Foreign Interference or Influence?
Australia has some of the world’s toughest foreign interference laws but they are applied only to “adversaries”. China, despite being Australia’s largest customer and biggest supplier, is seen politically as an adversary. I’ve written many times about the perceived threat of war and decided to look at who it is that is making the threat, why they are making the threat and what China can, if they want, do about it.
Let’s just forget the HK, Taiwan and Tibet issues as I don’t know much about them but focus on a place I have visited and researched extensively. Also remember, this is an Australian focused piece, although there is global interference and it’s touched on in this article, the main issue was to show how that links into Australia’s media, politics, society and industry, particualry the defence industry.
Some History Behind the Xinjiang Issues
The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Xinjiang) has been a troubled area in the recent past, of that there can be no doubt. But it’s not as troubled as the Middle East, parts of North Africa, the Horn of Africa or even other parts of Asia and Europe at the moment. There are no mass attacks, no invasions, no “shock and awe” tactics and no record of refugees seeking haven in neighbouring countries. The Xinjiang population hasn’t decreased through war, famine, drought or health problems, it’s increased by large percentages over recent years[1] in both ethnic minorities and Han migration — who would migrate to a war zone? Yet our news is filled regularly with information about this region where there are no deaths, no attacks and no bombardments while we are forced by media to ignore many places where we know such things exist.
Xinjiang is a region with an enhanced security designed to foster a safe living environment for the 25 million or so people who live there and to reduce the issues related to what China calls the “Three Evils” of separatism, terrorism and extremism. And replace them with what Xi Jinping defined in 2014 as “the Four Comprehensives”[2].
1 Comprehensively building a moderately prosperous society
2 Comprehensively deepening reforms
3 Comprehensively implementing the rule of law
4 Comprehensively strictly governing the Party
There are very good reasons for this enhanced security. Evidence of international interference, riots organised on western social media apps and a long history of poverty all combined to create a situation of instability with international calls for independence and local religious extremism which resulted in attacks by, and sometimes on, Xinjiang’s predominantly Muslim Uyghurs, the region’s largest ethnic minority.
Travelling through the region, as I have, several times, most recently after the troubles, in 2014 and again in 2019, I experienced this high-level security which, I’ll be honest, made me feel uncomfortable. So uncomfortable in fact, that I often asked people we met what they thought of it. The universal response was words to the effect of: we feel safer now, it’s not a huge inconvenience.
As a foreign traveller, on a bicycle, I went through many towns, villages and several cities. The level of inconvenience there was akin to the level of inconvenience we currently need to undertake on the East Coast of China, entering public buildings and transport facilities under Covid-19 rules. There was nowhere in my journey where I was restricted from travelling. We entered towns and found hotels or we slept in our tents by the side of, or underneath the road. All this without any interference from the police, and on some notable occasions with their assistance — one town we stopped in, all the hotels were shut for some fire inspection issues, the local police called up the owner of one of the hotels and got him to come and open for us, he didn’t want foreign cyclists getting a bad impression of his town.
On Western media we constantly read about or watch documentaries highlighting massive alleged abuses of human rights, we see Western government sponsored reports and academics writing of China’s systemic abuses of the Uyghurs and yet when travelling through the region, meeting and speaking with Uyghurs locally, we see nothing of the sort. How does this dichotomy exist, what causes it and what can be done about it?
The Public Causes — as they apply to Australia
Focusing on Australia as the main thrust of this article, there are five sources of disinformation, or often misinformation, which steer the general public to form negative opinions. They are: Human Rights Watch (HRW); The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC); The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and News Corporation (News Corp), Australia’s largest media organisation. As well as one political organisation: The Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). As far as I am aware, although there may be some items I haven’t found or had highlighted to me, not one member of any of these five organisations has ever been to Xinjiang or reported from there.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), as an organisation is critical of many countries’ human rights records but seems largely focused on countries where George Soros has bet heavily against the success of that country’s financial system — Soros, who made scathing reports about Xi Jinping[3] at 2019’s World Economic Forum, is a huge donor to HRW[4] to the tune of over $100 million USD. Soros is believed to have bet heavily on the collapse of HK, during, and before 2019[5]. These bets were expensive and failed investments.
HRW states it does not accept money from Government departments[6] however, there is significant information to suggest it receives a great deal of funding from organisations strongly linked to and often funded by US Government Departments[JG1] [7] as well as being staffed by former US government officials and administrators.
