主席台上的军头,不仅是货真价实的立法者,更是掌握人大会议生死大权的最高程序判官

2024年1月29日,新疆十四届人大第二次会议预备会议通过的主席团名单里,至少赫然列着3名中国人民解放军和武警部队的现役将军人大代表:杨诚、柳林和苏勇。中共中央广播电视总台CCTV及新疆卫视的视频画面清晰地展示了这一法理现场:在1月30日的开幕会议上,新疆军区政治委员杨诚、新疆军区司令员柳林中将、以及曾任武警新疆总队副参谋长的维稳先进个人苏勇,直接穿着笔挺的现役军装,大马金刀地坐在了主席台正上方。

在人大的议事规则中,主席团的权力到底有多大?它在现实性与法理上所拥有的双重有效特权,足以让任何现代宪政国家的法官惊出冷汗:

  • 独揽提案与法案的“生杀大权”: 按照人大议事规则,任何普通代表团或代表联名提出的议案,能不能列入会议议程、能不能提交大会表决,唯一的决定权在主席团。也就是说,如果台下的世俗文官、地方法院或普通代表试图提出任何不符合中央意图的议案,柳林中将和杨诚政委坐在主席台上,不需要开枪,只需依法动用主席团的法定裁决权,就可以在程序上将其直接“枪毙”,使其连见光的可能都没有。

  • 控制国家机关负责人的“提名与罢免权”: 根据法律,地方人大的各级政府官员、监察委主任、法院院长、检察院检察长的候选人,都是由主席团依法提出的;同时,主席团还握有向大会提出罢免这些官员的法定权力。当武警军头苏勇穿着军装作为主席团成员坐在上面时,台下坐着的各级文官系统、检察官和法官们心里非常清楚:上面坐着的不是普通网民所说的“花瓶”,而是掌控自己政治生命、能随时依法提名或罢免自己的“法定理事会董事”。

  • 凌驾于司法与行政之上的“最高询问与质询权”: 在会议期间,主席团有权依法单方面决定延长会议时间,更有权随时召集各级政府官员、法院院长、检察院检察长前来汇报工作或接受询问。

当这种在法理上近乎无限的程序权力,与柳林中将手里的军区指挥权、苏勇武警首长手里的手铐与警棍完美结合时,所谓的“最高国家权力机关”就展现出了它最冰冷的真实面貌:这根本不是文官在开会,这是现役军头作为法定的主席团成员,在依照人大的法律程序,对整个地方法院、检察院和公务员系统进行居高临下的“暴力合规审计”








同样穿着军装坐在主席台上的主席团成员,还有武警部队的代表苏勇。这位苏勇代表的履历更是黑色幽默的典范:2018年,他作为武警新疆总队副参谋长,因为在一线强力镇压而被表彰为“维稳工作先进个人”——也就是直接负责把新疆人送进集中营或高压管控的执行官。到了2025年1月19日的新疆十四届人大三次会议上,这位“先进个人”苏勇不仅依然是人大代表,胸前佩戴的标记和常年不变的寸头发型更是明确昭示着:他依旧是那个手握警棍与手铐的现役武警高级头目。一个负责把选民关起来的维稳军头,同时又是代表这些选民去立法的“主席团首长”,这种法理精神大概只有在精神病院里才能被理解。

在这个体制里,军队不仅负责台上的监军和台下的投票,甚至还公开插手少数民族地区的“人口定向清洗与改造”。担任新疆人大代表的现役军人孔祥宇上校,其真实身份是武警工程大学乌鲁木齐校区政治工作处主任。在2024年2月28日他率队赴西藏大学交流座谈时,这位“人大代表”就杀气腾腾地道出了真言:希望双方加强合作,共同为西部边疆少数民族地区培养一大批“靠得住、用得上、留得下”的军地两用复合型人才。翻译成现代反人类罪行的行业黑话就是:利用军警建制,加速对新疆、西藏少数民族进行文化换血和人口驯化,培养新一代的红色监工。


而在财政和预算监督领域,这种“持枪立法”的魔幻现实更被演绎得淋漓尽致。

根据中国财政部新疆监管局官方发布的报道,他们极其自豪地炫耀了新疆人大代表、财政部新疆监管局局长兼党组书记李若云,是如何向“枪杆子”和“刀把子”全国人大代表们汇报工作、悉心听取意见的。

在这场财政监管官员向暴力机器“跪求认可”的魔幻汇报中:

  • 全国人大代表、空军驻新疆通信室主任米合伦沙·阿不都在认真听取汇报后,以最高立法者的姿态,对财政部服务代表的努力表达了“感谢”并给予“肯定”;


  • 紧接着,财政监管局官员又满怀深情地走访慰问了全国人大代表、乌鲁木齐红庙子派出所便民警务站站长赵金龙警官——一位身穿刀把子制服、因为执行境外押解任务立了个人一等功的中共铁血鹰犬。这位“刀把子”代表,同样对财政工作给予了“充分肯定”。


一个原本应当代表选民捂紧钱袋子、严格审计军警开支的国家财政监督高官,居然要战战兢兢地跑去军营和派出所,向握着枪和手铐的“军代表、警代表”汇报工作,并因为得到这些暴力执行者的“认可与肯定”而欢欣鼓舞。在1776宪政文明的逻辑里,这叫“持枪抢劫国库”;但在列宁式的公报里,这叫“军民鱼水情、共商国是”。

这种“枪杆子”对立法的绝对碾压,在新疆人大代表、新疆军区陆军航空兵飞行员马凤龙身上完成了完美的逻辑闭环。马凤龙所在的陆航旅长年传承着一个30年不变的铁血信仰:

“操纵杆听我的话,我听党的话”;“手握操纵杆,铁心跟党飞”。


这就是中共中央、全国人大以及各大官方媒体主动公开的、具有最高法律效力的原生态中文证据。在这个体制里,不管是坐在主席台上的军区司令柳林中将,还是内蒙古00后电台兵丁晓杰,亦或是立了一等功的境外押解警察和手握武直操纵杆的飞行员。他们坐进最高立法殿堂的那一刻起,脑子里就没有“选民”和“法律”这两个词。他们的操纵杆、他们的枪托、以及他们按动人大表决器的手指,都只听从一个主人的大脑——那就是中共中央军委。

当西方和台湾的小清新还在指望通过与其“人大代表”进行法治交流来促进其政治文明时,中共自己的公报早就用这些穿着军装的主席团画面把答案扇在西方的脸上:我们的代表,从来不跟人民飞,只铁了心跟党飞。

三、 当1776宪政精神遇上“将军立法”的列宁式黑帮

为什么444号决议能在参议院获得两党毫无保留的全票通过?因为中共列宁式体制的底层结构,同时踩中了美国两党的文明死穴。

美国是一个深深建立在希伯来-基督教文明(Judeo-Christian tradition)与1776宪政基石上的国家。

  • 在信仰层面: 身体是圣灵的殿,婚姻与家庭是神圣不可侵犯的契约。基督教十诫明确规定“不可奸淫”。任何强迫同床、系统性摧毁家庭细胞的行径,在基督教文明看来,都是地地道道的魔鬼行径。

