Author: admin

Categories
Anti-China Narratives

4 stages of a man on the left

Clive Hamilton is not much older than me. I daresay much of his early experiences were similar to my own. I’ve read his pieces, off and on, for years and largely nodded in approval. But we have parted ways in a gradual way that feels inevitable.

My ‘birth’ into the left began when my conservative, fundamentalist Christian father declared me a “communist”. As I encountered the world, conservative values simply didn’t wash. Black people weren’t lazy good for nothings, Catholics weren’t Satan’s agents, hard work didn’t lead automatically to prosperity, the working class weren’t dirty …

My rejection signalled the first stage of going left – disillusionment. I’m sure, from my readings, that Clive went through this stage. The dig it or burn it mentality of prosperity in Australia was brilliant at making money for some, but completely nonsensical if you looked past the coming millennium click over. Clive and I were at one.

Soon after school and a short stint working, I graduated to the second stage of the left – idealism. I looked around the world for evidence of new ways of organising society and stumbled across kibbutzim. Blind to the multiple evils of Zionism, I ventured across the world to join ‘volunteers’ in a socialist experiment.

Nothing cures rabid Zionism like the crunching reality of the Zionist experiment Israel. But that is a story for another day. I lived for half a year in a socialist paradise. No money, no gender roles, no fixed job, no bosses, no private property. Well, almost. There were the JAPS – Jewish American Princes or Jewish American Princesses. Marking their good Zionist allegiances, Jewish kids from New York could do a stint in a kibbutz, avoid national service and avoid work of any kind.

I once confronted the work coordinator of the kibbutz – a large, red headed sabra – with the fact that a newly arrived ‘prince’ seemed to spend his days by the pool and his nights rooting the prettiest of the locals and didn’t seem to join in the work. Why was that?

Apart from nearly being shot up on the Gaza strip, I believe that might have been a moment when I came closest to death. My naïve left-wing idealism came to the fore and collided with the grim, material reality of the manner in which the Zionist state was being sustained.

No doubt, Clive is an idealist. He still thinks there is hope for the West. He still thinks Australian politics is redeemable. He still thinks we live in a democracy. He still thinks climate change is reversible.

The third stage of the left is activism. I think Clive was way better at this. I didn’t like the idea of being arrested, so actually chaining myself to anything seems a bit too uncomfortable. I’m not exactly sure what Clive has done in this stage, but he is almost certainly ahead of me.

The last stage is materialism. As you grow older on the left, you realise that your individual actions and activism is impotent against large structural inequalities that are driven by forces well beyond political parties. You understand that change is inevitable and often brutal.

Sadly, some left leaning types, like Clive, never reach the materialist stage. They drift into ideological oblivion and begin to whine about things that they really don’t know anything about. Their ‘left’ ideas become increasingly abstracted from reality, but they imagine themselves at the cutting edge of a youthful idealistic movement.

I’ll leave you with one of Clive’s ideological treasures. I mean, it’s completely unremarkable given his passage into the “I write anti-China books” club.

I’m sorry I can’t play that music from X-files due to copyright restrictions.

It’s kind of sad to see an old man sink into conspiracy land. I wonder if, one day, Clive might get to stage 4.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Genocide

Is Gabby Deutch a complete arsehole?

I am one of a few people who I know of who has spoken with both a Hitler Youth member and a Holocaust survivor. Admittedly, I don’t speak fluent enough German to have readily understood either, but, fortunately I had German translators in both instance.

I’m going to call the two people Harry and Maria. That’s not their names, but I’m not going to name them because they both have children who are alive and neither of them are alive.

I spoke with Harry in 1980. My translator, Friedlinde, was very embarrassed, because Harry was still fervently that young man, praising Hitler and the great good he had done for Germany. He wouldn’t hear of anything about the Holocaust. For him, his childhood memories were a great leader who had removed the ‘stains’ from Germany. He didn’t mention Jews. For him, the homosexuals were the worst.

In those formative years, Harry’s collapsing world meant that he needed something to believe in – an identity. It never went away. The thorough radicalisation of his youth was powerful even into his eighties. That’s how radicalisation works. If you are not convinced, read the chapter on the adolescent brain in Robert Sapolsky’s Behaviour – The Best and Worst of Us.

Maria’s story is fascinating. In a kibbutz (which, again I will not name, as it will be too easy to identify her) where I spent 6 months, Maria, with a tattooed forearm, spoke little Hebrew, much to the chagrin of the sabra Israelis around her. Instead, she sought out the Germans who were there, like me, as ‘volunteers’. She would speak German and she would look happy.

It was hard to get an exact account of how Maria’s experience of the holocaust had been, but, as much as I could ascertain from speaking to the Germans she befriended, Maria had grown up as a secular Jew, as German as any ‘aryan’. Speaking German with the German volunteers felt like her childhood, blissfully unaware of the nightmare about to descend. All her schoolfriends were German. She did not live in a Jewish ghetto. She was a normal German girl.

The experiences of these two people have moved me greatly in my life. As did the hours I spent in Yad Vashem, Jerusalem. Although I did not live through it, I believe I have a deeper sense than most about how it was. In my early years as a history teacher I built a Yad Vashem museum in my classroom. One of the experiences I gave my students was walking through a weaving corridor of horror – about 50 metres of graphic material.

Deutch has the shrink-wrapped version of history, a pocket narrative that is brought out when she wants to prove her Jewishness.

Deutch starts with

“1936 Summer Games, the final runner in the torch relay arrived in Berlin with the Olympic flame. The man, wearing an all-white running ensemble, stood next to dozens of Nazi soldiers in dark uniforms and leather boots. They stood among hundreds of athletes, surrounded by massive Nazi flags adorned with swastikas.”

Really? Is she so ignorant of history that she thinks flag waving and smart uniforms were an indicator of genocide? How sad for her.

When did the brown shirts form? Well, that was 16 years earlier in 1920. They were visible in the streets in the 1920s. In the 1930s, racist slogans were appearing. By 1937, “Juden sind heir nicht unerwunscht” signs were common place. By 1940, “Ewige Jude” was a documentary shown in cinemas.

Are we to imagine that the ‘take away’ from the Holocaust is that we see the signs in the ceremonies and that’s a good indication of a coming holocaust. Is that how shallow Deutch’s understanding is of the 3rd Reich, the democratic election of Hitler, the gamble by the conservatives with unrest between left and right?

Yes, that’s how modern ‘journalism’ works. You take the obvious and you make a story, you create a narrative. You make a false equivalence on the most superficial of elements. And you dishonor those who have suffered, since you have suffered none of it.

“After the Tokyo 2020 Summer Games came to an end last week, a number of Jewish organizations in the U.S. and abroad are again seeking to call attention to another Olympic Games hosted by a country widely known for human rights violations.”

OK. Since you are set on dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust, let me ask you a few questions, Deutch.

Have you met a Holocaust survivor?
Have you visited Yad Vashem?
What are 3 things you would say clearly indicate genocide?
Do you know any of the history of the 3rd Reich?
Where are the points of comparison?
Nazis were not the dominant political power when racist attacks began, so where’s the equivalence?
Where are the brown shirts in Xinjiang?
Krystalnacht? Can you give me an example of this occurring in China?
Ewige Juden. Please link to the Chinese government video portraying Uyghurs as savages.
Where were the Jewish terrorists? What was the equivalent of the ETIM? What separate state were they forming in Germany?
Did Jews in Germany go to a foreign country to fight for Judaism?
What was the name of the Jewish separatist movement in Germany?
Where are the mass graves in Xinjiang?
Where is the anti-Uyghur slogans / signs?
Where are the gas chambers?
Where are the camps that people go into and never come out?
Where are the emaciated people?
In the 3rd Reich – where are the street signs in Hebrew?

Deutch. Don’t imagine yourself Jewish. Don’t imagine yourself to have any understanding of genocide. You are a loathsome creature using the world’s greatest crime to make a political point about China.

Categories
Deradicalisation

Beyond deradicalisation centres – Beijing takes a wholistic and rational approach to poverty alleviation – Part 2

Terror, religion and fascist ideologies

In the previous part of this 6-part series, I discussed the religious context in which Zenz and I grew up. Clearly, Zenz is still trapped within this context, whereas I made a break from this in my late teens, as did so many of my fellow religious travellers.

It would be easy to simply dismiss religion as inherently fascist and thus the enemy of any socialist, communist or collectivist movement. But this flies in the face of what is demonstrably true – that most people have religious practice as a kind of conventional behaviour not entirely different to how they choose to eat or engage in singing and dancing.

Religion is demonstrably a cultural artefact. It both informs cultural expression and is modified by it. In general, it is benign and pedestrian. But, at times, where political aspirations and exclusivity become its aim, religion takes on a markedly fascist flavour.

