Any war scenario between Ukraine and Russia would undoubtedly imperil European energy security. Existing energy supplies in the region are still not enough, filling only 38 per cent of Europe's storage capacity, according to Gas Infrastructure Europe. But the shortfall compared with previous winters is narrowing, and prices are retreating from record highs. Against this background, the emir of Qatar was invited by US President Biden to the White House this week to discuss opportunities for the country to adequately supply liquified natural gas (LNG) to Europe.

Speaking alongside Qatari leader Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad during the Oval Office meeting on Monday, President Biden designated Qatar a "major non-NATO ally", thus putting it in a top-tier position of US security partners who are not NATO members. This, it seems, would be a well-earned status if Qatar were to address Europe's energy security needs in a time of acute crisis.

In the event of such a short-term solution, some of the long-term Qatari LNG buyers will need to be willing to divert shipments to Europe. The government in Doha would prefer that any diversion requests come directly from the US to buyers.

Comparably, seeking Qatar's support for future supplies, should the energy crisis in Europe worsen, is a major geo-economic step to mitigate in the wake of Russian aggression on Ukraine. "No discussions have taken place… this has not happened," QatarEnergy Chief and Minister of State for Energy Saad Al-Kaabi told Reuters.

According to an Atlantic Council report, Qatar sells most of its LNG to Asia on long-term oil-indexed contracts. Therefore, it is important to ask, will Qatar approach its Asian customers over diverting gas supplies to Europe? At present, this seems unlikely, and most Europeans can expect a limited increase of gas from the Gulf state.

Minister Al-Kaabi has already made it clear that if Russia cuts its supply to Europe, no one country will be able to fill the gap. This statement shows that Qatar is still in the stages of finalising the selection of its commercial partners for the upcoming trade. It is still having discussions with client countries to supply gas and would not name the selected buyers, apart from the UK.

In late 2021, following COP26, Qatar rerouted four LNG tankers to the UK to assist with the energy shortage. Additionally, LNG relations between the two nations go back to former UK Prime Minister Theresa May's term in office. In 2008, Britain received the first LNG ships from a dock at the South Hook terminal near Milford Haven, one of Europe's largest LNG terminals, which Qatar owns. Qatar invested in the UK with the launch of LNG terminals, being the majority owner of South Hook LNG terminal in Wales. Meanwhile, the UK's energy and services company Centrica has a long-term Qatari LNG import agreement for delivery into the Isle of Grain terminal. Therefore, it is most likely that Qatar's LNG diplomacy in the UK might end Britain's energy supply crisis, regardless of what happens in Europe.

On the other hand, despite the worsening energy crisis in Europe, Germany is preparing to apply sanctions on Russia. In the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany would be forced to halt the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, within the context of the European Union (EU)'s political or military sanction strategy. This scenario would further intensify Europe's energy crisis. However, the EU is just one stakeholder of this Nord Stream project signed during Angela Merkel's period. As such, Russia can bargain with other parties to protect its own interest.

Seemingly, luck is not a long-term strategy for energy security in Europe. It is clear that Putin's gas weaponisation tactics and Europe's clumsy mistakes regarding energy prices could harm Europe's energy security. The US and Europe will need to convince Qatar's LNG clients to reroute some supplies to Europe, as any deal struck between the emir and the Biden administration relies on the willingness of client countries to reroute, as well as the availability of unallocated LNG.

Ultimately, the US will have to compensate Qatar and its client countries. This might be tough, but it is possible to some extent, as Qatar did reroute its LNG supplies in 2011, prioritising Japan after the tsunami of that year. It may just be able to keep some parts of Europe warm if war does break out between Russia and Ukraine.

(This article was first published by Middle East Monitor in London, on 5 February 2022)

About the Author

Elif Selin Calik is a Research Fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues (Afrasid).  She holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).  She is a regular contributor to publications like TRT World, Daily Sabah, Rising Powers in Global Governance and Hurriyet Daily News. She was one of the founders of the In-Depth News Department of Anadolu News Agency. 