  • 在制度层面: 1776精神的底层逻辑是严格的文官治军与权力分立。在自由世界,现役军人绝不可干预文官立法。

然而,当年指挥越共的中共开国上将韦国清,其后的政治轨迹却是长期兼任全国人大常委会副委员长。这种“军队巨头、总政主任直接兼任国家最高立法机构领导人”的“党政军三位一体”结构,在西方眼中就是最典型的“持枪立法”和极权黑帮化统治。

1990年,当美国正沉浸在“历史的终结”、冷战即将胜利的虚幻自大中时,中国全国人大里的上甘岭指挥官们和戒严部队的将军们,却坐在一起,一边用暴力维护着国内的绝对统治,一边用按表决器的方式完成了对上一年军事行动消耗的自我审计。


这种“拿过枪、开过火、杀过美军”的肉身实体,堂而皇之地坐在最高立法殿堂里担任代表,就是对现代西方宪政法理最具讽刺意味的挑衅。这也是为什么到了2026年,当两党翻完了这本写满欺骗与暴力的历史明细账后,华盛顿的共识会变得如此冰冷且充满杀机——因为任何理性的财务和制度审计都指向同一个结果:对一个由枪杆子监军、由昔日宿敌和暴力机器组成且从不进行真正权力分立的体制,唯一的应对方式不是对话,而是彻底的制度脱钩与文明对决。

正如博弈论的基本常识:你可以和对手谈利益,也可以和对手妥协价值观,但没人敢和桌子底下的“连环老千”继续玩下去。

当民主党发现自己追求的“绿色太阳能”背后深埋着强迫劳动的罪恶,发现自己退让的“国际多边秩序”成了对方吸血的工具时,这种被欺骗后的极度愤怒与羞耻感,促使他们与共和党并肩推起了制度的绞肉机。

四、 战略决战新阶段:1776精神的文明总动员

在立法院通过444号决议进行道德与建制定罪的同时,总统川普将独立宣言250周年提升为国家战略,正式完成了这场决战的政治拼图。

川普的战略逻辑大刀阔斧且清晰决绝:

  1. 从利益博弈升华为信仰对决: 仅仅依靠关税和科技禁令,无法彻底瓦解一个控制了现代数字化监控手段的列宁式巨兽。必须用1776精神的核心奥义——“人权神授,任何世俗政权不得凌驾于个体的信仰和家庭之上”——作为解构共产主义的终极武器。

  2. 身份的二选一: “你可以选择做马克思的门徒,也可以选择做美国的爱国者,但你绝不可能两者皆是。”这句重话不仅是对美国国内激进左翼的警告,更是向全球开辟了清晰的文明战线。

结语:方向盘已被焊死

历史走到2026年,美国对华的全面合围已经完成了底层代码的重写。

前台,是川普总统高亢的政治总动员,用“1776精神”凝聚海内外追求自由的力量;后台,则是两党在《国防授权法案》(NDAA)中细致到AI、半导体、网联汽车軟硬件、甚至生物基因和清洁能源供应链的冷酷切割。美国正在动用包括《全球马格尼茨基人权问责法》在内的所有金融与签证制裁工具,对这个反人类的极权组织进行人类历史上最严密的“制度净化”。

过去四十年由于西方的幼稚、纵容和地缘实用主义所养大的列宁式巨兽,终于迎来了它最无法逾越的文明长城。当1776精神的旗帜再度猎猎作响,这场推翻欺骗、捍卫尊严的战略决战,大幕已然轰然拉开,且绝无回头之路。

#Democracy #Christ #Peace #Freedom #Liberty #Humanrights #人权 #法治 #宪政 #独立审计 #司法独立 #独立自治

13 June 2026

走向现代文明的法理与自由:论不同华语地区独立建国的正当性与可行性



在日常的地缘政治讨论中,“大一统”常常被赋予一种神圣不可侵犯的历史宿命感。仿佛只要共享相似的文化、跨越相同的历史,不同地区的人民就必须被强行塞进同一个庞大的中央集权政权之中。

然而,当我们剥离宏大的宏大叙事与情感绑架,回归现代文明的普世价值与国际法的理性框架,我们会清晰地发现:任何华语地区、不同的人群,在满足特定事实要素并基于人民自由意志的选择下,皆拥有独立建国、享有独立主权的完全合法性与现实可行性。

这一立论的正当性,不仅深深扎根于现代国际公法的底层逻辑,更在250多年前美国《独立宣言》所昭示的普世原则中找到了跨越时空的文明共鸣。

一、 杰斐逊原则与“被统治者的同意”

1776年,托马斯·杰斐逊在美国《独立宣言》中写下了现代民主政治最伟大的宣告:

“人人生而平等,造物主赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利,包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。为了保障这些权利,人类才在他们中间建立政府。”

《独立宣言》确立的核心政治原则在于:政府的正当权力,来自于被统治者的同意(Consent of the governed)。

这意味着,没有任何一个政权可以仅仅因为“历史纽带”、“血缘文化”或“同文同种”,就天然地、永久地拥有对某个地区人民的统治权。政府的本质是人民为了保护自身自由而订立的契约,而不是反过来奴役人民的枷锁。

当年美国脱离英国独立,并非因为北美移民与英国人在文化或语言上存在鸿沟——在当时,他们同属于不列颠文化圈。美国独立的根本原因在于,大英帝国对其进行了长期的专制压迫与掠夺,侵犯了臣民本应享有的自由。

同理,不同的华语地区完全可以因为对自由、民主、人权等核心价值的追求,拒绝接受单一专制主权的控制。当一个政权展现出长期的滥用职权,企图把人民置于绝对的专制与军国主义统治之下时,推翻这样的强权,或者与之划清界限、宣布独立,不仅是人民的权利,更是人民的义务。

二、 现代国际法的法理基石:事实宣告与有效控制

在现代国际公法框架下,“自古以来”的历史宣称在判定主权归属时的权重极低。现代国际法是一套冰冷、务实的技术标准,它更关注的是当下的有效治理人民的自决权

1. 《蒙特维多公约》的四个硬性要素

根据1933年《蒙特维多国家权利义务公约》第一条,一个实体只要在事实上同时具备以下四个要素,在法理上就已经完成了作为国家的“初始确认”:

  • 固定的居民

  • 界定的领土

  • 有效的政府

  • 与他国交往的能力

更重要的是,该公约第三条明确确立了“宣告说(Declarative Theory)”:“国家的政治存在不依赖于他国的承认。”

如果某一个华语地区已经发展出了行使稳定且有效管辖的政府,拥有明确的边界、独立的法律、税收与防卫体系,并能够自主开展对外交往,那么在国际法的底层逻辑中,它就已经构成了一个事实上的独立国家。它不需要任何外部强权的恩赐、御批,也无须等待地缘政治大国的法理承认。