I wanted to understand how being Muslim in an Muslim majority Asian country might be like. This is important to gauge whether the influence of Wahhabism had some impact on Xinjiang and the unrest that eventually forced China into a de-radicalisation program after terror attacks.

An interview with K

For this series, I interviewed a native Indonesian from Java, a woman in her 50s who I will call K (to preserve her privacy). K grew up in a Muslim family and converted to Christianity in her early adulthood. She describes her religion, and its Indonesian expression as “moderate”. Growing up Muslim did not really seem extraordinary to her – she did feel there were obligations, but largely, in her view, Indonesians Muslims are free to express their Islamic faith as they see fit. Men have more obligations than women, especially in regard to mosque attendance and observance of various festivals, such as Ramadan.

In her culture, K did not really feel any ‘pressure’ from outside her family for ‘compliance’. She and her parents and siblings discussed issues but nobody felt forced to act in any particular way. Her faith was almost entirely conventional, rather than ideological. Her conversion to Christianity did not draw criticism from her family or community.

K was aware that Indonesian Islamic practices were quite separate from other expressions, in nearby Malaysia and the more distant Middle East Arabic countries. By and large, differences in practice were considered part of the Indonesian (or Javanese) tradition. Even then, the practices across various kinds of Islam were also varied, but considered as normal.

The emergence of the oil rich Arab countries towards the end of last century created some noticeable effects in Indonesian society. Arab countries had a new set of rich who looked for domestic employees or cheap labour. As citizens of a nation still developing, many Indonesians, especially those who came from poor villages, found ‘lucrative’ employment in Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia. Many of these employees were able to send back to their villages what amounted to a ‘small fortune’ and were able to build houses and provide accommodation and support to their village in a way that is typically Indonesian.

In moving to these Arab countries, moderate Muslims were required to adopt far stricter Islamic practices related to modest dress, wearing of beards for young men, Qur’anic study, prayer, chaperoning of young woman,  women confined to home, deference to men for women, strict observance of halal and cleanliness rituals. In other words, they adopted what K, somewhat derisively, described as Islam of ‘Arabic fanatics’.

Returning to their villages, these people continued to practice Islam in the new way and, because of their influence as respected financiers of the village, were able to impose these practices on others. Extreme versions of Islam have a missionary zeal in regard to their faith and this was a new “irritating” version of Islam for the generally moderate population of Indonesia. But, as K observed, Indonesian Muslims did not accept this invasion and there was significant ‘push back’ against a variety of Islam considered ‘foreign’.

Intrusive verses lived religion

Although K’s story canvassed the last 50 years, she made a special note that significant influences were most noticeable in the past 10 years. In conversations with my brother, who has worked across Central, East and South East Asia in his professional capacity, this intrusive version of Islam has gained significant ground across Asia, notably in Malaysia.

This is also confirmed by R, a school friend who has lived in Malaysia for 40 years and laments what he considers the debasing of Islam in recent years, often by outsiders, often rich Arabic tourists. For him, radical Islam was and is becoming a way of asserting Malay nationalism in a country with significant colonial baggage.

It is worth calling out some kinds of ‘Islam’ as essentially fascist. They are not ‘Islamic’ in the sense that most Muslims would understand their lived faith, but an intrusive invasion of cultural expression. I will discuss, in the next part, how this kind of fascist religious expression can radicalise a group and set them on a path of collision with local, provincial and national authority.

But, before that, one should return to the inherent fascism of the religious cult in which Zenz and I were immersed.

The Bible and the Sword

It is easy to understand, by reading the history of most European colonial endeavours, that religion gave a rationale for some of the most horrific atrocities that humans have known. Not only was the Bible and cross the symbol of the ‘righteous’ genocide in the Americas, or the driver for missionary conquests of ‘primitive’ cultures, but, through progressively more exclusive interpretations, primed the German people to believe that “Jews crucified Christ”. No doubt, martyrs like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who attempted to assassinate Hitler, took inspiration from their faith, so drawing some causal line between religion and atrocities is fraught.

The role that religion plays, for both Zenz and the radicalisers who created social unrest in Xinjiang, is as a kind of external justification. Fascism thrives in an environment of ‘paradise lost’ – some supposed and often highly fictionalised past is brought to bear on the current situation and all misfortune becomes the fault of those who have “abandoned God in unbelief”. For radical ‘Christianity’, the intense focus on separation from worldliness leads to condemnation of religious liturgy, homosexuality, scientific understanding, openness to different values, sex work, ‘adultery’, ‘illicit sex’, gender variation, cultural expression in art, eating and drinking practices, roles of men and women, dress … such a multitude of cultural norms become the object of hate and the identification of the ‘faithful’ determined by how well they subscribe to the exclusivity of the practices and attitudes.

Radical extremist ‘Islam’ follows a similar path.

The relationship to terror

At its worst, the underlying quest for control and power by the leaders within both Christian and Islamic sects turns to violence, usually targeting those who are considered ‘traitors’ to their religion. Some of the worst terror attacks occur among people of the same religions.

While the world was fixated on the Charlie Hebdo shootings and masses turned out on the streets in solidarity, the Boko Haram attack on the town of Baga in northern Nigeria,  killing at least 200 people, uncovered around the same date, was largely ignored in the world’s media, noted by the then progressive Guardian “Why did the world ignore Boko Haram’s Baga attacks?”

This table gives some notion of the extent of this religiously justified terror just in Africa in just that year. (note: this excludes at least half of the casualties of extremist ‘Islamic’ activity in 2015 in other countries)

Cameroon Jul-13 2 suicide bombers explode in a bar in the town of Fotokol and kill 13 people, including a soldier from Chad who was killed in the second explosion. 15
Cameroon Jul-26 A suicide bomber kills at least 14 people at a popular nightclub in Maruoa, just three days after 2 suicide bombers killed 20 people in the same town. 15
Cameroon Nov-21 Suicide bombers affiliated with Boko Haram kill at least 10 in northern Cameroon. 10
Chad Oct-10 Multiple suicide bombings in Chad killed 33 people and injured 51. The attack is believed to be the work of Boko Haram. 33
Chad Dec-05 Four female suicide bombers from the militant Islamist group Boko Haram attacked the Chadian island of Koulfoua on Lake Chad, killing at least 15 people and injuring 130. 19
Egypt Oct-31 Bomb on board a Russian jet brings it down in Sinai, bound for St Petersburg, killing 224 people. 224
Egypt Nov-24 In the November 2015 Sinai attack which occurred a day after the second round of parliamentary elections closed, militants attack a hotel housing election judges in the provincial capital of al-Arish in Egypt’s North Sinai. 7 dead, 10+ wounded 7
Egypt Nov-28 Islamist gunmen killed four security personnel in an attack at a police checkpoint in Saqqara. 4 dead 4
Egypt Dec-08 An explosive device by Islamists targeting a military convoy went off in Rafah. 4 dead 4 injured. 4
Kenya Apr-02 148 people – most of them Christian students – killed in Al-Shabaab’s Garissa University College attack before Easter weekend Holidays.[96 148
Kenya May-26 Al-Shabaab militants attacked two police patrols which turned into a gun battle north of Garissa, 5 police officers were injured but they were able to kill both of the attackers. 2
Libya Mar-25 ISIL affiliates, The Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries in Libya carried out suicide bombings in the city of Benghazi. Twelve were killed and 25 wounded. Five additional dead during attacks with a local militia 12
Libya May-21 A suicide bomber detonated his explosives at a military checkpoint outside of Misrata killing himself and two guards. 3
Mali Nov-28 Militants fired rockets on a MINUSMA peacekeeping forces base in northern Mali. Ansar Dine claimed responsibility. 3 dead, 20 wounded. 3
Niger Oct-28 Boko Haram militants attack a village in Niger, gunning down 13 people and allegedly burning down houses and cars during the rampage. 13
Niger Nov-25 Boko Haram invades a village and shoots indiscriminately residents and also fire rockets, killing 18. 18
Nigeria Jan-08 Jihadist Boko Haram attacked the town of Baga in northern Nigeria killing at least 200 people. Another 2,000 are unaccounted for 200
Nigeria Jun-26 Boko Haram kills at least 200 people as they gun down and bomb villages, mosques, and other public space. 200
Nigeria Jul-05 Two bombs explode at an elite restaurant and mosque, killing at least 15 people in Jos. 15
Nigeria Jul-07 A bomb explodes in a government office in Zaria, killing 20 people. 20
Nigeria Jul-17 Two Nigerian towns are attacked by two suicide bombers, killing 62 people. 62
Nigeria Jul-22 A series of explosions at two bus stations in Gombe kill about 40 people. 40
Nigeria Aug-11 47 people are killed as explosions erupt at a crowded market in the town of Sabon Gari. 47
Nigeria Aug-28 Boko Haram members massacre 79 people in 3 different Nigerian villages. 68 alone were killed in the village of Baanu. 79
Nigeria Sep-10 Explosion at a refugee camp for people fleeing Boko Haram kills at least 2. 2
Nigeria Sep-21 At least 54 people were killed by multiple explosions in Nigeria. 54
Nigeria Oct-01 Multiple suicide bombings by Boko Haram in North-East Nigeria killed 14 people (including the bombers) and injured 39. 14
Nigeria Oct-22 20 people were killed in the northeast state of Borno, Nigeria in a Boko Haram attack. 20
Nigeria Oct-23 Two separate mosques were attacked by suicide bombers, killing 42 in Nigeria. 42
Nigeria Nov-17 A suicide attack at a market in Yola killed more than 30 people and hospitalised more than 80. The attack is thought to be the work of Boko Haram. 30
Nigeria Nov-18 Two explosions rock a phone market in Kano killing at least 15 people and injuring more than 100. Boko Haram is suspected to be behind it. 15
Nigeria Nov-22 8 people among women and children demise when a female suicide bomber is reduced to pulp. 8
Nigeria Nov-27 21 killed in Boko Haram suicide attack on a Shia procession in Nigeria[citation ne 22
Nigeria Dec-13 Boko Haram Islamists, at least some using machetes, attacked residents of the villages of Warwara, Mangari, and Bura-Shika. 30 killed and 20 injured 30
Nigeria Dec-26 Boko Haram gunmen raided Kimba village in northern Nigeria, opening fire on residents and torching their homes. 14+ killed.[193] 14
Nigeria Dec-28 Fourteen Islamist female suicide bombers aged 12–18 attempted to simultaneously attack the city of Maiduguri. Seven of the bombers were shot dead by Nigerian forces while three managed to escape and detonate themselves in Baderi general area and near a Mosque, killing 26 people and wounding another 85. 36
Somalia Apr-20 A minivan of UN workers was bombed by Al-Shabaab in the Puntland region of Somalia. 9 dead 4 injured. 9
Somalia Oct-07 Militants of Al-Shabaab ambushed and killed the nephew of Somalia’s president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. 2 dead. 2
Syria Dec-11 In the Tell Tamer bombings three truck bombs by ISIL killed up to 60 people and injured more than 80 in the town of Tell Tamer. 60
Tunisia Mar-18 Bardo National Museum attack. Militants linked to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) attack the Bardo National Museum with guns, killing 21 people and injuring around 50 21
Tunisia Jun-26 2015 Sousse attacks – A gunman, named Seifeddine Rezgui, attacked a hotel targeting the European tourists staying there. 38
Tunisia Nov-24 At least 14 people were killed in a bus bombing in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia. ISIL claimed responsibility for this attack that targeted a bus transporting members of the Presidential Guard. 14
Total 1624