One of the senior HRW researchers in Australia is Sophie McNeill. Ms. McNeill is a former Investigative journalist for Australia’s ABC. She was the host of an Australian documentary by ABC’s Four Corners program called “Tell the World[8]”. In June 2020 I was approached on Twitter by Ms. McNeill with a view to her “changing my mind” about my stance on Xinjiang and she sent me a link to her documentary. Instead of changing my mind, I saw so many inconsistencies with that I wrote an extensive article in refute of the 40-minute documentary[9].
Ms. McNeill’s last two articles for HRW have been anti-China but she has moved from the Xinjiang narrative to China’s “Global Attacks on Academic Freedom[10]”.
A search of HRW’s web page reveals over 700 articles or news items which refer to Xinjiang[11]. They seem to release one every two or three days. This makes sense as it helps to keep pressure on the short-term news cycle which plagues the west[12] (anything not constantly reported is immediately forgotten).
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) This organisation is the “state affiliated media” of Australia. It is fully funded by, but should operate independently of, the government. However, there are many claims, even from the Chair of the ABC about government interference[13], so independence is not a guarantee.
The ABC claims unbiased and balanced news reporting but it’s news department provides little positivity on China. A recent article, for example criticised Elon Musk for providing “economic support for genocide[14]” after his company Tesla opened a showroom in the region without any balance on why he might need to open such a luxury brand in a region which is, as they allege, plagued by abuses.
I have my own personal experience with the ABC. In 2021, I was invited to take part in a live radio show and wrote an open letter[15] to the ABC after being “uninvited” only a few hours later. It seems a researcher had found my website or my twitter feed and decided I was too sensitive to appear live on Australian radio.
As the “voice of Australia” with interests in Radio, TV, online and written news, the ABC is widely referred to as the “go to” news of the country. Their own survey placed trust in the ABC at 80% as opposed to 57% for commercial media[16]. However, other surveys and reports demonstrate that trust in ABC was shattered under the former Chair[17]. Anecdotally, in discussions with Australians I know, I would suggest a lower level of trust is more likely to be true. ABC’s report was, after all, created to justify greater public spending on the ABC.
Whilst the ABC employs many good people and has a diverse range of excellent programming, as far as China is concerned there are some issues: The longest running current affairs program on the ABC is Four Corners. Where Sophie McNeill worked before taking up her position in HRW. The most highly reputed foreign affairs program is called “Foreign Correspondent”. One of the former Foreign Correspondent journalist/reporters in China was Stephen McDonell who is now with the BBC. Although he is based in Beijing, he is strongly negative when reporting on China, his host country, and is famous for the “gray filtered lens” media through which the BBC often shows China.
Also, since 2012, The Foreign Correspondent program has run a series called: “The Rise of China[18]”. Often times this is a lighthearted look at China but it is predominantly a negative show demonstrating sides of China that either amuse, ridicule or create discomfort in the viewers.
Finally in relation to the ABC there is one more degree of anti-China sentiment and cause for great concern, in the form of one of its most senior, and most respected journalists, Stan Grant.
Grant is an indigenous Australian with an extensive history in global news — he has worked in Australia and the Middle East, he’s lived in China and, over the years been employed by a range of different organisations including News Corp and CNN. What the ABC do not announce, nor is it any longer on the organisation’s website is that Grant is, or was, a Senior Fellow of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)[19].
So, there are connections between HRW and the ABC and we now see a connection between the ABC and ASPI. There are also many connections between ASPI and former News Corp employees as well as Grant himself who left News Corp to live in HK and China.
The depth of connections between ASPI, ABC and News Corp were highlighted in a previous article “What Went Wrong?[20]”.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute employs a young man called Nathan Ruser; he is the “open-source analyst” who has identified 380 “camps” in Xinjiang for the purposes of “mass incarceration[21]”. Using this information as a base, a British architect, Alison Killing went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for her work in identifying 268 of these “camps”. Ruser is also a co-author of a report released in 2020 by ASPI called “Uyghurs for Sale[22]”.
The Uyghurs for sale report was head-authored by Chinese born, Australian educated, former ASPI employee Vicki Xu (Xu Xiuzhong). It was academically supported by Dr James Leibold[23] of LaTrobe University, Leibold recently gave a seminar[24] to reiterate the findings of the report which have in fact, been completely debunked by Australian Academic and International Lawyer Jaq James the author of the CoWestPro[25] Papers. The other co-authors are the current Deputy Director of ASPI’s international Cyber Policy, Danielle Cave and Kelsey Munroe, who is listed as “former staff” and is a former journalist of the Australian Guardian Newspaper. Ms. Munroe has not been as active in recent months but recently released an article on Australia’s SBS about flying safety[26]. Her bio however, still contains the tag #freeuyghurs, as well as several other references to China.
