4 ms·

>What interest would the Australian government have in challenging China There's a general misalignment in FVEY countries between security and trade interests.

>What interest would the Australian government have in challenging China There's a general misalignment in FVEY countries between security and trade interests. Australia is particularly divided due to huge Chinese economic dependency but also absolute US security dependency (also Pine Gap). It's not surprising that intelligence agencies in countries in similar positions have tried protect their organizational interests - see UK defense Secretary Williamson fired over Huawei leak when US threaten to sever intelligence sharing if UK allowed even limited Huawei presence. AU PM basically admitted that the main reason for banning Huawei was because they didn't want to lose intelligence sharing not risk of Chinese spying. Then you have the recent fiasco with Wang Liqiang in Australia, the defecting Chinese "spy" whose ridiculous claims unsurprisingly turned out be sensationalist farce, debunked by multiple AU security sources including ASIO who vetted Wang a month before China Hawk MP Andrew Hastie tried to make his defection a narrative. They still let the story play out. It's textbook western propaganda. In the coordinated reports at the time, ASPI executive director Peter Jennings said something to the affect that Wang's testimony provided unprecedented insight into Beijing’s espionage activities, when all of Wang's dubious claims was immediately identified by anyone with 2 brain cells to be false. I mentioned in another post that ASPI does some decent work on aggregating Chinese data points, but their conclusions skew anti-China and pro-US because despite being and AU think tank, much of their funding comes from US and US aligned parties. Biased sources can still be useful, as long as you're aware it's biased.

aptidude187 7y ago
I don't see how the points you made relate to the evidence provided by the research. Can you point out explicit segments from the research, which you think are 'biased'? You just wrote an unconvincing wall of text, talking about random events to somehow make a point that Australia is biased against China, despite their economic dependency on them. This still doesn't make anything coming from a CCP financed source any more credible or trustworthy, being cognisant of the history of the CCP and their never ending lies and manipulation.
- dirtyid 7y ago
  It relates to your claim that Australia, in this case an AU think tank that represents pro-US security status quo funded by US/Japan/Taiwan has no reason to manufacture consent via biased analysis in current geopolitical climate. It does, especially ASPI which has been explicitly criticized by prominent AU political figures as being extremely biased. >>Former NSW premier Bob Carr has accused it of pumping out a “one-sided, pro-American view of the world”. Veteran foreign editor Tony Walker has slammed its "dystopian worldview" which "leaves little room for viewing China as a potential partner". "It lacks integrity and brings shame to Australia," says retired former DFAT chief and ex-Qantas CEO John Menadue. “I see it as very much the architect of the China threat theory in Australia”, adds ex-ambassador to China turned Beijing-based business consultant Geoff Raby. Alternatively these figures are themselves incentive to maintain friendly relationship with China. Every faction has their interests. Also I didn't claim CCP was unbiased, the assertion is that neither is ASPI. Being cognizant the history of western foreign policy and their never ending lies and manipulation as per parent comment to evaluate like with like.
  - aptidude187 7y ago
    You ignored a crucial question, I repeat: Can you point out explicit segments from the research, which you think are 'biased'?
    - dirtyid 7y ago
      Well for one, they rely on figures from Chinese reporting, which I assume you wouldn't trust. These are propaganda articles for domestic consumption after all, and according CCP propaganda logic, would be over inflated to look good. Many of the transfers in the appendix do not mention prisoners or transfers in the re-education camps, merely people were given jobs as part of poverty alleviation program with much higher wages in exchange for brainwashing on the side - i.e. they're migrant labors. There's always been huge migrant worker movement in China from to industrial and manufacturing cities where pay is higher and for Uygher workers general mistreatment due to cultural differences, Shaoguan factory riot was what sparked the 2009 Urumqi riots that caused the crackdown in the first place. I'm sure there's coercive assignments going on, but the paper seems to conflate all sources as so. And ultimately they crawled through Chinese news sources and found a pool of 80,000 workers over 2 years of which some could have came directly from the camps. That's 0.03% of Chinese migrant working labour force, 0.07% of Chinese manufacturing force - aka rounding error, but somehow this small percentage, where an even smaller % is alleged coerced, tainted the supply chain of 87 of the largest western companies because this is definitely not spinning a relatively minor issue into the western companies should disengage with China narrative. If anything this report illuminates that the "vocational" training element of the entire XJ strategy barely exists, and the question is why? Because of all the heavy handed cultural genocide strategies employed in XJ right now, indoctrination through economic development is the least bad.

aptidude187 7y ago

I don't see how the points you made relate to the evidence provided by the research. Can you point out explicit segments from the research, which you think are 'biased'? You just wrote an unconvincing wall of text, talking about random events to somehow make a point that Australia is biased against China, despite their economic dependency on them. This still doesn't make anything coming from a CCP financed source any more credible or trustworthy, being cognisant of the history of the CCP and their never ending lies and manipulation.

dirtyid 7y ago
It relates to your claim that Australia, in this case an AU think tank that represents pro-US security status quo funded by US/Japan/Taiwan has no reason to manufacture consent via biased analysis in current geopolitical climate. It does, especially ASPI which has been explicitly criticized by prominent AU political figures as being extremely biased. >>Former NSW premier Bob Carr has accused it of pumping out a “one-sided, pro-American view of the world”. Veteran foreign editor Tony Walker has slammed its "dystopian worldview" which "leaves little room for viewing China as a potential partner". "It lacks integrity and brings shame to Australia," says retired former DFAT chief and ex-Qantas CEO John Menadue. “I see it as very much the architect of the China threat theory in Australia”, adds ex-ambassador to China turned Beijing-based business consultant Geoff Raby. Alternatively these figures are themselves incentive to maintain friendly relationship with China. Every faction has their interests. Also I didn't claim CCP was unbiased, the assertion is that neither is ASPI. Being cognizant the history of western foreign policy and their never ending lies and manipulation as per parent comment to evaluate like with like.
- aptidude187 7y ago
  You ignored a crucial question, I repeat: Can you point out explicit segments from the research, which you think are 'biased'?
  - dirtyid 7y ago
    Well for one, they rely on figures from Chinese reporting, which I assume you wouldn't trust. These are propaganda articles for domestic consumption after all, and according CCP propaganda logic, would be over inflated to look good. Many of the transfers in the appendix do not mention prisoners or transfers in the re-education camps, merely people were given jobs as part of poverty alleviation program with much higher wages in exchange for brainwashing on the side - i.e. they're migrant labors. There's always been huge migrant worker movement in China from to industrial and manufacturing cities where pay is higher and for Uygher workers general mistreatment due to cultural differences, Shaoguan factory riot was what sparked the 2009 Urumqi riots that caused the crackdown in the first place. I'm sure there's coercive assignments going on, but the paper seems to conflate all sources as so. And ultimately they crawled through Chinese news sources and found a pool of 80,000 workers over 2 years of which some could have came directly from the camps. That's 0.03% of Chinese migrant working labour force, 0.07% of Chinese manufacturing force - aka rounding error, but somehow this small percentage, where an even smaller % is alleged coerced, tainted the supply chain of 87 of the largest western companies because this is definitely not spinning a relatively minor issue into the western companies should disengage with China narrative. If anything this report illuminates that the "vocational" training element of the entire XJ strategy barely exists, and the question is why? Because of all the heavy handed cultural genocide strategies employed in XJ right now, indoctrination through economic development is the least bad.