To anyone engaged with global events and geopolitics, these figures are not remarkable, even if they are horrific. From 2013, the explosion of attacks, not on western targets, but within Islamic majority areas, clearly signalled an issue that the world needed to come to grips with.

The range of responses from around the world has already been touched upon, but the focus on the next part of this series will be Xinjiang in China and the deradicalisation project that occurred there.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Testimony

Senator Patrick doesn’t seem to give a shit about the truth.

Last week, very politely, I asked Senator Patrick some questions about an important topic. Here’s the email.

Dear Senator Patrick

Professor James Leibold gave testimony to the Australian Senate Committee, Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020 on Tuesday, 27 April, 2021, namely:

“Since 2019, I’ve interviewed 10 former Xinjiang workers and 30 immediate family members of workers and what I’ve learned from them through those interviews and through comparison to open-and-closed access Chinese government documents, such as internal police documents, is that a system of unfree labour is now widespread in Xinjiang and, to a certain extent, across China.”

Given the seriousness of these accusations, please explain why this valuable evidence was not obtained under notice – that is, a request made for Professor Leibold to provide de-identified transcripts of the interviews and explanations of the interview methodology.

Given that lying to a senate committee is contempt of the Senate and attracts a possible prison sentence, please explain what measures that you have taken to check that the professor was telling the truth.

I look forward to your response within the next 48 hours.

In the event that you choose not to respond, I will have no alternative than to judge that you have no interest in this matter or that it is not important to you and given the importance of this evidence, to publish your response.

Regards

Andrew Westerman

The accusation against China is very serious. It would seem that critical evidence, such as the testimony of people who have actually experienced forced labour, would be considered very pertinent to a Senate Committee looking to bring legislation before parliament to try and prevent it.

But despite a lot of posturing, it doesn’t seem like Senator Patrick actually gives a shit. The very fact that he didn’t follow this testimony from Leibold with a request for transcripts shows that he did not participate in this committee to see something of benefit occur to the people allegedly affected, but instead was doing what every politician is adept at – self-promotion.

The email I sent to Patrick was cc-ed to James Leibold. So now he, too, is aware of my request. But he’s not really obliged to do or say anything. For me, he can do what he likes. For the Senate, he just has to turn up and answer questions.

Of course, he has to tell the truth as well. Lying to the Senate is Contempt of Senate which can lead to a prison sentence. If he actually did as he said he did – that is, interviewed these people – then he should have no problem publishing de-identified transcript. So, since this is a serious issue, I’ll do what Patrick was too lazy or too stupid to do. I’ll ask Leibold, right here, to prove he is not lying.

Of course, he will probably ignore me. But, I did ask. And his response will be telling.

As for Patrick, just another politician full of shitfuckery.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives

What an apologist for terror looks like

You might think that someone who has been to a war zone, especially somewhere like Vietnam, might understand what being a pawn in a geopolitical game feels like and be interested to expose those who thought fit to sacrifice the young of the US, thoroughly radicalised to hate people who they had never met and who met them no harm. You might think that they might have twigged to the modes of persuasion that their government used to draw young men into a pointless conflict.

But, Paul Mooney has given us an insight into how thorough his radicalisation truly was, demonstrating that he is quite unable to either detect how he is being manipulated nor able to recognise the true danger of terrorism.

Brenton Tarrant was radicalised by a group of right-wing terror advocates. They cultivated in him the sense of the ‘other’ and a sincere belief in ‘replacement theory’. His manifesto is not the rant of a lunatic, but a measured rationale for the genocide of Muslims.

Just for Paul Mooney’s edification, so that he really does understand what terrorism looks like, despite my disgust, I share with him a pixelated image of part of Tarrant’s triumphal service for his cause. For his information, the segment of live stream shows a group of people cowering in the corner as Tarrant shoots them with an automatic weapon in cold blood. 52 people died.

I fear that there are people in the world for whom such images do not evoke disgust and a determination to never allow it to happen again. There are people, who in their enthusiasm to prove their credentials as anti-China heroes, do not seem to mind playing semantic games with terror.

Let’s examine Paul Mooney’s recent altercation with Daniel Dumbrill.

Mooney begins his Twitter stream with an attempt to bait Li Jingjing.

Of course, Mooney believes this is terribly clever and edgy. The sign, which supposedly refers to illegal religious activities, is his point. Much as I despise Sam Harris and his right-wing politics, one of his most brilliant pieces asks the question, “If a particular religion asks for you to pluck the eyes out of your firstborn, should you do it?” The obvious answer to Mooney’s infantile ‘meme’ is “If there are activities that are considered ‘religious practice’ that are harmful to people and could lead to illegal actions, such as stabbing someone, then regular people ought to expect the state to protect them.”

What is Mooney suggesting? Should Tarrant have been allowed his ‘holy war’ against Muslims, because it could be construed as religious?

Jingjing , who, quite rightly, defends her country against the multitude of vacuous accusation and is ever the patient teacher, provides Mooney with a video where she interviews an imam. The imam simply debunks the narrative from the West that China’s deradicalisation program is anything more than an effective way to prevent the Tarrants of the world.

It is such a calm, Chinese way of dealing with imbecilic western types, that it almost makes me laugh. The child waves a meme and the adult says calmly, “Not now, dear.”

Of course, Mooney plays the ‘CCP’ card. The imam is not real! He’s a puppet! And out trots the terror-apologia. Clearly, the imam cannot be considered to be independently intelligent and articulate and, plainly, had a ‘gutful’ of his people and his religion being manipulated by US interests. After all, Uighur people are museum artefacts in a human zoo, quaint relics who must be preserved exactly as we found them? How can they have agency?

I am amazed that, in what follows, Tweeters are so patient with Mooney. Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but at this point, I would have said bluntly to Mooney, “Fuck off, you moron.” But I’m old, cranky and impatient with fools.

