Category: Anti-China Narratives

Categories
Allegations of foreign influence Anti-China Narratives General

Irony succumbs to moronacy

Rudd must register his connections with Asia Society Policy Institute, but Paterson’s membership of IPAC is deemed not to be foreign influence. 

In his latest of a set of self-congratulatory videos posted on YouTube (deliberately not linked), serial China basher James Paterson highlights a mini-speech that Scott Morrison delivered on his phoney campaign for re-election. Morrison cites the complaints made by the Chinese Embassy about a speech given by Paterson to the European Parliament. In that speech, Paterson attempts to rally white nations to adopt the hysteria that he champions – that of attempting to suppress free speech by those who might complain about Australia’s absurd anti-China posture, such as the Chinese embassy.

There are layers of irony and moronacy in both Paterson’s and Morrison’s speeches that might not be obvious to a casual viewer.

The first is Morrison’s use of ‘irony’. Believing himself to be terribly clever, but actually confirming moronacy, Morrison labels the complaints by the Embassy as ‘ironic’, supposedly because Embassy complaints are considered ‘foreign interference’ and it was that topic that was supposedly the intent of the complaint.

If one genuinely understands irony, one would know that irony only works if the outcome of a statement is the opposite of its intention. The complaint made by the Embassy was not about either foreign interference nor free speech, but a reflection on how whipping up anti-China sentiment will not help the China – Australia relationship, as any relationship requires mutual respect, an element totally lacking in both Paterson’s and Morrison’s attitudes to China. To paraphrase, “Countries that respect one another don’t talk about one another like this. They don’t accuse each other of ‘beating their wife’.”

The Embassy was doing what embassies have always done – registering disapproval. If this is foreign interference then, ironically, one must consider every complaint made by an Australian embassy to a foreign country as ‘foreign interference’. So Morrison must explain how this particular complaint is so different from those made by every country in every country.

Morrison and Paterson are either unable, unwilling or simply too dishonest to clarify why this complaint should have a label of ‘foreign interference’.

The other ironic point is that Morrison defends against what he sees as an attack on free speech by… criticising the free expression by the Embassy of their concerns.

‘Free speech’ advocates such as Morrison and Paterson are, in fact, pushing the most restrictive constraints on free expression that this nation has known. In an attempt to silence past Prime Ministers, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme requires any person who might be giving a speech on behalf of or to a foreign entity to register this.

Reminiscent of the worst of McCarthyism, although cloaked in plausible deniability, the intent is to ‘expose’ influence where there is none. Rudd’s presidency of the American not-for-profit thinktank, the Asia Society Policy Institute, and his consultancy work, are among the real target. Any membership of any transnational organisation can be seen as ‘foreign influence’.

And, in a stunning ironic performance, Paterson, in his witch hunt against the University of Queensland regarding the Drew Pavlou suspension, directly castigated the University for not acting against an adjunct professor (the Consul General) for public comments he (the Consul General) made and grilled the University representatives at length (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iezdK_32ok&t=1200s) on the reasons for not removing him. So much for free speech. Free speech is granted to those who agree with you, but disciplinary action is appropriate for those who make contrary statements.

As yet another example of true irony, Paterson’s membership of IPAC, The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, an association of legislators, has not been registered as ‘foreign influence’ (https://transparency.ag.gov.au/Registrants -> “James Paterson” -> zero entries), despite the significant influence it has on Australian legislators, such as Paterson and Hastie. IPAC is directly funded by instruments of foreign governments, namely:

  • The National Endowment for Democracy
  • The Taiwan Foundation for Democracy

and George Soros through the

  • The Open Society Foundations

IPAC is a ‘white people’s’ club, with representation from most of the prominent former colonial states and has values to match.

But, of course, the legislation was never about transparency or accountability, but was concocted to enable witch hunts against China and Chinese people.

So, to clarify:

  1. Morrison and Paterson object to the free speech from the Chinese Embassy complaining about Paterson’s speech.
  2. The Embassy was reflecting on the relationship between Australia and China and how it is not helped by people like Paterson. It had nothing to do with challenging free speech, which continues without interruption.
  3. Free speech continues without interruption, not threatened in any way by a complaint from the Chinese Embassy. The suggestion that it is threatened is gratuitous fear mongering.
  4. In breath-taking hypocrisy, Paterson supposedly champions free speech while demanding disciplinary action against those exercising free speech.
  5. Certain kinds of foreign influence, such as that by IPAC in regards to Paterson, are off limits to this legislation.
  6. The legislation imposes McCarthyist constraints on the free speech of those who are most vocal in attempting to balance the opinions on China, such a Kevin Rudd.