Global Covid-19 politics appear to have awakened Africa’s liberation spirit: the continent’s leaders and citizens are united in their censure of the West’s response to the Omicron strain as an “African variant”.

African leaders have used strong terms – “travel apartheid”, “unscientific”, “discriminatory” and “unjust” among them – to condemn travel bans instituted by some developed countries after the strain was identified and flagged by South African scientists on 24 November 2021.

What particularly incensed African countries was that blanket bans came at a time when Covid numbers were far higher in parts of Europe than in any African country. In early December, the UK was registering more than 50 000 new cases a day, while the figure was 6400 in South Africa, only 19 in Botswana and a paltry 16 in Malawi.

The fast-spreading variant emerged quickly around the world but, despite it being detected in more than 40 countries (among them the US, the UK, and swathes of both Asia and Europe) in the days after South Africa’s announcement, only travel to and from the African continent was restricted.

Dr Akinwumi Adesina, President of the African Development Bank, summarised many people’s complaints when he tweeted on December 6: “Now that omicron has been found in many non-African and developed countries, why are travels from those countries not banned? Why single out African countries? Singling out African countries is very unfair, non-scientific and discriminatory. Lift bans on African countries!”

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa slammed the travel restrictions on his and other African countries as “unscientific and discriminatory”. He also suggested that South Africa was being punished for discovering the variant.

“We in the South have proven that we’ve got the scientific capability to identify a very threatening variant of Covid-19. It is out of our transparency and our responsibility to the world to demonstrate that we’ve found this variant, and we least expected to be punished by the various countries for what we have disclosed very transparently,” said Ramaphosa.

Speaking to Afrasid, leading South African analyst and academic Professor Somadoda Fikeni echoed Ramaphosa’s sentiments, saying South Africa and its scientists deserved praise, not censure, for having swiftly alerted the world about the Omicron variant.

“South African scientists have done excellent work in discovering this variant early and alerting the world to it,” Fikeni said. “Remember, China was heavily criticised for being perceived as slow in telling the world about this disease.”

“I view (travel bans and related censure) as unjust and a mirror of the West’s prejudice to have reacted in that manner to a global pandemic,” he said.

Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi, in a televised national address, pointed out that travel bans defeated the spirit of multilateral cooperation needed for dealing with the pandemic.

“The decision to ban our citizens from travelling to certain countries was hastily made and is not only unfair but is also unjustified. While remaining confident that reason and logic will prevail, the harshness of the decision has the effect of shaking our belief in the sincerity of declared friendship and commitment of equality and economic prosperity for us,” Masisi said.

It wasn’t just African leaders who questioned the wisdom and logic of travel bans. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said: “What's unacceptable is to have one part of the world — one of the most vulnerable parts of the world economy — condemned to a lockout when they were the ones that revealed the existence of a new variant that, by the way, already existed in other parts of the world, including in Europe, as we know.”

He acknowledged that the disease was highly transmissible but pointed out that border closures would not magically keep it at bay: “We have the instruments to have safe travel. Let's use those instruments to avoid this kind of, allow me to say — travel apartheid — which I think is unacceptable.”

The World Health Organisation’s Director, Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, was another powerful voice against travel bans and took aim at how some European media organisations reported on the variant.

In a tweet after a Spanish newspaper published a racist cartoon about African people bringing the variant to the rest of the world, Ghebreyesus said: “It pains me that shows of racism like this still plague the challenges facing the world today. Caricaturing people crammed in a boat bringing a virus to Europe is disgusting. We can only advance, as one community, by promoting solidarity, not stigma.”

South African analyst Fikeni suggested to Afrasid that the prejudiced reaction of many countries towards Africa should not be viewed entirely negatively.

“It is a wake-up call,” he said.

“There are many African leaders that lived under the illusion that the solution to African problems lay in the West. I am glad this disease has shown that Africans should look for answers to their problems within themselves. Firstly, Africa was side-lined when it came to vaccine distribution and now their economies have suffered from being painted as the face of the omicron virus.”

And he is adamant that Africa’s scientists should continue to behave openly and honestly.

“There are already positive responses to Africa reporting omicron early. Transparency should always lead because early warnings help countries to mitigate the devastation of the disease.”