Mooney forms an alliance with a clown @JRsChinaBlog1, clearly another of the experts on China who peddle smear.

Apparently, according to Mooney, there’s an age limit on radicalisation. I suspect Mooney imagines himself as a psychologist of some repute, able to divine the motives of his ‘friend’. Of course, no young, impressionable young person, wavering in their cultural identity and religious allegiance could be swayed in their thinking by an 85 year old, who they respect and listen to as a cultural practice.

No need of vocational education? If your vocation is as an elder in your community and you spout extremism, education may be fruitless, but it is probably deserved. Hopefully, Mooney’s friend was so pissed off by the experience that she thought twice about being a terror apologist.

Of course, mate JR trots out the requisite propaganda set from the ‘authoritative’ NY Times. Maybe JR has lived in the upper reaches of Boganland, where no information except QAnon conspiracies penetrate. Maybe he would like to nominate the country, besides New Zealand (which failed abysmally) that didn’t take terror seriously. Let’s check them off. Indonesia (Muslim majority) shoots and kills a terror cell. Australian terrorist is shot by security guard. US bombs several countries, Israel bombs Gaza.  France and German shoot them dead.

So JR pretty much proves them-self to be a western media hack, with little of any substance to add.

Methodically, @cinahistory takes the infants through an understanding of the history of terror. But our terror apologising CIA operative constructs his terror rationale. “The folk were pissed off. They were justified to engage in terror. If China had not been so hard on radicalisation, nothing would have happened!”

This delusionary perspective aside, there’s something just as sinister at play here. In line with the racist trope of “everyone who is yellow looks the same”, Mooney espouses a view that Xinjiang Uyghurs universally subscribe to the bullying, fascist extremism that the likes of Arslan Hidayat and his ETIM ilk attempt to sell as Islam. Uyghurs who dissent from this, well, they are the CCP agents and those extremists are the true heroes.

Whether it’s wanton ignorance or simple deceit, Mooney’s terror apologia seems unable to come to grips with the reality of ‘East Turkistan’ involvement with ISIS. Despite the patient education from @cinahistory, Mooney has his heart set on terror denial.

I guess Mooney’s derisive response was an open invitation for Daniel Dumbrill to bring some hard evidence to Mooney (futile as that turns out to be).

Mooney’s open denial of terror, ETIM, extremism, radicalisation of youth is probably all part of the terror apologia script. Still, you wonder at his nerve to actually put it up on Twitter.

Mooney is well out of his depth in encountering Daniel. Daniel is a seasoned veteran of terror-denialists and the evidence he needs is at hand, with no hesitation. Things don’t end well for Mooney.

The last bomb dropped leaves Mooney recoiling. Yep, that’s HIS country explicitly articulating their policy on terror, in 2018.

I think I concur with those who, at the end of the interaction, feel a certain pity for Mooney. I would feel more sympathetic, except something about those cowering figures, those innocent Muslim women and children and old men, ignites an anger towards these denialists, these apologists, that I can no longer contain.

One day, someone who Mooney loves, someone who is dear to him, will be murdered at the hands of a terrorist, radicalised by someone’s ‘friend’. Maybe, in that moment, he will reflect that his touting for a job with the BBC by exhibiting his anti-China credentials was evil and moronic.

 

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Modes of addressing sources Poverty alleviation Western media bias against China

Beyond deradicalisation centres – Beijing takes a wholistic and rational approach to poverty alleviation – Part 1

Introduction: Religion muddies everything

Among western media, academia and social media, the ‘go to’ source for anti-China ‘information’ is Adrian Zenz. He is easily the most quoted and his work most referenced. This status, as some kind of guru, is surprising, considering Zenz’s formal qualifications are in theology, not Chinese history, economics, social policy or political science.

But anyone who has grown up within the religious circles that have surrounded Zenz since his youth will understand immediately how Zenz’s beliefs impact on his view of the world and how being ‘marinated’ in the toxic culture of the cult that is so earnestly anti-China creates a mode of thinking in which the only conclusion, even from the most benign of data or testimony, becomes ‘evidence’ of ‘evil’.

The taxonomy of evil that drives Zenz’s perspective

The world view to which members of this cult subscribe, in one version or another, with insignificant variation, places nearly everybody in the world, with the exception of a lucky few ‘saints’, on a collision course with God. At the top of the ‘taxonomy of evil’ are atheists and ‘atheist nations’. Further down are secularists. Other religions, especially those outside Abrahamic religions, are deception, failing to acknowledge the true God.

Finally, Judaism, Islam and Christianity have a place amongst the enemies of God – Jews for rejecting Christ, Islam for rejecting the Trinity and other Christians for adulterating the message of Jesus and allowing themselves to be tainted by feminism, homosexuality and socialism.

Fortunately for ‘the saints’ God is a jealous God and intends the mass destruction of all his enemies and, depending on the version of the cult’s ‘end times’ thesis, this ushers in 1000 years of glorious reign by Jesus. Saints are spared the holocaust that is predicted by being ushered into heaven during the Rapture.

It may come as a surprise to some that this fanciful set of beliefs could be taken seriously. But Zenz and his ilk are earnest in their beliefs and will pursue the ‘work of God’ with a zeal unmatched by even the world’s greatest revolutionaries. I know that, because I once lived in that world.

In my youth, nothing could evoke a greater sense of dread and fear as the mention of the the two great ‘evil empires’ – USSR and China. Every event was seen through the Cold War lens, but for my family, the geopolitical explanations of the actions of communists was not just about politics or economics – it was about a spiritual realm in which evil was dominating.

Within this cultish moral frame, any objective analysis of the actions of any agent, global or personal, was impossible. Communist and homosexuals had an inherent, sinister and common aim – to destroy the world. This plays out in the ‘work’ of Zenz, where even the most benign and unremarkable of actions, events or data are interpreted as evidence of evil.

A particular mode of dealing with evidence

But, a further characteristic of this cultish environment is the mode of research. I can remember interminable arguments over single words and passages of the Biblical text. ‘Verses’ were liberally cherry-picked to support a thesis and rejecting literal interpretations of texts was considered corrupt. The divine motives of God were unimpeachable – the logic was that the thesis was bequeathed by God to the saintly and any evidence, either external or textual, was massaged to fit that thesis.

This mode is clear in all of Zenz’s anti-China projects. Alternative explanations are not countenanced. The only explanation is that there is a evil nation driven by an evil government under the spell of an evil doctrine. This drives every interpretation of the sources to which Zenz refers.

Cherry picking evidence is considered entirely legitimate. The essential meaning of texts or testimony or any inconsistencies are simply ignored. Once again, this is Zenz’s mode in his anti-China papers – identified over and over again by those of us who care about academic integrity and who challenge the anti-China narrative.

Viewing the same evidence without the prejudice

I have decided to review one of Zenz’s ‘academic’ papers published in the Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 7, No. 12, December 2019 titled “Beyond the Camps: Beijing’s Long-Term Scheme of Coercive Labor, Poverty Alleviation and Social Control in Xinjiang” and to include all of Adrian Zenz’s sources as my sources – but without his ‘blinkered’ perspective.

This is Part 1 of a 6 part series.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives General Western media bias against China

The thin-skinned western press is more precious than ever

In a flurry of indignation, western media outlets, including some masquerading as ‘left’, such as the Guardian, deplored the unwelcome attention of Chinese citizens towards a pair of ‘foreign’ reporters:

Reporters from the Los Angeles Times and German outlet Deutsche Welle were confronted by an angry crowd in Zhengzhou on Saturday, who filmed and questioned them, and accused them of “rumour mongering” and slandering China. Other journalists have also been targeted, with a specific focus on the BBC. (Guardian)

Despite the fact that the whole incident ended civilly, western journalists,  Alice Su and Mathias Boelinger, took to Twitter to ‘sook’ about their experience.

Su said they were in an area where underground markets had flooded and many shopkeepers had lost their assets and were “distressed about insufficient government help”.

 

“There were many other ppl [sic] in Zhengzhou and the surrounding worse-hit areas who were open and even eager to talk about the destruction and difficulties they’re facing,” Su tweeted. “But this crowd seemed really angry and eager just to tell the foreigners off.” (Su, in the Guardian)

 

Describing the incident on Twitter, DW’s Boelinger said he was pushed and yelled at for “smearing China”, and that it became apparent the crowd believed he was the BBC correspondent Robin Brant.

“What I did not know at the time was that a manhunt was on after [Brant],” said Beolinger. “There is a vicious campaign against the BBC News in nationalistic circles and state media.” (Boelinger, in the Guardian)

Naturally, the Guardian provides no context as to what may have raised the ire of Chinese people and there is no questioning Boelinger’s completely unsubstantiated claims of a vicious campaign.