 

 

Categories
Academic integrity Anti-China Narratives Modes of propaganda Terror

Occasional shorts – #4

In this edition, I will take a detour from the new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu @xu_xiuzhong, Leibold @jleibold and Daria Impiombato.

Today, I return to Michael Clarke, whose scholarly work underpins much of the reports and articles regarding China and Xinjiang. Of particular interest is Clarke’s “Widening the net: China’s anti-terror laws and human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region“. The central thesis of this paper, written in 2010, is that China has sacrificed human rights for security in relation to terrorism. Throughout the paper, general references to global initiatives related to terrorism do not use the ironic indicators of single quotes. For example, he writes

Domestically, the ‘war on terror’ has permitted China to not only deploy significant repressive force, in political, legal and police/military terms, to confront the perceived threat to Xinjiang’s security posed by Uyghur terrorism but also to establish the political and legal framework through which to confront any future challenges to state power.

Note the acknowledgement of Uyghur terrorism – indicated by the simple unironic adjective. Quite ‘accidentally’, on many occasions, Clarke affirms that terrorism may in fact be just that. However, in a most confused way, as Clarke begins to talk about China’s response, he uses (on 14 instances – there are many other instances of usage in phrases or other forms) the ironic ‘terrorism’, indicating scepticism.

Indeed, by the end of the paper, a reasonable reader would conclude that Clarke does not believe any terrorism at all had occurred and that Beijing had simply adopted a repressive mode, seemingly towards nearly everything.

Notably absent from Clarke’s assessment is a comparative analysis of counter-terrorist modes and counter-terror theory, probably due to the fact that this is certainly not his area of expertise and he speaks with no more authority than a CNN journalist. In particular, he is silent on the insidious influence of Salafist extremism that spread throughout Central and South East Asia. This silence, in view of his historical expertise, is unforgivable, and puts a large question mark on what he might be intending with this paper.

Also absent is any attempt to ascertain what Uyghur people might actually think of the policy. Like so many of the white men who speak on behalf of those in developing countries, ignoring their agencies, Clarke is happy to posit, without evidence, some kind of universal Uyghur identity that conveniently supports separatism, Salafist extremism and violent independence movements. In this paternalistic endeavour, Clarke joins fellow academics purporting to speak on behalf of Uyghurs.

Of course, Clarke’s thesis was demonstrated, in the subsequent terror attacks in Xinjiang, to be completely misguided.

My suggestion to Michael is that he “pull is head in” and stick to subject matter over which he has some control and knowledge and avoid the trend in academia to signal one’s liberal views by China bashing.

Categories
Academic integrity Anti-China Narratives Modes of propaganda Replacement theory

Occasional shorts – #2

@ASPI_org has produced a new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu @xu_xiuzhong, Leibold @jleibold and Daria Impiombato. I will be analysing this document in the next few weeks. Here’s another taster.

Reference 22

title = Settler colonialism and the path toward cultural genocide in Xinjiang,

context = International experts agree that Uyghur militants exist in Syria and Pakistan in small numbers, but argue that they pose little direct security threat to China.21 That view is widely rejected inside China, where a mix of racial discrimination, settler-colonialism and an irrational fear of instability has driven Xinjiang policy in recent times.22

note = Michael Clarke, ‘Settler colonialism and the path toward cultural genocide in Xinjiang’, in Adrian Gallagher, Charles T Hunt, Cecilia Jacob (eds), Global responsibility to protect, Brill, Leiden, 2021;

comment = It is interesting to note Clarke’s change in language from 2007 to the present. In China’s Internal Security Dilemma and the Great Western Development: The Dynamics of Integration, Ethnic Nationalism and Terrorism in Xinjiang , the situation in Xinjiang was described as a ‘dilemma‘ which now becomes ‘cultural genocide‘, ‘in-migration‘ (usually recognised as ‘internal migration’ by geographers) becomes ‘settler colonialism‘, ‘ inter-ethnic relations‘ becomes ‘cultural genocide‘.

Clearly, Clarke is attempting to align his language with the dominant culture of academia in general where anti-China sentiment is high. Notably, Clarke is entirely sceptical about terrorism claims by China, with the majority of the usage of the term ‘terrorism’ in inverted commas indicating irony.