Searches of ASPI’s archives find many articles related to Xinjiang with several of them co-written by Kelsey Monroe[27] and a selection of the above co-authors. It seems these few names are the “experts” on ASPI’s Xinjiang narrative.
News Corp is the final organisation in the public forum. Much was written about News Corp and its Owner/Chairman Rupert Murdoch in an earlier article[28]. Through former employees and existing employees, we can find links to current reporters and contributors from the News Corp Group, ASPI, HRW as well as the ABC.
Why would they would do this?
As far as news is concerned, one suggested reason is that it sells news. People feel threatened and want to read the news to gain solace in the fact that the threat is being mitigated by government action. For media, clicks mean links to advertising and these links mean income for the site. So, sensational news with a clickbait headline is the norm now not the exception. They will always create more clicks and consequently, generate more income.
Another reason specific to News Corp, is that it’s well-known (and previously described) that Rupert Murdoch feels cheated by China who did not allow him licence to extend his HK businesses onto the Chinese Mainland and by his Chinese former wife who the CIA allege was a Chinese spy. Just like Soros, Murdoch has lost a lot of money investing in failed opportunities in Hong Kong.
Finally, as far as media is concerned, the US Government, in June last year allocated funding of $500 million a year to combat negative influence from China[29] (page 771) and includes negative reports on China’s Belt and Road. and a further $500 a year has been proposed by Congress[30] for negative coverage on China. Xinjiang is an important link in the Overland Road and as such is an important revenue stream for many media outlets. If the second Bill is approved, it will mean an annual spend of $1 billion USD by the US government just on negative articles related to China.
ASPI are partly funded by Government departments who seek higher budget allocations; fear of an unknown (or known) enemy helps to create this — this has been apparent in the AUKUS deal, the recent announcement of a hypersonic rocket to be built in Australia by British Aerospace Engineers (BAE)[31] in conjunction with the USA and also in a deal to buy “defensive” rockets from Lockheed Martin and Thales[32], BAE, Lockheed Martin and Thales are all large sponsors of ASPI.
This kind of arrangement keeps government departments happy, especially Defence, but also other departments such as Foreign Affairs and Immigration Departments, as a large “threatening” regional player as China is, gives them opportunities to increase their budgets. Not something they could do if the threat were removed.
It’s also obviously good for BAE, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Thales and other organisations selling military equipment to Australia; so, the motivation for ASPI to continue with a narrative of China being big, bad and very threatening, is not hard to find.
The International Political Arena and its Australian Influence
The Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) is a multi-national association of legislators, elected and otherwise, who share information on China’s threat, promoting fear and anxiety in their respective countries.
Globally famous members of the organisation include people such as Senator Marco Rubio of the USA, Lord David Alton of the British House of Lords, both vehemently and vocal anti-China legislators. IPAC has a long list of advisors which include some interesting anti-China voices such as Adrian Zenz, the German researcher who is credited with the creation of the Xinjiang Narrative and Joey Siu formerly of the HK Pro Democracy Movement.
The lead coordinator appears to be a British, anti-China and pro HK democracy activist Luke De Pulford[33]. De Pulford claims his grandfather was head of the British Military Police in HK during the colonial era, but this is very hard to verify. However, he is known to be connected to Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong and Benedict Rogers in the UK who are also both very strong Pro-democracy activists for HK.
IPAC Funding
To further add to the connections between these anti-China companies, NGOs, government departments and media outlets the IPAC funding page is an eye-opener. As well as receiving donations from the public, they are pleased to be partnered by the following: The Open Society Foundations; The National Endowment for Democracy and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy[34].
the Open Society Foundations was founded by George Soros and, according to their website[35] he has donated $32 billion USD to promote democracy and tolerance.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)[36] was set up by Ronald Reagan to promote democracy around the world. Popular opinion is that the NED legitimises and provides transparency to what the CIA used to do covertly. By their own admission they have been providing funds to extremists in Xinjiang and support such organisations as the World Uyghur Congress, and the so-called Uyghur Tribunal held in the UK last year.