Boelinger’s super-sensitivity highlights a growing paranoia among western media and an unwillingness for the western press to accept any criticism. This was clearly articulated by another western media hack, Stephen McDonell.

McDonell blocks anyone who might have a contrary opinion. Hiding behind the broad sweep of “attack on me”, McDonell’s entitled posture is that “I can do whatever I want – belittle whomever I choose, smear whomever I choose, but don’t push back on me.”

I was blocked for highlighting that McDonell, who now takes a deliberate and pronounced anti-China stance, was a different reporter 10 years ago. Back then, when he reported on Xinjiang (the subject of another piece to come), there was balance and some attempt to provide some rationale for both ‘sides’. Clearly, this was an ‘attack on him’ and I was blocked.

Western media lives in a mythical libertarian land where insults have no consequences and free speech is what I am allowed to say and your push back evidence of ‘totalitarianism’.

Boelinger et al at DW are blithely unaware of their own negativity, bias and anti-China fixation. This leads to a contrived, almost neurotic, sensitivity towards criticism. One might expect that of a spoilt 3 year old, not a global news outfit.

In reporting on floods in Henan, Boelinger remarks:

the mayor of Zhengzhou came there at midnight with the policeman without press and police were pushing us away. She was having a look at the scene but she did not want it to be seen at this place. You did not want to be associated with what was happening. (China floods- Dozens dead and thousands displaced in Henan – DW News)

The whole report makes no attempt to recognise the work of authorities in helping people or to explain how the sheer magnitude of the flood overwhelmed rescue effort. Boelinger was interested in only one perspective in his report “China is a bad place because authorities don’t care”.

Meanwhile, in a grovelling tone, reporting about Merkel’s visit to German flood areas, DW gives us this obsequious cringe:

Angela Merkel was also examining the implications of this disaster for government policy. What exactly was the message after the trip. Well, she really made sure that people who were affected knew what message the government had and this is a message that says that the government is going to be there for the people short term, mid term and long term. That’s what she said. She also did address climate change and maybe we could hear to what she had to say about how it effects … (German Chancellor Merkel visits flood-ravaged region – DW News)

The obvious difference in reporting by DW between China and Germany exposes their determination to paint a negative picture of China – a picture that Chinese people are not going to accept or leave without some response. The fact that, all of a sudden, western media is ‘surprised and dismayed’ by people’s reactions only spells large the sense of neo-colonial entitlement that western media feels over China.

Western media has been caught out. Their hypocrisy over this incident – their complete failure to condemn the thugs in Hong Kong euphemistically labelled “Hong Kong pro-democracy protestors”, who beat up people in the street, set people on fire, smashed shops and signs, blocked traffic and caused havoc for months on end – this is what riles Chinese people to be so angry that they … smash things? No. beat people? No. Set people on fire? No.

No, they spoke excitedly for 10 minutes and then apologised.

For fuck’s sake, western ‘journalists’. If your skin is becoming so thin, perhaps see a specialist about that. Just don’t whine like a bunch of cry-babies.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Western media bias against China

If you want to know why Australians hate China so much, look no further than the ABC

This is Part 1 of a 5 part series on the ABC.

Part 2 examines interview modes that the ABC employs to smear China.

Part 3 shows how equivalent topics are given different treatments, where the language of negativity is reserved for China.

Balance? What balance?

Nearly every night, Australians can sit down to the ABC News and find out how bad China is. Now, that’s quite an accusation. Well, let’s examine this claim.

A while ago, I took a snapshot of the ABC’s on-line summary page on its Chinese language version of the news. (If you are wondering why the image is blurry, it’s because I’m not interested in implicating the Chinese community – you go and make your own snapshot)

 

The crosses indicate negative stories on China. As a graph, this looks like:

If you think this snapshot unrepresentative, simply follow the page for a week.

Or perhaps, the YouTube News In-Depth is more representative – let’s see. This is screen dump of about the first 300 videos:

 

OK. That’s a bit hard to see. Perhaps this makes it clearer. This is all the China related stories. Red dots indicate critical or negative stories, white some attempt to balance opinions and green a positive story.

This speaks for itself about the overwhelming anti-China bias. Or, of 32 stories about China, over 75% are negative, a little under 25% are neutral and 3% are positive.

But maybe these articles or YouTube videos aren’t biased.

So, maybe ‘the devil is in the detail’. So, here’s a quick review of a story about the lab leak theory from ABC podcasts. You can check for yourself, here is the link.
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/the-signal/did-covid-19-leak-from-a-lab/13358878

Here’s the image they use:

Here’s what the Wuhan Institute of Virology actually looks like.

Actually, the place where the research takes place is here.


In this file photo taken on April 17, 2020, an aerial view shows the P4 laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China’s central Hubei province. – The World Health Organization said on May 5, 2020 that Washington had provided no evidence to support “speculative” claims by the US president that the new coronavirus originated in a Chinese lab. The facility is among a handful of labs around the world cleared to handle Class 4 pathogens (P4) – dangerous viruses that pose a high risk of person-to-person transmission. (Photo by Hector RETAMAL / AFP)

Now, what sorts of signals does the chosen image give? A guard preventing access? A sinister location? When you read the article’s transcript, you realise it necessary to set the listeners mind in the right place. Nothing to do with viruses. Just a particular view of China.

When I emailed the producers and asked about this:

Please explain why your podcast is promoting conspiracy theories which your interviewees admitted had no evidence to support it. Please also explain why this image appears on the podcast, with a sinister framing of the WIV.

Here’s their reply.

“The photo for the episode was chosen as it communicates a clear element of the story: the experts we featured on the episode expressed concerns about China’s lack of transparency around the lab.”

Well, at least they were honest about where they fell on the issue. Condemn China before the reader / listener has an opportunity to form their opinion based on the evidence or what they hear.

Textbook propaganda.

“The Signal podcast has long relied on balanced analysis from reliable experts to unpack current affairs.”

Here’s the balance of the word count of those interviewed.

So, if you don’t believe me, do the word count. How much did they refer to Chinese sources for their information? Wouldn’t want China to have right of reply.

So what thesis did they support? Well, one might expect they would have a neutral view and allow the evidence to speak for itself. I call it a conspiracy when you string together ideas to form a theory based on no facts (an admission made IN THE ARTICLE).

Apparently, it wasn’t.

So, we managed to get 10 bioweapons mentions in and even the Russians are involved. Classic conspiracy.

You think I might be lying? Go ahead, read the transcript. Can’t find it? Neither could I. Because far be it from a reputable media organisation to have such evidence lying around for a critical viewer.

Remember that, when I next accuse you of beating your wife, only bring witnesses who will say I’m right and no photos please, unless it shows a shadowy figure that might be me looking suspicious.

But maybe this is not an important part of ABC’s repertoire on China.

OK. Are you ready for something more heavy weight? Buckle up. This is a long one. We’re going to break down a whole 4Corners episode.

POKING THE DRAGON: Four Corners – 26 April 2021

Why is China punishing Australia? The human impact of the trade war | Four Corners

STEPHEN LONG:

The lunar new year is a time of celebration. In Chinatown they’re feasting on Tasmanian rock lobster. China used to be the biggest market for this delicacy – before a trade stoush that’s smashed Australian businesses.

MICHAEL BLAKE:

Only last night, I had a fisherman on the phone crying to me, wondering how he’s going to pay his bills, and yeah, this is only the start, I think. For the best part of a year, China’s trade sanctions have hit industry after industry.

Nobody is going to object to highlighting the damage to Australia’s industries of government policy on China.

DOUG SMITH:

This was massive, this was the end of our export to China.

TONY BATTAGLENE:

The markets actually dropped to zero.

BRENDON TAYLOR:

We’re all in survival mode. We’re doing the best we can. That’s all we can do.

So, now we have your sympathy, it’s time for our anti-China thesis.

STEPHEN LONG:

The dispute is about far more than trade.

SCOTT WALDRON:

The trade barriers that China imposed on Australia in 2020 are cases of economic coercion.

Straight away, the framing is that China’s actions are coercive.

So, if China’s retaliation is framed as coercive, then Australia’s banning of Huawei and its extensive list of actions in the WTO and in imposing tariffs, against other countries, not just China, must be seen as coercive.

Will that point be made? Well, no.

RORY MEDCALF:

China is trying to coerce Australia into supporting essentially China’s interests.

Rory Medcalf’s inclusion here as an expert in strategic relations is no surprise. However, he is hardly a neutral voice, considering his publications.