Like many of his peers, Clarke is unwilling or unable to acknowledge the lived experience of those members of Islam majority countries which have experienced bullying, intimidation, physical violence or homicide at the hands of extremists.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Modes of propaganda Western media bias against China

Gutless wonder? (A lesson on how to write for The Australian)

This is a story about Liam Mendes, of The Australian, who wrote a hit piece on my friend Jaq James and his retreat on Twitter when confronted with some of the facts that contradicted his story.

Let me take you through the events.

Ostensibly, the piece was about Drew Pavlou, a supposed “human rights activist” running for the Senate in Queensland. I know that Queensland has had some interesting characters attempting to make their way to Canberra, including the infamous “Joh for PM” which failed miserably. Every Queensland over 50 knows what a joke that was.

I am looking forward to Pavlou’s campaign receiving the equivalent disdain from intelligent Queenslanders. As a teetotaller, I will happily raise a glass to it flopping. Pavlou’s claim to fame is, as he will happily inform you, that he has an enormous QC, apparently at his disposal, to go after anyone who isn’t nice to him.

Truthfully, I pity Pavlou and his ilk. Just as I pity that sad little band of men in Australia bleating about a mythical Uyghur genocide and about their disappointment that China defeated their dream of a ETIM Caliphate.

I imagine Drew is pissed off by not being able to join all those good ETIM chaps in training camps, waving guns around. Perhaps it’s his night time dream.

No, I’m sorry Drew, you’re just not cut out to be a terrorist. For your enlightenment (and also for our mate Mendes), here’s a real ETIM Uyghur terrorist. I hope I see your very public condemnation of this kind of terrorist – after all, you are a candidate for my state for the Senate, so I’d like to see that REALLY clearly stated.

ETIM terrorists cry “We’ll kill you all”
Description of ETIM mission

Looking forward to Liam Mendes writing the piece where you utterly condemn these people. And his denunciation of the sentiments expressed in this ETIM publication by a Uyghur activist.

Translation:

“Chinese insulted the religion and culture of the Muslims of Xinjiang by permitting nightclubs, and that’s why Noor Mohamed attacked one of these clubs in Kashgar and killed two Chinese whores in 7/9/2012”

(Islamic Turkestan magazine 2013)

Naturally, Drew will quote the words of Bashir, Shaykh (1 July 2008). “Why Are We Fighting China?”. NEFA Foundation.

“We are fighting China… China is an enemy who has invaded Muslim countries and occupies Muslim East Turkestan. There is no greater obligation, aside from belief in Allah, than expelling the enemies of Muslims from our countries…. We are fighting China to make them testify that ‘there is no God but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah’ and make them convert to Islamabad Muslims could only fight with swords, spears, bows and arrows, they would fight with them. When they were able to fight with firearms, rockets and bombs, they would fight with them also, relying on Allah and doing their utmost… In every single battle with the infidels or the apostates.”

He will, no doubt, in the up-coming disapprobation piece for Liam, make clear that he, in no way, supports these sentiments.

But, I digress.

In fact, Liam Mendes article was actually an attack on Jaq and Milton James. Jaq and/or Milton will probably reply to the hit piece – but probably not any time soon, as they have other important things to do.

Mendes thinks that one requires a cyber security expert to uncover a rumour. Clearly, anyone, including me, who has seen the tweet below can be implicated in a glorious ‘CCP’ conspiracy.

Tweet from Vicky Xu that Mendes didn’t want you to know about, where Xu calls Robbie Barwick a “stupid bald old fuck”

It’s odd to me that Mendes seems happy to say that “The exact figure soon found its way into a social media post by a pro-Beijing activist group run by two Australians” but can’t seem to bring himself to put it in context, nor ask Jaq what her source was. It’s clear that, for Mendes, the slur is more important than the context or the truth.

Seems like, from the article Mendes has written, that emails were sent as traps. I’m not a legal expert, but this kind of entrapment doesn’t seem to be lawful. Come on, Mendes. Reveal who the emails were sent to. Give your story an ounce of credibility. Or will you hide behind the skirts of “commercial in confidence” or some other bullshit?

“One of the pair believes the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is a hoax”.

This refers to Milton James’ article in which he deconstructs the whole Tiananmen Square Massacre myth.  Mendes, along with his fellow gullible Australians seems impervious to facts. Naturally, Robbie Barwick tweeted the response below.