The Taiwan Foundation for Democracy was founded by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2003. Its funding details are not clear online and further research would be required to establish how much funding comes from outside sources but it is known that the NED is one of the funders and was instrumental in helping the Taiwanese administration to set up TFD, which was the first foundation promoting democracy in Asia[37]
IPAC Australia has two Co-Chairs on the group: Senator James Paterson who is a Liberal (conservative/democratic) member and Member of Parliament (MP), Peter Khalil who is a Labour (republican) member. It also has a large contingent of members including 13 MPs from major parties: 8 liberals; 3 labour members as well as 1 Green Party and 1 National Party giving an appearance of complete bipartisanship. There were 14 members until very recently when one anti-China MP, Kimberley Kitching passed away suddenly last month.
Only UK and Canada have more members with 38 and 23 respectively. Many other members are EU MPs so this is an association with broad reach across all political and international divides with a great deal of influence. Its sole purpose being to assist legislators in how to address perceived threats from China.
Andrew Hastie is not listed in the IPAC global team but is one of the founder members. An Australian MP and Assistant Defence Minister. He is the author of a 2019 article called “We must See China with Clear Eyes[38]”. Hastie is a war veteran, a former Special Air Services (SAS) officer and a devout Christian who, like Adrian Zenz, indicates his religious views inform his political views[39]. He has been refused entry to China in the past and is vocally opposed to trade or business investment with China, seeing, in his words, “the country as a larger threat than Islamic terrorism”.
Hastie is quoted in ASPI’s The Strategist Magazine[40] and he himself also quotes ASPI in speeches[41]. Although the connection is not formal, there are undoubtably connections between Hastie and ASPI. His military background, his position as Assistant Minister of Defence (one of ASPIs Australian government departmental funders) and his anti-China stance would all indicate communication between them, although this link is tenuous. He was however, the Welcome Speaker at an event in 2018[42] and mentioned in the 2019/20 transparency report from ASPI[43]. His immediate boss, Peter Dutton the Minister for defence is listed as an external contributor to ASPI[44].
This information provides a link between the Australia military establishment, the Australian Government, ASPI, ABC and, through former employees, to News Corp and HRW as well as a complete chain of connections through IPAC to the EU Parliament, many individual EU countries, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and of course the USA. These countries are what the USA calls “The International Community” but in fact, make up less than 20% of the world’s population with over 50% of the world’s GDP.
One final point in relation Australia’s government and its religious connection to Christianity, Hastie was one of two Christians promoted to senior positions on the same day by Prime Minister Scott Morrison who himself is deeply religious. Whilst Australia has always been a fundamentally Christian country, more people are identifying as having no religious beliefs[45]. However, this is the opposite in Australia’s governance. The current Prime Minster, Scott Morrison, and much of his cabinet have deep religious beliefs[46]. Countries which do not share the same beliefs will probably be seen as inferior and treated as such. This may account for why, Morrison, despite being deeply religious did not offer condolences to China after the recent air crash — something most countries did and, as a matter of diplomacy and common decency, always do.
On a side note, it is unlikely that the Morrison government will survive beyond the end of May 2022 as an election is looming, he is polling very low and unlikely to be the winner of this election[47].
Unfortunately for China, a change of government in Australia does not mean a change in the way China is viewed. IPAC, ASPI, HRW and all the media will transcend the election and remain in place, in the case of IPAC it’s possible some members will lose their seats and change but the body will survive and will remain anti-China. Furthermore, the potential future Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese has indicated his stance on AUKUS, the Quad (four countries USA, Japan, India and Australia that share intelligence and threat assessments) and even on China, are similar to the current government.
The Problem with China’s Response — What’s China Doing Wrong?
The current methodology in China is to refute, refute and refute. Then, to get foreign faces onto Chinese news to address foreign related issues. This will not work. China is very good at diplomacy, highly efficient at administration and well versed in managing news to keep its own people informed but is very poor at combatting the kinds of disinformation being managed, and funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, mostly by London and Washington DC.
For example, it was reported last week that Ukraine have employed the services of 150 public relations (PR) companies[48]. The result of that is the almost complete block of any news about Russia and surges of information emerging from Ukraine about the heroic stance Ukraine are putting up against the invaders. Some of this may be true, some is clearly untrue and some of the claims are outright lies. It appears, from Russian reports that people are being killed by Ukrainian forces and Russia are being blamed for it while much of the world believes Russia are responsible despite Russia’s denials. The Ukrainian flag is perhaps the most widely recognised symbol on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and all other Social Media outlets. People who are normally highly critical of their news have, almost 100% accepted that this is correct. Because of a huge, and hugely expensive, media push in one direction.
The situation is the same with China, western media consumers believe that there is so much negative media related to China it can’t all be wrong, there must be some truth in it. And this is the major cause of China’s public relations and media image problems.