Here’s a sample

“Between 2016 and 2018, Australia’s perceptions of China underwent a significant reality check, with global implications. Australia has been a first mover in pushing back against Chinese foreign interference, including via new foreign influence and interference laws. The recalibration of Australia-China relations, and the events and policy debate that proceeded it, is instructive for other countries seeking to respond to the more assertive and coercive elements of Chinese foreign policy.” (Australia And China: understanding the reality check, Rory Medcalf, 24 Oct 2018)

 

“These include huge investments in strategic infrastructure as well as economic coercion, social interference, cyber infiltration, espionage, political influence and military presence.”

 

“But an Australian politician would hardly be the first person to note that some of the Chinese Communist Party’s objectives and methods today resonate with the totalitarian and imperial powers of the past.”

 

“China’s persecution of minorities, especially the detention of more than a million Muslim Uighur people, has drawn international condemnation, with parallels to the internment of Jews, dissidents and others in the 1930s. Having endured Nazism and the Stasi, Germany is better attuned than Australia in sensing threats to democracy.” (https://nsc.crawford.anu.edu.au/department-news/14970/defence-andrew-hastie)

So, now the framing is complete. We have experts, one an outspoken critic of China, telling us China is coercive.

JANE GOLLEY:

I just do wonder how many times we might choose to poke the dragon before the dragon turns back and blows fire at us in a pretty painful way.

The first dissenting opinion.Jane Golley is an economist specialising in China. Seems reasonable to ask her about sanctions. Note how she stays away from coercion narrative.

STEPHEN LONG, REPORTER:

Tonight, on four corners, we investigate China’s trade sanctions against Australia. We’ll meet the Australian business people hit hard by China’s bans and tariffs. And we’ll explore whether Beijing is using trade as a weapon in a campaign of political coercion.

But Stephen reinforces the theme.

Well actually, Stephen, the organisation that adjudicates ‘coercion’ is the WTO. I’m pretty sure Stephen Long isn’t in any position to make this judgement. So, this is framing for propaganda purposes, not reporting.

19 May 2020 Newsreader:

China has followed through on its threat to whack crippling tariffs on Australian barley, a move that will further inflame tensions between the two nations. The 80 per cent tariff will be in place for five years, a decision that could cost Australian farmers hundreds of millions of dollars.

This is an opportunity to explain how these cases take a long time to resolve – even decades – and therefore avoiding these, at all costs, is a sound strategy. Certainly, short term political posturing has serious consequences. But, that context might threaten the theme of coercion.

Just watch how our host keeps our attention on China’s culpability in this:

STEPHEN LONG:

The Salt Lake Country of southern WA is a long way from Canberra, and a world away from Beijing. But farmers here have found themselves on the front line of a trade war with China. It’s a windswept landscape … and it may not look like a food bowl … but it’s rich terrain for grain.

DOUG SMITH, WA GRAINS GROUP:

In this particular area, the Lakes area of Western Australia, barley is one of our main cash crops. I mean, it probably accounts for 50 percent of the grain that’s grown here in Western Australia.

Yes. This, and many other industries, are vital industries in keeping Australia’s income diversified. Probably not a good idea to play politics with.

STEPHEN LONG:

Doug Smith heads the industry association WA Grains Group. Until last year, he was riding a barley boom driven by surging Chinese demand. At its peak, China was buying more than a billion dollars’ worth of Australian barley a year.

DOUG SMITH:

We were sort of exporting somewhere around six million tonne of barley to China, we’re talking Australia-wide here. I think Western Australia alone was exporting somewhere around three and a half million tonne. So, we’ve forsaken all the other markets basically because it was all we could do to produce enough to satisfy the Chinese market.

Here, we have an opportunity to open up a conversation on the high risk business strategy – but, of course, that complicates the anti-China theme.

STEPHEN LONG:

But the risk of banking on China hit home last May, when it imposed a crippling 80 per cent tariff on the industry.

That’s it. That’s the discussion of the risky strategy.

Unfortunately, Australian politicians have little to no appreciation of the risks in business, as most have never run businesses. This was a good opportunity to interrogate those such as Andrew Hastie on why he felt it proper or useful to comment on China when it was likely industries in his state would be affected.

Regardless of however you think about free speech, the words of Australian politicians do impact and Hastie and his ilk need to explain why it is sensible or practical to say those things (not whether it is principled). Why were they not interrogated about risk?

DOUG SMITH:

All of a sudden, here it was. And this wasn’t the $10 or $15 a tonne that the industry thought might’ve been imposed on us, this was massive, this was the end of our export to China.

China is fully entitled to impose a tariff if it believes there has been dumping. Back to the umpire at the WTO.

 

STEPHEN LONG:

To make matters worse, the announcement of China’s decision came when the new season’s crops were already in the ground.

Here’s the framing for the next claim – that China deliberately wanting to cripple the industry.

DOUG SMITH:

If they had’ve made the announcement of that level of tariff, oh, let’s say, in February, it would have been quite easy for growers to say, well, look, we’re not going to grow as much barley. But to wait until after, for all intents and purposes, a lot of the Australian barley crop was planted, was it strategic? I would think so.

Despite his place in the industry, this is a claim that Doug cannot possibly prove. But, challenging him would steer us away from the theme of China-does-bad.

STEPHEN LONG:

It was a bitter blow after exhaustive efforts to refute China’s allegations that Australia was dumping barley, at below the cost of production, onto the Chinese market.

DOUG SMITH:

The timeline that was put on the industry to respond were so short. It was incredible. And the detail that they were looking for. They were looking for basically financial detail back down to grower level.

Possible tariff impositions are a fact of trade and export industries. Is this lack of preparedness for what China is entitled to do? Why is this not pursued?

DOUG CLARKE, BARLEY GROWER:

They’ve worked out very well to target the industries that cause the least amount of problems in their country, so it doesn’t shut down their woollen mills so the wool keeps going, the iron ore. So, they’re strategically picking off Australia where it has the least impact on their economy.

Doug Clarke is entitled to his opinion, but his claims need to be tested. This would be an opportunity to ask a representative from China about the timing. However, the right of reply does not seem to be considered to be a principle by which 4Corners operates.

STEPHEN LONG:

Debby, how do you feel about this?

DEBBY CLARKE, BARLEY GROWER:

Well, it is a bit annoying. But you can’t waste energy on being angry or annoyed when you cannot influence a foreign government.

Women always give more practical answers and she hits the nail on the head. She can’t influence Beijing but senior Australian politicians can. They could use diplomacy.

DOUG CLARKE:

I mean, we can’t do trade at any cost. I mean, we got to uphold our principles and the principles of the Australian way. We don’t want to lie down in a foetal position and get kicked to death. We need to stand up and fight back.

So, Doug, you are paying for your principles. China has its principles too. It stands up for them. Except you don’t expect the ABC to canvas those values.

If you choose to fight back, you choose to take the punches. Best to know what it is you are fighting for if you have to suffer the pain. Australia has a long and sad record of fighting for principles which turn out to be futile, such as a 20 year war in Afghanistan.

Is this not a good time in the documentary to get the perspective of a long serving diplomat, such as Gary Locke, who believes that public criticism of China is counterproductive or former secretary of state Susan Shirk or Susan A. Thornton.

It appears that 4Corners is only set on painting a picture of the pain, rather than reflecting the complexity of international relationships. Interviewing those with a more nuanced view of this diminishes the anti-China impact.

STEPHEN LONG:

Australia is challenging China’s tariff at the World Trade Organisation.

DAN TEHAN, FEDERAL MINISTER FOR TRADE:

It might take one or two years for us to resolve it, but the principle of it is incredibly important. We want to go to the umpire, and we want to get a decision from the umpire, whether the actions being taken are right or not. If we don’t have organisations like the World Trade Organisation for us to go to then it’s basically the rule of the jungle.

Yet another opportunity to ask the Minister why Australia has been so ready to go to the WTO against China and does not expect some kind of retaliation. Maybe an interview with David Uren on Australia’s anti-dumping record (84 actions against 6 from Japan) might have put this in perspective.

But 4Corners is not actually interested in perspective. This is simple propaganda, letting their political master talk for minutes on end about their justifications.

STEPHEN LONG:

Barley was the start of a slew of trade allegations and sanctions that followed a souring of relations between Canberra and Beijing.

19 April 2020 Newsreader:

The Foreign Minister Marise Payne is refusing to be drawn on whether she trusts China over its handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

STEPHEN LONG:

Australia’s call for a covid inquiry appeared to be a catalyst.

20 April 2020 Newsreader:

A Chinese analyst has described the foreign minister Marise Payne’s calls for an independent inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus outbreak and the global response as deplorable.

So, now some counter-narrative.

PROFESSOR RORY MEDCALF, HEAD, NATIONAL SECURITY COLLEGE, AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY:

It’s a big mistake to think that this is simply because of the way the Australian Government responded to the pandemic, the way the Australian Government, very bluntly called for an international investigation into the origins of COVID-19. If it wasn’t that, it would have been something else. There’s been an accumulation of friction points between Australia and China, I’d say at least over the past five years that go to fundamental differences of interests and of political values.