This refers to the laughable history of the event exposed by the ABC. But never mind that. Now this tweet is ‘safely’ behind:

Twitter message showing Mendes response to Robbie Barwick’s tweet.

Of course, Mendes seems mute about this issue. If he acknowledges the comedy that Robbie indicates, he will have to retract his criticism of Milton and thence throw in doubt his narrative on Jaq and Milton.

Despite making a public statement about Jaq and Milton, Mendes can’t seem to summon the intestinal fortitude to respond to those who might defend them. No, he runs behind the skirts of a Twitter facility.

It would be interesting to know, in the description of the activity of Internet 2.0 and Robert Potter described as:

Emails with fake contracts that included a monetary figure she was to be paid for a book she was writing were sent from a burner email account to each activist. Each figure was unique to each activist to track the flow of the information.

After a cyber campaign targeting the activist community within Australia, Internet 2.0 assessed the commentary of pro-China Twitter to identify what information might be interesting to them,” chief executive and founder of Internet 2.0 Robert Potter said. “After seeing much speculation on the value of the book contract received by Vicky Xu, Internet 2.0 placed fake information within activist emails.”

whether Internet 2.0, Potter or Mendes have committed a crime under Australia’s laws on fake identities on-line. I intend to find out by reporting this to the Federal Police. I will be asking them to investigate whether anyone was involved in hacking Jaq’s email and whether this statement from Internet 2.0 might constitute an admission to such. After all, the only activists named are Jaq and Milton.

This piece of deceit continues. Having just referred to Jaq and Milton, Mendes returns to the original hack and makes unsubstantiated claims that they were ‘state actors’. An unwitting reader might connect these two statements. Read these below and see whether you would readily discriminate between the sentences about Jaq and Milton and the alleged ‘hack’ on Pavlou.

Milton and Jaqueline James did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Mr Potter said the IP addresses linked to the hack originated from mainland China, but the attack could not be confirmed to have come from a state-sponsored actor. However, it had the sophistication, and fitted the profile, of an attack by a state actor.

Now, read also how he switches rapidly between speaking about the alleged “pro-China activists” and “the remote logins” supposed to be part of the Pavlou hack. To make this clear, I will put the references to Jaq and her ‘pro-China activists’ in red and the references to the ‘hacking’ in purple.

“The data fits what was placed on social media by pro-China activists. Based on the uniqueness of the number, it appears the information has been shared with pro-China activists in one way or another,” Mr Potter said.

“The remote logins were from multiple IP addresses which shows they had preset cyber infrastructure for an attack. They had robust infrastructure and they bypassed his two-factor authentication,” he said

So, Mendes wants you, as reader, to mistake the anti-China propaganda activists he calls “pro-China activists” (and yes, I am one of them) with some alleged hacking of Pavlou. Any reasonable person would make an inference between the activism and the hack. This is clearly Mendes cynical intent.

I invite Mendes to clarify what he thinks the last quote refers to:

““It says a lot about the nature of Chinese power and global influence that they are trying to interfere in Australia’s democracy to undermine and attack their critics in this country, and they’re possibly actually carrying out illegal crimes to do it.

“This is a very clear case of Chinese interference in Australian democracy. They’re deliberately trying to undermine the credibility and genuinely attack and smear anti-CCP critics in Australia,” Mr Pavlou said.

If this is a reference to either Jaq or Milton, I hope they sue the sorry arse off both Mendes and Pavlou. Potter might be safely in another jurisdiction, but I think Pavlou and Mendes might be in for a shock about the laws of the jurisdiction in which they live.

Of course, I doubt that Mendes will come forward to clarify anything.

 

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Modes of propaganda Western media bias against China

Paid to demonise – the ABC (Part 3)

In part 2 of this series, I demonstrated how ABC journalist Beverley O’Connor led Adam Turan through an anti-China narrative, demonstrating no inclination to challenge that narrative. In fact, she ‘led the witness’, posing questions such as “So in your mind this is ethnic cleansing?”

Determining exactly what drives the anti-China culture of the ABC is not simple, but analysing the outcomes in terms of reporting is straight forward. Therefore, the ABC’s complete lack of self-awareness is puzzling (but not surprising).

In this part I examine, in parallel, an analysis of some recent stories which give a clear picture of the blatant framing of China in negative terms.

