How a COVID outbreak in Hong Kong is being managed; a shift in Germany’s position toward China, as it classifies China as a “systemic rival”; a look at relationships in China; Red Star over China author Edgar Snow passed away 50 years ago.
The post News on China | No. 87 first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Gold medallist Nils van der Poel criticises Chinese regime and decision to hold games in Beijing
A Swedish gold medallist has said it was “extremely irresponsible” to hold the Winter Olympics in China because of the government’s human rights record.
Nils van der Poel, a 25-year-old speedskater, made the comments after returning home from the Beijing event, where officials have been at pains to keep politics and protest out despite diplomatic boycotts.
Gold medallist Nils van der Poel criticises Chinese regime and decision to hold games in Beijing
A Swedish gold medallist has said it was “extremely irresponsible” to hold the Winter Olympics in China because of the government’s human rights record.
Nils van der Poel, a 25-year-old speedskater, made the comments after returning home from the Beijing event, where officials have been at pains to keep politics and protest out despite diplomatic boycotts.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
ISHR, the Martin Ennals Foundation and eight other major human rights groups urge in a joint statement the Chinese government to ensure lawyer Yu Wensheng is able to leave Nanjing Prison on March 1st, and freely reunite with his family in Beijing.
The signatory organisations also called in the joint statement for sustained attention on the growing risks and threats his wife, Xu Yan, faces for advocating for his rights and release.
A Laureate of the 2021 Martin Ennals Award, Yu Wensheng is a leading figure among human rights lawyers in China. He has fearlessly taken on a number of sensitive cases and issues, joining litigations on air pollution advocating for a constitutional government. See also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/69fc7057-b583-40c3-b6fa-b8603531248e
For this, the authorities revoked his legal license on 16 January, 2018. Three days later, he was forcibly disappeared, a day after publishing an open letter calling for constitutional reform. He was put on trial in secret on 9 May 2019, but his wife, Xu Yan, was only informed of his four-years jail sentence in June 2020.
Yu Wensheng is expected to leave prison in Nanjing on 1 March 2022, after being detained for 50 months, which should mark the end of his sentence for ‘inciting subversion of State power’. As early as May 2019, UN experts concluded his detention was arbitrary and called on the government to release him. Ever since, a number of government and UN experts have called for his release.
The signatories of the joint statement express grave concern that Yu Wensheng may be put under a de facto home arrest, severely restricted in his movements and communication, and unable to reunite with his family in Beijing.
Human rights lawyers have endured such restrictions upon leaving prison on grounds of a supplemental sentence of ‘deprivation of political rights’, in a phenomenon known as ‘non-release release’. In September 2019, UN experts condemned the use of this practice against lawyer Jiang Tianyong as ‘gratuitously punitive and legally unjustified’.
IThe signatory organisations urge the Chinese authorities to:
You can add your own voice by filling out the form in: https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/on-march-1st-chinese-lawyer-yu-wensheng-must-be-fully-free/
Read the full statement https://ishr.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Joint-NGO-statement-on-YWS_English-1.pdf
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
UK-based Hong Kong Watch says outage could be part of wider Beijing crackdown
The website of a UK-based advocacy group appears to have become inaccessible through some networks in Hong Kong, raising fears of mainland-style internet censorship in the Chinese territory.
The group, Hong Kong Watch, which monitors human rights, said it worried the censorship could be a part of a wider crackdown on freedom of speech under Hong Kong’s national security law, which allows the police to ask service providers to “delete” information or “provide assistance” on national security cases.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
The 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing is here but the U.S. isn’t sending its officials, calling it a “diplomatic boycott.” Meanwhile, host outlet NBC is using every opportunity to bash China and Russia throughout their coverage. Tings Chak explains what the perception of the Olympics has been in China, analyzes the treatment of Eileen Gu, and reacts to the Western coverage. 22-year-old Amir Locke was shot to death by police in the early morning in his apartment in Minneapolis earlier this month, and protests have erupted nationwide. Ottawa truckers have been blocking roads, airports, and border crossings from the U.S. to Canada to protest coronavirus restrictions and vaccine requirements. The United States continues to escalate rhetoric and pressure against Russia, now making plans for the evacuation of Americans in Ukraine if Russia invades. Maryland residents represented their enslaved ancestors in court recently. Tyson Foods has more than doubled their profit this quarter – to $1.12 billion – by raising prices far higher than the wage increases workers have demanded and won.
The post Winter Olympics: Western Reporters Compete For Gold In Fear-Mongering appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
When it comes to the ever ascending techno-economic colossus of China, it is year-round open season in the West for monopoly media and government officials to invoke whatever opprobrium, throw it against the wall and hope it sticks, if not repeat the defamation. Evidence does not matter. It can be cooked up. And the same story can be repeated ad nauseam because if someone hears it often enough, it must be true, … right?
The Beijing-hosted Winter Olympics are happening, and this provided an opportunity for Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai to meet with gathered western media and clarify misconceptions or doubts about her narrative. But that is not how western monopoly media operates. Still she met with two journalists, Sophie Dorgan and Marc Ventouillac, from the French sports newspaper L’Equipe.
The Associated Press notes of the interview that Peng was “prepped and ready to talk for the first time with western media about allegations she made of forced sex with a former top-ranked Communist Party official.” It comes across as saying she would produce canned responses. Given the hullabaloo that exploded after her Weibo social-media post, many people would want to forgo such an interview. But Peng had opened a can of worms with that post, a post she soon after deleted. It was incumbent that she clear the air much more than she had done hitherto. Going into such an interview cold turkey was not in the cards. Besides, it is normal and recommended that athletes prepare for an interview.
AP writes of a “restrictive interview arranged with Chinese Olympic officials.” Isn’t every interview/interaction restricted in some sense? So what was the purpose of the adjective “restricted”? And since it is taking place at the Olympic venue, wouldn’t arrangements best be made by Olympic officials from China? But the AP framing is pointed: behind the scenes, Chinese officials were controlling the process. Does China not have a responsibility to look out for one of its citizens, whether Peng is at fault or not through her own (mis)handling of the situation? There is nothing sinister in this.
One of two L’Equipe journalists, Marc Ventouillac, told AP “he is still unsure if she is free to say and do what she wants.”
“It’s impossible to say,” he said in English. “This interview don’t give proof that there is no problem with Peng Shuai.”
In other words, Ventouillac doesn’t know. How could he know? There is nothing substantial for AP to seize on here.
So instead AP writes,
China’s intent, however, was clear to him [Ventouillac]: By granting the interview as Beijing is hosting the Winter Olympics, it appeared that Chinese officials hope to put the controversy to rest, so it doesn’t pollute the event.
Really? First, how was the Chinese intent clear? Second, when AP writes “it appeared that Chinese officials hope to put the controversy to rest,” the phrasing “it appeared” does not speak to clarity or certainty. It instead appears that the AP is backing down from its stance on Ventouillac’s clarity of Chinese intent. Third, where does the phrase “Chinese officials hope” come from? Did the journalists interview Chinese officials? This was not stated anywhere. If not having spoken to Chinese officials, then how would the French journalists know what Chinese officials were hoping for? This is pure conjecture without any substantiation. Is this journalism?
AP tries a different take:
“It’s a part of communication, propaganda, from the Chinese Olympic Committee,” Ventouillac told The Associated Press on Tuesday, the day after L’Equipe published its exclusive.
More questions are raised by this. What communication was that? Who communicated it? What exactly was stated in the communication? Why is this communication termed propaganda? Is there anything meaningful in this short quotation by AP? If not, then why was it not edited out of the article? It appears that the propaganda is coming from AP.
More supposition follows:
With “an interview to a big European newspaper, they [China] can show: ‘OK, there is no problem with Peng Shuai. See? Journalists (came), they can ask all the questions they wanted.’”
Why not? I don’t think China cares so much about the ruckus stemming from the Weibo post. It is small potatoes compared to allegations of US presidents, current and past, involvement in sexual scandals. But, understandably, Peng would like to clear the air, and China would like to help out an athlete who has been a good ambassador on the tennis court.
However, AP puts a different spin on this:
“It’s important, I think, for the Chinese Olympic committee, for the Communist Party and for many people in China to try to show: ‘No, there is no Peng Shuai affair,’” Ventouillac said.