“I know there are some, especially those in the tourism sector, that believe African scientists should in the future keep information about new diseases they discover secret. This is near impossible because our scientists are in the labs with Europeans working together. I think African countries will continue to share information about the disease with the world. It is the right thing to do.”

About the author

Phathisani Moyo is a research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues (Afrasid).  He is a communication strategist at International Trade Centre (ITC).  He has worked for a number of media organisations and has served at various levels including as the news editor for The Star newspaper in South Africa. He holds a Honours degree in political science and administration from the University of Zimbabwe. 

The UK based Uighurs Tribunal ruled on 7th December 2021 that China “committed genocide” against the Uighurs and other ethnic Muslim minorities in the country’s Xinjiang province. The report concludes that China’s President Xi Jinping, Xinjiang Autonomous Region’s Communist Party, Secretary Chen Quanguo as well as other People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) senior officials bear “primary responsibility for brutal acts in Xinjiang. The tribunal is chaired by a prominent British Barrister, Sir Geoffrey Nice. Many human rights organisations have in the past reached similar conclusions on the issue, including the Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASP), United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales. The World Uyghur Congress (WUC) leader Dolkun Isa told the BBC that the tribunal’s judgment represented a “historic day” for the Uighur people.

Xinjiang is located in the north-western region of China close to Central Asia and home to about 11 million Uighurs. It makes up one-sixth of China’s landmass and borders eight countries, including Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan.

Over two million Uighur people and other Muslims, including ethnic Kazakhs and Uzbeks, have been detained by China’s government in Xinjiang since April 2017. The Tribunal on Uighurs is made up of lawyers and academics. It received testimonies from more than 70 witnesses during its June and September 2021 hearings’ in London and consulted hundreds of pages of documentary evidence. The evidence received details incidences of mass internments, family separation, sterilizations, sexual violence, forced labours and destructions of cultural cites by the government of China. According to The US State Department, China’s government kept more than two million Uighur and other Muslim minorities in detention centres without charge.

President Joe Biden responded swiftly to the report by signing a bill banning goods from China’s Xinjiang region. The US House of Representatives’ passed the “Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act” by an overwhelming of 428–1. This was the second action by the US on China in this regard. In March 2021, the US government, the European Union, Canada and the UK announced sanctions on Chinese government over human rights violations in Xinjiang. On 06 December 2021 the US announced that it would not send official US delegation to the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics because of “ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang”. However, US’s athletes will still be allowed to compete in Beijing. It is not only the US that is exerting pressure on China, the UN have also demanded access to the camps. The European Union (EU) has called on China to respect religious freedom. Moreover, parliament in the Netherlands passed a non-binding motions to use the genocide label when referring to events in Xinjiang.

The US ban on Chinese goods has angered Beijing. China’s Ministry of Commerce described the US’s ban as “economic bullying”. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian meanwhile has called the tribunal a “pure anti-China farce.” China has denied the human rights abuses in Xinjiang, it insists that the detention centres are “vocational training centres” designed to stamp out religious extremism and terrorism. Consequently, China has responded to the report by issuing sanctions against Sir Nice and several British individuals.

In March 2020, The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) identified 83 foreign and Chinese companies which have allegedly directly or indirectly benefited from the forced labour of the Uighurs. Included in the 83 companies identified are 11 Japanese companies, subsequently pressure has been exerted on Japan to stop doing business in Xinjinag.  Meanwhile, Turkish born National Basketball Association (NBA) player at Boston Celtics, Enes Kanter, joined calls for boycott of Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games due to take place in February 2022. Kanter has called on Nike’s co-founder Phil Knight to reconsider the company’s business with China.

The plight of the Uighurs will be at the centre of the US’s ongoing economic war with China. Multinational companies doing business with China will soon find themselves in a predicament. The US Department of Commerce has already blacklisted 67 Chinese companies and other entities for their alleged involvement in the abuse of the Uighurs. China’s business relations have also worsened in Europe. The European Parliament froze an investment agreement with China insisting on the country to lift sanctions on European Union politicians who are currently under China’s sanctions.