Don’t talk about the war, except when it’s China

We begin with two stories from fairly recently, where authorities have moved against large tech companies to try to rein in their power and influence. The stories are:

China’s crackdown on ‘powerful’ tech giants may be a ‘terrible own goal’

and

ACCC vows to pursue Google’s ad dominance, as tech giant threatens to remove its search engine from Australia

The negative theme of the China story is there, right off the bat. China has stupidly shot itself in the foot. On the other hand, our saviour, the ACCC is keeping us safe from those giants who wish to tread all over us.

Let’s look to how the language generates the negative perspective on China. Here’s a breakdown of the negative language in the article (yes, there is positive language as well, but for the sake of brevity and contrast, we will look first at negatives)

Frequent words

regulation / regulatory / regulator 10 crackdown 8
competition / competitive 7 risk 7
power 4 complacent 3
impose 3 anti-competitive 2
banned / banning 2 CCP 2
control 2 crack 2
fire 2 penalised / penalty 2
plunged 2 rival 2
tank 2 warned 2

Note the language of oppression in purple. Remember, the topic here is a state that is exercising its right to regulate the practice of tech giants. Note that the topic itself attracts a relatively high 7 instances, as might be expected.

I wonder, when we turn to the ACCC story, whether this kind of language will be apparent. Well, no.

pay 7 journalism 5
power 5 competition / competitors 4
free 4 force 3
push 3 threat 3
argue 2 critics 2
endanger 2 protectionism 2

Here we have some evocative language, but little reference to oppression. Instead we have “concerns”, “unreasonable” or “one-sided”. “Regulate” (and its derivatives) goes from 10 instances (China story) to one. Conflict is “argue” or “threat”.

Less frequent words

Try picking which of these is about China?

wiped, worse, accused, activists, addictive, advantage, alleged, allowed, alternative, attack, battle, blistering, blocked, casualty, caught, causing, collapse, compliance / comply, controversial, copped / copping, debacle, delay, dissenting, eliminating, enemy, exposure, forced, foreign, illegally, implement, inequality, infuriated, litigious, meltdown, mistake, monopolistic, oligarch, punished, pushed, retribution, shock, shot, submissive, surged, surrender, suspected, suspended, takeover, tensions, terrible, unpredictability warn, absurd, compensation, concerns, confront, defender, demands, disrupt, dominance, fires, floodgates, idiocy, mandatory, misuse, one-sided, regulation, strike, unreasonable, watchdog

One person’s free expression is another’s aggression

To be sure, this is an isolated instance. Really? Let’s look at another set of stories, about controversial Chinese artists.

Australian artist Badiucao’s exhibition finally shown in Melbourne after China ‘threat’ ordeal – ABC News Chinese artist behind doctored image of Australian soldier says he’s ready to make more – ABC News
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-27/badiucao-new-melbourne-exhibition-street-art-festival/11995456 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-01/doctored-image-of-australian-soldier-tweeted-by-chinese-diplomat/12938244
In 2019, Badiucao was awarded the Robert Russell Courage in Cartooning Award by the Cartoonists Rights Network International. The Chinese artist behind a doctored image of an Australian soldier holding a knife to the throat of an Afghan child has taunted the Australian Prime Minister, saying that he would make another artwork in response to being “scolded”.
This month, the art of Chinese dissident Badiucao has finally seen the light of day in Melbourne — more than a year after the Australian artist’s Hong Kong exhibition was cancelled due to threats reportedly made by Chinese authorities. Prime Minister Scott Morrison labelled the post “repugnant“, demanding it be removed and Beijing issue an apology.
Originally titled Gongle, the exhibition was supposed to be the kick-off event for Freedom of Expression Week in 2018, organised by the Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP), Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders. The image — created to criticise Australia over the damning Brereton war crimes inquiry — was posted on Twitter by China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian on Monday.
Now retitled Made in Hong Kong, Banned in China, the exhibition features 19 works and sits at the entrance of The Facility in Kensington, where 150 street artists have taken over the three-storey, red brick warehouse and a 22-wagon freight train as part of Melbourne’s inaugural 10-day urban art festival Can’t Do Tomorrow. Mr Fu’s artwork has echoed China’s aggressive diplomacy style in recent years.
Art for the voiceless
 Mr Fu has called himself a “wolf-warrior artist”, echoing China’s aggressive diplomacy style in recent years.
His portraits memorialise dissident figures and defenders of human rights, and his withering satirical cartoons lampoon Chinese leaders for censorship, rights violations and abuse of power, rendering an Orwellian portrait of life under the Communist Party regime. The ABC has approached Mr Fu for comment.
Badiucao is prolific, responding to global political affairs with his pen without missing a beat. His posts on Monday received over 1 million views on Weibo, and his followers doubled to 1 million in two days.
Badiucao’s signature bold woodcut aesthetic references Communist propaganda art, but in fact owes a debt to German expressionist artist Käthe Kollwitz, known for her portrayal of the downtrodden, including peasants and working class people affected by poverty and hunger during wartime. Mr Fu created the controversial computer graphic on the evening of November 22, according to China’s state-owned media Global Times.
IBadiucao says that in the 30s, writer Lu Xun (considered the father of modern Chinese literature) introduced Kollwitz’s work to a group of Chinese left-wing artists who believed “art should serve society” and be a “form of expression for the voiceless” — sentiments the artist feels were lost when the Chinese Communist Party came into power in 1949. He said he had a sense of “fury and trembling” after reading news articles about Australian soldiers’ “brutal killing of 39 civilians” in Afghanistan, including an unsubstantiated account that described how “soldiers cut the throat of two 14-year-old Afghan teenagers with knives”.