Speaking of small potatoes, how does a social media faux pas stack up against allegations, patently false though they are, of genocide? If there is nothing more to the issue than a regrettable posting on her social media account that blew up into an international fiasco, then, of course, Peng would like to put the issue to rest.
The Women’s Tennis Association is unconvinced, saying that the L’Equipe interview “does not alleviate any of our concerns” about the allegations she made in November. First, what concern? The AP piece makes it sound like a concern about the allegation and not about the well-being of the player. Second, what concern is an allegation of a crime committed outside the WTA’s jurisdiction to the WTA? Is the WTA an international forensics and prosecutorial agency now? Third, is it any business of the WTA, especially since Peng has stated she wanted to be left in peace?
Simon has two demands: “As we would do with any of our players globally, we have called for a formal investigation into the allegations by the appropriate authorities and an opportunity for the WTA to meet with Peng — privately — to discuss her situation.” We would like to meet privately with Peng. Privately, so she should appear before the WTA brass alone? The WTA is not alone; Simon stated “we.” Why can Peng not bring anyone to accompany her? A lawyer would be a good start. And what if she doesn’t want to meet?
Two other key words here are “would do.” Has the WTA ever acted in such capacity before, beyond words?
When 19-year-old tennis star Jelena Dokic, a victim of parental abuse, asked the WTA to not issue credentials to her parents, the WTA keenly stressed that Dokic’s personal arrangements were “a private matter.”
Nonetheless, although Peng’s matter is public now (and social media is not a medium if you want privacy), are the details of Peng’s matter not private as far as the WTA is concerned?
What did the ATP, the men’s equivalent of the WTA, do when one of its former star players, the phenotypically Black James Blake, was assaulted by a white New York plains clothes officer James Frascatore? I never heard the then ATP president, Chris Kermode, issue any statements of concern for Blake. I am unaware of any ATP calls for a formal investigation into alleged, and subsequently confirmed, police brutality.
Nowadays, German tennis star Alexander Zverev finds himself dogged by allegations of domestic violence made by a former girlfriend. All the ATP has done publicly in this matter is issue new domestic abuse guidelines. I have not heard of ATP concern for the player or the alleged victim.
The WTA has come up with its own framing of the incident. WTA chief executive Steve Simon stated, “Peng took a bold step in publicly coming forth with the accusation that she was sexually assaulted by a senior Chinese government leader.”
That is Simon’s framing. First, was the Weibo post a big step or big mistake by Peng? Second, when you put out a statement, then get it right. Simon’s statement is factually inaccurate. The “senior Government leader” has been retired for a few years. It should have read a former senior vice premier of the State Council. Is Kamala Harris ever called a leader of the United States? Simon has willfully positioned Peng’s paramour, Zhang Gaoli, in the leadership position in China. Had anyone outside of China ever heard of Zhang before Peng’s Weibo post?
Conveniently appearing at the end of the AP piece are the following:
Telling is what was unmentioned in the AP article: that Peng denies an assault as having happened.
Is that clarity? I submit that there remains a question still answered: why did she write of being forced to have sex in the first place? She denies it having been the case, but she put it out there in social media. Hence, the once posted allegation is something that anti-China types can and will latch onto to besmirch the nation.
It is not up to the WTA, ATP, IOC, AP, US, EU, NATO, IMF or whichever entity to force Peng to do anything she is uncomfortable with. She is not a criminal. At worst, she was engaged in thoughtless mischief. If she says it never happened, everyone has to accept her at her word. Peng is the only one who knows with 100 percent certainty her truth. If need be, she knows that there are plenty of people out there who would listen to her story.
Meanwhile in Washington, there is a “leader,” a sitting president with an accusation of sexual assault against him. Tara Reade has never backed down from her allegation against Joe Biden, but the domestic US mass media has given him a pass, belying the two-faced nature of American media when it comes to the alleged malfeasance of American officials versus the allegations of wrongdoing against officials in a state-designation enemy.
The post Western Media Continues to Flog a Dead Anti-China Horse first appeared on Dissident Voice.
COMMENTARY: By John Minto in Christchurch
On December 30, New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade published a tweet condemning the forced closure of two Russian human rights groups, International Memorial and the Memorial Human Rights Centre.
The groups were shut down by the Russian Supreme Court which was enforcing strict laws relating to dealings with “foreign agents”.
In releasing the tweet, the government urged Russia to “live up to its civil and political rights commitments”.
Our government has also been speaking out against human rights abuses in China against the Uighur people, to the extent of facilitating a parliamentary motion condemning the cruel policies of the Chinese government.
Compare the criticism of Russia and China with MFAT’s reaction to Israel’s outrageous attacks on Palestinian human rights groups last October when it declared six of them to be “terrorist” organisations.
The targeted groups (Bisan, Al-Haq, Addameer, Defence for Children International-Palestine, the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees, and the Union of Agricultural Work Committees) typically challenge human rights violations by the Palestinian Authority as well as Israel, both of which routinely detain Palestinian activists.
Israel’s “terrorist” claim against these groups was a blatant attempt to undermine some of the most effective Palestinian civil society organisations, stifle their collective voices, and cut their sources of funding.
Not a peep from MFAT
But not a peep from MFAT. No tweets, no public statements, nothing.
When our Foreign Minister is asked about these things her officials say the government is “very concerned” about developments in the Middle East and “keeping a close watch” on the situation. They say they regularly raise human rights concerns with the Israeli ambassador in meetings with officials.
Heaven only knows what goes on in those meetings but if all human rights abuses by Israel against the Palestinian people were discussed, the Israeli ambassador would be in permanent residence at MFAT.
MFAT gives similar responses when massive human rights abuses are perpetrated against the people of West Papua by the Indonesian Army, which has occupied the territory since 1962. These are discussed behind closed doors, if they are raised at all, with Indonesian officials.
So what’s the difference that results in the Russian and Chinese governments being castigated for human rights abuses but for countries like Indonesia and Israel, there is minimal, if any, public comment?
The awful truth is that our current government has moved New Zealand closer to the US than at any time since the 1980s and MFAT calls out human rights abuses to a US agenda.
If the abuses are perpetrated by enemies of the US, such as in Russia or China, they get a full public blast but if US allies are killing unarmed people protesting the occupation of their country then it’s all hushed up.
Kept ‘in the family’
It’s kept “in the family”, behind closed doors. Martin Luther King’s comment about “the injustice of silence” applies.
Human rights abuses against Palestinians and the people of West Papua continue because countries like New Zealand have self-important ministry officials who think it’s clever to operate a public/private hierarchy of human rights abuses according to US criteria.
Aotearoa New Zealand is complicit in many ongoing human rights abuses through our silence.
Cowardice is another word that comes to mind. It’s not acceptable.
The hypocrisy of the US, and Aotearoa New Zealand’s, position on human rights was laid bare last week when Amnesty International released a 280-page report which concluded that Israel was an apartheid state. US Government officials attacked the report outright without reading it and without challenging any of the report’s substance.
MFAT hasn’t uttered a word
At a Washington press conference, a State Department official was left to try to explain why US Human Rights Reports have quoted extensively from Amnesty International regarding Ethiopia, China, Iran, Burma, Syria and Cuba but reject outright Amnesty’s report on Israel.
Needless to say, MFAT hasn’t uttered a word on the Amnesty report but is busy helping support a webinar intending to “build strategic partnerships in agriculture” with Israel through AgriTech New Zealand. This is deeply embarrassing to this country and MFAT should cancel Aotearoa New Zealand’s involvement in this webinar.
It goes without saying this country should stand against all abuses of human rights in a principled and forthright manner. This won’t happen until the current leadership of MFAT is stood down.
John Minto is a political activist and commentator, and spokesperson for Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. This article was first published by the New Zealand Herald and is republished with the author’s permission.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
It must be a sure handicap to be saddled with such a name when piloting a large government department, but US Secretary of State Antony Blinken shows no sign of that bothering him. It has, however, become a hallmark of a policy that is markedly devoid of foresight and heavily marked by stammering confusion.
On his trip to Australia, Blinken showed us, again, how morality and forced ethics in the international scene can be the stuff of particularly bad pantomime. He sounded, all too often, as an individual sighing about the threats to US power while inflating those of its adversaries. Russia and China were, as they tend to be these days, at the front of the queue of paranoid agitation.