2. 时际法原则对历史叙事的解构

现代国际法中的“时际法(Intertemporal Law)”原则规定,判定某一历史时期的行为和状态,必须依据当时的法律,而非今天的标准。

中国历史上的朝贡体系、宗藩关系或模糊的封建疆域,在现代国际法意义上并不等同于现代主权国家相互排他、边界清晰的“国家主权”。用几百年前的帝国版图去框定现代居民的政治归属,既不符合现代法理,也是对现代地缘秩序的践踏。现代国际法保护的是“活在当下的切实治理”,而不是“躺在历史账本上的宣称”。

三、 可行性验证:多元治理的全球文明常态

在实践层面,单一文化源流、同一语言族群演进为多个独立的主权国家,是人类文明的常态,而非变态。

  • 不列颠文明的开枝散叶: 英国、美国、加拿大、澳大利亚、新西兰等国,共享相似的语言与文化背景,但它们是完全独立的、互不隶属的主权国家。

  • 德意志语言圈的多元并存: 德国、奥地利、瑞士(德语区),同样在各自的独立主权下运作良好,并发展出了极具建设性的国际合作关系。

对于不同的华语地区和人群而言,走向独立主权、独立建国的路径在现实中完全可行,这已经在历史和现实中得到了验证:

  • 体制可行性: 摆脱宏大叙事的捆绑,地方政府可以根据本地区居民的实际需求,量身定制最高效的民主治理模式,避免本国人民的福祉成为地缘政治野心的牺牲品。

  • 经济与对外交往可行性: 在现代多边贸易体系和国际法保护下,只要一个实体具备稳定的法律环境与独立的对外签约能力,它就能深度参与全球供应链。一个地区的繁荣取决于自身的治理效能与开放程度,而非取决于其版图有多大。

结语:将人的福祉置于国家神话之上

现代文明的标志,是承认多元治理的合法性,并将个人的自由、安全与福祉置于虚幻的国家神话之上。

正如《独立宣言》所昭示的真理,当任何形式的政府变成损害这些目的的强权时,人民就有权改变它或废除它,并建立新政府。不同的华语地区、不同的人群,完全有权在符合现代国际法要素的前提下,凭借自身的有效治理与居民的集体认同,自由地选择独立建国。

这不仅是一条符合现代国际法理的阳光大道,更是对人类追求自由、抗击专制这一文明逻辑的勇敢践行。世界的未来不需要更多庞大而臃肿的强权帝国,而需要更多自由、民主且尊重法治的现代主权实体。

#Democracy #Christ #Peace #Freedom #Liberty #Humanrights #人权 #法治 #宪政 #独立审计 #司法独立 #独立自治

13 July 2025

Les crimes de guerre du Parti communiste chinois : Un examen juridique et historique nécessaire

 

Introduction

Le Tribunal militaire international pour l'Extrême-Orient (TMIEO), communément appelé le procès de Tokyo, a été convoqué après la Seconde Guerre mondiale pour poursuivre les hauts dirigeants japonais pour crimes de guerre, crimes contre la paix et crimes contre l'humanité. Cependant, un acteur majeur du théâtre asiatique — le Parti communiste chinois (PCC) — n’a jamais été jugé, malgré des preuves suggérant que ses actions durant la guerre pourraient constituer de graves violations du droit international.

Des documents internes récemment déclassifiés du PCC révèlent des comportements qui soulèvent de sérieuses questions juridiques et éthiques. Cet article présente les preuves, examine les cadres juridiques internationaux pertinents et plaide pour une enquête internationale sur les actes du PCC pendant la guerre.


I. Comportement du PCC pendant la guerre : preuves issues de documents internes

1. Priorité stratégique à la prise du pouvoir plutôt qu’à la résistance

Contrairement au récit populaire présentant le PCC comme résistant principal à l’agression japonaise, des discours internes de Mao Zedong depuis Yan’an à la fin des années 1930 affirment que « combattre le Japon est un moyen, prendre le pouvoir est l’objectif ». Le PCC cherchait à étendre ses bases rurales, affaiblir le gouvernement nationaliste, et éviter les confrontations directes avec l’armée japonaise.

Des archives militaires du PCC contiennent des ordres explicites d’éviter les combats majeurs contre les Japonais afin de préserver leurs forces pour la guerre civile à venir.

2. Collaboration tacite et pactes de non-agression

Des rapports de l’époque et des accords locaux passés avec des garnisons japonaises en Chine du Nord (vers 1940–1944) montrent l’existence de pactes tacites de non-agression. Ces accords ont permis aux Japonais de maintenir leurs lignes d’approvisionnement et leurs mouvements de troupes sans entrave.

Il existe des preuves d’échanges de prisonniers, de trêves locales et même de partage de renseignements entre unités du PCC et forces japonaises.

3. Appropriation des ressources de guerre biologique japonaises

Après la capitulation du Japon, les forces du PCC ont pris le contrôle d’installations liées à la guerre biologique, notamment celles impliquées dans des expérimentations humaines (comme l’Unité 731).

Des documents confirment que le PCC a intégré du personnel japonais spécialisé dans la guerre biologique, refusant de coopérer avec les demandes alliées d’extradition. Le transfert de ces technologies viole potentiellement les conventions internationales.



II. Cadre juridique international applicable

1. Article 5 de la Charte du TMIEO

La Charte stipule :

« Les dirigeants, organisateurs, instigateurs et complices qui ont participé à la planification, la préparation, l’initiation ou la conduite d’une guerre d’agression sont pénalement responsables. »

Cette disposition ne s’applique pas uniquement aux puissances de l’Axe mais à toute entité ayant matériellement aidé ou coopéré dans l’agression.

2. Application au PCC

La stratégie du PCC d’éviter la résistance directe et sa collaboration indirecte peuvent être considérées comme une assistance matérielle aux efforts de guerre japonais.

Leur utilisation des ressources biologiques japonaises après la guerre peut également constituer une complicité dans des activités interdites.

3. Résolution 95(I) de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies (1946)

Cette résolution affirme l’applicabilité universelle des principes établis par les tribunaux de Nuremberg et de Tokyo à tous les crimes futurs d’agression et à leurs complices.

Le comportement du PCC entre donc dans le champ d’application du droit international et mérite un examen rigoureux.


III. Pourquoi ouvrir une enquête maintenant ?

1. Justice historique et réconciliation

Un traitement complet de toutes les parties impliquées dans les atrocités est essentiel à la vérité historique et à la réconciliation. L’exclusion du PCC constitue une faille grave dans la justice internationale.

2. Lutter contre le révisionnisme

Une enquête fondée sur les propres documents du PCC permettrait de contrer les narratifs révisionnistes et d’assurer une mémoire honnête des faits.

3. Renforcer le droit international

Tenir tous les auteurs responsables est essentiel pour maintenir l’autorité du droit international. L’impunité affaiblit les normes contre l’agression et les crimes de guerre.