Gell-Mann Amnesia
Just because many people have a distrust of media doesn’t mean they don’t believe what they read — this is a highly interesting psychological field of study. One school of thought is Gell-Mann Amnesia syndrome, which was first coined by the writer and scientist Michael Crichton in his 1973 book Westworld[49]. This is a situation where an expert on a particular subject will read an article in the news and completely debunk it based on his or her own knowledge. After doing so, will then read another article and take it as face value and true while completely forgetting that another article in the same newspaper was just totally debunked.
Writers like myself, vloggers and social media influencers are often seen but rarely, if ever, believed. We are simply seen in the west as fake. This is obvious from the number of insults threats and name calling we receive on social media accounts. Most of the world believes we are paid by the “CCP”. Those that think we aren’t paid believe firmly that we are coerced or in some way forced to present this view of China which they believe is false. And, in their mind it is false because they suffer from Crichton’s Gell-Mann Amnesia.
Recent examples of this syndrome: we now know Kuwaiti babies weren’t thrown out of incubators by Iraqi troops but that false story justified the first gulf war. We now know Weapons of Mass Destruction didn’t exist in Iraq. We do know now that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his enemies, that much was true, but we also know those weapons were supplied by British and American laboratories not by the false stories that Saddam was building an extensive chemical manufacturing industry, yet those false stories justified the second Iraq invasion, the subsequent occupation and the death of millions as well as the creation of even more millions of refugees. We now know Libyan troops were not supplied with Viagra to enhance their ability to rape more women but we still accepted that story and Libya needed to be freed and their President killed, he was shamefully and publicly executed. We also know that not one of the 9/11 terrorists was an Afghan but we supported invading, occupying and destroying the culture and economy of that country. We now also know North Vietnam did not attack the USA in the Gulf of Tonkin but that story precipitated the Vietnam War.
Despite all these false stories, the most amazing aspect is that not one person has ever been punished for propagating them nor has anyone been punished for acting on them and creating war or invasions resulting in what we know are crimes against humanity. This fact alone indicates that these were not mistakes, these were policies put in place for a purpose. It is not a great stretch of the imagination to believe the Xinjiang narrative is exactly such a policy.
We know all these things; we know we have been constantly lied to by our media and our governments to force us into wars we should not have been part of. We know we were lied to, but for now, the same consumers also believe that China is mass incarcerating, committing human rights abuses and crimes against humanity such as forcing Uyghurs into labour, banning their language, banning their religion and tearing down mosques. No matter how many Uyghurs are shown on TV, no matter how many mosques are constructed and no matter how many Uyghurs reach the top of their celebrity, academic or political careers, western media consumers firmly believe those thousands of people, like we foreign vloggers and bloggers, have sold out to, or are afraid of, the Communist Party of China; this is Gell-Mann Amnesia in action.
The fact that China has already lost this media/propaganda war is obvious. Undeservedly, Asian hatred is rampant in several European countries, the USA, in Australia and to a lesser extent New Zealand. There is, throughout the “international community” a belief of an imminent threat that China will invade Taiwan that for some reason that threat assessment has evaded all logic. China doesn’t have the landing craft, it doesn’t have the paratroopers and it doesn’t have the ship carriers to transport enough soldiers to Taiwan, and Taiwan doesn’t have the port facilities to unload all the personnel and logistic support required for a full-scale invasion. Every military analyst already knows this but logic is not applicable here. There are also moves in many circles to shift away from trade with China, partially due to the belief China is engaged in some forms of slave or forced labour and partially because respectable business people do not want to be associated with China anymore all this despite the fact that the countries suggesting it are already experiencing shifts in unemployment, inflationary increases as well as household and national debt increases. Decoupling from China would be economic suicide, they can’t and will never decouple, but they will constantly report calls for it. The stories do not need logic or common sense, they appeal to, and are heard by, emotions.
The Self-Censoring Problem
Currently, pro-China lobbyists anywhere in the “international community” are afraid. Academics don’t have freedom to research and find positively on China, recently the Chair of the Australian National University’s “China in the World”, Professor Jane Golley, raised some issues related to the Xinjiang narrative. She was vilified in Australian media, forced to take several weeks leave, lost her position as Chair of this prestigious committee and relocated to a new role in the university where China was not a focus[50]. All this was because she asked a question in a press conference which seemed to raise doubts, not about the Xinjiang narrative but about the methodology of collecting the data. The paper she referred to is referenced here[51]. This example of the destruction of a prominent career academic was seen as a salutary lesson for many academics who now would “rather not say” when asked for an opinion on China.