In an interview with The Australian, Blinken was adamant that “there’s little doubt that China’s ambition over time is to be the leading military, economic, diplomatic and political power not just in the region, but in the world.” He admitted that the US had its own version of an “international order” – but that vision was “liberal”. Beijing’s was profoundly inappropriate. “China wants an (international) order, but the difference is its world order would be profoundly illiberal.”
Blinken was also pleased at what he saw on his visit to the University of Melbourne. “My stepfather is an alumnus, so that was wonderful to reconnect, also just to talk to some remarkable young Australians who are really the future of the relationship, the partnership between us – incredibly engaged, incredibly smart, incredibly thoughtful about the present and the future.” And, no doubt, handpicked for the occasion.
Russia’s behaviour was also the subject of the Blinken treatment. Australians, warned the secretary, faced a solemn choice before Moscow’s stratagems. “Russia, right now,” he told an Australian news program on the ABC, “poses an immediate challenge, not just to Ukraine … but to some very basic principles that are relevant to the security not just to people in Europe, but throughout the world, including Australia.” That’s considerable reach for a power with an economy that is only marginally larger than Australia’s.
Blinken’s babble about international liberal orders and territorial integrity echoes the Truman Doctrine in the early stages of the Cold War, one that ended up bloodied and sodden in the rice fields and jungles of Indochina. In time, variations of this same, pathetic overreading of imminent crises and threats would propel US forces into Iraq and Afghanistan, and what a supreme mess those engagements turned out to be. All that mattered were the substitutes: in the case of Afghanistan, Islamic fundamentalism twinned with terrorism; in the case of Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction never found and forced links with al-Qaeda never proved.
Blinken’s visit had also inspired the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison to wax lyrical about the sanctity of borders, something that proved somewhat irrelevant when Australia’s defence personnel found themselves serving as auxiliaries of US military efforts. He wanted “to send a very clear message on behalf of Australia, a liberal democracy who believes in freedom and the sovereignty of states, not just in Europe, but in our region as well – that the autocratic, unilateral actions of Russia [are considered] to be threatening, and bullying Ukraine is something that is completely and utterly unacceptable.”
Despite such statements, little is being done to stop the trains heading towards the precipice of conflict. Everything is being said about getting citizens of other countries out of Ukraine before the bloody resolution. In late January, of the 129 diplomatic missions based in Ukraine, four had announced the departure of family members of personnel: the US, UK, Australia and Germany.
US President Joe Biden has been the leading voice on this move, adding kindling in urging that, “American citizens should leave, and should leave now.” In an interview with NBC News, he did nothing to quell concerns. “We’re dealing with one of the largest armies in the world. This is a very different situation and things could go crazy quickly.”
The Australians, unimaginatively obedient, have also issued similar calls of evacuation, suggesting imminent conflict. Canberra has become rather adept at evacuating embassy staff and shutting down operations in the face of a crisis. “Given the deteriorating security situation caused by the build up of Russian troops on Ukraine’s border,” Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne stated, “the Government has directed the departure of staff at the Australian embassy at Kyiv.”
Ukrainian officials have not been too impressed by these very public sentiments of jumping ship. Volodymyr Shalkivskyi, based at the Ukrainian embassy in Canberra, wished to “avoid panic and different kind of rumours that the invasion is inevitable.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also told reporters in southern Ukraine that, “The best friend of enemies is panic in our country.”
The Ukrainian premier even went so far as to invite Biden to visit Kyiv to ease tensions, something he is unlikely to do, given the calls to evacuate US citizens. “I am convinced that your arrival in Kyiv in the coming days, which are crucial for stabilising the situation, will be a powerful signal,” Zelensky is supposed to have said in a call to the US president. He hoped that this would “help prevent the spread of panic.”
While Zelensky’s role seems increasingly marginal, one blowed sideways by the winds of events increasingly beyond his control, Blinken’s focus, and that of the Biden administration, remains affixed to the Indo-Pacific. Last year’s AUKUS agreement, negotiated in secret and in defiance of other alliances, including that with France, suggests that whatever Moscow’s intentions, China remains the primary, nerve racking concern.
The post Blinken Foreign Policy first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
What worries American diplomats is that Germany, other NATO nations and countries along the Belt and Road route understand the gains that can be made by opening up peaceful trade and investment. If there is no Russian or Chinese plan to invade or bomb them, what is the need for NATO? What is the need for such heavy purchases of U.S. military hardware by America’s affluent allies? And if there is no inherently adversarial relationship, why do foreign countries need to sacrifice their own trade and financial interests by relying exclusively on U.S. exporters and investors?
The post America’s Real Adversaries Are Its European And Other Allies appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
Listen to a reading of this article:
❖
If you “vote out fascism” and then the president you voted for turns out to have the same effective policies as the previous administration, it’s time to start asking who the fascists actually are.
❖
Hoo you’ve done it now, CIA. You are in trouble. It was all good fun when you were doing fine normal stuff like toppling governments and running torture programs and assassinating people, but collecting bulk data on Americans?? You better prepare for some accountability, mister!
And the next time you suggest the CIA might be up to something nefarious, you’ll still get called a crazy conspiracy theorist.
❖
“Abolish the CIA” is almost too weak a position for an agency that should never have been made in the first place and should have been dismantled in the fucking nineteen sixties.
❖
The US war machine is just a rich man’s mafia.
❖
It’s not about Joe Rogan. It’s not about Covid misinformation. It’s not about QAnon, Russian trolls, domestic extremists or election security. It’s about ruling power structures needing to normalize and expand the regulation of online speech to protect consent for the status quo.
❖
A liberal is someone who yells all day about far right truckers and far right Joe Rogan and then applauds when their president gives weapons to literal Nazis.
❖
Very excited to find out whether “The US intelligence community says Putin has decided to invade Ukraine any minute now” is the kind of psyop that’s just designed to ramp up cold war hysteria or the kind of psyop that’s designed to prime us for US proxy war aggressions.
❖
The PR black eye the US empire sustained from the Iraq invasion ensured that it will greatly preference using proxy forces over US troops wherever possible. Middle Eastern jihadists, Latin American reactionaries, and Ukrainian Nazis all make very good proxy forces for the empire.
❖
A lot of confusion about Russia and Ukraine could be easily avoided if English language news media would end the appallingly unethical practice of printing unsubstantiated assertions by opaque intelligence agencies and presenting it as a “scoop”.
❖
The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim. It’s so weird how everyone will apply this standard to things like internet forum arguments and high school debates but not to immensely consequential claims by the most powerful institutions on the planet who have a well-documented history of lying.
Make a claim that could result in winning a Twitter argument and you’ll immediately be asked for proof. Make a claim that could result in thousands of deaths and it will be reported as fact by The New York Times.
❖
So to recap:
Nation stationing troops inside its own borders = hostile aggressor.
Nation circling the planet with hundreds of military bases, waging nonstop wars, working to destroy any nation which disobeys it, pushing nuclear brinkmanship = just normal democracy freedom stuff.
❖
Those who called you crazy for warning that cold war escalations could lead to hot war will be the first to tell you when hot war approaches that it is unavoidable and must be supported.
❖
Is there any doubt that the same propaganda machine which convinced half the US political spectrum that the highest levels of their government had been infiltrated by the Kremlin could convince the public that a proxy war started by US/NATO/Ukraine was actually started by Russia?
❖
News media reporters and editors are just as culpable for the mass murders committed by the US military and its proxies as the troops who fire the weapons and the generals who give the orders. And military personnel who kill people in unjust wars are exactly as culpable for those crimes as any other murderer.
❖
People who say China is as evil as the US simply haven’t learned enough or thought honestly enough about the evils of the US.
China is better than the US. That’s not because China is flawless, it’s because the US spending the 21st century slaughtering people by the millions and working to destroy any nation who disobeys it makes it quantifiably worse than literally anyone else.
China is a surveillance state. The US empire is a surveillance state that also kills millions of people in wars of aggression.
❖
Rightists need to invent fairy tales about evil elites ushering in a Marxist dystopia because they are ideologically prohibited from considering the possibility that the evil elites are already getting their every wish fulfilled by our mundane, boring capitalist dystopia.
❖
Dissolution of the state in today’s world just means instant absorption into the US-centralized power structure. As long as the US empire is what it is and does what it does, states are necessary and criticisms of their existence are childish nonsense based on immature analysis.