This table, summarising only part of the articles, speaks for itself. Clearly this breath-taking double standard does not trouble Ita Buttrose or Gaven Morris, always happy to defend the indefensible.

Consequences for Australia

In cultivating this culture of smearing China, the ABC is exacerbating the difficulties in the Australia – China relationship. If this was simply a matter of disagreement, then it might not matter to Australians. But currently, jobs and livelihoods are being lost as the tit-for-tat conflict continues.

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

Mechanisms of hate and propaganda – the ABC (Part 2)

Last month, I exposed three layers of bias that demonstrated the deep seated anti-China culture permeating the ABC. A simple search showed how the ABC inevitably takes an anti-China posture in on-line news stories. The same can easily be demonstrated on their YouTube channel. Although the ABC continues to deny this, it is so easy to demonstrate that one wonders whether they actually care about balance any more.

A deeper dive into a podcast story showed a willingness to support a conspiracy theory thoroughly debunked, over and over again, by experts. Once again, the statistics don’t lie. The number of words supporting the anti-China narrative as a ratio to those countering the narrative was a massive 100:1. Not to mention the framing with a sinister photo.

A further, even more forensic analysis of a 4Corners program on China indicated the depths to which the ABC has sunk in terms of fairness in reporting. Not only was 4Corners highly selective in sources, framed the entire story to evoke sympathy for Australians, but it also ignored oceans of context that could be brought to bear on any of the points being made.

Of course, maybe no-one really gives a shit. Maybe Australians just want a dishonest broadcaster. That would be fine, except that disinformation actually hurts Australia’s prosperity and may ultimately lead to Australia sinking into irrelevancy.

I guess, in the end, I care too much about Australia to let that happen.

But, in this article, I am going to analyse the mechanism by which the players in anti-China, including the ABC, conspire to make you believe that China is really, really bad.

Leading the witness

Beverley O’Connor can be said to have ‘form’ when it comes to China. She has had long interviews with several key anti-China players, such as Adrian Zenz. In her interview with Zenz, she essentially allowed Zenz to speak minutes on end with no challenge. Certainly, there were no tough questions.

O’Connor outdid herself in an interview with Adam Turan. Normally, journalists would maintain a kind of plausible deniability (the art of distancing yourself from a source so you can later deny you said such and such – “they said it, not me”)

But, oddly, C’Connor engages in what is called in TV court drama “leading the witness”. It’s obvious and should be embarrassing.

Turan is giving what might be titled ‘testimony’ about the experience in internment of his relatives. He brings to the narrative a ‘before and after’ set of photos. Now, such click-bait tactics should be enough to alert an astute journalist and a critical reader to this tactic. How many before and after photos have we seen in propaganda rags, carefully selected to give a sense of a ‘great fall’ in the fortunes of a celebrity?

Despite this amateurish technique by Turan, O’Connor leads Turan with “Is there any doubt in your mind that he died as a result of what happened in those camps?”

Now, keep in mind that Turan DID NOT OFFER this reason. He simply said, “There’s a big difference between two yeah and there we see that picture, he was released and then it wasn’t long after that before he passed away.” There are any number of reasons for Turan’s father’s death, but none are offered. Instead, O’Connor leads us to a proposition that internment killed Turan’s father.