Likewise, journalists and reporters don’t have freedom to write positively, they will lose their jobs if they don’t write what’s supported by their publisher or owner.
Private individuals who have positive views of China are shouted down in their workplace, my own daughter, for example, doesn’t tell her workmates that she’s been to China four times, loves it and that her father still lives there, her best friend is from Hong Kong and she has not even told that person her father lives on the mainland. This is not uncommon in Australia and I’m sure similar in other countries.
Some solutions
It is impossible to independently focus on Australia and aim to reduce the anti-China sentiment in that country alone, the US and British influences are too strong. Therefore, the cost of effectively doing anything is high, very high. I would suggest in the region many billions of US dollars initial investment and lower amounts but still amounting to billions, spent over many years to maintain momentum.
There are several steps to be taken and consultants need to be employed to ensure greatest advantage is taken of the opportunities:
Public relations firms need to be employed. They will help create a narrative and turn irrational fear into healthy respect. Western citizens in all countries need to see Chinese people as they are, not as they perceive them. Almost every movie, every villain and every storyline we see shows a white person defeating a dark person — although this is changing slightly for the African-American, it’s a long way from being true of Asian diaspora.
Almost every IT, Tech, Communications, science development company and even spelling, maths and science competitions in the western world are dominated by Asians yet Asians are still seen as backward people. The world’s most impressive infrastructure is in China, the world’s most modern cities are in China and China leads the world in communications, transportation, logistics, education and technology yet the country is seen as backward — this is an impression that millions, or billions of dollars has bought and paid for.
Movies: What is not widely realised, is how deeply insidious the culture of Hollywood is to world peace. Hollywood portrays a culture of American domination, white men being heroes with poor people and coloured people, especially from third world countries being inferior — there have been several generations of this so it is well indoctrinated and billions spent by the US government and military to perpetuate these storylines[52]. What people don’t realise is how deeply we are manipulated by Hollywood and who is paying for this manipulation. The linked article is a revelation.
Movies need to be made to create a different picture. In the way that Hollywood has cast the cowboy, the calvary and the US military into good guys and the native Indians, the Japanese and even extra-terrestrial aliens among others, into bad guys, the opposite effect needs to occur. Script writers and western actors need to be employed and movies need to be made initially in western countries but always with a subliminal pro-Asian message.
TV and media prizes need to be created — the Pulitzer and the Oscar as well as the Grammys and all the music awards ignore Asians or treat them as tokens. Until as recently as 2018 these prizes ignored African Americans too[53]. Only a concerted effort by Black Americans in Hollywood was able to create a change in the Oscars. This has only happened in the last 5 years and cost millions in PR to get to this point. A search of words like “Black lobby for recognition at Oscars” will show hundreds of news reports all dated between 2016 and 2018 all lobbying for black recognition in the performing arts — this is the result of huge investments in PR.
China needs its own, but not just for its own audience, for a world audience. Significant prizes for actors who portray China in a positive light, larger prizes for film makers who do so, very large prizes for studios which will compete to win an international prize that is far more valuable in both monetary terms and prestige, and more sought after than an Oscar.
Imagine also, western news rooms being legitimately paid cash prizes amounting to millions of dollars on a monthly or even weekly basis for writing positively on China. This is not asking journalists to lie, but merely to present China as it is instead of misinterpreting articles and misinforming audiences.
Imagine these media outlets having the potential to win a once-a-year award Chinese style Pulitzer with a prize of $1 million shared between the news outlet and the writer(s) for writing an article or taking a photograph that paints China in a positive light. Most news rooms around the world have no loyalty to their readers and no loyalty to their country, they have a loyalty to their owner or their shareholders. They need, and want that income and every journalist craves international recognition; China, with 20% of the global population, can give them that.
TV advertising by Chinese companies needs to be encouraged. Spend huge amounts in advertising dollars to the main TV stations, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and in the UK andThe European channels as well as Australia. Once the TV companies become reliant on Chinese advertising income, soft pressure will automatically cause them to lessen their rhetoric on China. Those that don’t, won’t have continued business. Spend high at first and then either spend more for positive results, or less if the station is not performing to expectations. Once again, this is not asking any station to lie about China, there are so many positive stories that it’s not necessary to lie.
International Prizes: China needs its own version of a Nobel Prize which can be won by any nationality but focused on doing work which benefits the rest of the world, not the “International Community”. The Nobel Prize has a value of $1 million. China’s prize needs to be much more substantial and widely promoted. Each year six Nobel prizes are awarded. China should at least match that but spend $20–30 million on this alone.