IV. Recommandations d’action internationale

  • Créer une commission d’enquête spéciale sous l’égide de l’ONU ou de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI)

  • Sécuriser les archives du PCC et recueillir témoignages et preuves matérielles

  • Coopération internationale entre historiens, juristes et ONG

  • Publication intégrale des résultats pour promouvoir la justice historique et la transparence mondiale


Conclusion

Les documents internes du Parti communiste chinois révèlent des faits qui soulèvent de profondes interrogations quant à sa responsabilité juridique et morale durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Il est impératif que la communauté internationale engage une enquête indépendante pour garantir que les principes du droit international soient respectés.

中国共産党の戦時共犯行為:法的・歴史的検証の必要性

 

序文

極東国際軍事裁判(IMTFE)、通称「東京裁判」は第二次世界大戦後に設置され、日本の指導者を戦争犯罪、平和に対する罪、人道に対する罪で裁きました。しかし、アジア戦線の主要勢力であった中国共産党(CCP)は国際的な審査を受けておらず、その戦時行動には国際法に違反する可能性があるという内部文書が残されています。

近年流出した共産党内部の文書や回想録には、法的・倫理的な問題を引き起こす事実が含まれています。本稿はその証拠を提示し、国際法の枠組みを検討し、再調査の必要性を論じます。


I. CCPの戦時行動:内部資料からの証拠

1. 抗戦より政権掌握を優先

延安期の文書では、「抗日を手段、権力掌握を目的」とする方針が示されています。毛沢東氏は1937年〜1941年の演説でこれを明言し、日本軍との大規模衝突を避け、共産党の勢力温存と将来の国共内戦への備えが優先されたことが記録されています。

2. 日本軍との実質的な協力

1940〜1944年、華北の一部地域では日本軍と「非攻撃協定」が締結され、補給路や移動の黙認、情報共有、戦俘交換、局地的休戦などが実施されました。このような実質的な協力は、日本軍にとっても戦争遂行上の有利な条件となっていました。

3. 日本の生物兵器技術・拠点の継承

戦後、CCPは731部隊を含む日本の生物戦関連機関を接収し、人体実験や細菌兵器研究に携わった関係者の引き渡しを拒否しました。そして、日本側の研究者と共同研究を始め、その技術を自身の研究所に統合しました。これは戦後の生物兵器使用禁止・戦争犯罪処罰の原則に抵触します。



II. 国際法的枠組み

1. 東裁判憲章(IMTFE憲章)第5条

憲章は以下を規定しています:
「侵略戦争を計画し、準備し、開始し、遂行した指導者、組織者、扇動者および共犯者に、刑事責任を追及する」

これは枢軸国だけでなく、戦争に関与した第三者にも適用されます。

2. CCP行動への適用

CCPが日本軍への協力態勢を取ったことや、日本の生物戦資産を継承・活用したことは、戦争行為への関与・共犯と評価される可能性があります。

3. 国連総会決議95(I)(1946年)

本決議により、ニュルンベルクと東京裁判の原則は国際慣習法として全世界に適用されると確認されました。CCPの行動はこの枠内に含まれ、国際的検証の対象となります。


III. 再調査の必要性

1. 歴史的正義と和解の要件

すべての戦時加害者に責任を問うことが、歴史的正義と和解に不可欠です。CCPが免責されている現状は不平等性を生み、法の威厳を損ないます。

2. 歴史修正主義への対抗

当事者による文書証拠をもとにした透明な調査は、歴史の虚飾を防ぎ、将来世代に正しい認識を確立します。

3. 国際法秩序の堅持

責任を追及しないことは、将来の侵略行為への免罪符となりかねません。厳格な法適用は国際法秩序の維持に不可欠です。


IV. 国際社会への提案

  • 国連または国際刑事裁判所主導による特別調査委員会を設置

  • CCP資料や関係者証言、生物関連証拠を収集・分析

  • 歴史学者、法律専門家、人権NPOなどと協働調査

  • 調査結果を公表し、国際社会での認識向上を目指す


結語

中国共産党の戦時行動は、その内部文書により国際法違反の疑いがあると示されています。国際社会が真摯にこの問題に取り組むことは、歴史の真実を追求し、法の尊厳を守るための要請です。

中國共產黨的戰時共犯行為:法律與歷史調查的正當性

 

引言

遠東國際軍事法庭(IMTFE),通稱東京審判,於第二次世界大戰後召開,以審判日本高層領導人所犯下的戰爭罪、侵略罪與反人類罪。然而,亞洲戰場上一個關鍵參與者——中國共產黨(中共)——從未被追究其戰爭期間的行為,即使有證據顯示,其行為可能已嚴重違反國際法。

中共內部文件與檔案的近期揭露,展現出該黨在戰時所作所為的重大法律與道德問題。本文旨在呈現相關證據、檢視適用的國際法律架構,並主張國際社會應重新展開對中共戰時行為的調查。


一、中共的戰時行為:來自內部文件的證據

1. 以奪取政權為優先而非抗日

儘管宣傳中常強調中共為抗日主力,實際上,中共領導層在延安的演講與通訊顯示,他們將奪取政權視為首要目標。

毛澤東在1930年代末公開表示:「抗日是手段,奪取政權是目的。」文件顯示,中共的策略重點在於擴張根據地、削弱國民政府,並儲備力量以應對未來的內戰。

中共軍事檔案揭露,多次下令避免與日軍爆發激烈衝突,以保存實力,準備與國民黨決戰。

2. 默許合作與不侵協議

1940至1944年間,華北地區中共部隊與日軍駐軍之間曾達成多項非正式「互不侵犯協議」,使日軍後勤補給與部隊移動得以順利進行。

此外,存在有關俘虜交換、地區停火與情報交流的紀錄,表明中共採取了一種實用主義的(即使道德可議的)合作方針。

3. 接管與利用日軍生物戰資源

日本投降後,中共迅速接管了部分日軍生物戰研究機構,特別是涉及人體實驗與細菌戰的部門。

根據中共內部檔案記載,他們接收並安置了具備生物戰專長的日籍人員,幾乎沒有配合盟軍提出的審判或引渡要求。

這些技術的轉移,可能違反了國際協議,並助長了中共在戰後延續禁止的研究。

4. 自我承認的問題行為

中共黨史回憶錄與內部報告中,承認曾實施強制遷徙、強迫勞動,甚至在平民身上實驗生物武器。

這些行為符合國際法上對戰爭罪與反人類罪的定義,且多數出自中共自己的記錄。


二、國際法律架構

1. 遠東軍事法庭憲章第5條

該憲章規定:

「參與策劃、準備、發動或進行侵略戰爭的領導者、組織者、煽動者與幫兇,應承擔刑事責任。」

此條文不僅適用於軸心國,也可延伸適用於任何實質上協助或參與侵略行動的實體。

2. 適用於中共行為

中共戰時避戰與默許合作的作法,實質上構成對日軍戰事的協助。

戰後繼承並使用日本的生物戰技術,亦涉嫌延續違禁行為。

依據紐倫堡與東京的審判先例,上述行為符合共犯、幫兇的定義。

3. 聯合國大會第95(I)號決議(1946)

此決議重申,紐倫堡與東京法庭所確立的國際法原則,對所有未來侵略與其共犯均具普遍效力。

中共的行為正落在此國際法義務的適用範圍內,理應受到國際審視。


三、為何現在提出?

