
Top Chinese general ousted from body that oversees China's military
A top Chinese general has been dismissed from the body that oversees the Chinese military in the latest sign that Xi Jinping's anti-corruption drive has reached the highest echelons of the armed forces.
Miao Hua, a senior admiral from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) navy, was the director of the political work department of the central military commission (CMC), making him responsible for ideology and loyalty within the armed forces. The six-person CMC is one of the most powerful institutions in China and is headed by Xi himself.
On Friday, a statement from the Chinese government confirmed that Miao had been dismissed. He was suspended last year and placed under investigation for 'serious violations of discipline', a byword for corruption. He was expelled from the National People's Congress, China's parliament, in April.
The dismissal makes Miao one of the highest-ranking CMC officials to be purged since the 1960s, and the latest in a rush of senior military figures targeted.
He Weidong, a vice-chair of the CMC, is also reported to be under investigation.
The CMC is the governing body of the PLA, and oversees China's coastguard. Xi is the chair of the CMC, as well as being the leader of China's ruling Communist party (CCP) and the president.
Miao's dismissal reflects the latest ructions in China's armed forces. Beijing is keen to present an image of strength and stability on the world stage. The purges risk disrupting that image, although at a time when global attention is focused on wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, senior personnel changes in China's military may garner less attention.
US-China military dialogue, seen as essential for avoiding accidental conflicts, particularly in the Taiwan strait, have been limited under the presidency of Donald Trump, who has also fired several senior military officials. US military representatives travelled to Shanghai for talks in April, but there have been no public signs of high-ranking meetings.
The US and Chinese defence ministers sometimes meet at the Shangri-la Dialogue, an annual defence forum which was held in Singapore last month. But this year China only sent a small, lower-ranking delegation.
In the past two years, Xi has dismissed two defence ministers, Li Shangfu and Wei Fenghe; two heads of the PLA's rocket force, which is responsible for missiles and the nuclear arsenal, and two senior CMC officials. Senior aerospace and defence business leaders have also been removed from a CCP advisory body.
Many of the recent oustings appear to be related to an investigation into corruption in military procurement. Li, who was dismissed as defence minister in 2023 and expelled from the CCP last year, previously led the equipment procurement department. Several of his associates from the military and the equipment procurement department were also purged.
Miao is the eighth member of the CMC to be ousted since Xi took power in 2012. The expulsion of CMC members was previously unheard of since the era of Mao Zedong.
Xi took power with a promise to root out corruption in China, vowing to come after both the 'tigers and the flies'. Since then, millions of officials have been investigated, and hundreds of thousands reportedly penalised, including high-profile people being expelled or prosecuted.
Having now ruled for more than a decade, however, many of the senior figures coming into the crosshairs of anti-corruption campaigns are people, such as Miao and Li, who Xi had personally appointed, raising questions about his ability to vet important appointments.