PROFESSOR JANE GOLLEY, DIRECTOR, AUSTRALIAN CENTRE ON CHINA IN THE WORLD, AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY:

If you look at the downward trend of political relations it actually goes back, I think, to a high point, of about 2014 and there are a number of actions on both sides, of both the Chinese and Australian government, that signal a pretty consistent downward trajectory, and there’s not a lot of reason to think that that’s going to turn around.

It’s now safe to introduce any culpability on Australia or an alternative view. 4Corners has established “China bad – we sad”.

So, maybe we can now have a nuanced narrative?

Well, first we get to hear from China. I mean, they’ve been in the dock for half the show. Let’s give them 10 seconds of explanation.

STEPHEN LONG:

China set out its grievances in a document leaked to the media last year. They included banning Chinese telco Huawei from building Australia’s 5G network. Australia’s foreign interference laws. The call for an “independent inquiry into Covid-19”. Australia’s “incessant wanton interference in China’s Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan affairs”. And “antagonistic” media reports that were “poisoning the atmosphere of bilateral relations”.

Here’s an opportunity to bring in those who judge these provocations as completely unfounded and unnecessary.

For example,

“Associate Professor Matthew Sussex from the Australian National University said Australia’s attempt to get out in front of the issue ‘needlessly annoyed the EU, and further problematised our relationship with China’.”

“There’s a good argument to say that we stood to gain more by waiting,” he said.”

“The EU would have gone to the WHA anyway, and Canberra could have played a middle role to mediate whatever hard line Washington had come up with, building consensus and a coalition in the process.”

No, much better to bring in a shady story.

STEPHEN LONG:

The reporter who was handed the document by an embassy official had no doubt about China’s agenda.

JONATHAN KEARSLEY, POLITICAL REPORTER, NINE NEWS:

I was very clear in asking her, what does this mean in the context of the trade issues and what we’d seen with beef and barley and wine and the like? And she said:

STEPHEN LONG:

On the same day, China’s powerful foreign ministry echoed key grievances in answer to a question about the trade dispute.

ZHAO LIJIAN, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SPOKESPERSON:

Australia has blatantly violated the basic norms of international relations, repeatedly made mistakes on issues concerning China’s core interests like Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan.

So, here’s an opportunity to properly examine the grievances. Perhaps former Foreign Minister Julie Bishop could have been interviewed as to how the US is crippling the WTO and defying the ‘rules based system’.

Perhaps introduce how Australia’s alignment with US ‘freedom of navigation’ exercises in the South China Sea ignore that the US has not ratified the law of the sea.

But, no, it’s time to return to the coercion theme. Back to Rory.

RORY MEDCALF:

Many of these points go to the independent policy choices of the Australian Government in a democratic system, including choices to do with legislation, with the funding of think tanks, with the freedom of the Australian media, with diplomatic positions Australia takes in the international system. So, it’s simply untenable for any Australian government to concede on those points. And I fear that in a way the Chinese Government has painted itself into a corner.

Perhaps Rory simply doesn’t understand that the idea of democracy is precisely so decisions can be made and turned around if necessary. Seems like he wants to simply dictate what Australia’s position can be.

Any of the actions that the government has taken can be reversed. That’s what government means. The art of negotiation and compromise.

Medcalf seems quite unable to understand that it is precisely the independence that government has from think tanks that allows them to reverse policy and legislation. They do not need to hold firm on their current position in order to affirm his views.

It’s not untenable to ‘concede’ any points. Not everybody has Medcalf’s ideology of belligerence, certainly not those who work for years in trade or diplomatic service (mentioned above).

Of course, 4Corners could have asked him to justify this belligerence mode, but that would be them diluting the narrative they are pushing.

STEPHEN LONG:

In the same month that China effectively banned Australian barley, another rural export was hit.

12 May 2020 Newsreader:

Four Australian abattoirs have been banned from selling red meat into China. One of the meat works is in Casino in northern NSW while three are in Queensland.

PATRICK HUTCHINSON, CEO, AUSTRALIAN MEAT INDUSTRY COUNCIL:

When we found out it was all hands to the pump exceptionally quickly. I certainly was on the phone for basically 72 hours because of the sheer shock of this coming in. It was without warning.

It is astonishing that the AMIC was so out of touch with Australia-China relations that it could not see the relationship deteriorating and shows a complete disjunction between the government and industry.

DR SCOTT WALDRON, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND:

In the past, those sort of problems have been either ignored by China, or they’ve been dealt with on an informal basis, industry to industry, people to people, but in the current environment, China’s become particularly formal about it, with very low tolerances. So that is their pretext to stop that trade.

This is a key element of understanding the China – Australia relationship. While Australia is chest-beating, China has been pragmatic and is seeking a pragmatic solution from Australia.

This important element is given less than 30 seconds of air time.

STEPHEN LONG:

Ten per cent of the Casino meatworks’ business was lost with the China suspension.

STEPHEN LONG:

What do you reckon about this situation with China?

SIMON STAHL, CEO CASINO FOOD CO-OP:

Look, I’m really focussed on doing what I’ve got to do, in relation to China, and that is I’ve got to make sure my product leaves here that’s acceptable to markets all over the world and that includes China. I don’t really listen to any of the outside noise because I can’t control it.

Businesses operate within the trade restrictions of countries across the globe, each with different approaches. They adapt their products and modes accordingly. Why is the government minister not being asked about a similar pragmatic approach to China?

STEPHEN LONG:

Australian abattoirs were suspended for similar issues in 2017, but the matter was resolved in three months. This time, close to a year on, there’s no resolution – and no indication of when the suspensions might be lifted.

SIMON STAHL:

Oh, look, hard to tell, but I’m comfortable we’re closer to getting back in than we were yesterday.

STEPHEN LONG:

It doesn’t help that Chinese officials won’t pick up the phone.

PATRICK HUTCHINSON, CEO AUSTRALIAN MEAT INDUSTRY COUNCIL:

It is exceptionally frustrating. And that’s the concerning part for us as an industry because our dialogue is what makes us operate effectively well in trade. And if that dialogue’s not there, then it’s nigh on impossible to try and then fix some of these issues.

Why is someone like former foreign minister Julie Bishop not being asked about why she was able to maintain communication during tensions and why this has broken down.

This would blur the 4Corners narrative that its “all China’s fault”.

STEPHEN LONG:

When Australia’s new trade minister Dan Tehan tried to engage his counterpart in China, he was also met with silence.

DAN TEHAN:

I wrote to him in the middle of January. It was a very extensive letter, it set out why it was so important for us to be able to have a ministerial dialogue.

STEPHEN LONG:

What signal do you read into the lack of reply?

DAN TEHAN:

I’m not quite sure, I’m a little puzzled by it, because I, I think the, the best thing that all countries can do is maintain dialogue. If you’ve got differences, uh, the best thing you can do is, is engage, and make sure you can work through them. So, my hope is that over time, that’s where we’ll get to.

So, that’s the extent of the grilling for the minister? A complete failure at his job and “Hope it gets better” and he’s let go at that?

Of course, why would the ABC or 4Corners want to upset a government minister?

STEPHEN LONG:

Economist and China expert Scott Waldron grew up on the land, in beef country. His family’s property, in the Tweed Valley of northern New South Wales, sends its cattle to the co-op at Casino. Scott Waldron has also lived and researched extensively in China, is fluent in Mandarin, and well-placed to analyse China’s trade claims.

SCOTT WALDRON:

The trade barriers that China imposed on Australia in 2020 are cases of economic coercion. And the intent is for China to change Australian policy including on issues of the South China Sea, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Huawei, and foreign interference.

As the number of cases before the WTO shows, trade disputes are all pervasive, prolonged and complex. To characterise China as some special case is simple Sinophobia.

4Corners makes no attempt to dispute or question Waldron’s conclusions, as a truly investigative media outfit would. Much better to keep the simple anti-China narrative going.

A deep dive (that one would expect of investigative journalism) would have revealed that Australia is provocatively supporting the US in freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea, joining the US, which has not ratified (and thence made into law) the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.

Why is the sheer hypocrisy of these kinds of positions taken by Australia simply accepted by 4Corners and the ABC?

STEPHEN LONG:

On his reading, the trade sanctions flowed from demands by China’s Communist Party for retaliation against any perceived threats or criticism of China.

Simply accept this conclusion. No challenge.

SCOTT WALDRON:

Xi Jinping has instructed China to resolutely defend against any internal or external threat to the Communist Party, and so that so-called “battle stance” has become embedded within the party, within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and its wolf warrior diplomacy, and down into economic units, including the Ministry of Commerce, the State Administrations of Customs and Quarantine. So, if you’re a mid-level official, in one of those economic departments, your incentive, the way that you get ahead, is to appeal to that spirit.