1. 歷史正義與和解

全面檢視所有戰爭責任方,是歷史公正與和解的必要前提。

過去對中共的豁免,形成國際法律秩序中的嚴重空缺。

2. 反擊歷史修正主義

依據中共自有檔案所開展的透明調查,可防止掩蓋真相的敘事。

亦有助於當代與未來世代正確認識歷史。

3. 維護國際法律秩序

所有加害者與共犯應被追責,這對維護國際法律的威信至關重要。

若未追究此類行為,將助長有罪不罰,侵蝕國際法律對侵略與戰爭罪的遏制能力。


四、國際行動建議

  • 成立一個由聯合國或國際刑事法院領導的特別調查委員會,審查中共戰時行為。

  • 對中共相關檔案、證人證詞與物證進行保護與深入分析。

  • 鼓勵國際間歷史學者、法律專家與人權組織合作,展開全面調查。

  • 公開發布調查結果,促進全球認識,並推動歷史正義。


結語

中共的戰時行為,依其自有記錄所示,涉及重大法律與道德責任,至今未曾被國際社會認真追究。為了實現正義與歷史真相,國際社會有責任展開獨立、徹底的調查。

只有全面面對戰時的所有罪行,國際法律原則才能真正獲得尊重與實踐。

被忽略的被告:中国共产党二战期间的所犯下的战争罪、侵略罪、反人类罪从犯法律责任

引言

远东国际军事法庭(IMTFE),即东京审判,于二战后设立,用以审判日本高层领导人犯下的战争罪、侵略罪与反人类罪。然而,在亚洲战场上的关键参与者——中国共产党(中共)——却从未被追究责任,尽管已有证据表明其战争时期的行为可能严重违反国际法。

中共内部文件与档案的最新披露揭示了战争期间的一系列行为,引发了重大的法律与伦理质疑。本文旨在呈现证据,分析相关国际法律框架,并呼吁对中共战争行为展开新的国际调查。


一、中共战争行为:内部文件中的证据

1. 权力优先于抗战的战略部署

与普遍叙述的“抗日先锋”形象相反,中共领导人在延安的内部讲话显示其战略目标在于“以抗日为手段,以夺权为目的”。

中共档案中明确指示部队避免与日军正面冲突,以保存力量应对未来与国民党的内战。

2. 默许合作与非攻击协定

1940至1944年间,中共与日军在华北某些地区达成了非正式“互不侵犯协议”。这些协议允许日军补给线与部队通行不受干扰。

有报告指出,中共部队与日军之间发生过战俘交换、地方停火与情报交流,反映出一种实用主义的合作方式。

3. 接收与使用日本生物战资源

战后中共接收了日本遗留的生物战研究单位,特别是参与人体实验与细菌战的单位(如731部队)。中共档案显示,他们保留了这些专业人员并吸收至其科研体系中。

此类行为未与盟国合作引渡战犯,也未停止相关研究,违反了战后国际协定。



二、国际法律框架

1. 远东国际军事法庭宪章第5条

宪章规定:“策划、准备、发动或进行侵略战争的领导者、组织者、煽动者与共谋者应承担刑事责任。”

该条不仅适用于轴心国,也适用于任何协助侵略行为的实体。

2. 适用于中共行为

中共在抗战中避免实质对抗、与日军默契协作,其行为构成对日本战争努力的“实质援助”。

战后继续使用日本细菌战资产,亦可视为延续被禁止的战争行为,符合《纽伦堡审判》与东京宪章对“共犯”的定义。

3. 联合国大会第95(I)号决议(1946)

该决议重申《纽伦堡》和《东京审判》的原则适用于所有未来的战争罪与其同谋者,具有国际习惯法效力。

中共战争行为显然落入此适用范围,理应受到国际审查。


三、为何现在必须启动调查?

1. 追求历史正义与和解

若要实现真正的历史真相与民族和解,必须全面追责所有战争罪行的参与方。

中共因豁免审判而留下的空白,削弱了国际法的权威性。

2. 抵制历史修正主义

依据中共自有档案进行透明调查,可防止后人误读历史,并阻止政治宣传粉饰战争罪行。

3. 捍卫国际法律准则

追责所有施害者与共犯是维护国际法秩序的基石。

忽视这些问题,只会助长有罪不罚,动摇对战争罪与侵略的国际共识。


四、国际社会的建议行动

  • 联合国或国际刑事法院应设立特别调查委员会,审查中共战争行为;

  • 获取并分析中共战争档案、证人证词与相关实物证据;

  • 联合历史学家、国际法专家与人权组织,开展系统性调查;

  • 向全球公开调查结果,推动历史正义实现。


结语

中共战争时期的行为,依据其自身档案所揭示,构成严重违反国际法的嫌疑。国际社会迄今尚未对此做出应有回应。

在追求正义与历史真实的精神下,必须发起一次独立且彻底的国际调查。唯有全面揭示战争真相,才能真正捍卫国际法的尊严与正义。


参考资料

  • 《远东国际军事法庭宪章》第5条

  • 联合国大会第95(I)号决议,1946年

  • 《毛泽东选集》第三卷,延安时期讲话(1939–41年)

  • 中共战时档案(近期披露)

  • 美国国家档案馆(NARA)关于日本生物战报告



 

Revisiting Accountability: The Chinese Communist Party and Unresolved Wartime Conduct

Introduction

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), or the Tokyo Trials, was convened after World War II to prosecute senior Japanese leaders for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. However, a key actor on the Asian battlefield—the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—was never subjected to such scrutiny, despite internal evidence suggesting its wartime conduct may constitute serious violations of international law.

Recent disclosures from CCP archives and memoirs expose conduct that merits renewed legal and ethical evaluation. This article examines these revelations, the relevant legal frameworks, and proposes mechanisms for future accountability.


I. CCP Wartime Conduct: Evidence from Internal Documents

1. Strategic Prioritization of Political Power Over Resistance

Contrary to the mainstream portrayal of the CCP as committed anti-Japanese resisters, speeches and directives from the Yan’an period reveal that the party prioritized consolidating political power over confronting Japan.

In multiple speeches (1937–1941), Mao Zedong asserted that “resisting Japan is a tactic; seizing power is the goal.” CCP military archives include directives to avoid high-casualty confrontations with Japanese forces in favor of preserving strength for future civil war with the Kuomintang (KMT).