In conclusion, Xi Jinping’s hard-line politics on Uighurs will continue to isolate China, a country that has become the factory of the world for the past four decades. The pressure on China from the US, the Europeans and others will certainly impact on China’s economic growth. Moreover, China’s continued criticism on its treatment of the Uighurs will also impact on its socio-political standing around the world.

About the author

Turkmen Terzi is a research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues (Afrasid) and a Turkish foreign journalist based in Johannesburg, South Africa. He reports on Southern Africa and Turkish politics. He holds a Master’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Johannesburg. He is a contributor to an online publication www.Turkishminute.com. He serves on the board of Foreign Correspondents Association of Southern Africa.  

Egypt has reached an agreement with Lebanon to export natural gas to the country in the first quarter of 2022.

The agreement was announced to the to the public by the US State Department's senior advisor for global energy security, Amos Hochstein.  The announcement was a clear indication that the plan was essentially a US construct, a measure designed to decrease the impact of Lebanon's economic free-fall.

Apart from an overarching dominance of Hezbollah, whose prolonged regional wars have stifled economic growth, Lebanon's latest political nightmare has been further exacerbated by the energy and electricity crisis.  The state owned electric company, Electricité du Liban, has been overwhelmed.  There has been a complete shutdown of the country's electricity grid after two main power stations ran out of fuel.

According to Bel Trew, a Beirut-based journalist, “Lebanon has zero state power,  the entire country is running on private generators.  The generators are prohibitively expensive; my last month's bill was 3.75 million Lira which is $2,500 on official rate and about $250 on the black market. How is the airport running? What about hospitals?".

Whilst Lebanon continues to experience the energy crisis, it is also engaged in a bitter dispute with Israel over the East Mediterranean's energy reserves.  Attempts to resolve the maritime border dispute between Lebanon and Israel are in a state of constant flux.  In 2019, Lebanon refused to sign the East Mediterranean Forum Agreement sponsored by Israel.  On the other hand, US is one of the main sponsors of the proposed gas pump from Egypt.  This has given rise to a number of questions regarding the US’s power broking role in the region, particularly in forcing Lebanon into negotiations with Israel on East Mediterranean maritime boarder dispute.  The unwillingness of Lebanon to enter into discussions with Israel on East Mediterranean energy reserves is because the country is still technically at war with Israel.

The US, it appears, is prepared to help Lebanon in return for certain political benefits.  Ultimately, the US’s assistance to Lebanon will benefit Israel by providing a soft landing in the negotiations with Lebanon on East Mediterranean maritime boarder dispute.  Second, it is likely to increase political influence of the US in Lebanon.  For the US, it is also vital to support the "wave of normalisation" between Israel and Arab states, Lebanon being one of the Arab states.  Last September, when Ambassador Dorothy Shea met with the energy ministers of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, she said “her country had a plan through which Washington would facilitate energy payments to Cairo, on behalf of Beirut, using World Bank assistance funds budgeted for Lebanon”.  After that statement was made, President Michel Aoun of Lebanon, boasted that “Lebanon's electricity crisis was soon coming to an end”.  Third and most important,  the easing of energy problems in Lebanon will certainly ease economic difficulties, which could mean strengthening of relations between Lebanon and Egypt and importantly improved political imagery of the US not only in Lebanon but also in the region.   

Syria will also benefit from the agreement.  According to the agreement, Egyptian natural gas pipeline to Lebanon will via through Jordan and Syria.  This will assist to alleviate electricity output challenges of all countries concerned.  Furthermore, the agreement could further facilitate easing of tensions between the government of Lebanon and Syria.  The flip side is that Hezbollah, Syria’s closest ally, in Lebanon could gain additional power in the country’s politics.  In conclusion, by using the electricity crisis as a tool of conflict resolution, Washington stands to gain a huge mediating role between Israel and Lebanon not only in the East Mediterranean energy dispute, also in other areas of disagreements.  Secondly, the inclusion of Syria in the process would in effect recognise and grant support to Assad’s regime.  Lest we forget, Syria under the presidency of Bashar al Assad, is responsible for killing more than 500,000 people during in the last 11 years.