If China, North Korea, Venezuela or any other empire-targeted nation became an ideal stateless, classless, moneyless civilization it would instantaneously be absorbed by the empire. This self-evident fact invalidates all purist arguments against those governments. If your worldview does not account for the fact that there is a globe-spanning power structure working to absorb and subjugate all populations, you do not have a reality-based worldview. The empire is the very first obstacle to any leftward movement toward health in this world.
❖
The status quo is held in place by psychological compartmentalization. It’s held in place by propaganda and brute force, naturally, but it’s also equally propped up by the basic human tendency to avoid sincerely engaging with information that threatens to destroy our worldview.
_______________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.
By Lice Movono, RNZ Pacific correspondent in Suva
The United States insists it is a Pacific nation and has unveiled a raft of new strategies to better engage with other nations in the Region.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the first Secretary of State to visit Fiji in nearly 37 years.
During his historic visit, Blinken announced that the US was pursuing deeper engagement plans with Pacific nations.
A key element and motivation for those plans is the strengthening of the US presence to match the growing influence of China in the Pacific.
In its engagement strategy, he said that China had combined its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological might to pursue “a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and seeks to become the world’s most influential power”.
During an eight-hour visit to Fiji, while returning from a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) meeting in Australia, Blinken announced climate change financing, military and other exchange initiatives and plans for a new embassy in the Solomon Islands among other foreign diplomacy engagements.
Blinken has been on a world tour for the past several months to discuss two main issues: covid-19 and China, with his counterparts including Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne, Indian Minister of External Affairs Dr S. Jaishankar and Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Hayashi Yoshimasa.
New Indo-Pacific engagement strategy
While in Fiji, Blinken met with acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and 18 Pacific Island leaders virtually, during which he announced the US government’s brand new Indo-Pacific engagement strategy, calling the region “vital to our own prosperity, our own progress”.
Blinken said that the new strategy was the result of a year of extensive engagement in the Asia Pacific region and would reflect US determination to strengthen its long-term position in the region.
“We will focus on every corner of the region, from Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, to South Asia and Oceania, including the Pacific Islands,” he said.
“We do so at a time when many of our allies and partners, including in Europe, are increasingly turning their own attention to the region; and when there is broad, bipartisan agreement in the U.S. Congress that the United States must, too.”
This American refocus is a direct response to the increasing influence of China in the Pacific.
Since 2006, Chinese trade and foreign aid to the Pacific has significantly increased. Beijing is now the third largest donor to the region.
Although Chinese aid still represents only 8 percent of all foreign aid between 2011 and 2017 (according to The Lowy Institute), many Pacific island governments have favoured concessional loans from China, to finance large infrastructure developments.
Chinese ‘coercion and aggression’
In Solomon Islands, where Blinken announced the latest US Embassy would be opened, almost half of all two-way trade is with China.
In describing China’s actions toward expanding its influence, Blinken stated:
“The PRC’s coercion and aggression spans the globe, but it is most acute in the Indo-Pacific. From the economic coercion of Australia to the conflict along the Line of Actual Control with India to the growing pressure on Taiwan and bullying of neighbours in the East and South China Seas, our allies and partners in the region bear much of the cost of the PRC’s harmful behaviour.
“In the process, the PRC is also undermining human rights and international law, including freedom of navigation, as well as other principles that have brought stability and prosperity to the Indo-Pacific.”
When questioned by reporters about US intentions for “authentic engagement that speaks to the real needs of the islanders”, Blinken replied that the US sees the Pacific as the region for the future, and that their intentions were beyond mere security concerns.
“It’s much more fundamental than that. When we are looking at this region that we share, we see it as the region for the future, vital to our own prosperity, our own progress.
“Sixty per cent of global GDP is here, 50 percent of the world’s population is here. For all the challenges that we have, at the moment we’re working on together, it’s also a source of tremendous opportunity.”
Democracy and transparency
Blinken insisted that Washington’s new strategy was about using democracy and transparency to build a free and open Indo-Pacific which was committed to a “rules based order”.
Moving onto economics, the Secretary of State stated that the US intends to forge partnerships and alliances within the region, which will include more work with ASEAN, APEC and the Pacific Islands Forum.
Despite being headquartered in Fiji, the Forum was not invited to be part of Blinken’s visit.
At the Pacific Leaders meeting, Blinken announced a commitment to deeper economic integration including measures to open market access for agricultural commodities from the islands.
“It’s about connecting our countries together, deepening and stitching together different partnerships and alliances. It’s about building shared prosperity, with new approaches to economic integration, some of which we talked about today with high standards.”
Washington’s new Indo Pacific engagement strategy also includes commitments to develop new approaches to trade, which meet high labour and environmental standards as well as to create more resilient and secure supply chains which are “diverse, open, and predictable.”
Climate change strategy
Regarding climate change, Blinken announced plans to divert substantial portions of the US$150 billion announced at COP26 last year to the Pacific and also plans to make shared investments in decarbonisation and clean energy.
The Indo Pacific strategy announced commitments to “working with allies and partners to develop 2030 and 2050 targets, strategies, plans, and policies consistent with limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius”.
Blinken stated that the US was committed to reducing regional vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation.
On security matters, Blinken said the Pacific could expect power derived from US alliances in other parts of the world to come to the islands.
“The United States is increasingly speaking with one voice with our NATO allies and our G7 partners, when it comes to Indo Pacific matters, you can see the strength of that commitment to the Indo Pacific throughout the past year.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
With a diplomatic boycott by Western governments, corporate media propaganda has demonized China over the 2022 Winter Olympics.
Britain’s major newspaper the Financial Times openly declared, “Beijing Winter Olympics: the new front line in the US-China cold war.”
China expert Carl Zha joins Multipolarista to pick apart the propaganda and explain what’s really happening.
The post Front Line In New Cold War On China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) sought to use podcaster Daniel Dumbrill, a long-time Canadian resident in China, for propagandistic purposes. The media savvy Dumbrill was prepared for this.
Said Dumbrill, “Today, I’m going to indisputably and unmistakably demonstrate how mainstream media shapes your views and opinions through manipulation, dishonesty, and outright lies.”
Influenced by the late journalist Robert Fisk, I avoid the term “mainstream media” for the simple reason that state/corporate media is not my mainstream. So I call such media what it is “state/corporate media” or “monopoly media” à la Ben Bagdikian or “mass media.” I prefer independent media or independent writers that, is my mainstream. I keep tabs on the monopoly media because it, unfortunately, has an audience and is influential. So an awareness of the content and monopoly media’s message is necessary to reveal and refute its factual inaccuracies and twisted narratives. Dumbrill is finely attuned to the realities of China and acutely aware of the geopolitical intrigues in the world. He is able to intellectually cut through disinformation without difficulty and reframe it into a honest representation.
Steven D’Souza, a senior reporter with CBC interviewed Dumbrill on China and propagandizing. Dumbrill knew to expect dishonesty from the CBC.
When allegations were brought up about Chinese machinations in Xinjiang, Dumbrill revealed the source, the Australian so-called think tank ASPI, as a tool of imperialist disinformation as evidenced by its funders. Despite this, D’Souza ignored what Dumbrill had informed him and used ASPI disproportionately as an information source in his program without informing viewers of ASPI’s affiliations and funding. Dumbrill’s counter-argument about ASPI was omitted.
The biggest offense of the CBC, according to Dumbrill: “was their desperate attempt to find something they could pull out of context from a near half hour interview with me and ending up with only 3.5 seconds of usable footage to twist into their narrative.”
D’Souza suggested that Dumbrill was participating as a paid influencer to propagandize for the Chinese state. Dumbrill firmly closed the door on that innuendo saying, “I don’t benefit financially from anything I do. As a matter-of-fact I go through through great expense, both time-wise and financially to do what I do. I’m not belonging to any kind of a state apparatus here. I can travel around freely and see everything for myself as well…”
Nonetheless, in the program aired by CBC, a 3.5-second comment is attached to an unrelated and out-of-context narrative, positioning Dumbrill as a paid influencer of Chinese propaganda.
Dumbrill decries the absence of journalistic integrity, calling such manipulation “unethical, dishonest, and even fraudulent behavior.”
When questioned by Dumbrill why he had done this, D’Souza evaded the question, saying he was too busy.