2. Tacit Collaboration with Japanese Forces

Documents from occupied North China (c. 1940–1944) show that CCP units entered into informal “non-aggression” arrangements with local Japanese garrisons. These included:

  • Mutually tolerated troop movements

  • Limited intelligence exchanges

  • Instances of prisoner handovers

Such arrangements, while arguably pragmatic, blur the line between strategic non-engagement and material support to enemy forces.

3. Seizure and Utilization of Japanese Biological Warfare Assets

Following Japan’s surrender, CCP forces captured segments of the Japanese biological warfare apparatus, notably elements of Unit 731. Archival evidence confirms that:

  • Japanese personnel involved in war crimes were retained rather than extradited

  • Biological warfare knowledge was transferred into CCP-controlled research institutions

  • No cooperation with Allied prosecution efforts was provided

These actions violated emerging norms against impunity for crimes involving human experimentation and prohibited weaponry.

These practices correspond with definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity under customary international law and the IMTFE Charter.


II. Legal Framework and Applicability

1. IMTFE Charter, Article 5

“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in planning, preparing, initiating, or waging aggressive war shall be held criminally responsible.”

This provision encompasses not only Axis leadership but any actors who materially assisted in aggression or benefited from its commission.

2. Nexus with CCP Conduct

The CCP's limited engagement with Japanese forces, alongside tacit cooperation and postwar exploitation of biological weapons research, meets the threshold of complicity under IMTFE and Nuremberg precedents.

3. UN General Assembly Resolution 95(I) (1946)

This resolution affirms that the principles established at Nuremberg and Tokyo are universal and binding as customary international law. Thus, the CCP's wartime conduct—regardless of prosecution status—falls under this scope.

4. Statutory and Jurisdictional Considerations

  • No statute of limitations applies to crimes against humanity and war crimes under international law

  • The International Criminal Court (ICC), or a UN-mandated special tribunal, could theoretically review archival evidence for retroactive evaluation

  • Jurisdictional precedence: Eichmann v. Israel affirmed that universal jurisdiction applies for such crimes even if committed prior to domestic legal adoption


III. Why Action Is Needed Now

1. Closing Gaps in Justice

The Tokyo Trials’ failure to address the CCP’s conduct created an imbalance in historical accountability. Addressing this omission is essential for legal consistency and moral legitimacy.

2. Preventing Historical Revisionism

In the absence of legal scrutiny, CCP-aligned historiography distorts the record, portraying the party solely as victims or resisters. A transparent process rooted in archival truth would counter this narrative.

3. Reinforcing International Norms

Allowing any actor to evade responsibility for wartime atrocities weakens the international legal system and emboldens future violations.


IV. Recommendations for International Action

  • Establish a UN-backed investigative commission to examine CCP conduct during the Second World War

  • Secure and evaluate CCP archival documents and testimonies from victims and perpetrators

  • Promote interdisciplinary cooperation among legal experts, historians, and human rights organizations

  • Disseminate findings in multiple languages to foster global awareness and educational outreach


Conclusion

The Chinese Communist Party’s wartime actions, as reflected in its own internal documentation, reveal troubling patterns that meet thresholds for legal scrutiny under the frameworks established by Nuremberg and Tokyo. Justice demands that these actions no longer be ignored.

Reopening the historical record in pursuit of accountability is not merely an academic exercise—it is a reaffirmation of the principles on which postwar international law was built.


References

  • Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Article 5

  • UN General Assembly Resolution 95(I), 1946

  • Eichmann v. Attorney General of Israel, Supreme Court of Israel, 36 ILR 277 (1962)

  • Mao Zedong, Yan’an Speeches, Vol. 3

  • CCP military and central archival materials (recently disclosed)

  • US National Archives, Japanese Biological Warfare Reports

06 February 2022

Yongsheng Chen, a current professor in the US, is working for sister of Wuhan Institute of Virology and may have cheated US IRS on income arising from transferring IP to China illegally

 by Ji Yuan

Yongsheng Chen has been working as Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University since 2009.

1.Profile with material misstatement
But the profile may have omitted important latest development and in consequence failed to reflect what the profile purported to represent, such as follows:

Yongsheng Chen was appointed to be an adjunct professor of the School of Municipal and Environmental Engineering of Shenyang Jianzhu University in 2017.

Yongsheng Chen is a member of Editorial Board of ACTA HYDROBIOLOGICA SINICA.
ACTA HYDROBIOLOGICA SINICA , located in Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 7 Dongnan South Road, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, is governed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and hosted by the Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Chinese Society for Oceanology and Limnology. That means Yongsheng Chen is working for Chinese Academy of Sciences,the parent company of Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Wuhan Institute of Virology is also located in Wuhan.


2.Risks of misusing technical materials which belong to Georgia Institute of Technology resulting in intellectual properties stolen to CCP

Yongsheng Chen made use of materials with mark of Georgia Institute of Technology to give lecture in Shenyang Jianzhu University in 2017.

From 2016 to 2018, he gave lectures in The State Key Laboratory of Separation Membrane and Membrane Process (a military-civil fusion) ,   Tianjin University of Technology,   Nanchang Aviation University, University of Science and Technology Beijing and Changzhou University.  Such malpractice may have transferred US military technologies to Chinese People's Liberation Army.

3.Risk of Material Misstatement in Form 1040 Individual Income Tax and Form 8938 Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets

If facts in the section 1 and 2 were omitted, it's uneasy for his employer to identify material misstatement in the tax returns including F1040 and F8938.

Fact 1:The website of the School of Municipal and Environmental Engineering of Shenyang Jianzhu University stated on 13 October 2017 as follows:

"The school hired Dr. Yongsheng Chen as an adjunct professor of our school. School‘s Communist Secretary Yuhou Wu met with Dr. Yongsheng Chen, and President Tiemao Shi issued a letter of appointment. Dean of the School of Environment Guouo Feng and Vice Dean Junsheng Hu introduced the environmental field of our school to Professor Yongsheng Chen in recent years. The two sides have exchanged and discussed the research work that is of interest to both parties, and the two parties have reached an intention and preliminary plan to cooperate in research work.”

Dr Yongsheng. Chen has been engaged in the research and application of water treatment and water cycle, the migration and transformation of pollutants in the environment and their risks, sustainable renewable bioenergy and sustainable urban development for more than 20 years. In the above fields, he has undertaken a number of projects in the field of the National Natural Science Foundation of the United States, the National Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States Department of Health (NIH), the United States Department of Defense, the United States Department of Energy, and the United States Boeing Company in this field. The research fund is funded by the total funding of more than 10 million US dollars. He is not only one of the pioneers in the field of research on the health assessment of nanomaterials in the environment, but also the microalgae life cycle cycle, the use of wastewater for microalgae cultivation and harvesting, the quality assessment of water quality required for microalgae cultivation, and the water cycle during microalgae cultivation. One of the pioneers in research on the removal of substances that inhibit the growth of microalgae in China. Dr. Yongsheng Chen has been invited for many times by the US National Natural Science Foundation, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Energy, the National Natural Science Foundation of Israel, the National Natural Science Foundation of Ukraine, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research and the French National Science Foundation. The French National Research Agency (ANR) project review expert.


