Miscellaneous News

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
China's base in Djibouti however doesn't have an airstrip from which it could deploy transport aircraft from.

Of course, it could still have some uses to help with an evacuation but their Djibouti base is different in scale to the US base there. All of which is to say if an air bridge is part of their evacuation contingency they'll probably need the cooperation of another nation in the region to ferry their personnel from.

It would more likely be a ship evacuation wouldn’t it? I don’t think there has been any official numbers on how many civilians are from China but the US is looking to get something like 70 people. Even if China had access to an airstrip in Djibouti then they still need access to an airport in Sudan (not safe) if there is hundreds or thousands of civilians. The Americans are only getting a few dozen people out.
 

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It would more likely be a ship evacuation wouldn’t it? I don’t think there has been any official numbers on how many civilians are from China but the US is looking to get something like 70 people. Even if China had access to an airstrip in Djibouti then they still need access to an airport in Sudan (not safe) if there is hundreds or thousands of civilians. The Americans are only getting a few dozen people out.

As I said above, the geography in Sudan may be less amenable to a practical seaborne evacuation than the evacuation from Yemen was in the mid 2010s
 

Stierlitz

Junior Member
Registered Member
Deputy spokesperson for the US State Department, Vedant Patel, affirmed on 20 April that Washington believes Syria should not be allowed to be readmitted into the Arab League, despite several West Asian countries currently in the process of normalizing relations with Damascus following the Iran-Saudi reconciliation.

Patel said during a press conference: “We do not believe Syria deserves to be readmitted to the Arab League at this time.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Breadbox

Junior Member
Registered Member
When do we get an Elon react stickie?


Despite outcry,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

  • Republicans claim that the project is a front for a CCP plot. “Ground Zero; The Communist Take-Over In Michigan.”
  • Senators reference everything from the Chinese “spy balloon” to a COVID-19 “coverup” by the CCP, fentanyl production for Mexican cartels and Taiwan military training in Michigan.
  • Local officials say they have denied accusations that the company would spread Communism, bring in thousands of Chinese workers and hide ballistic missiles in its factory.
  • “Despite what any current politicians might say, there is no communist plot within Gotion.” said the company’s vice president.
Anyone stupid enough to trust the Anglos with their investments deserve to lose alot more than just their money, it is one thing to be robbed while walking down the streets that used to be crime free, it's another thing to insist on hanging out in the den of habitual bandits, drug addicts and murderers while pretending to be one of them. I have no sympathy for those who insist on doing the latter.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Speaking of which, here's a brief exchange between Wang Wenbin and a journalist during a MOFA press conference on the situation in Sudan, 4 days ago:
A reporter asked a question: We learned that after the armed conflict in Sudan, the director and a teacher of the Chinese Confucius Institute were held by soldiers at gunpoint and have been rescued. What kind of protection measures will China provide for Chinese nationals and Chinese institutions in Sudan? Will there be a plan to evacuate Chinese nationals (in Sudan)?
Wang Wenbin: On April 15, clashes between armed forces broke out in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, and many other places, and the local security situation was serious. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately launched the emergency mechanism of consular protection and instructed the embassy in Sudan to make every effort to protect the safety of Chinese citizens and institutions in Sudan. The embassy in Sudan issued security tips to Chinese citizens in Sudan, contacted Chinese institutions in Sudan, verified the security situation of Chinese personnel and institutions, instructed to strengthen precautions, and provided assistance to Chinese citizens in need. In view of the current situation in Sudan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Embassy in Sudan reminded Chinese citizens not to travel to Sudan in the near future, and asked citizens already in Sudan to pay close attention to the development of the situation, not to go out, to strengthen precautions and emergency preparedness, and to report personal information to the Embassy as soon as possible, and to report to the police in case of emergency and contact the Embassy in Sudan for help.

After learning the news that two teachers from the Confucius Institute at the University of Khartoum were trapped, the Embassy in Sudan firstly handled the emergency situation and closely communicated and coordinated with the relevant parties in Sudan. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Embassy in Sudan will continue to follow the development of the local situation and make every effort to maintain the safety of Chinese citizens and institutions in Sudan.

Sounds like a rather SOP-style reply. No mention of any plans for the evacuation of Chinese nationals in Sudan either...

Anyways, talking about possible plans for evacuation of Chinese nationals from Sudan:
China's base in Djibouti however doesn't have an airstrip from which it could deploy transport aircraft from.

Of course, it could still have some uses to help with an evacuation but their Djibouti base is different in scale to the US base there. All of which is to say if an air bridge is part of their evacuation contingency they'll probably need the cooperation of another nation in the region to ferry their personnel from.
It would more likely be a ship evacuation wouldn’t it? I don’t think there has been any official numbers on how many civilians are from China but the US is looking to get something like 70 people. Even if China had access to an airstrip in Djibouti then they still need access to an airport in Sudan (not safe) if there is hundreds or thousands of civilians. The Americans are only getting a few dozen people out.
I don't think that the issue of PLA base in Djibouti not having a proper runway for Y-9 and Y-20 to operate from is really critical at this point, TBH.