Political lobbyists: these people dominate US governance and any Chinese person seeking to influence a political identity has the potential to be seen as an agent or even a spy. This is a very delicate balance but diplomats need to be involved to offer legitimate payments for legitimate services. It’s been said that it costs approximately $1.7 million to get into congress and about $10.5 million to get to the Senate[54]. As long as the service is transparent and legitimate, I would doubt any Lawmaker in the US would turn away, for example, an offer to invest millions in their electorate on having such things as fully funded student exchanges with paid travel and expenses for the organisers. This kind of initiative would have the added bonus of educating young minds about the real China and remove them from the media perceived China. Prizes for their ongoing work and particularly “read and click bonuses” to wider disseminate their new message need to be offered.
The best way to get to a politician’s heart is to invest in his or her electorate. Chinese businesses could be encouraged and subsidised to open businesses in “international community” countries, offering jobs, income and tax revenue to the region. It is very unlikely that an MP, Senator or Congressperson would reject an investment offer of several hundred million US dollars and the associated jobs, and tax income that go with it, in their region.
Think Tanks: China already has several think tanks but needs to consider approaching one or two of the Anti-China think tanks with an offer that exceeds much of their other funding to write truthful reports. It’s very easy for any report to be written in any way to suit the narrative. For example, Chinese embassy officials approach the heads of ASPI and arrange an open and transparent meeting to discuss sending several of their “experts” to Xinjiang. The offer needs to be so tempting that they can not reject it and the potential of future work needs to be placed in front of them as an incentive They will be losing a lucrative income stream from the Military industrial complex and this needs to be replaced.
It needs to be understood that the purpose of this is to promote peace not encourage war. This is not a bribe to do something they shouldn’t or wouldn’t want to do but a genuine contract to conduct genuine research on areas of concern. It is absolutely certain that ASPI would outright reject a first offer to send staff to Xinjiang but they would not reject a $1 million USD contract with potential over 5–10 years of up to $20 million just to search for, find and report the truth with a view to promoting peace instead of promoting a need for defence from a war which isn’t even likely to happen.
Social Media is probably the most important aspect of this strategy, but better advice should be sought from others more skilled than I am in this digital marketing arena. Social media algorithms can be manipulated but this requires particular skill. Investments and even part ownership of companies like Facebook, Twitter Google and therefore YouTube to ensure people see only the better side of China in the same way that the US is currently manipulating.
Conclusion
There are, as far as Australia is concerned, probably 20–30 people who are influential in all decisions related to China. They belong to both private corporations and government bodies; some are elected officials but most are not. It would be folly to assume that all of these could have their minds changed, the anti-China stance too is deeply entrenched. However, it would be possible through an onslaught of bought and paid for air-time in all aspects of media to overwhelm these few opinions and promote the opinions and relieve the anxiety against ostracism of the pro-China lobby.
It is quite apparent that a career choice making China appear bad is far more lucrative than a career choice supporting China. Despite rumours and allegations made from the west there is no “wumao army”, no large group of social media influencers paid by China to promote and those of us who do so, do so individually and without financial support.
Meanwhile, The NED has pumped billions into anti-China organisations; the US government currently funds China-negative media to the tune of $500 million a year through legislation and George Soros donates billions to a wide range of anti-China NGOs. All of these use PR companies to amplify and spread their message.
Furthermore, the Military Industrial Complex lobbies legislators in Senate and Congress to keep pressure on the war machine in order to maintain sales and seek business opportunities and those weapons manufacturers invest heavily in support of think tanks which write reports to spread their message of an “aggressive” China.
Any initiatives that are approached cannot be taken as Australia only, this is a global challenge and Australia will not change its stance on its own without guidance from the US and/or the UK.
When all, or most of the suggestions, plus others I have not considered, are in place, there will be a slow turning of the tide. People will still have Gell-Mann Amnesia but they will forget the negative things they once believed about China, they will realise as they see more and more of the real China on every medium that the old lies were just that.
Once people start to realise this and the change starts to take place, the “Cold War Warriors” who currently influence us all will be sidelined in favour of new, more open-minded populations that may not be entirely positive about China but at least will be less negative. And this is all that can be asked of them.
[1] https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3133228/china-census-xinjiangs-population-jumps-183-cent-over-past
[2] https://www.academia.edu/37154083/book_chapter_Chinas_Approach_to_Terrorism_Separatism_and_Extremism
[3] “Remarks delivered at the World Economic Forum”. George Soros. January 24, 2019.