Fact 2:

On the morning of May 23 , 2017 , at the joint invitation of the School of Environmental and Chemical Engineering and the State Key Laboratory of Separation Membranes and Membrane Processes, Professor Yongsheng Chen from the Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering of Georgia Institute of Technology came to our school for academic exchanges, and Made a report entitled " Application of Membrane Technology in Environmental Field " . More than 50 teachers and graduate students from key laboratories, colleges of environmental chemistry, and materials colleges attended the report. The report meeting was chaired by Professor Jie Wang, Deputy Dean of the School of Environmental Chemistry.



Professor Yongsheng Chen's report takes the many challenges faced by current environmental issues as the background, and introduces many emerging technologies spawned by nanomaterials with unique properties. The research results of the research team in the preparation, characterization and performance research of special membrane materials in recent years are reported. This paper focuses on the application of special membrane materials in the environmental field, including: 1 ) the application of membrane technology in biomass harvesting, culture medium and water recycling; 2 ) the application of nanocomposite ion exchange membrane in the utilization of " ocean energy " ; 3 ) Application of nanocomposite bipolar membrane in acid-base recovery of desalinated concentrated water.

The atmosphere of the report was warm. The teachers and students and Professor Chen Yongsheng had a lively discussion on the scientific issues of preparation, characterization and performance of special membrane materials, and achieved good academic exchange results. After the meeting, Prof. Wang Jie and others conducted in-depth exchanges and sharing with Prof. Chen Yongsheng on the related work carried out in the field of membrane science in Tianjin University of Technology. Prof. Chen affirmed the work of our school in the field of membrane technology, and hoped that the two sides could work together in the future. There is more cooperation. This academic report will expand the academic horizons of teachers and students, and provide new ideas and directions for teachers and graduate students.

Fact 3 

On the afternoon of May 26, 2017, the seventh lecture of the "Energy and Environment Famous Teachers Lectures" series of activities of the School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing was successfully held in 1020 of the Mechanical and Electrical Building. Professor Chen Yongsheng of Georgia Institute of Technology gave a lecture on "Differences in Teaching between China and the United States and Talking about Teaching Culture". Some teachers of the college attended the event.
Based on his experience in teaching at Georgia Tech University for many years, Professor Chen Yongsheng introduced the differences in teaching and talent training between Chinese and American famous universities, and introduced the characteristics of different student groups, teaching systems, and teaching methods. . He described his teaching experience in the United States, shared his experience in the development of international teaching methods and ideas, and interacted and communicated with the young teachers present on hot issues of common concern. The discussion was lively and the atmosphere was hot.








As the core activity of the teacher development center of the college, "Nenghuan Famous Teachers Lecture Hall" enables young teachers to experience the demeanor of famous teachers in person through a series of activities such as demonstration classes of famous teachers, sharing of teaching insights from famous teachers, classroom observation of excellent teachers, and group teaching discussions. Undergraduate education teaching teaching mode and skills, improve the level of thinking, knowledge and teaching and education. The seventh lecture of the series of "Nenghuan Famous Teachers' Lectures" came to a successful conclusion.

Expert Profile:

Professor Chen Yongsheng is currently a professor in the Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology, and concurrently a professor in the Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering at Arizona State University. Professor Chen received his Ph.D. in environmental chemistry from Nankai University, and then stayed to teach at Nankai University. After three years, he came to the United States, where he successively engaged in research and teaching at the National Cleaner Production Center, Arizona State University and Georgia Institute of Technology. He has undertaken a number of projects in this field for the National Natural Science Foundation (NSF), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States Department of Health (NIH), the United States Department of Energy (DOE), and the United States Boeing Company in this field. The research fund is funded by the total funding of more than 10 million US dollars. His current research team has more than 30 members, including visiting scholars, postdoctoral fellows, doctoral students, master students and undergraduates.
Professor Chen's research work focuses on innovation and the intersection of disciplines. He is good at absorbing new technologies, new concepts, opening up new research fields, or injecting new vitality into traditional research directions. He is one of the pioneers in the field of research on nanomaterials for health assessment in the environment and a forerunner in the development of renewable energy from microalgae. Its research projects have obtained six invention patents so far. He has published more than 130 academic papers in many authoritative academic journals such as Environmental Science and Technology. Professor Chen's papers have been cited more than 6,800 times, and his H-Index is 44. Professor Chen has also published more than 100 research results in international and domestic academic conferences; he has been invited to give special reports or preside over conferences in international academic conferences for many times. Professor Chen's paper was awarded the best paper in 2006 by Environmental Science and Technology. Prof. Chen's honors also include the 2011 American Chemical Society Best Paper Report Award; two of the 2011 American Chemical Society Chemistry and Engineering News (C&EN) Best Excellent Papers; AEESP) Best Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor Award; in 2014, he won the Best Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor Award from Sigma Xi in the United States, etc. In 2012, he was selected into the "Thousand Talents Program" of the Organization Department of the CCP Central Committee.

Fact 4 Release time: 2018-05-25 

  

At 10:00 am on May 24, at Q204 of the School of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Professor Chen Yongsheng from Georgia Institute of Technology gave a report entitled "Environmental Applications Implications of Nanotechnology". The report meeting was chaired by Professor Luo Xubiao, and some teachers and postgraduate students from the School of Environmental Chemistry attended the report meeting.
Professor Chen Yongsheng first introduced the main academic research directions of the Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering of Georgia Institute of Technology, which can be divided into: atmosphere, surface water, groundwater, energy and material sustainability, environmental health, and discussed the subject leaders in each direction. Introduced. Then, based on the research results of his research group in the past 15 years, Mr. Chen gave a detailed introduction from the aspects of titanium oxide photocatalytic decontamination, atmospheric desulfurization and denitrification, biomass conversion, and water separation membrane design. After the report meeting, Mr. Chen gave detailed answers to the questions of the teachers and students, and the teachers and students all benefited a lot.Contact address: School of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Nanchang Aviation University, No. 696, Fenghe South Avenue, Nanchang Postal Code: 330063