Even when O’Connor asks about possible terror activities, it is she, not Turan, who rephrases Turan’s words to give a benign take on his family’s activities.

Turan

From my parents raised four of us we went to Uni, started in the university in Xinjiang is Turkestan and all of us work for the government sectors so we never been involved any terrorist activities.

O’Connor

Just going about your lives like ordinary citizen.

So, no question about ETIM? “Were you ever part of ETIM?” “Did you ever produce or pass on radicalisation materials from ETIM?” “Did any of your family ever train outside China with the ETIM?”

No real questions. Just a continuation of the narrative.

But O’Connor really outdoes herself. Not content to write Turan’s narrative for him, she now calls on a conspiracy theory to enhance the impact.

Turan

… that was my last don’t call me again because I won’t be able to pick up your phone and she said I’m at the, she didn’t say police station, but she said a local council office too. The very helpful young guys like you helping me so assisting me teaching me not to pick up the calls from overseas.

O’Connor

Was it almost like a coded message to you?

Right, so the helpful advice from the guy at the local council (not police – Turan’s words) becomes a “coded message”? What next Beverley? Well, let’s go for “ethnic cleansing”.

Turan

It could be jailed, could be sent to the internment camps. That’s some one of these reasons that China is excusing, you know if you have family members overseas or if you contact if you contact with the people from overseas will be jailed. So they could be jailed. So that’s why they can’t directly contact with them.

O’Connor

Do you see what is happening there is some form of ethnic cleansing?

Did you see that? Internment and jailing = ethnic cleansing.

Now, Turan, as a non-native speaker, might be excused for not quite taking on the connotations of “ethnic cleansing”. The slaughter in Rwanda comes to mind. This is where O’Connor is leading the audience. The horrors of the realities of “ethnic cleansing”.

But, sadly for O’Connor, Turan is a little less sensationalist than she might have hoped for. He moderates this to “cultural genocide”. But there’s no holding back O’Connor in ‘leading the witness’.

“So they’ve separated them from their families and they want to re-educate them to be Han Chinese?” Yes, it’s this little gem. Create a category ‘Han’ to represent all other Chinese people and then accuse China of trying to turn everyone into a Han? What does this even mean? It’s sufficiently vague to be a coverall for any activity that Beijing might do that has a cultural component. I mean, China can build a high speed railway to Xinjiang and the reason can be “Well, that just means Han Chinese can get to Xinjiang more readily and dilute the local population.”

When Turan makes the absolutely laughable claim that the Xinjiang is “The worst human rights violations in human history” O’Connor just let’s that sit, unchallenged. So, Beverley, none of these well documented and verified atrocities came to mind – The Holocaust, Nazi genocide of ethnic Poles, Cambodia, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide, Dzungar genocide, Genocide in Bangladesh, Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War, Romani genocide, Darfur genocide, Bosnia, Queensland Aboriginal genocide, Canadian native children genocide, Rohingyas, Haiti, genocide of Aboriginal Tasmanians?

Sadly, neither O’Connor nor the ABC seem able to reach a level of slef-reflection to recognise both their active part in generating anti-China sentiment and developing consent for conflict with China. The only loser in this is Australia.

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

The anatomy of deceit

Turan

I don’t know Adam Turan. He’s probably a nice guy. He probably does very ordinary things like the rest of us. What troubles me is the message he peddles.

Try this one, for example. It’s fairly characteristic of his consistent support for an independent state in Xinjiang.

Now, note the question marks. These are not questions for which he is polling Twitter for responses. They are rhetorical. The answer is both in the question and in the retweet.

Turan is is employing a propaganda technique called plausible deniability. He can say, “Well, I was just quoting Roth, that well known boss of HRW. How was I to know that the statistics were dodgy?”

Plausible deniability requires that the information be plausible. Of course, the numbers quoted in Roth’s tweet are accurate. So, there’s the plausibility. Except that, without context, these numbers are completely deceitful.

Is this Turan’s intention or is he just happy to retweet misinformation without fact checking? I don’t know. It could be just confirmation bias. The numbers ‘sound’ like they support his ETIM inspired narrative.

I suspect Turan doesn’t care whether the numbers are in context, so long as they have propaganda value. I suspect that he knows that most readers will simply not dig deep to find the truth. They will take the numbers on face value and make the completely absurd, conspiratorial link to Xi Jinping.

