Category: Western media bias against China

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 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.