So Dumbrill gives D’Souza one more time to set the record straight publicly:
After reflecting on our conversation and watching your final product, do you stand by that work — both in a personal and professional capacity? It will be useful if you dare say that you stand by this kind of reporting, and I don’t suspect that you could admit that you are ashamed of this piece without risking your pay check. Therefore, I think your silence, which I think you are inevitably going to go with, will at least give us enough hope that at bare minimum you are self-aware enough to recognize that you are a sell-out and everything you are pretending to look for in this report.
By all means, watch the Dumbrill piece and reach their own conclusions.
Because of his integrity, knowledge, and ethics, Daniel Dumbrill is one trusted source for my mainstream information.
The post A Damning Indictment of Monopoly Media Dishonesty first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
China and Argentina move closer together as Argentina joins the BRI and they reach agreements on investments. Russia and China signed a joint declaration opposing Taiwan independence and NATO expansion. Green China runs a low-Carbon Olympics. Gu Ailing wins a gold medal for China.
The post News on China | No. 86 first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” say the media in a nation whose government has spent the 21st century slaughtering people by the millions in military operations overseas so that it can literally rule the world like a comic book supervillain.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” say the westerners as they consume propaganda cooked up by their government and corporations on devices manufactured by stolen resources and exported slavery made possible by mass military slaughter, starvation sanctions and unipolar global domination.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” say the politicians who put on a daily performance of pro wrestling-style fake opposition against a political party they agree with on every major issue which is owned by the same corporate masters they serve.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” says the civilization that lets people starve and die of exposure and lack of medications because they didn’t win at a make believe game of accruing made-up numbers in their imaginary bank accounts by participating in a pretend economy.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” says the nation with the world’s largest prison population which they still to this day use as literal slave labor.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” parrots a brainwashed population in unison, just as it was programmed to do by the largest and most sophisticated propaganda system that has ever existed.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” blare the screens that have been indoctrinating us since birth to accept a murderous, oppressive, exploitative, omnicidal, ecocidal status quo that is driving our species toward extinction on myriad fronts.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” says the mind that has been warped and twisted its entire life to only function in ways which serve the powerful people who rule its own nation.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” say the inhabitants of a globe-spanning empire they don’t even know exists even as they blindly toil in its service their entire lives.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” say the masses as they ignore the freakish, backwards power structure that has been grinding them into the dirt.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” bleats a nation of unthinking automatons as they mindlessly crank the gears of an insatiable armageddon machine that is fueled by human blood.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” says a society that has turned away from sanity, turned away from truth, turned away from our authentic selves, all in service of a few clever people who discovered that human minds are hackable if you can just confuse their inner light.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, because it’s safer to yell impotently into the void than to turn and face the irrational wrath of our violent oppressors and demand change in the only people we can change: ourselves.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, because it’s easier to believe lies than to push against the uncomfortable feelings that cognitive dissonance brings up and find out what’s really going on over there.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation” we say, because we’re too brainwashed and befuddled to conceive of a world where governments don’t compete and strive to dominate each other and we instead collaborate together toward the good of our entire species.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, instead of looking at ourselves, and looking inward, and letting life get a word in edgewise, and letting truth take seed, and sprout, and blossom, and turning away from this self-destructive nonsense, and building a healthy world.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, because that’s what everyone else is saying.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, because to say anything else gets shouted down.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, because all the screens in our lives told us to.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, because thoughts are easily manipulated and perception is reality.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, because thoughts happen to us, thoughts aren’t something we do.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, from our minds that have been shaped by propaganda, on our social media platforms that are rigged for propaganda, into an information ecosystem that is made of propaganda.
“China is a freakish, backwards nation,” we say, and we say, and we say, and we say, as they lock down our minds and harness our voices and steer us closer and closer toward the cliff.
_______________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.
On Friday evening, February 4, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the America COMPETES Act of 2022 (H.R. 4521). The stated intent of the legislation is to strengthen “America’s national and economic security and the financial security of families, and advance our leadership in the world.” While this claim, found in Nancy Pelosi’s press statement on January 20th, seems to be addressing some of the most important political and economic issues currently plaguing the United States, from the supply chain to the shortage of semiconductors, the Black Alliance for Peace sees this piece of legislation as sinophobic and militaristic, and that only strengthens the imperialist designs of U.S. foreign policy.
The post Black Alliance For Peace Condemns The ‘America COMPETES Act’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, many observers noted that, terrifyingly, he would soon be the sole person in charge of determining whether or not to use the U.S.’s vast nuclear weapons capability. He would have the power to end life on Earth in a matter of minutes.
As Barack Obama and Joe Biden were preparing to hand the nuclear codes over, the outgoing vice president warned against any preemptive use of the terrible weapons: “Given our non-nuclear capabilities and the nature of today’s threats — it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary,” Biden said in January 2017. Biden added that he and Obama had “made a commitment to create the conditions by which the sole purpose of nuclear weapons would be to deter others from launching a nuclear attack.”
Despite Biden’s encouraging remarks that the United States likely wouldn’t employ the “first use” of nuclear weapons, Trump was inheriting a nuclear weapons apparatus with far more continuity than rupture from previous administrations. The United States had not, in fact, adopted an explicit “no first use” policy during the Obama administration, despite relentless lobbying from nonproliferation experts. And, as he did with so many aspects of the U.S. national security state, Trump took the existing nuclear powers and authorities and expanded them to enrich weapons contractors and satisfy the reactionary requirement of maintaining U.S. global military hegemony.
Four U.S. presidents have issued reports known as a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), dating back to the Clinton White House in 1993. The Trump administration’s NPR was typically bellicose. Contrary to Biden’s urging in 2017 that the “sole use” of nuclear weapons should be in response to a nuclear attack, Trump’s review significantly widened the aperture for their use. That report, whose author is still unknown, referenced using nuclear weapons to deter “non-nuclear aggression,” a phrase widely understood at the time to include cyber, chemical and biological attacks.
President Joe Biden’s administration is now in the final stages of completing his own Nuclear Posture Review, scheduled to be finished early this year. For nonproliferation experts and anti-nuclear war activists, the signs are not promising. In September, Leonor Tomero, a Biden appointee tasked with overseeing the review, was forced out of her job in what was described as a bureaucratic reorganization but was widely understood to be a power grab by the national security state. Prior to her sacking, Tomero was trying to bring official U.S. nuclear policy in line with Biden’s previously stated “sole purpose” philosophy. Biden’s National Security Council had previously issued two documents to provide guidance on the White House’s nuclear priorities, neither of which adopted a “sole purpose” policy.
Even more worrying was Biden’s first defense budget, which signaled the administration would continue Trump’s two new nuclear weapons programs: a sea-launched ballistic missile and the creation of low-yield nuclear warheads. There are rumors among nonproliferation activists that the administration may ultimately scrap those programs when it releases its review, but the sense among experts is that those programs are low-hanging fruit. The overall reliance on nuclear weapons is not expected to change in any meaningful way, despite 55 Democratic members of Congress calling on Biden to adopt a “no first use” policy and to stop the deployment of Trump’s two new nuclear weapons systems.
Joseph Cirincione, a fellow at the Quincy Institute and longtime nonproliferation expert, offered a blistering assessment of the Biden nuclear policy so far: “It is not a rational response to external threats but is driven primarily by domestic factors including a hubristic strategy of nuclear supremacy, partisan politics, and entrenched arms lobbies with formidable influence in the Pentagon and Congress,” Cirincione wrote earlier this month.
Part of the U.S. nuclear posture is called a declaratory formulation — that is, a public statement signaling both to allies and adversaries when the government might use nuclear weapons. Ever since President Truman became the first and only head of state to drop a nuclear bomb — two, in his case — the U.S. declaratory position has been deliberately ambiguous. Hawks say that strategic ambiguity keeps potential enemies on their toes, and provides comfort for allies like Japan who rely on U.S. nuclear deterrent capability. Nonproliferation and peace activists argue that strategic ambiguity is not necessary and is indeed counterproductive in lowering the likelihood of nuclear war.
Although Biden is not expected to adopt a “no first use” or “sole purpose” standard in his forthcoming NPR, the benefits of doing so could be enormous. “Announcing that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States and its allies and partners […] would clearly signal a policy course change and renewed U.S. global leadership toward reduced reliance on nuclear weapons,” writes Steve Andreasen of the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
China is the only country that has a clear, caveat-free “no first use” policy, which the country initially declared in 1964 and has since repeatedly publicly reaffirmed.