Waldron constructs a rationale for the action using information he cannot possibly know.

Has he been a “mid-level official in an economic department trying to get ahead”? Or is he repeating hearsay?

For someone who routinely makes assessments on the basis of fact, this is sloppy opinion from Waldron and 4Corners should be calling it out.

JANE GOLLEY:

Economic coercion is a very deliberate activity to try and make the Australian government change its policy stance. It’s certainly not clear that that is what Beijing has set out to do and nor is it clear that have achieved that goal, but I think what we can say is that by the time you’ve got 14, 15 sectors on the chopping block, whether you call it coercion or something else, it is quite clear Beijing is sending a signal and it looks very much like punishment to me.

This is the beginning of some sort of proper assessment, but cautiously expressed.

At this point, has 4Corners asked any Chinese source, including an  academic source, for their assessment?

If you’ve come this far in this assessment, you’ve done well. There is plenty more. A comment from the Transport Workers Federation, who, surprisingly, blames China. Apparently, China is required to purchase our products, like a good servile colony might do.

Or Michael Blake, who doesn’t quite understand the irony of saying “Australia needs to stand up for itself” as if China wasn’t doing that.

Or Dan Tehan talking about sovereignty while ignoring China’s sovereign right to protect its interest without outside interference.

We should maybe finish with Rory Medcalf’s words.

It has backfired so far on China in that Australian policy positions are not shifting. Australian public opinion is turning against China and the Chinese Communist Party …

Of course, this is precisely the intent of the government. They, like their instrument in the ABC and 4Corners have one agenda.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Lab leak theory

Virus made in a lab – the anatomy of lies

(FILES) In this file photo taken on April 17, 2020, an aerial view shows the P4 laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province. - The World Health Organization said on May 5, 2020 that Washington had provided no evidence to support "speculative" claims by the US president that the new coronavirus originated in a Chinese lab. The facility is among a handful of labs around the world cleared to handle Class 4 pathogens (P4) - dangerous viruses that pose a high risk of person-to-person transmission. (Photo by Hector RETAMAL / AFP)

“Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens)

The virus lab leak theory is unsubstantiated. Idle speculation is not a hypothesis. Any flight of fancy, including that the virus was hidden in a cake smuggled into Wuhan, could be possible, but no real scientist would either propose or entertain it, since it’s irrelevant to scientific endeavour. It is not enough to simply state that “Scientists don’t have enough evidence about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to rule out the lab-leak hypothesis, or to prove the alternative — that the virus has a natural origin.” (Nature, Maxmen and Mallapaty, 2021). [1] No-one expects science to rule out anything, but proposing and promoting a particular theory, without evidence, is not a scientific act. It is political.

As a result of the kind of propaganda illustrated below [2], scientists have had to refute the theory while acknowledging it is possible (as scientists always do). They also have to expend a lot of scientific energy to refute these ambit claims. (The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review, Holmes, Goldstein, Rasmussen, Robertson, Crits-Christoph, Wertheim, Anthony, Barclay, Boni, Maciej, Doherty, Farrar, Geoghegan, Jiang, Leibowitz, Neil, Skern, Weiss, Worobey, Andersen, Garry, Rambaut, 2021) [3]. Scientists ‘on the ground’ dismiss the theory (Anderson, 2021) [4].

The deconstruction below addresses an example of how fear can be generated by taking something unremarkable and turning it into something sinister.

Canadian politician, Erin O’Toole, created a video to progress the ‘lab’ theory. It promotes fear over rational concern. This deconstruction shows how each of the points made are exaggerated and explains the language mechanisms used to evoke fear.

  1. Opinion from Nature 
  2. Original video from O’Toole
  3. The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical Review
  4. Scientist ‘on the ground’ dismisses theory

“Let’s go back to July 2019. Two scientists with ties to the Chinese military [1] were escorted out of the Winnipeg virus laboratory. This is a level 4 laboratory that Canada uses to research some of the world’s most deadly pathogens and viruses. How did two scientists get approval to work at this secret facility ? [2] How did they get approval to bring students from China [3] with even more direct contact with Chinese military to come help them with the research?”

1. In China, connections to the military for researchers is unremarkable, since the military conducts a lot of research, especially into possible biological weapons that might be used against China. However, this is included for rhetorical effect – one must conclude that the research that was being conducted is for military purposes – guilt by association, even though it was not. In contrast to “ties to the Chinese military” (inflammatory), the Canadian facility is “used to research” (benign). Imagine how this might have sounded if the term “manufactured potential bioweapons” had been used for the Canadian facility (no less true). So, we already have the ‘baddies’ and the ‘goodies’. The final rhetorical questions answers itself.

2. The kind of collaboration between scientists and institutions is completely unremarkable. Scientists don’t recognise borders in research. Science is science, wherever it occurs. 

3. Bringing students and interns is also unremarkable. It happens all the time around the world. If you are a PhD candidate, you go to the place where the research in your topic is being done. Regular Canadians do it all the time. But, maybe every Chinese student is a potential spy. Reds under the bed?

This is a story about some of the world’s most dangerous pathogens. This is a story about espionage [4] and this is a story about the Trudeau government being totally disconnected about the risks in modern security environment [5].

Let’s talk about that.

CBC News has learned that months before being escorted out of Canada’s highest security microbiology lab federal, scientists Xiangguo Qiu sent 30 vials of 15 different strains of Ebola and Henipavirus to Wuhan China. [6]”

4. Before we have an opportunity to hear the evidence, the connection between high risk, spying and poor security is being made. Propaganda attempts to set the mind before giving evidence. This is standard persuasive practice. However, if you want truth, this is not helpful.

5. How can a breach of security be construed as having any relationship to China. If the scientists breached security protocols, then their nationality or connections are irrelevant. Their crime is a breach of security, not espionage.

6. Sending vials, at the moment, is the only way to pass on a pathogen in a controlled way for study elsewhere. Although DNA mapping and communication is highly developed, scientists still need the organism to do the breeding and testing.

 

 

We know that in 2018 they started bringing students interns [7] with deep connections to the Chinese military from China to do work on this virus research.”

7. Nothing to see unless you are inventing a conspiracy. Interns move about the globe. Chinese virology study is also conducted by military institutions. So what? If this is a story about pathogens, then there is no need to create fear by making unsubstantiated links to the military by showing Chinese military.

In 2019 they sent dangerous virus samples to a laboratory in China virus laboratory. We know from public records like patent documents that the work being done by these scientists specifically was on ‘gain of function’ for viruses. [8] That’s where they’re actually trying to improve the efficacy of a virus, it’s transmissibility and in some cases, in bioweapons research, it’s deadliness. [9]”

8. Nothing to see unless you are inventing a conspiracy. ‘Gain of function’ is what many labs do. It’s how we stay ahead of viruses. It’s not without risks.

9. The failure, to properly explain the role and definition of ‘gain of function’ but use ‘bioweapons’ is a technique to make something relatively routine seem sinister. If it is a ‘virus laboratory’, regardless of where it is, it has the potential to manufacture bioweapons. The proper discussion of the risks is considered irrelevant.

Now who authorised transfers of dangerous deadly viruses? Who authorised this high level of cooperation and collaboration with the Chinese military? Trudeau was advised that this type of partnership because of the risk of bioweapons research should not be taking place. The Trudeau government ignored those. [10]”

10. So, if this is a local issue, what relevance is China to this discussion?

Now we have the global inquiry onto the origins of the worst pandemic in modern history. [11]

[Insert stupid joke] [12]

Now we know the two aren’t related with the viruses we sent. [13] But we were collaborating with a laboratory that is now being looked at by the Biden administration. [14] At a time where we have to Michaels in prison [15] we see the genocide being committed against the Uighur Muslim population [16] we see the situation in Hong Kong [17].

 

11. To intensify the misdirection, go to red herrings. The inquiry was a witch hunt that unearthed nothing of interest, was politically driven. In any case, it has provided nothing that could be used as evidence for the ‘lab leak theory’. So, what is its relevance?

12. A comedian’s illogical joke is relevant how?

13. In full knowledge that the preceding story of the scientists has no bearing on the lab leak theory, the decision was made to include it anyway. An open admission of the propaganda intent of the video.

14. So, the only rationale is actually following the lead of the US.

15. Re-introducing the scientists that, only 2 sentences before, are acknowledged as irrelevant.

16. A contested claim is introduced as some kind of ‘moral premise’ for attacking China. In that case, why not build a case against China on that basis, rather than inventing a lab leak theory?

17. And another irrelevance.