US to offer millions in new funds to take on China

Written By: Mike Smith - Date published: - 16 comments
Categories: China, Propaganda, us politics, war

This from SCMP columnist Alex Lo “If they look, swim and quack like US influence operations, they probably are US influence operations, especially when they come with an annual price tag of US$300 million to be authorised by law by the US Congress, of which US10 million has been earmarked especially for Hong Kong.”

Lo goes on to say:

 

16 comments on “US to offer millions in new funds to take on China”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  1. 1

    "The real problem the US has with China is nothing to do with human rights. It is about strategic competition, and for the US that is a zero-sum game." exactly right, except you forgot to tag in Australia and the UK into that sentence.

    As I have said before, I am in my fifties now and well remember the Uyghur activists on Queen St, AKL giving away pamphlets detailing their conditions in China when I was in my teens….but now all of a sudden the western world cares about their plight…yeah right!

    Unfortunately, but as usual, Western Liberal media has done nothing but stoke the fires of this obviously US lead propaganda war….and all enthusiastically supported by Woke Liberal Imperialists of course.

    1. 1.1

      Giving media and UN (or name your favourite agency) unfettered access to the region might address some of your concerns.

  2. 2

    Nothing's changed then. This is the death throes of a dying Empire, spreading lies and hatred about it's Capitalist rivals so to remain the demented 'Top Dog'. Threatening it's friends to tow their line, meanwhile the propaganda budget swells by the use and abuse of tax payers dollars leaving their own poor in squalor. I agree with death to America and all money systems, sooner the better.

  3. 3

    Our Prime Minister's view on China's human rights record is far, far more in alignment with that of the United States than that of China. In fact it hard not to hear the recent Biden speech precisely on this contest of values between New Zealand and other western nations, and China. This is her view this morning to the primary Chinese-Auckland audience.

    "We need to acknowledge that there are some things on which China and New Zealand do not, cannot, and will not agree," Ardern said, echoing comments earlier made by Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta.

    "New Zealand is an open, pluralistic, democracy, with a focus on transparency and the rule of law."

    Ardern said that New Zealanders expected elected officials to take a principled stance on issues, particularly those involving core values of the nation.

    "We have commented publicly about our grave concerns regarding the human rights situation of Uyhgurs in Xinjiang," Ardern said.

    "I have raised these concerns with senior Chinese leaders on a number of occasions, including with the Guandong Party Secretary in September 2018, and then with China's leaders when I visited in 2019.

    "You'll know that, as a government, we have also spoken out about continued negative developments with regard to the rights, freedoms and autonomy of the people of Hong Kong."

    Ardern said the differences between China and New Zealand need not define the relationship between the nations, but they need to be acknowledged, particularly in the evolving context of geopolitics.

    "It will not have escaped the attention of anyone here that as China's role in the world grows and changes, the differences between our systems – and the interests and values that shape those systems – are becoming harder to reconcile," Ardern said.

    "This is a challenge that we, and many other countries across the Indo-Pacific region, but also in Europe and other regions, are also grappling with. As a significant power, the way that China treats its partners is important for us."

    Ardern urged Chinese officials support global treaties on human rights in China's governance.

    "We are active members of the WTO, WHO, the bodies upholding the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, international climate change arrangements, and international human rights treaties, among others," she said.

    "We hope that China too sees it in its own core interests to act in the world in ways that are consistent with its responsibilities as a growing power, including as a permanent member of the UN Security Council."

    There has been growing pressure on New Zealand about its position on the growing tensions between the United States and China.

    When asked during a follow-on Q&A about whose side New Zealand was on, Ardern responded: "I'm often asked which lane are we swimming in.

    "We swim in New Zealand's lane."

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/nz-china-relations-jacinda-ardern-there-are-some-things-we-will-not-agree-on/VBGMVV5HZIDSWULZ7DD2Y2AAY4/

    It's good that Ardern defends our interests as our own, but there's no doubt also they align far more with those practised by the US.

    The reason we know how much is being spent defending an open, pluralistic society such as the one the US is seeking to defend in Hong Kong, is (unlike China) because their budgets are open to democratic scrutiny. We're never going to be able to debate the intel budget of China – a mark of the PM's open pluralistic society that is worth defending.

    1. 3.1

      @ Ad

      There are other values we hold strongly that Jacinda didn't mention like poverty elimination. China has just this year announced that it has eliminated extreme poverty across its 1.4 billion population. That has happened under the Communist party leadership, in fact pretty well in the post-Mao period. And it is because the Communist Party believes in prioritising the welfare of all its citizens, which is why satisfaction levels are so high in China according to Western pollsters. And of course China has managed the Covid epidemic spectacularly better than the US.

      That is why Biden is spending like a real left-winger. He knows that if he wants to gain ground in his campaign to lead the world he has to fix the US' broken society first. That's one reason why they also need China as an enemy. The other one of course is that the Chinese model of state capitalism does pose a fundamental threat to neo-liberal individualism. It could be true that it gets better results for the majority.

  5. 5

    I am by no means reassured by current inaction on the Uighur question. But I have noticed a plethora of low grade opinion sites suddenly turning up in my youtube feed with reckons about China – not necessarily off the mark, but not possessing either the source integrity or production values to be taken seriously. It seems the US came late to the weaponizing of social media – that, or they assume the international audience is on the same intellectual level as Trump voters. Mind, the Chinese efforts are also pretty identifiable.

      1. 5.1.1

        IPv4 internet adresses are going the way of dial phones, IPv6 exists alongside but will replace them quickly

  6. 6

    The PM appeared to walk back to some extent at least, Nanaia Mahuta’s “Dragon & Taniwha”. NZ is well integrated into US Imperialism’s system of trade, treaties and alliances, and frankly the Labour Caucus does not have the ideological ability to withstand it–so Minister Mahuta will be hung out to dry is my pick.

    There will likely be intense behind the scenes battles for influence within the Ministries and the Security Agencies. US Imperialism will not be thwarted easily, nor its Deputy Dog in the Pacific, Australia, when it comes down to 5 Eyes matters.

    1. 6.1

      @ Tiger Mountain

      I'm not so pessimistic about any of that. We have been there before and Nanaia Mahuta is very much her own person. As for the Australians, ScoMo's bully-boy tactics aren't even working with his own people.

  7. 7

    When China does it, it's always Han, never a Latino, African Chinese or Pacific Islander, because China is an ethno-nationalist dictatorship, not unlike Nazi-era Germany.

    1. 7.1

      More correctly its a Leninist single party-state. Theres clearly not really any communism anymore. Single party rule for long periods/forever? is the common form of government in Asia. For China the example they followed was Taiwan , which for 60 years was a KMT party-state dictatorship but using capitalism instead of socialism.

  9. 9

    Nat voter here.

    Well written article. A big fight between the USA and the PRC.

    A fight I would like to sit out and avoid if at all possible.

Comments are closed.