Roth

Like Turan, Roth deploys the plausible deniability technique as well. After all, it wasn’t him, but a ‘reputable’ journal that makes this claim. Roth seems to think that presenting facts so they are deceitful is fine. Does make you wonder whether this is also applied to the reports from the organisation he heads. Balance, fairness, integrity of sources? Who gives a shit?

The quote comes from this source:

Between 2012 and 2020 the annual number of asylum-seekers from China rose from 15,362 to 107,864, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This increase has coincided with the rule of Xi Jinping. (The Economist)

Roth has deniability by retweeting the Economist, and plausibility because he knows the numbers are right – or at least, a quick check of the UNHCR proves it correct. But one element of the story is complete conjecture and Roth almost certainly knows that – the connection with Xi.

Sure, the word used is “coincided”. There you go. Deniability again. “I didn’t say Xi caused it.” But, as every media expert will tell you, simply juxtaposing two unrelated items creates a connection in over-active, pattern seeking human brains.

As Sapolsky so aptly illustrates in Behave: The Best and Worst of Us, “Was that a gun or a phone in that man’s hand when I shot him dead? In the moment, I simply reacted.” Here’s the thing. The associations the brain makes happen in the first second. It takes no time at all for any human brain to create a straight line between asylum seeking skyrocketing and Xi, regardless of the clever use of “coinciding”. After that, it’s a lot of effort for the frontal cortex to undo that connection. We are, literally, wired for associations, many completely unjustified and irrational.

Given Roth’s oversight of reports that roundly condemn China, this straight line suits him just fine. Why question this when you have plausible deniability?

Note how closely to follows this article:

According to UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) figures, the annual number of asylum seekers from China increased from 15,362 to 107,864 between 2012 and 2020. 613,000 Chinese people have applied for asylum in another country since Xi Jinping gained power at the end of 2012.

You see. It wasn’t me who said it. It was Wion. No need to check it out, to see if it is in any way deceitful.

What actually is the situation? Here’s the UNHCR’s take.

68% originate from just five countries.

 

More than two thirds of all refugees under UNHCR’s mandate and Venezuelans displaced abroad come from just five countries (as of end-2020).

 

Syrian Arab Republic 6.7 million
Venezuela 4.0 million
Afghanistan 2.6 million
South Sudan 2.2 million
Myanmar 1.1 million

(UNHCR statistics)

I guess, like me, you’re wondering why there’s no mention of China. Oops, how embarrassing for the Economist, who didn’t check sources. How awkward for Roth, who didn’t bother to put up the figures in context. How painful for Turan, when his narrative is blown out of the water.

The smear against Xi is the real point for Turan, Roth, The Economist and Wion. How does their little accusation stack up? Sadly, it’s bullshit.

Sorry, but this graph, straight out of the UNHCR database, while affirming the asylum numbers given for plausible deniability, actually shows China, in 2013, at Xi’s ascendency, from a base of about 2.5% of the world’s asylum seekers (about 25000 of 1000000), stay on trend with 2.5% in 2020 (100000 of 4000000). More telling, refugee numbers have pretty much stayed constant since Xi took power.

Indeed, the rise is asylum-seekers globally is dramatic. And troubling. And a cause for concern. Nobody is going to deny that. But when you find this same trend across country after country, an intelligent person says, “This is a trend beyond China. It has nothing to do with Xi.”

To illustrate this, take the data for Germany. Look at that. Almost identical trend. So, tell me, can we attribute this to Xi?

But, if you really want to be fair, 0.007% of China’s population (yes, across the whole country) applied for asylum elsewhere. No, the idea that there is a great rush of discontented people out of China is just bullshit. At most, it’s a trickle. Maybe not a figure China wants to boast about, but also not a figure that makes China really stand out. The data says so. The UNHCR has identified the top spots for discontent. You don’t get to simply pluck those figures out of their website and then make up a narrative to suit.

And data without a context is just lies – a deliberate choice to deceive. It doesn’t reflect on the data – it reflects on the author and the ‘retweeter’. It’s their integrity which we need to doubt.

So, if you want to draw a line between Xi and asylum seekers, take one of these two roads – make it fair, in which case you find Xi has no case to answer, especially in Xinjiang (for which there are no statistics) and that the numbers, while not wonderful, are, in context, entirely unremarkable.

Or, take the road of plausible deniability and construct a deceitful picture in which a coincidence becomes a cause, and an opportunity to smear.

I think you can see which road Turan, Roth, The Economist and Wion took.

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
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.