(This article was first published by the Middle East Monitor on 25 December 2021)

 About the Author

Elif Selin Calik is a Research Fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues (Afrasid).  She holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).  She is a regular contributor to publications like TRT World, Daily Sabah, Rising Powers in Global Governance and Hurriyet Daily News. She was one of the founders of the In-Depth News Department of Anadolu News Agency. 

Abstract

In late August 2021, a document appeared on social media that queried the state of mind and political ideology of “non-heterosexual” students at a large Shanghai university (1). The document, labelled as a campus survey, asked colleges to “investigate and research” “relevant information” about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) students (2). It did not explain what this “relevant information”; was however, based on a crackdown of campus groups and organisations supporting the LGBTQ+ community, the “survey” caused widespread outrage and alarm, especially among young people (3). 

China’s LGBTQ+ community faces ever-more social discrimination and marginalisation in President Xi Jinping’s “new China” (4). The existence of the list is yet another grim instance of this. This report aims to observe the political and social landscape of the Chinese LGBTQ+ community. It will touch on the publication of the list. Additionally, the social and political opinions of the LGBTQ+ community and the history of the LGBTQ+ community in China shall be explored. Finally, it will consider the threat that the government’s agenda poses to the community. 

Introduction 

In late August 2021 a document posted on Weibo (Chinese Twitter) exposed a leading Shanghai university for asking for the political stance, social constraints and mental health status of its students (5). The institution is alleged to be Shanghai University, which has more than 55 000 students across three campuses and 30 schools (6). It was founded in 1922 and is one of China’s key higher education institutions (7). The institution was rumoured to be making a list of “non-heterosexual students” and LGBTQ+ rainbow groups (8) that contained unspecified “relevant information”. Additionally, the list asked colleges to “investigate and research” students.

This is a worrying turn. China is believed (9) to have the world’s largest LGBTQ+ population (which makes sense given that it has the world’s largest population – 1.4 billion people).

But this is not, by and large, an “out and proud” community. It is widely invisible and has faced mounting marginalisation, discrimination and stigmatisation (10). Previously, the LGBTQ+ community flourished in an increasingly accepting and growing home base on university campuses. However, the exposure of the list, coupled with the unprovoked blocking and deletion of dozens of pro-LGBTQ+ student social media accounts in July on Weibo, has raised concerns that students may increasingly be targeted (11). The deletion of these social media accounts, most with tens of thousands of followers, and the blocking and deactivation of registered LGBTQ+ “clubs and unofficial grassroots groups” on WeChat (12), points to growing intolerance by Chinese authorities of sex and gender nonconformists - especially those involved in activism (13).

It is not yet clear what the list was really about. Shanghai University has not officially responded to the public outcry; some speculate that the list was a poorly executed demographic study (14). However, most do not seem to believe it is innocent. The fear is real.

The lack of public acceptance and mistreatment of the LGBTQ+ community

In the first version of the 1978 Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD-1), homosexuality was deemed a sexual disorder (15). In 2001, in the third edition of the CCMA (CCMA-3), homosexuality and bisexuality were removed from the list of medical disorders (16). However, stigma and discrimination remain. The Chinese view of the LGBTQ+ community is majorly determined by cultural context (17). Chinese culture places great emphasis on “obeying the laws of nature”, an ideology influenced by historical Confucianism (18). The Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong, meaning “average” or “ordinary” in Confucianism) alludes to one conforming to the gender and sexual orientation widely accepted by the majority (19, 20).

Additionally, China is a collectivist society: great importance is placed on the acceptance and opinion of both society and family (21). A person who identifies as LGBTQ+ in a nation dominated by the values of family honour, dignity and reputation, may project a sense of shame onto one's family. Families may, thereafter, be subject to vicious gossip and stigmatisation. Ridicule and discrimination are not placed solely on sex and gender minorities, but on their parents too. Parents of people in the LGBTQ+ community face the harsh lens of public scrutiny and are often criticised for having not raised their children to uphold their duty to continue the family line (22). This has become even more the case since recent amendments to the country’s 1-child policy, which have placed greater emphasis on having children naturally (23). 