The Biden administration is at risk of going in the opposite direction. “Instead of sole purpose, the Pentagon bureaucracy wants Biden to go back 12 years to Obama’s 2010 review and adopt weak language that would allow the use of nuclear weapons in multiple scenarios, including cyberattacks,” warns Tom Collina, policy director at the Ploughshares Fund, a nonproliferation organization.
The simmering conflict on the border between Ukraine and Russia is almost certainly exerting domestic political pressure on Biden to take a more hawkish, Cold War-era stance on nuclear weapons. Ironically, the conflict in Eastern Europe is exactly the type of situation that shows the absurdity of even the implicit threat of nuclear weapons. There is substantial risk that either the U.S. or Russia could misinterpret the others’ moves, resulting in escalatory tit-for-tat retaliation that would be disastrous with conventional weapons, but truly catastrophic with nuclear weapons.
Still, far too many national security state officials and their associated think tanks believe a nuclear war can be won. The Pentagon and its private sector partners have a massive financial incentive not only to retain the U.S.’s current posture, but to increase the nation’s reliance on nuclear weapons. Biden could change that if he wanted to. Whether he’ll listen to his own words from 2017 remains to be seen.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Listen to a reading of this article:
❖
Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz criticized the Biden administration’s dangerous escalations against Russia on the House floor on Monday, not because he thinks needlessly ramping up cold war brinkmanship with a nuclear-armed nation is an insane thing to do, nor because he believes the US government should cease trying to dominate the world by constantly working to subvert and undermine any nation who disobeys its commands, but because he wants US aggressions to be focused more on China.
“While the Biden administration, the media, and many in congress beat the drums of war for Ukraine, there is a far more significant threat to our nation accelerating rapidly close to home,” Gaetz said. “Argentina, a critical nation and economy in the Americas, has just lashed itself to the Chinese Communist Party, by signing on to the One Belt One Road Initiative. The cost to China was $23.7 billion — a mere fraction of a rounding error when compared to the trillions of dollars our country has spent trying to build democracies out of sand and blood in the Middle East.”
While the Biden Admin, the media, and many in Congress beat the drums of war for Ukraine, there is a far more significant threat to our nation.
China is a rising power. Russia is a declining power. Let us sharpen our focus so that we do not join them in that eventual fate. pic.twitter.com/VUQwfUFCZ7
— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) February 7, 2022
“China buying influence and infrastructure in Argentina to collaborate on space and nuclear energy is a direct challenge to the Monroe Doctrine and far more significant to American security than our latest NATO flirtation in the plains of Eastern Europe,” Gaetz continued. “China is a rising power. Russia is a declining power. Let us sharpen our focus so that we do not join them in that eventual fate.”
For those who don’t know, the “Monroe Doctrine” refers to a decree put forward by President James Monroe in 1823 asserting that Latin America is off limits to European colonialist and imperialist agendas, effectively claiming the entire Western Hemisphere as US property. It essentially told Europe, “Everything south of the Mexican border is our Africa. It’s ours to dominate in the same way you guys dominate the Global South in the Eastern Hemisphere. Those are your brown people over there, these are our brown people over here.”
That this insanely imperialist and white supremacist doctrine is still being cited by high-profile politicians to this day says so much about what the US government is and how it operates on the world stage. This is especially true given that Biden himself just articulated the same idea in so many words last month when he declared that “Everything south of the Mexican border is America’s front yard.”
U.S. maintains its Monroe Doctrine as Biden assures that Latin America is "America's front yard" pic.twitter.com/VhNxIVdV4Z
— Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) January 20, 2022
So on one hand Gaetz is opposing warmongering against Russia and condemning the trillions spent on US wars in the Middle East, which by itself would normally be a good thing. But the fact that he only opposes doing that because he wants to focus imperialist aggressions on another part of the world to preserve US unipolar planetary domination completely nullifies any good which could come from his opposition to aggressions somewhere else.
This is a very common phenomenon on the right end of the US political spectrum; you’ll hear a politician or pundit saying what appear to be sane things against the agendas of DC warmongers, but if you pay attention to their overall commentary it’s clear that they’re not opposing the use of mass-scale imperialist aggression to preserve planetary domination, they’re just quibbling about the specifics of how it should be done.
Tucker Carlson has been making this argument for years, claiming that the US should make peace with Russia and scale back interventionism in the Middle East not because peace is good but because it needs to focus its aggressions on countering China. He inserts this argument into many of his criticisms of US foreign policy on a regular basis; he did it just the other day, criticizing the Biden administration’s insane actions in Ukraine and then adding “Screaming about Russia, even as we ignore China, is now a bipartisan effort.”
Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp summarized this dynamic well in response to a recent Reason article making the same “Make peace with Russia to focus on taking down China” argument, tweeting “Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to war with Russia is rooted in this idea that the US needs the resources to eventually fight China. We need more people to view war for Taiwan as dangerous and foolish as war for Ukraine.”
Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to war with Russia is rooted in this idea that the US needs the resources to eventually fight China. We need more people to view war for Taiwan as dangerous and foolish as war for Ukraine. https://t.co/MDUBYCN9dY
— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) January 27, 2022
Do you see how this works? Do you see how wanting to refocus US firepower on a specific target is not actually better than keeping that firepower diffuse? The difference between “Let’s have peace” and “Let’s have peace with Russia and stop making wars in the Middle East so that we can focus on bringing down China” is the difference between “Stop massacring civilians” and “Stop massacring these civilians because you’ll need your ammunition to massacre those other civilians over there.”
And it’s especially stupid because it’s the exact same agenda. One imperial faction believes it’s best to preserve US hegemony by focusing on bringing down the nations which support and collaborate with China, while the other imperial faction wants to go after China itself more directly. They both support using the US war machine to keep the planet enslaved to Washington and the government agency insiders and oligarchs who run it, they just manufacture this debate about the specifics of how that ought to happen.
This is what Noam Chomsky was talking about when he said, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
Liberal NPCs Hate Russia, Conservative NPCs Hate China
"The frenzied, shrieking hysteria I’m witnessing right now among Trump’s base regarding China looks and moves in the exact same way the mental zombification of Russia hysteria looked and moved"https://t.co/QdUl2canc8
— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) March 19, 2020
That strictly limited spectrum of debate is known as the Overton window, and imperial narrative managers work very hard to keep shoving that window further and further in the favor of the oligarchic empire they serve. In order to prevent us from arguing about whether there should be a globe-spanning capitalist unipolar empire in the first place, they keep us arguing about how that empire’s interests should best be advanced.
The longer the drivers of empire can keep us debating the details of how we should serve them, the longer they can keep us from turning toward them and asking why we should even have them around at all.
_______________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.
China does not recognise dual citizenship of Australian-Chinese man held for 11 months under national security law
Australian consular officials have been denied access to a dual Australian-Chinese citizen detained in Hong Kong for 11 months for alleged “subversion”.
The Australian government – which has had an increasingly strained relationship with Beijing – renewed its concerns about “the erosion of basic freedoms and autonomy in Hong Kong” under the territory’s broadly worded national security law.
Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
A quick Google search of “Russia” or “China” is all that is needed to identify the casual racism of the corporate media and its central role in the U.S.’s New Cold War. Add the word “fear” to the search and the agenda becomes even clearer. In a search for mainstream media articles on Russia conducted on January 26th, nine of the first ten articles that appeared contained the word “fear” in the headline. China fared a bit better than Russia, but not by much. Better than half of the headlines referenced the word “fear” or “worried” to describe affairs relating to the world’s second largest economy.
The post Casual Racism and the New Cold War appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
The state-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has committed an absolutely jaw-dropping act of journalistic malpractice amid the west’s mad scramble to whip up public hysteria about China.
Daniel Dumbrill, a Canadian video blogger who lives in China and frequently criticizes western narratives about the Chinese government, has posted a series of videos on Twitter which proves the CBC deceitfully edited part of an interview with him to make it appear as though he was saying the exact opposite of what he’d actually said.
In a newly released segment titled “How China uses influencers to squash human rights concerns“, the CBC warns its audience about “westerners living in China with pro-government views” who act as social media “influencers” and were “invited on trips organized and often paid for by the Communist Party.” The CBC then introduces Dumbrill as a “China-based influencer” who makes “videos defending Chinese policy in Xinjiang” that were “often amplified by state media.”