Djibouti City near the PLA base has an international airport with a runway that is capable of operating Boeing 747s, so PLAAF Y-20s and Y-9s definitely can operate from there, once permission is obtained from the airport authority there.

Otherwise, China does have cordial relations with neighboring countries in the region, including Egypt, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. The PLAAF certainly can request permission to use their runways for any potential evacuation operations from Sudan.

With that question dealt with, now the main issue lies with how China should evacuate Chinese nationals from Sudan. Here's the latest development of the civil war situation in Sudan:
2023_Sudan_clashes.svg.png
Red is Sudanese government military, green is RSF.

Unlike Yemen, Sudan's capital Khartoum is located pretty far from the Red Sea coast. The regions within and around Khartoum is highly unstable at the moment, while the Khartoum International Airport has been rendered unusable due to military actions between warring parties in Sudan.

That leaves two options:

Option 1 - A daredevil operation for Y-9s and/or Y-20s to land on unpaved surfaces/hurriedly-prepared airstrips immediately outside Khartoum, receive Chinese nationals onboard before quickly taking off again for allied airports and/or airbases in neighboring countries; or

Option 2 - An evacuation from a stable port-of-departure city within or outside of Sudan following land-based evacuation from Khartoum.

Option 1 could be too risky due to uncertain war developments in the area, therefore Option 2 seems to be the only option. For Option 2, the port city of Port Sudan (with a few seaports and a regional airport) would be a candid choice. This means a secure land corridor must be established from Khartoum to Port Sudan (a 12-hour drive) that would allow foreign nationals to flee through.

However, there are two lucky circumstances as of now:

1. Port Sudan located on the Red Sea coast is still fully under Sudan government military control. That means the seaports and regional airport in Port Sudan should still be fully accessible for evacuation purposes.

2. There are two routes leading from Khartoum to Port Sudan that are fully under Sudanese government military control. That means it is still possible for foreign nationals to flee from Khartoum to Port Sudan while avoiding the frontlines.

Therefore, the key objective right now is to secure a safe path for Chinese nationals to get the hell out of Khartoum, which would certainly require efforts on the diplomatic front. A ceasefire (even if temporary) between the two warring sides, and/or a secure land corridor that neither warring side can touch upon must be negotiated in order for this to happen.
 
Last edited:

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
LOL... don't provoke those Korean dog meat farmers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Owners of dog meat farms slam first lady

Posted : 2023-04-21 17:01

Updated : 2023-04-22 14:40

First lady Kim Keon Hee faces criticism from a group representing dog meat farm owners for her recent remarks calling for an end to the country's contentious culture of eating dogs.

The group claimed Kim, who is neither a president nor a lawmaker, should maintain neutrality as the role of the first lady is supporting the president.

"Siding with animal rights groups, which are interest groups, and calling for banning dog meat consumption is obvious political activity that exceeds her authority," the group said in its statement, Thursday.

The comments came as Kim vowed to work to ban dog meat consumption within the tenure of the Yoon Suk Yeol government.

"I will try to put an end to dog meat consumption before the tenure of this government ends. I think that is my duty," she said during her luncheon with officials from animal rights groups, including Kara, on April 12.

After the remarks were reported through the media, both ruling and opposition parties appeared to support Kim.

Rep. Tae Yong-ho of the ruling People Power Party proposed a bill outlawing the butchery and sale of dog and cat meat on April 14. A day earlier, Rep. Kim Min-seok, the chief policymaker of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea, also said his party will push to enact a special law banning dog meat consumption.

The owners said the rival parties as well as the first lady are neglecting people working in the dog meat industry, claiming that their remarks and action are an attempt to woo voters at a time when increasing numbers of people are living with companion animals in the country.

The group said banning dog consumption simply because an increasing number of people hate that culture is illogical.

"By that logic, if an increasing number of people hate Buddhism or Christianity, then the government can remove that religion," the group said. "Different religions coexist in this country. The Constitution also bans majorities from curtailing the liberties of minorities. Talking about social consensus only for dog meat is against the Constitution."

The group said it will hold a press conference in front of the presidential office in Yongsan next Tuesday to criticize the first lady for attempting to "take people's rights to eat away."

The first lady has openly supported a ban on all types of dog meat consumption.

During her interview with a vernacular newspaper in June last year, she said Korea and China are the only countries among big economies where people eat dog meat.

At the time, she said the issue can be solved through policies by, for example, supporting people working in the dog meat industry to change jobs.

President Yoon, who once said eating dogs was a matter of personal choice, later changed his position and pledged to work to ban dog meat consumption during his election campaigning.

While societal attitudes towards animals are shifting in modern Korea and with a high proportion of the population keeping dogs as domestic pets, the country's infamous dog farms and dog meat restaurants are still operating.
 
Top