Although the CCMD-3 removed homosexuality and bisexuality from the list of medical disorders, it retained a category called “ego-dystonic homosexual” (24). This categorical loophole, not found in the World Health Organization’s 10th edition of the International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, is coined for those unable to accept their same-sex attraction (25). This “diagnosis” allows for “treatment” by education and health sectors that still refer to homosexuality as a perversion (26). “Treatments” conducted by biased psychiatrists and psychotherapists include various forms of conversion therapy (27), including alleged shock treatments. 

Chinese work culture is often described as arduous, time-consuming and incredibly competitive. Women, alarmingly, are known to face blunt, invasive discrimination tactics like unfair dismissals during pregnancy and workplace harassment. The LGBTQ+ community faces similar discrimination at work - but without any potential backing or aid from the law. Quite simply, relevant labour laws do not contain non-discriminate provisions for sexual orientation or gender identity (28). People in the workplace may face discrimination based on their clothing (29), hair or mannerisms; essentially, they will be discriminated against if they’re perceived not to conform to gender “norms” or if they deviate from traditional gender expression. According to Chinese labour laws, post-operation transgender people are entitled to update their gender identity on household registration forms or identity cards but may not update academic records or other crucial documents (30). This disconnect between documents may cause employers to distrust or discredit potential transgender employees.

Of the 40 to 70 million Chinese people who identify as LGBTQ+ (31), none have the legal backing of the government or law. Some speculate that modernisation and economic development will breed tolerant attitudes towards sexual and gender minorities; most, however, are cynical. Gay marriage in China is still illegal, which has far-reaching implications. For example, foreign partners are not entitled to receive spousal visas, inheritance, child custody, hospital visitation rights or social welfare (32).

About 95% of China’s population are mobile internet users. In June 2017, the official Chinese Netcasting Services Association (CNSA) published a new regulation concerning online broadcasting. This is being used to tighten political and administrative internet control and access to mass media broadcasting (33). The LGBTQ+ community is incredibly critical of these new regulations because they describe homosexuality and bisexuality as abnormal sexual relationships (34). The new rules prohibit the posting of or commenting on stories about homosexuality – and, in the broader sense, the LGBTQ+ community as a whole (35). Other regulations, such as those posted in May 2017 by the Cyberspace Administration of China, have also been criticised as discriminating against the LBGTQ+ community.

 The second cultural revolution 

Xi’s “new China” is completely intolerable to those who do not conform. It is speculated that Beijing's disdain for pro-LGBTQ+ civil groups is because they exist and operate outside of the government’s spectrum of control and may be privy to “foreign influence” (36). State reforms, coupled with the new internet crackdown measures initiated by the government, have left the atmosphere for the LGBTQ+ community increasingly bleak. Shanghai Pride, China’s sole major annual celebration of sexual minorities, was suddenly cancelled last year, although Covid was used as an excuse, the cancellation of the event was oddly too convenient. The shutdown of the event comes after increasing pressure by public officials (37).

Intriguingly, it appears the Chinese public has little problem with the LGBTQ+ community: a study by BMC Public Health found that heterosexual people had an 11.1% rejection rate for familial relationships and a 2.1 - 4.1% rejection rate of social relationships with the LGBTQ+ community (38). So, what is the government’s problem?

It seems clear that President Xi Jinping’s “new China” means conforming at all costs (39). He has incited a neo-cultural revolution that has already hit the education, health and gaming spheres (40). It closely resembles the first Cultural Revolution under Mao: but, instead of political opponents and capitalists being weeded out (41), the LGBTQ+ community and their allies are in the crosshairs. The Common Prosperity doctrine, aimed at decreasing the ever-widening Chinese wealth gap, may reverse decades of strengthening acceptance and would spell disaster for the LGBTQ+ community (42). Following the deletion of numerous social media accounts, comments in favour of the shutdowns were allowed to be posted without hindrance, which shows that Beijing is willing to allow a homophobic discourse (43). 