All the Canadian late night comedians have moved to the CBC's The National. https://t.co/wd5iighxYC pic.twitter.com/mrdvgRU45S
— Daniel Dumbrill (@DanielDumbrill) February 7, 2022
After framing Dumbrill in this way, the CBC then inserted a short, out-of-context clip of Dumbrill saying “If anywhere else in the world was doing the same thing, it would be called a marketing campaign.” After introducing Dumbrill as a pro-China influencer whose work gets amplified by Chinese state media, the sudden insertion of that clip makes it look as though Dumbrill is defending himself and confessing to being part of a Chinese marketing campaign, especially after the video then cuts away and CBC’s Steven D’Souza moves to another subject with a “But China isn’t just using influencers at home…”
A review of the interview footage that video clip was taken from however makes it abundantly clear that Dumbrill was in fact saying the exact opposite of what he was portrayed as saying.
While the CBC only used about three seconds of footage from what Dumbrill says was a 23-minute interview, Dumbrill’s own footage from that interview shows that Dumbrill had explicitly denied being part of any propaganda campaign shortly before his out-of-context “marketing campaign” comment, and that he’d used that phrase to refer not to himself but to the unbalanced way the west has been reacting to Beijing’s attempts to promote its image to the world.
You’ve actually got to watch both clips to fully understand how unconscionable the CBC’s deceitful edit was. Don’t worry, they’re quite short. First watch this clip of the way the CBC framed Dumbrill’s comment:
Now watch this footage posted by Dumbrill. Notice his explicit denial of D’Souza’s accusation that he is part of any campaign and pay attention to the context in which he makes the “marketing campaign” comment:
To see where they pulled the 3.5 second soundbite from, here's the context. The "marketing campaign" reference is at the end. They pulled this by-the-way supporting auxiliary point out of context & painted me as answering as a participant, not an external commentator as stated. pic.twitter.com/o41L49krPU
— Daniel Dumbrill (@DanielDumbrill) February 7, 2022
Dumbrill not only denies being part of any kind of campaign but adds that he doesn’t benefit financially from his video blogging about China and in fact does so at great personal expense. His “marketing campaign” remark is snipped out of a thoughtful, nuanced objection to the way Beijing working to improve its public image gets labeled an “influence campaign”, a rather nefarious-sounding term not typically applied to western cities, provinces and nations who do more or less the same thing. It’s crystal clear that he’s not making that observation in any relation to himself and his work but rather speaking objectively about Beijing’s behavior, entirely separate from the accusation of being a propaganda influencer.
D’Souza knew this. He sat there with the CBC editors and knowingly put together a deceitful propaganda piece falsely framing someone else as admitting to being a government propagandist. All with the funding of Canadian taxpayers.
This is made even more ironic by the fact that the CBC segment is dominated by the analysis of a think tanker from the anti-China narrative management firm Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which D’Souza never bothers to inform CBC’s audience is extensively funded by governments and the military-industrial complex. Dumbrill had even posted footage of the interview where he’s seen telling D’Souza that citing think tanks funded by governments and the arms industry without telling your audience that that’s what you’re doing is journalistic malpractice, which is plainly true. And they went and did exactly that anyway.
A war machine-funded think tanker appearing on a brazenly propagandistic show on western state media to explain the dark mechanics of Chinese propaganda is so twisted it’s actually delicious.
“Do you have any shame about doing exactly what you claim others are doing: pushing state propaganda?” journalist Aaron Maté tweeted at D’Souza in response to Dumbrill’s footage. “If you have any remote interest in journalism, you should have Daniel on — live — and let him respond to your smear job.”
Somehow I doubt that’s going to happen.
___________________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.
Listen to a reading of this article:
❖
I’m declassifying evidence that Nigeria is planning a false flag operation in Switzerland. Are you ready? Here it is:
Nigeria is planning a false flag operation in Switzerland.
See, the evidence is me asserting it. If you doubt this evidence, you’re a propagandist for Nigeria.
What? You want proof? I just gave you the proof. I gave you my declassified intelligence assessment.
I mean obviously I can’t give you the raw intelligence you’re asking me for without revealing sources and methods and compromising intelligence officers in the field. Is that what you want? For me to compromise intelligence officers in the field? Do you work for Nigerian intelligence?
The evidence is secret. It’s secret evidence. What I can give you is the information we’ve obtained through thorough intelligence gathering methods in which our intelligence agencies have a degree of confidence. You’re free to doubt it and believe Nigerian propaganda instead, if that’s the sort of person you are.
❖
Making your whole thing about opposing a rival political party is what people do when they lack the integrity to oppose the murderous empire that’s fully backed by both parties.
❖
That saying “They got you fighting a culture war to stop you fighting a class war” is something you’ve got to take seriously. You can’t just dismiss it. Because if it’s at all true, even somewhat, then discourse on today’s left is completely fucked and ultimately power-serving.
Certainly you can’t reduce everything to class. Racial and sexual power dynamics are of course very real. The problem would be if those in power kept everyone focused on culture war dynamics instead of class, and kept the discourse from threatening real power. Is that happening? Is it happening at all? To any extent? Because to any extent that it is happening, power is being served and our own interests are being undermined.
You can’t just leave this question unanswered and unaddressed. It needs to be sincerely grappled with.
❖
Whenever your anger is focused on any figure besides the western empire and its facilitators, the propagandists have succeeded in doing their job.
❖
I kinda feel like this bit here contradicts that bit down there. https://t.co/PuR9qRBKKm pic.twitter.com/cV9zxmSrtM
— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) February 3, 2022
❖
It’s obvious that the Iraq invasion was facilitated by propaganda. It should be equally obvious that the powers who pushed that propaganda would have developed and refined their methods and learned new techniques since 2002, and that they would be using those tricks in today’s world.
Any time there’s a new escalation against an imperial target you’ll get people comparing the propaganda to the lead-up to Iraq, and then you get people pushing back with “This isn’t Iraq! It’s different in X ways!” But it wouldn’t look exactly the same. The science of propaganda has advanced a lot since that time.
There’s always some reason why this or that act of militarism or interventionism is completely different from its disastrous predecessors. Always. It’s all just bullshit designed to throw off our basic sense of pattern recognition.
❖
I’m a tankie, but only because that word now means “Anyone who focuses their criticisms on the most murderous power structure on earth.”
❖
Anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to fight the Russians hasn’t watched enough MMA.
❖
Someone who wants to make peace with Russia in order to focus on ramping up aggressions against China is as worthless to anti-imperialists as someone who wants to legalize drugs so that law enforcement can focus on locking up gay people would be to civil libertarians. Being dovish on Russia but hawkish on China is not better than being hawkish on both; you’re pushing the same amount of aggression toward what is ultimately the same imperialist agenda, you’re just doing it a little differently.
❖
The trouble with social media hate mobs is they don’t work on the people you want them to work on. Being subjected to a bunch of people yelling at you online can ruin your day if you’re a caring person who’s affected by how people feel about you, but if you’re a sociopathic politician, pundit or celebrity it’ll just be funny to you. So if you’re a healthy person you can be easily silenced and shut down by a few aggressive social media accounts, while if your brain has a missing or malfunctioning empathy center you’re guaranteed to keep your voice. It’s one of the many ways our setup uplifts sociopaths.
Until we find a way for healthy people to be as comfortable in the spotlight as sociopaths are, they’ll always have a massive advantage over us. So many aspects of our society are tilted to the advantage of people with no empathy, like the way capitalism rewards anyone who’s willing to do whatever it takes to out-compete everyone else and climb to the top. In a sense that’s the source of all our major problems.
❖
If you want to have integrity you want your personal psychology to line up with your political ideals. Plenty of leftist men harbor deep-seated misogyny. Many libertarians who promote personal responsibility blame their personal problems on others. You want it all to line up.
It’s nothing to be ashamed of if your psychological landscape doesn’t match your ideals; that’s pretty normal. It’s just a matter of patiently doing the inner work necessary for your mind to match your ideals, your speech to match your mind, and your actions to match your speech.
____________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.
By Robert Iroga in Honiara
A team of four experts from China have arrived in Honiara for on-site feasibility studies on two projects amid the surging case of covid-19 in the Solomon Islands.
