5 ms·

I think people reading the article should familiarize themselves with ASPI [0]. Their funding comes from: Embassy of Japan, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office

by angio 6y ago

I think people reading the article should familiarize themselves with ASPI [0]. Their funding comes from: Embassy of Japan, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Australia, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Thales Group, and Raytheon Technologies. I would take everything they write with a grain of salt since they have a huge conflict of interest in pushing a new cold-war rhetoric. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Strategic_Policy_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Strategic_Policy_In...

deepstack 6y ago
I think CCP is a concern, however that is currently just in China. Which mean whatever china is doing with internet should be prevented in every where else.
abc-xyz 6y ago
Their sponsors also include Google, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. who would likely prefer not to escalate the ‘new cold war’ since it would hurt their profits.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Not really. Facebook is quite publically trying to get Chinese social media banned simply to avoid the competition. Microsoft is directly benifiting from the promised TikTok ban by potentially getting TikTok US for a much lower price.
- dis-sys 6y ago
  No, as clearly listed on ASPI's official website, Google, Microsoft, Oracle are sponsors of ASPI's International Cyber Policy Centre (ICPC), they are not sponsors of ASPI itself. ASPI sponsors and ICPC sponsors are listed separately on ASPI's official website for a reason. https://www.aspi.org.au/sponsors https://www.aspi.org.au/sponsors
  - abc-xyz 6y ago
    Their annual report does not make this distinction: https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2019-10/ASPI%20AR_18_19_acc.pdf?KUIH5L_aiOUu4hm96FaCXmN2cqEv5Do8= https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2019-10/ASPI... But it’s really besides the point. Instead of attacking the authors or their sponsors, perhaps we should focus on the content instead. What’s happening here would be equivalent to me attacking you or the parent (and vice versa) for having a comment history pushing CCP talking points.
xster 6y ago
the ASPI is also behind the Uyghur forced labor story a month ago. But if you go to the actual paper and download the PDF https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale, then one by one click through the primary source and Google Translate it, it's just mainstream Chinese news and social media contents about reducing unemployment, out-of-province workers and multi-ethnic social events re-"narrativized" to mean forced labor. Also a couple of criticisms from Australian elected officials themselves https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-think-tank-behind-australia-s-changing-view-of-china-20200131-p53wgp https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-think-tank-be... https://www.australiachinarelations.org/content/theres-more-china-debate-lackeys-versus-stooges-0 https://www.australiachinarelations.org/content/theres-more-... on the ASPI who still defends the Iraq War, Syrian regime change war and argues that the west should have went to war in Ukraine. There's a longer editorial version of the criticism here: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/26/forced-labor-china-us-nato-arms-industry-cold-war/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/26/forced-labor-china-us-nat...
- godelski 6y ago
  Chinese officials called them "reeducation camps" to western reporter. I cannot imagine that Chinese officials would be oblivious to the fact that "reeducation camps" and "concentration camps" are synonymous in Westerners' minds. If not, then it is a surprising and huge blunder. No matter what is happening there, even what officials have officially shown western media, crosses our moral boundaries. The optics of putting adults in 24/7 education centers, that are gated (and doing the same to kids), is not seen as an okay thing to do.
  - xster 6y ago
    > If not, then it is a surprising and huge blunder. Ya, no disagreements there. The Chinese government has zero PR capabilities. Every response from their foreign ministry's spokesperson to a leading question sounds like a painful mea culpa. > No matter what is happening there, even what officials have officially shown western media, crosses our moral boundaries. Who is "our" in this case? It doesn't seem to include the U.N. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/china-says-reached-broad-consensus-with-un-after-xinjiang-visit-idUSKCN1TH00T https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/china-say... or Organization of Islamic Cooperation https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4447&refID=1250 https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4447&refID=1250. Not that any of them have more PR power than China either.

by angio 6y ago

deepstack 6y ago

I think CCP is a concern, however that is currently just in China. Which mean whatever china is doing with internet should be prevented in every where else.

abc-xyz 6y ago

Their sponsors also include Google, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. who would likely prefer not to escalate the ‘new cold war’ since it would hurt their profits.

throwaway4good 6y ago
Not really. Facebook is quite publically trying to get Chinese social media banned simply to avoid the competition. Microsoft is directly benifiting from the promised TikTok ban by potentially getting TikTok US for a much lower price.
dis-sys 6y ago
No, as clearly listed on ASPI's official website, Google, Microsoft, Oracle are sponsors of ASPI's International Cyber Policy Centre (ICPC), they are not sponsors of ASPI itself. ASPI sponsors and ICPC sponsors are listed separately on ASPI's official website for a reason. https://www.aspi.org.au/sponsors https://www.aspi.org.au/sponsors
- abc-xyz 6y ago
  Their annual report does not make this distinction: https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2019-10/ASPI%20AR_18_19_acc.pdf?KUIH5L_aiOUu4hm96FaCXmN2cqEv5Do8= https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2019-10/ASPI... But it’s really besides the point. Instead of attacking the authors or their sponsors, perhaps we should focus on the content instead. What’s happening here would be equivalent to me attacking you or the parent (and vice versa) for having a comment history pushing CCP talking points.

xster 6y ago

the ASPI is also behind the Uyghur forced labor story a month ago. But if you go to the actual paper and download the PDF https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale, then one by one click through the primary source and Google Translate it, it's just mainstream Chinese news and social media contents about reducing unemployment, out-of-province workers and multi-ethnic social events re-"narrativized" to mean forced labor. Also a couple of criticisms from Australian elected officials themselves https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-think-tank-behind-australia-s-changing-view-of-china-20200131-p53wgp https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-think-tank-be... https://www.australiachinarelations.org/content/theres-more-china-debate-lackeys-versus-stooges-0 https://www.australiachinarelations.org/content/theres-more-... on the ASPI who still defends the Iraq War, Syrian regime change war and argues that the west should have went to war in Ukraine. There's a longer editorial version of the criticism here: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/26/forced-labor-china-us-nato-arms-industry-cold-war/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/26/forced-labor-china-us-nat...

godelski 6y ago
Chinese officials called them "reeducation camps" to western reporter. I cannot imagine that Chinese officials would be oblivious to the fact that "reeducation camps" and "concentration camps" are synonymous in Westerners' minds. If not, then it is a surprising and huge blunder. No matter what is happening there, even what officials have officially shown western media, crosses our moral boundaries. The optics of putting adults in 24/7 education centers, that are gated (and doing the same to kids), is not seen as an okay thing to do.
- xster 6y ago
  > If not, then it is a surprising and huge blunder. Ya, no disagreements there. The Chinese government has zero PR capabilities. Every response from their foreign ministry's spokesperson to a leading question sounds like a painful mea culpa. > No matter what is happening there, even what officials have officially shown western media, crosses our moral boundaries. Who is "our" in this case? It doesn't seem to include the U.N. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/china-says-reached-broad-consensus-with-un-after-xinjiang-visit-idUSKCN1TH00T https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/china-say... or Organization of Islamic Cooperation https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4447&refID=1250 https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4447&refID=1250. Not that any of them have more PR power than China either.