One of the most high-profile of Xi's picks to fall was the former foreign minister Qin Gang. Qin disappeared from public view in June 2023, drawing global attention as one of China's most public-facing officials. Speculation that he was under investigation ran rampant until October when Beijing announced he had been removed from his post. No reason was given.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
US attacks on Iran redraw calculus of use of force for allies and rivals around globe
For US allies and rivals around the world, Donald Trump's strikes on Iran have redrawn the calculus of the White House's readiness to use force in the kind of direct interventions that the president said he would make a thing of the past under his isolationist 'America First' foreign policy. From Russia and China to Europe and across the global south, the president's decision to launch the largest strategic bombing strike in US history indicates a White House that is ready to employ force abroad – but reluctantly and under the extremely temperamental and unpredictable leadership of the president. 'Trump being able to act and being willing to act when he saw an opportunity will definitely give [Vladimir] Putin pause,' said Fiona Hill, a former Trump national security adviser and one of the principal authors of the UK's strategic defence review. While Trump has pulled back from his earlier warnings about potential regime change in Iran, going from tweeting 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' to 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' within 72 hours, he has nonetheless reinforced Russian perceptions of the United States as an unpredictable and aggressive rival that will not unilaterally abandon its ability to use force abroad. 'It has some pretty dire warnings for Putin himself about what could happen at a time of weakness,' Hill said. 'It will just convince Putin even more that no matter what the intent of a US president, the capability to destroy is something that has to be taken seriously.' It also shows a shift in the calculus in Washington DC, where hawks – along with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu – were able to convince Trump that launching a strike on Iran was preferable to pursuing negotiations that had not yet failed. That could have knock-on effects for the war in Ukraine, where Republicans and foreign policy hardliners have grown more vocal about Putin's attacks on cities and the need for a tougher sanctions strategy. Although he hasn't changed his policy on resuming military support to Ukraine, Trump is publicly more exasperated with Putin. When Putin offered Trump to mediate between Israel and Iran, Trump said he responded: 'No, I don't need help with Iran. I need help with you.' In the immediate term, however, the strikes on Iran are unlikely to have an impact on Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I don't see it as having a big impact on the Ukraine war, because although Iran was very helpful at the beginning stages in providing Russia with [Shahed] drones, Russia has now started manufacturing their own version and have actually souped them up,' said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, during a roundtable discussion. More broadly, Trump's attacks could undermine a growing 'axis of resistance' including Russia and China, given the pair's reluctance to come to Iran's aid beyond issuing strong condemnations of the attacks during security discussions under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) being held in China this week. 'It also shows that Russia is not a very valuable friend, because they're not really lifting a finger to help their allies in Iran and returning all the help that they've received,' Boot added. The strike could also have implications for China, which has escalated military pressure around Taiwan in recent months and has been holding 'dress rehearsals' for a forced reunification despite US support for the island, according to testimony from Adm Samuel Paparo, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command. Trump had promised a tough line on China, and many of his top advisers are either China hawks or believe that the US military should reposition its forces and focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia in order to manage China as a 'pacing threat'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Yet his previous hesitancy to use US force abroad could have emboldened Beijing to believe that the US would not come to the direct aid of Taiwan if a military conflict would break out – the one wild card in what would otherwise probably be a lopsided conflict between China and Taiwan. Experts cautioned that the stakes were far different, and the conflicts too far removed, to draw direct conclusions about Trump's readiness to intervene if a conflict broke out between China and Taiwan. Trump's administration appears further embroiled in Middle East diplomacy than it wanted and its pivot to focus on China has been delayed as well. And while some close to the military say the strikes have regained credibility lost after some recent setbacks, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan, others have said that it won't send the same message for military planners in Moscow or Beijing. 'We shouldn't conflate willingness to use force in a very low risk situation with deterring other types of conflicts or using force when it's going to be incredibly costly – which is what it would be if we were to come to the defence of Taiwan,' said Dr Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security during an episode of the Defense & Aerospace Air Power podcast. Around the world, US rivals may use the strikes to reinforce the image of the US as an aggressive power that prefers to use force rather than negotiate – a message that may break through with countries already exhausted with a temperamental White House. 'The fact that it all happened so fast, there wasn't much multilateral involvement or chance for diplomacy, I think, is something Russians can point to as an indication of, you know, imperialism to the global south,' said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, a fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings during a conference call. 'But also in their talking points to United States and western allies, they will definitely make a point of highlighting this as something great powers do, and in a way that normalizes Russia's language on its own [conflicts].


Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
Oxfam's Gaza propaganda
An astonishing email from Oxfam, one of Britain's oldest and biggest humanitarian charities, dropped into my inbox this week. Dramatically titled (in blood scarlet) 'Red Lines for Gaza', it demanded that if I am as outraged by the 'horrors that Israel is inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza' as Oxfam is, and I want to do something about it, I should scrawl a red line across the palm of my hand and send the image to the charity. They will then use it to make a striking design for their campaign on the Gaza issue in the coming days. The email simply assumed that I must share Oxfam's one sided, extreme and unbalanced views, and would automatically lend my support to their absurd and sinister propaganda stunt Nowhere in the angry text of the email was there any attempt to explain or explore why there is a conflict in Gaza. There was no mention either of what happened on 7 October 2023. Nor was there any indication that the Strip is controlled by Hamas – an armed jihadist terrorist group banned in Britain, which is sworn to the destruction of Israel and the death of its Jewish citizens. A terrorist group who are still holding more than 50 of the hostages they abducted during their invasion of Israel on that deadly October day. The email simply assumed that I must share Oxfam's one sided, extreme and unbalanced views, and would automatically lend my support to their absurd and sinister propaganda stunt. Oxfam has always been a leftist and anti-western organisation, but it's a swift moral decline when the charity ignores the actions of a ferocious and murderous bunch of terrorists so it can focus on Israel. It is not the only household name to take up the anti-Israel cause this week. On Tuesday, the Co-op food retailer announced it would no longer stock produce from Israel or 16 other countries that it deemed guilty of serious human rights violations. The Co-op claimed it made this move as a result of pressure from their members. I hold a Co-op loyalty card myself – but have never once been asked by them for my views on Israel, Gaza, or any other 'human rights' issue. Like Oxfam, the Co-op is a venerable British institution with deep left-wing roots (it was affiliated with the Labour party and even sponsored many of their MPs), but its open support for one side on such a controversial issue is not what I expect from my grocer, and clearly limits its customers' freedom of choice in selecting what they can and cannot buy from the supermarket chain. International politics and buying toilet tissue should be kept firmly apart. Founded in Oxford in 1942 in the midst of the second world war, Oxfam began life as an initiative by a bunch of bien pensant local Quakers and university academics to bring food to people ravaged by the global conflict. After the war, as it grew into an industry and expanded with branches across the world, Oxfam doubtless did much worthy good work in alleviating hunger in famines and relieving suffering caused by wars, earthquakes, floods and similar natural and manmade catastrophes. But in doing so, the charity conglomerate became drawn away from disaster relief and into politics over issues such as national debt and climate change (inevitably on the 'progressive' leftist side). It also has been embroiled in several scandals, leading to suggestions that the once-upstanding institution had become irredeemably tainted. Oxfam workers in Haiti and Chad were accused of sexual abuse and exploitation of the very people they were supposed to be helping; the charity's higher executives drew obscenely high salaries; and in 2017 Oxfam was fined under the Data Protection Act for misusing private information naively entrusted to them by donors. But in its Gaza propaganda, Oxfam has plumbed new depths. That may give the naturally generous and fair-minded British public second thoughts, the next time they are asked by the charity to reach into their wallets.


Reuters
7 hours ago
- Reuters
South Korea ex-President Yoon probed over failed martial law bid
SEOUL, June 28 (Reuters) - South Korea's former President Yoon Suk Yeol answered a summons on Saturday by a special prosecutor under a threat of another arrest as an investigation intensified over the ousted leader's failed bid to impose martial law in December. Yoon, through his lawyers, has protested the special prosecutor's demands to appear for questioning under media attention as a violation of his rights and a tactic to publicly humiliate him. His lawyers said in a statement Yoon would respond to the investigation on Saturday and tell the truth. They described the investigation as "politically motivated" and "full of falsehood and distortion". Yoon did not answer questions from reporters as he entered the special prosecutor's office. The martial law attempt in December shocked a country that had prided itself on becoming a thriving democracy, having overcome military dictatorship in the 1980s. Yoon was later oustered in April by the Constitutional Court that upheld his impeachment by parliament. The special prosecutor sought a warrant to arrest Yoon for refusing to answer repeated summons earlier, but it was rejected by a court this week on grounds that he has since expressed willingness to cooperate. The special prosecutor was appointed in early June and has launched a team of more than 200 prosecutors and investigators to take over ongoing investigations of Yoon, a former top prosecutor who was elected president in 2022. Yoon is already on trial for leading the December 3 martial law declaration. He had been arrested in January after resisting authorities armed with a court warrant trying to take him into custody, but was released after 52 days on legal technicalities.