The experts are here at the invitation of the government for studies on the upgrading of the national referral hospital and a new water plant.
They have arrived as Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare made a national address at the weekend saying there were now 2790 cases of infection in the country.
Sogavare said this was within 20 days of the country’s first case of domestic transmission of the virus, reports RNZ Pacific.
He said that on Friday alone, health officials had identified 430 cases.
Sogavare put the official death toll at 32 but other deaths are believed to have occurred at home.
The prime minister said all but three provinces have reported cases, and transmission was now widespread in the capital, Honiara.
Many of the local lockdowns that had been in place has been lifted but a curfew from 6pm to 6am will still be enforced.
Movement out of Honiara is not allowed.
The prime minister has repreated calls for people to get vaccinated.
Boost for bilateral relationship
The arriving Chinese expert team said in a statement: “Hopefully our arrival can help Solomon Islands strengthen infrastructure construction, improve medical conditions and livelihood, and boost development of bilateral relationship.”
The team, which has strictly complied with Solomon Islands’ quarantine procedures, said its arrival, work and persistence would promote the country’s anti-pandemic work and improve the public medical environment and infrastructure.
In the spirit of “Umi togeta against covid-19”, the team vowed to deliver its best in the fight against the pandemic in Solomon Islands.
“Our team will stand firmly with our friends in Solomon Islands, defy difficulties and dangers, work hard, and build a modern diagnosis and treatment place with advanced technologies for Solomon Islands with the latest construction technologies in the foreseeable future,” the team added.
Robert Iroga is editor of SB Online. Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Argentina is trapped in $44 billion of IMF odious debt taken on by corrupt right-wing regimes. Seeking alternatives to US hegemony, President Alberto Fernández traveled to Russia and China, forming an alliance with the Eurasian powers, joining the Belt and Road Initiative.
The post Trapped In IMF Debt, Argentina Turns To Russia And Joins China’s Belt & Road appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
3 Mins Read Credit Suisse Research Institute released a report this week identifying Gen Z and Millennials in China, India, and other emerging countries as more likely to align with sustainable consumption than those in developed regions. An increased likelihood of buying conscious products, coupled with corporate distrust has led to the claim. Ten thousand age-appropriate consumers were […]
The post New Report Finds China and India’s Gen Z Is More Sustainable Than UK and US Young Consumers appeared first on Green Queen.
This post was originally published on Green Queen.
The sabre rattling of the United States and its allies grows as capitalism’s crisis sharpens, writes William Briggs.
This post was originally published on Green Left.
COMMENTARY: By Michael Field in Auckland
China’s activities in the South Pacific are causing growing alarm in Washington, forcing US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to make an urgent visit to Fiji.
But, sources say, he cannot do it due to the continued absence of Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, and like many people, Blinken is awaiting word on when he will return.
Last month Bainimarama flew to Melbourne for unannounced open heart surgery and has given no word on when he will return.
Washington has regional concerns but Blinken appears to believe he can speak to the whole South Pacific in a single meeting with Bainimarama.
Washington regards its concerns as too important to be dealt with via acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
US aid and involvement in the Pacific has been minimal and the last high level visit of any kind was the 2012 trip to Rarotonga of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A decade between visits shows a high level indifference.
But concern has mounted after recent riots in the Solomon Islands in the wake of its switch in diplomatic ties from Taiwan to China.
Beijing appears now to have strengthened its hand in Honiara.
Slow to give significant aid
While China has been slow to get significant aid to eruption damaged Tonga, they will still beat the United States to it. Washington got a frigate to Nuku’alofa with boxes of water; China’s PLAN Wuzhishan and Chaganhu are grunty vessels, carrying significant aid.
Nuku’alofa is already home to a large and modern Chinese Embassy.
The business of asserting Western power has not been helped by Australia’s naval failure of its flagship HMAS Adelaide.
However, while Blinken’s flying trip into Suva will wave flags and provide the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) with yet another dress up parade, how it will go down with other countries in the region is far from clear. They are not overly fond of Bainimarama’s preaching.
But all depends on one thing: Bainimarama showing up at all.
Michael Field is an independent New Zealand journalist and co-editor of The Pacific Newsroom. Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
In China, brave activists are trying to improve the daily life of their fellow citizens and defend their rights to speak freely, to be treated on an equal footing with others, to protest peacefully, or to practice a religion. But the Chinese government fears that their actions will challenge its power and that their criticisms will undermine it. Like the Uyghur and Tibetan peoples, many who stand up for human rights are repressed and silenced, and the authorities have found a very effective way to do that: they disappear them.
On 22 October 2020, exactly a year ago, lawyer Chang Weiping was disappeared under ‘Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location’ (or ‘RSDL’) for ‘inciting subversion of State power.’ Lawyer Chang is a human rights lawyer, who has bravely defended sensitive cases of victims of sexual harassment during China’s ‘Me Too’. He has also worked with victims of discriminatory practices due to their sexual orientation or HIV status, or targeted for speaking freely or practicing their religion. Ten days before his disappearance, he had published a video denouncing torture he had endured when he was first held under RSDL in January 2020, after attending a meeting with other activists a month earlier. UN experts have publicly called for his release. No one knows where he is held. [see also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/2e6ec951-79e7-4a36-b077-76bfe05e3817]
Since 2012, China’s rubber-stamp legislative body passed and amended several articles in its Criminal Procedure Law that give police the power to take people into custody without disclosing where they will be held: this is called ‘Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location’. When this happens, people are denied all contact with the outside world, even with their family or a lawyer, for up to six months. No one knows where they are. They are interrogated and often tortured to extract confessions. Meanwhile, despite the barriers and risks they have to overcome, their families persist in seeking knowledge about their loved one’s fate and justice for what they suffered.
United Nations experts are clear: RSDL is a form of enforced disappearance. With estimations of up to 57.000 individuals under RSDL, enforced disappearances are endemic in China. RSDL tears families apart, and is intended to instill fear into China’s human rights movement. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/01/10/more-on-residential-surveillance-in-a-designated-location-rsdl-in-china/
Many human rights activists have stopped promoting dignity, peace and justice in their communities because they fear to be disappeared by the police. This practice – enforced disappearance – is absolutely wrong and prohibited under international law. Everyone should be able to speak their mind and participate in the life of their communities.
ISHR, Safeguard Defenders, The Rights Practice and The 29 Principles are mobilising the international community to put pressure on China to #RepealRSDL and end enforced disappearances against human rights defenders.
They want the Chinese government to repeal RSDL (articles 74 to 79 of China’s Criminal Procedure Law), and to bring truth and justice to victims.
RSDL should be high on the agenda of any human rights exchange with the Chinese government. We want governments worldwide to speak out and use all bilateral and multilateral channels to press the Chinese government to #RepealRSDL. We want the UN to amplify its monitoring of RSDL in China, and to sustain its pressure on the authorities to respect international law and to #RepealRSDL.
Feeling supported is vital for disappeared defenders and their relatives. We want the media, human rights groups and activists across the world to pay closer attention to RSDL, to raise awareness around them, and to stand in solidarity with disappeared Chinese human rights defenders and their relatives.
We are working hard to:
Stand in solidarity! Feeling supported is vital for disappeared defenders and their relatives. Send a solidarity message with Chen Zijuan, lawyer Chang’s wife: write a postcard, and share it with her on your social media by clicking on the image below. Don’t hesitate to personalise it before tweeting. Alternatively you can copy paste this link in your browser: https://ctt.ac/477cf
You can also raise awareness! Check out the informational and communication material in our ‘Campaign Toolbox’, and share it with your country’s ministry of foreign affairs, a journalist you know, your friends or your social media followers – and remember to tag @ISHRglobal, and #StandWithDefenders #RepealRSDL.
https://ishr.ch/action/campaigns/call-on-china-to-free-defenders-and-repealrsdl/
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
Lawyers say delay in case against three defendants including a Briton is to avoid embarrassing China
The trial in Greece of activists who protested against Beijing holding the Winter Olympics has been postponed amid accusations that proceedings were delayed to avoid embarrassing China on the eve of the Games.
The highly anticipated hearing had been due to take place on Thursday in the town of Pyrgos, with human rights lawyers travelling from the UK and Athens to attend. The activists, who included a Briton, an American and a Tibetan-Canadian, were arrested when they briefly disrupted the Olympic flame lighting ceremony in October.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.