[4] https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/09/07/george-soros-give-100-million-human-rights-watch
[5] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-08-14/How-Hong-Kong-survived-the-1998-financial-crisis-J9lwvZrsNq/index.html
[6] https://www.hrw.org/financials
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch
[8] https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/xinjiang-tell-the-world/11350450
[9] https://jerry-grey2002.medium.com/abc-four-corners-tell-the-world-analysis-1529e8aaf316
[10] https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/04/how-australian-universities-are-working-counter-chinas-global-attacks-academic
[11] https://www.hrw.org/sitesearch?search=Xinjiang
[12] https://www.culturalworld.org/what-is-a-news-cycle.htm
[13] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-14/abc-ita-buttrose-accuses-government-of-political-interference/100619454
[14] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-04/tesla-elon-musk-criticised-after-opening-china-showroom-xinjiang/100738192
[15] https://jerry-grey2002.medium.com/an-open-letter-to-australias-abc-950ed8bae2fd
[16]https://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FINAL_a11y_ABC_Efficiency_Paper_A4_Final-Ammended.pdf#:~:text=Despite%20the%20ABC%E2%80%99s%20declining%20funding%20and%20efficiency%20initiatives%2C,to%20average%20trust%20of%2057%25%20for%20commercial%20media.
[17] https://headtopics.com/au/trust-in-abc-has-been-shattered-time-for-reform-australia-institute-1519172
[18] https://iview.abc.net.au/show/foreign-correspondent-the-rise-of-china
[19] https://www.aspi.org.au/news/introducing-strategic-vision-2020-stan-grant-and-peter-jennings
[20] https://jerry-grey2002.medium.com/australia-and-china-what-went-wrong-3777e9dbea88
[21] https://supchina.com/2020/09/24/380-detention-camps-identified-in-xinjiang-showing-continued-mass-incarceration/
[22] https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale
[23] https://scholars.latrobe.edu.au/jleibold
[24] https://latrobe.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ACeGeOaeSkGf-1rU48qNIw
[25] http://www.cowestpro.co/papers.html
[26] https://buzzsumo.com/journalist/kelsey-munro-145499265/
[27] https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/author/kelsey-munro/
[28] https://jerry-grey2002.medium.com/australia-and-china-what-went-wrong-3777e9dbea88
[29] https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s1260/BILLS-117s1260es.pdf
[30][30] https://prospect.org/politics/congress-proposes-500-million-for-negative-news-coverage-of-china/
[31] https://www.asdnews.com/news/defense/2021/03/30/bae-australia-invests-hypersonic-weapons-capabilities
[32] https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/04/lockheed-martin-and-thales-team-up-for-lrasm-surface-launch-variant/
[33] https://ipac.global/team/
[34] https://ipac.global/about/
[35] https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/
[37] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Taiwan_Foundation_for_Democracy
[38] https://www.andrewhastie.com.au/balancing_china
[39] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-02/keeping-the-faith-andrew-hastie/8477382
[40] https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/hasties-right-its-time-to-protect-ourselves/
[41] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3613896915318951
[42] https://www.aspi.org.au/event/state-region-2018-masterclass-melbourne
[43] https://www.transparency.gov.au/annual-reports/australian-strategic-policy-institute-limited/reporting-year/2019-20-34
[44] https://www.aspi.org.au/index.php/bio/hon-peter-dutton-mp
[45] https://theconversation.com/as-australia-becomes-less-religious-our-parliament-becomes-more-so-80456
[46] https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/podcast/sermon-the-church-morrison
[47] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-30/australia-poll-shows-morrison-s-conservatives-face-election-loss
[48] https://www.mintpressnews.com/ukraine-propaganda-war-international-pr-firms-dc-lobbyists-cia-cutouts/280012/
[49] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you
[50] https://www.afr.com/world/asia/china-in-the-world-director-jane-golley-stands-down-20210830-p58n9e
[51] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WEn3yaAADejvUHapGc57RTapHMGJpd-k/view
[52] https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/operation-tinseltown-how-the-cia-manipulates-hollywood/491138/
[53] https://thesource.com/2016/01/17/stars-react-to-the-oscars-shut-out-of-black-actors-and-directors/
[54] https://www.techdirt.com/2013/03/14/how-much-does-it-cost-to-win-election-to-congress/
[JG1]Normally I would not cite Wikipedia as my source, however this section of Wikipedia links the reader to a number of different sources to ascertain the veracity, or at least the degree of support for this claim