Fact 5:
Publishing time: 2016-06-15 

On the afternoon of June 14, Dr. Chen Yongsheng, a tenured professor of the Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering of Georgia Institute of Technology and an expert of the "Thousand Talents Program" of the Organization Department of the Central Committee of the CPC, visited our school and gave a lecture entitled "Perspectives of environmental implications" for teachers and students of our school. of nanotechnology" academic report. School of Chemical Engineering, teachers and graduate students of environmental engineering, water supply and drainage science and engineering in our school participated in this academic report, which was chaired by Dean Li Zhongyu.
Professor Chen introduced the research progress of his research group in the field of health assessment of nanomaterials in the environment in recent years. He focused on the aggregation of nanoparticles, the effect of non-aggregated single nanoparticles on DNA, ion release, and reactive oxygen species generation. The safety and health effects of nanoparticles are described. At the same time, specific research methods such as dynamics and molecular biology are introduced in detail. The participants had a lively exchange and discussion with Professor Chen on related academic issues.
Dr. Yongsheng Chen is currently a tenured professor of the Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology, and concurrently engaged in research and teaching at Arizona State University and Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Chen received his Ph.D. in Environmental Chemistry from Nankai University in 1995. After only one year of teaching there, he was promoted to associate professor. Dr. Chen came to the United States in 1998 and has taught at the National Cleaner Production Center, Arizona State University and Georgia Institute of Technology, becoming one of the very few Chinese professors who have never studied in the United States but taught in famous American universities. For more than 20 years, Dr. Chen's research has extensively and deeply involved water treatment, water pollution, water resources management, new energy and sustainable development, including research and application of water treatment and water cycle, pollutants in the environment Migration and transformation and its risks in China, sustainable renewable bioenergy and sustainable urban development, etc. In the above fields, he has undertaken a number of projects for the National Natural Science Foundation (NSF), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States Department of Health (NIH), the United States Department of Defense (DOD), the United States The research funds of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Boeing Company of the United States in this field have totaled more than 10 million US dollars. His current research team has more than 30 members, including visiting scholars, postdoctoral fellows, doctoral students, master students and undergraduates.
Dr. Chen's research focuses on innovation and the intersection of disciplines. He is good at absorbing new technologies, new concepts, opening up new research fields, or injecting new vitality into traditional research directions. He is one of the pioneers in the field of research on nanomaterials for health assessment in the environment and a forerunner in the development of renewable energy from microalgae. Its research projects have obtained six invention patents so far.
Dr. Chen has achieved many important achievements in the field of scientific research he is engaged in. He has published more than 110 academic papers in many authoritative academic journals such as Environmental Science and Technology. Dr. Chen's papers have been cited as many as 5,600 times, and his H-Index is 39. Dr. Chen has also published research results in more than 80 international and domestic academic conferences; has been invited to give special reports or presided over conferences in international academic conferences for many times; obtained 6 patents. Dr. Chen's paper was awarded the 2006 Best Paper of the Year by Environmental Science and Technology. Dr. Chen's honors also include the 2011 American Chemical Society Best Paper Report Award; the 2011 American Chemical Society Chemistry and Engineering News (C&EN) two Best Excellent Papers; In 2014, he won the Best Doctoral Dissertation Mentor Award from Sigma Xi in the United States, etc. In 2012, he was selected into the "Thousand Talents Program" of the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee.
Dr. Yongsheng Chen has been invited to serve as a project review expert for many institutions in the United States, Europe and China, including the National Natural Science Foundation of the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Department of Energy, the National Natural Science Foundation of Israel, and the State of Ukraine. The National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.) and the French National Research Agency (The French National Research Agency (ANR)) project review experts. Dr. Chen Yongsheng has also been invited many times to serve as China Changjiang Scholars and overseas evaluation experts of the "Thousands of Young Talents Program" of the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee.

Address: Mingxing Building, Science and Education City Campus, Changzhou University, Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province

e. 

  

 

Fact 6:
The Membrane Separation Technology Collaborative Innovation Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Center") was established in August 2014 and was identified as the first batch of Tianjin Collaborative Innovation Centers. The center is led by Tianjin University of Technology, in conjunction with the Tianjin Institute of Seawater Desalination and Comprehensive Utilization of the Ministry of Natural Resources , Tianjin University, the Eco-Environmental Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and other top domestic membrane research institutions , Tianjin Motian Membrane Technology Co., Ltd., Guiyang Times Wharton Technology Co., Ltd., Shandong Dongyue Polymer Materials Co., Ltd. and other domestic leading and benchmarking enterprises in the membrane field, have established a stable and open organizational form of "core layer + collaboration layer" , and constructed a benefit-sharing mechanism of " project as a link, market-oriented operation " , to form a " talent- discipline - platform " trinity of industry-university-research interest community. The center implements the center director responsibility system under the leadership of the board of directors, combined with Tianjin University of Technology " double first-class " discipline construction and national scientific research platform construction, has gradually become the core base for technological innovation, achievement transformation and talent training in China's membrane industry.

According to the development requirements of " dynamic, open, integrated and sustainable " , combined with the research tasks of the Collaborative Innovation Center and the effectiveness of multi-party collaboration, the center attracted China Resources Environmental Protection Development Co. , Ltd. The advantages of applied basic research in the field of separation membranes , the engineering design and development advantages of the Tianjin Seawater Desalination and Comprehensive Utilization Research Institute of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the production and engineering construction advantages of advanced membrane products of Tianjin Motian Membrane Technology Co. , Ltd., the advantages of China Resources Environmental Protection Development Co., Ltd. in environmental protection The influence of the whole industry chain in the field, strong complementarity, has created a membrane separation science and technology collaborative innovation center integrating applied research - engineering design - production and construction - marketing promotion .

The center focuses on major national strategies such as green development and ecological civilization construction, facing major needs in the fields of environment, chemical industry, energy, biomedicine, etc., guided by major plans such as "Made in China 2025", with high-performance separation membrane materials and green preparation technology, Separation membrane materials and key components for biomedicine, membrane technology, seawater chemistry and resource utilization, membrane integration technology and intelligent equipment are the research directions , and the development strategy of " complementary advantages , collaborative research , key breakthroughs , and overall improvement " will be implemented to give full play to the colleges and universities. The service advantages of economic system construction provide scientific and technological and talent support for the development of national environmental protection, water resources safety, and the development of strategic emerging industries such as new materials and biomedicine in Tianjin .

After 6 years of development, the coordination mechanism of the center has become more complete, the technology chain and industrial chain have become more complete, and the collaborative innovation ability has been significantly improved. The development of the center has promoted the textile science and engineering discipline of Tianjin University of Technology to enter the ranks of the national "double first-class" world-class discipline construction . Materials, chemistry and engineering disciplines related to separation membrane research entered the ESI global 1% for the first time. In 2015 , the Ministry of Science and Technology and Tianjin Municipality jointly approved the establishment of the State Key Laboratory of Separation Membranes and Membrane Processes and the State Key Laboratory of Membrane Materials and Membrane Applications (Enterprise State Key Laboratory), and subsequently approved the establishment of a national-level international joint research center (2016 ), innovative talent training demonstration base ( 2017 ), separation membrane discipline innovation and intelligence base ( 2018 ) and other national platforms . In 2016 , the school established membrane technology research, established membrane industry alliance and seawater desalination alliance, incubated and supported more than 40 high-tech enterprises in the field of separation membrane and membrane process, and made important contributions to the development of membrane technology in Tianjin and the whole country.

Ji Yuan is a former Certified Public Accountant licensed by the People’s Republic of China, who audited financial statements of Chinese Communist enterprises for multiple years. 
Email: cpajiyuan@protonmail.com

糯米团推文⬜️ Tweets of @NUOMT

Tweets of CPA Jim