According to the Chinese Ministry of Education, China is facing a male feminisation problem; an overabundance of “sissy boys” (44). The effeminate male has become the trademark scapegoat for Chinese underdevelopment. The effeminate male, characterised by a slim figure and amazing makeup, may commonly be seen in grossly popular boy bands and drama shows (45). In December 2020, when outlining the strategies to overcome the perceived “sissy boy problem”, the Ministry of Education referenced a 2015 book by Zheng Tiantian titled Tongzhi Living, which linked manhood to the crisis of the nation-state (46). In responding to a proposal by businessman and Chinese People’s Political Consultative member, Si Zeifu, who sought to prevent the further feminisation of male adolescents (47), it was implied that if men are not fit, strong and macho, China itself may become weaker. Correlation and emphasis are placed on the economic development of China and the role of men in society (48). The government fears that “sissy boys”, including gamers and book worms, degrade the value of Chinese society, and as a result, the nation’s growth and prosperity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the LGBTQ+ community comes from a long history of medical, social and cultural hardship. Its members are hounded by traditional dogma and historical ideology. The introduction of the 1-child policy and now the 3-child policy has done little to ease the load and discrimination faced by non-conformists. The revision of medical categories in the CCMD had little to no effect on the progression of the LGBTQ+ community; it has, instead, worsened perceived public opinion. The publication of the controversial list on Weibo highlighted the ever-encroaching expanse of the Chinese government into social spheres. It appears the Chinese government is trying to stifle the community by controlling the spread and production of information.

Reference list

• Ni, V., Davidson, H. 2021. Chinese university appears to ask for list of LGBQ+ students for investigation. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/29/chinese-university-appears-to-ask-for-lists-of-lgbtq-students-for-investigation . (Accessed : October 13, 2021).
• Ibid, 1
• Ibid, 1
• Cuplan, T. 2021. China’s Crackdown has a Straight Eye for the Queer Guy. Bloomberg Opinion. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-18/china-s-crackdown-sets-sights-on-lgbtq-citizens-gamers-effeminate-men. (Accessed: October 13, 2021).
• Ibid, 1
• Feng, J. 2021. A Chinee University seems to be making a list of LGBTQ+ No one knows what it will do with the information. SupChina. Available at: https://supchina.com/2021/08/26/a-chinese-university-seems-to-be-making-a-list-of-lgbt-students-no-one-knows-what-it-will-do-with-the-information/ . (Accessed: October 13, 2021).
• Ibid, 6
• Ibid, 6
• Wang, Y., Hu, Z., Peng, K., Rechdan, J., Yang, Y., Wu, L., Xin, Y., Lin, J., Duan, Z., Zhu, X. and Feng, Y., 2020. Mapping out a spectrum of the Chinese public’s discrimination toward the LGBT community: results from a national survey. BMC Public Health. Available at: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08834-y . (Accessed : October 13, 2021).
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 1
• Ni, V., Davidson, H. 2021. Outrage over shutdown of LGBTQ WeChat accounts in China. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/outrage-over-crackdown-on-lgbtq-wechat-accounts-in-china . ( Accessed : October 13, 2021).
• Ibid, 1
• Ibid, 1
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 9
• China LBT Rights Initiative. Available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/CHN/INT_CEDAW_NGO_CHN_16577_O.pdf . (Accessed: October 13, 2021)
• Ibid, 24
• Ibid, 24
• Ibid, 24
• Ibid, 24
• Ibid, 24
• Ibid 24
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 24
• Zang, Z., Li, C. 2017. Online regulations and LGBT rights : A test for China’s legal system. Brookings. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/online-regulations-and-lgbt-rights-a-test-for-chinas-legal-system/ . (Accessed: October 14, 2021).
• Ibid, 33
• Ibid, 33
• Ibid, 4
• Ibid, 1
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 4
• Ibid, 4
• Ibid, 1
• Ibid, 1
• Ibid, 4
• Ibid, 4
• Ibid, 4
• Ibid, 9
• Ibid, 4
• Ibid, 4

About the author

Qhawezo Ayesha Fakude is a Junior Research Fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues (Afrasid).  She holds a Bachelor of Social Science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. She majored in politics and governance, anthropology and sociology.